Alternative Enumeration Methods and Results (original) (raw)

How Much Do We Count? Interpretation and Error-Making in the Decennial Census

Demography, 1999

Following a critique ofthe 1990 decennial census procedures. we conducted a field study among low-income. inner-city residents in 1991 to examine how they conceptualized and managed the civic task of census response. Interpretations about the purpose and meaning of the census, about commitment to the task, and about connection to government, singly and together with literacy skills (e.g.• reading and general literacy competence). were associated with errors that are not detectable by evaluative methodologies used regularly by the Census Bureau. The validity and reliability ofcensus data, and possibly other self-administered survey research. will be increased by greater use ofknowledge about both interpretation and literacy skills informulating data collection procedures. The decennial census is described as "the cornerstone of our knowledge about our Nation" (U.S. Census Bureau 1997a:3). The quality of the data collected in the census is critical for decisions made by government agencies, policymakers, social science researchers, and the populace. Although the census is a complete count, in recent decades it has been conducted primarily as a mail survey (Dillman et aL 1996). In effect, it is a self-administered questionnaire subject to a set of methodological problems as participants attempt to respond either to a short form of several pages or, for approximately one household in six, to a much longer form. Results of the 1990 census heightened official and public concerns about the quality of census data, defined by some as its fitness for use (

Some Methodological Issues in Counting Communities and Households

In this article we discuss some of the limitations of conventional census techniques that assign all individuals to a single household in a single community. In areas with high rates of mobility and where people may belong to several households, traditional census methods can lead to very deceptive results that are poor guides for policy making and the delivery of services. The article suggests some ways census methods could be improved, so they can yield more informative and useful results.

Census 2020: Counting the Hard to Count

California Institute for Rural Studies, 2019

The challenges and the obstacles to response among hard-to-count residents of the San Joaquin Valley are increased by the decision to request online response to the 2020 Census and by the possibility of inclusion of a citizenship question (CQ). Serious undercount would lead to both under-representation of these communities at the federal level and under-funding of communities already at a financial disadvantage.

Errors ofonobservation: Dwellingonresponse an d Coverage Error in Traditional Censuses

2012

Every census, when concluded, has some residual level of non-response and coverage error. This paper considers the case of a traditional census where enumeration at a usual place of residence takes place via direct contact with respondents using possibly multiple collection modes. The sources and patterns of these errors as well as strategies to minimize their occurrence and impact are both discussed. Commonality of causes and interactions between the errors are briefly considered. Means of measuring and adjusting for these errors are also noted. Although reference will be made to other censuses, the Canadian census will primarily be used to illustrate the discussion

Census Adjustment

2002

The U.S. Census tries to enumerate all residents of the U.S., block by block, every ten years. (A block is the smallest unit of census geography; the area of blocks varies with population density: There are about 7 million blocks in the U.S.) State and sub-state counts matter for apportioning the House of Representatives, allocating Federal funds, congressional redistricting, urban planning, and so forth. Counting the population is difficult, and two kinds of error occur: gross omissions (GOs) and erroneous enumerations (EEs). A GO results from failing to count a person; an EE results from counting a person in error. Counting a person in the wrong block creates both a GO and an EE. Generally, GOs slightly exceed EEs, producing an undercount that is uneven demographically and geographically. In 1980, 1990, and 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau tried unsuccessfully to adjust census counts to reduce differential undercount using Dual Systems Estimation (DSE), a method based on CAPTURE-RECAP...