Understanding the Quality of the 2020 Census Interim Report (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Other Evaluations of the 2020 Census
3 Other Evaluations of the 2020 Census
Pages 37-52
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 37... ...
We think it important to restate and describe the important recommendations made by the JASON advisory group and the American Statistical Association's Task Force on 2020 Census Quality Indicators (hereafter, ASA Task Force)
|
From page 38... ...
JASON's first recommendation -- that the Census Bureau should be afforded the time to complete its data quality checks -- is arguably its most important and essential contribution, given the timing of its work and the status of the 2020 Census in early January 2021. On December 2, the Census Bureau had issued a statement acknowledging that it was continuing to address "anomalies" in census data processing and that this processing work put the target date for delivering apportionment data "in flux;" on December 30 -- the eve of the statutory deadline -- the Census Bureau stated that "projected dates are fluid" and that it planned to deliver apportionment counts "in early 2021, as close to the statutory deadline as possible."1 The JASON briefings occurred at a point of peak uncertainty in the census release timetable -- which was further roiled on January 12, when the Commerce Department's Office of Inspector General divulged whistleblower complaints that Census Bureau staff were under pressure to produce counts of citizens, noncitizens, and undocumented immigrants before the January 20 change in presidential administrations.2 Then-Census Bureau director Steve Dillingham replied on January 13 that he had ordered all work on the immigrant data to "stand down" and he subsequently announced his retirement effective January 20.
|
From page 39... ...
] tool to show how data quality issues were identified and addressed over time as the various Census Bureau data products ([Decennial Response Files 1 and 2]
|
From page 40... ...
to characterize the technical issues in data processing that commonly occur during the post-collection processing work. 3.2 AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON 2020 CENSUS QUALITY INDICATORS As a second-stage part of independent, external review of the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau recognized a task force established under the aegis of the American Statistical Association.
|
From page 41... ...
In the selfresponse data collection phase, the task force noted that the response rate information already generated by the Census Bureau "is an exceptionally important indicator" available at a wide range of geographic levels, because "it is widely recognized that self-response from the household provides the most accurate data" and because a particular area's hard-to-count nature is generally associated with low self-response (2020 Census Quality Indicators Task Force, 2020:10)
|
From page 42... ...
9. Occupied Housing Units With Percent of occupied HUs with known status but Imputed Population Counts whose population count was imputed for 2020 (Count Imputation)
|
From page 43... ...
in producing returns from addresses not already found in the MAF, as well as a measure based on response to the 2020 Census coverage probe question indicating whether a respondent's usual residence was at a college or university location. The core five indicators include one unique to 2020 (percent of housing units enumerated using administrative records data)
|
From page 44... ...
The state-level process statistics were cut into quintiles in order to construct a choropleth map, permitting some rough examination of geographic variation in the indicators, while noting that "more conclusive assessment" of 2020 Census quality would have to await more detailed investigation of the metrics and comparison with other resources like the Postenumeration Survey. In its final report, the 2020 Census Quality Indicators Task Force (2021:2)
|
From page 45... ...
happens long after the release of census data products, but this is no longer sufficient since process statistics and other data can be available much sooner. SOURCE: 2020 Census Quality Indicators Task Force (2021:16–17)
|
From page 46... ...
But the unusual circumstances of the 2020 Census prompted major additions -- first, in the generation of NRFU completion rates during the delayed and compressed NRFU operation in 2020. Later, the Census Bureau would release three sets of operational quality metrics, accompanying the release of 2020 Census apportionment and redistricting data in April, May, and August 2021.4 4 Each of the operational quality metric releases took the form of a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, and was accompanied by a press release or a summary post in the Census Bureau's "Random Samplings" blog; these were posted on the 2020 Census data quality page at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/decade/2020/planningmanagement/process/data-quality.html.
|
From page 47... ...
Min Median Max U.S. Min Median Max Self-Response 61.05 43.73 60.29 69.61 65.28 38.34 64.76 73.60 Internetc -- -- -- -- 52.06 22.20 51.11 62.23 Paper 61.01 43.73 60.29 69.61 11.84 5.73 12.01 21.37 Telephone < 0.1 0.00 -- 0.00 1.39 0.96 1.38 1.89 All NRFU and Other Enumeration Activities 38.41 30.10 38.95 55.66 33.64 25.41 34.13 60.53 Household Interview 18.79 14.19 19.05 28.59 10.84 7.33 10.65 23.23 Proxy 19.51 14.80 20.31 29.20 18.21 13.83 19.18 37.31 Occupied 5.03 3.28 4.77 6.87 4.53 3.33 4.29 6.34 Vacant 10.92 7.40 11.00 21.87 6.82 4.45 7.21 15.53 Delete 3.55 2.10 3.52 8.00 6.86 3.86 7.29 18.24 Unknown Respondent Typeb 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.31 -- -- -- -- Administrative Recordsc -- -- -- -- 4.59 0.00 4.49 5.88 Occupiedc -- -- -- -- 3.20 0.00 3.00 4.46 Vacantc -- -- -- -- 1.15 0.00 1.22 2.11 Deletec -- -- -- -- 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.54 Unresolved Housing Units (Sent to Count Imputation)
|
From page 48... ...
The mix and relative share of these response types would vary considerably by state -- for example, resolution by administrative records in the 2010 Census would range between 2.8 percent in Hawaii6 to 5.9 percent in Florida -- but it is not possible to infer much from those aggregate indicators. Release 2 of the 2020 Census operational quality metrics (U.S.
|
From page 49... ...
The simple three-number summaries provide no real opportunity for identification of statistical outliers or detailed geographic patterning in the metrics, limiting their analytical value. The second table in Release 3 began the process of looking at the quality of census returns themselves by providing estimated item nonresponse rates for four major items on the census questionnaire itself: the overall population count for the household, age or date of birth, Hispanic origin, and race.
|
From page 50... ...
; all metrics considered to be preliminary.
|
From page 51... ...
The table also suggests lingering concern about the completeness of race and Hispanic origin data in administrative records data sources. Group quarters enumeration was particularly hard-hit by the operational challenges of the 2020 Census, and the item nonresponse rates for occupied group quarters increased markedly over their 2010 Census values.
|
From page 52... ...
However, the notion of trying to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on census self-response rates is sound. More substantively, we are concerned about JASON's recommendation about data quality metrics below the national level being interpreted as a barrier to those metrics being generated -- largely because we have not seen a compelling case made by the Census Bureau about why subnational quality metrics are unduly disclosive of respondent information.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.