Misclassifying New York’s Hidden Units as Vacant in 2010: Lessons Gleaned for the 2020 Census

The Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA) program allowed local governments to include hard-to-find units in the Census Bureau’s Master Address File (MAF), which is the cornerstone of the mailout/mailback decennial census. These improvements have allowed the Census Bureau to penetrate the more marginal parts of the housing stock, where units are often not formally labeled, and where their very existence can be difficult to determine. In New York City, where address updating included two rounds of LUCA, the Census Bureau acknowledged an increase of 170,000 housing units between 2000 and 2010. However, there was a dramatic growth in vacant units, equivalent to almost one-half of the total increase in housing units. The increase in vacant units was disproportionately concentrated in 2 of the 18 local census offices in New York City. The paper uses local administrative data on new construction, property foreclosures, and property values; data from the United States Postal Service; as well as survey data from the New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey and the American Community Survey to show why this concentrated increase in vacant units is untenable. From the standpoint of the enumeration, units added in LUCA would challenge the best enumerator, but these hurdles were largely overcome, but for the two local census offices. The paper goes on to discuss how the Census Bureau can adopt measures in 2020 to ensure that housing units and their occupancy status are accurately enumerated in New York and across the nation.     

Moving from a decennial census to a continuous measurement survey: factors affecting nonresponse at the neighborhood level

The Census Bureau is testing a continuous measurement program, known as the American Community Survey (ACS), which will provide census “long form” data annually, though with slightly higher levels of sampling variability. This paper focuses on the 1999–2001 ACS in the Bronx, 1 of 31 ACS test sites. It examines whether the quality of ACS data in the Bronx varies across neighborhoods, focusing specifically on how neighborhood sociodemographic factors influence nonresponse, as measured by mail return and allocation rates. It also examines whether these neighborhood factors have a differential impact on nonresponse in the ACS and the 2000 decennial census, and discusses reasons why this may be so.The ACS mail return rates are not only lower than those of the census, but are highly sensitive to race and socioeconomic distress. Despite this initial disadvantage, the ACS has lower levels of allocation on key variables, relative to the 2000 Census. Moreover, the effect of neighborhood socioeconomic distress on allocation rates in the ACS was minimal, compared to its effect on census allocation. We find that the overall quality of ACS data in the Bronx is superior to that of the decennial census. Our analysis of Bronx data suggests that the proposed elimination of the decennial long form and its replacement with the ACS is a reasonable tradeoff for users of small area data.     

Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community Survey 1999–2001 Estimates: San Francisco and Tulare Counties, California

Data from the United States 2000 decennial census long form sample is compared to the U.S. Census Bureau’s fledgling American Community Survey (ACS) that was designed to replace the census long form in 2010. This article concentrates on two California counties, San Francisco and Tulare, which were part of the demonstration phase of the ACS. These counties are described and an overall comparison of the demographic, social, economic, and housing variables is presented. The project data and measures of census and survey quality such as self-response rates and nonresponse rates are displayed and discussed. Differences in the census and survey results are noted in the context of statistically significant and meaningful differences. Finally, strategies for analyzing and using ACS data are suggested.     

An evaluation of the American Community Survey: results from the Oregon test site

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a Census Bureau product designed to provide accurate and timely demographic and economic indicators on an annual basis for both large and small geographic areas within the United States. Operational plans for Census 2010 call for ACS to replace the decennial census long form (Census LF), pending the results of evaluation studies. This plan represents a major change in that variables that traditionally have been collected on a “snapshot” basis once every 10 years would be collected on a “rolling” annual basis. Using a loss function analysis and other tools, this paper reports preliminary findings from a comparison of ACS and Census 2000 results in Multnomah County, Oregon, one of five national “local expert” test sites set up to compare ACS data collected at the time of Census 2000. The preliminary findings suggest that there are notable differences between some of the corresponding variables found in the ACS and Census LF that require more detailed examination. For example, the loss function analysis reveals notable differences for race and disability variables. In other comparisons of corresponding variables between ACS and Census 2000, differences are found within each of the four major areas of interest: (1) demographic characteristics, (2) social characteristics, (3) economic characteristics, and (4) housing characteristics, with housing characteristics showing the least similarity overall. These results also suggest that more detailed examinations are needed to understand differences between corresponding variables collected by ACS and the Census LF.     

American Community Survey overview and the role of external evaluations

In 2010 the U.S. Census Bureau will achieve its goal of eliminating the long form sample from the decennial census and will produce its first set of five-year data products from the full sample American Community Survey (ACS). This paper provides an overview of the call for change that prompted the Census Bureau to pursue the development of a new approach to collecting socioeconomic and housing data. The paper details the evolution of the ACS from its earliest origins to its current design and describes that design in detail. The current design has benefited from external debate and consultation. Work such as that described later in this journal exemplifies the key role that external users and advisors have played, and will continue to play, in the evolution of the ACS. Over the past 10 years, the Census Bureau has undertaken research and testing to demonstrate operational feasibility and to assess survey quality. Research has also compared ACS and Census 2000 data. ACS staff are involved in survey improvement efforts and continue to confront survey challenges. In the next few years the ACS will give priority to developing user tools to aid all users in the correct interpretation of multi-year estimates. The ultimate validation of the ACS is, however, in the hands of users. Continued input from the people who are responsible for administering and evaluating programs, identifying local needs, and planning for the future will allow the ACS to grow in value and utility.     

The meaning and measurement of race in the U.S. census: Glimpses into the future

The 1996 Racial and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT) was a "mail-out mail-back" household survey with an experimental design of eight alternative questionnaire formats containing systematic variations in race, instructions, question order, and other aspects of the measurement. The eight different questionnaires were administered to random subsamples of six "targeted" populations: geographic areas with ethnic concentrations of whites, blacks, American Indians, Alaskan natives, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. The major conclusion is that allowing multiple responses to the "race" question in the 2000 census (and other variations in measurement that were considered in RAETT) had only a slight impact on the measured racial composition of the population. Another finding was a dramatic reduction in nonresponse to the combined race/Hispanic-origin question relative to all other questionnaire formats. We conclude that the concept of "origins" may be closer to the popular understanding of American diversity than is the antiquated concept of race.     

An Evaluation of Persons per Household (PPH) Estimates Generated by the American Community Survey: A Demographic Perspective

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a U.S. Census Bureau product designed to provide accurate and timely demographic and economic indicators on an annual basis for both large and small geographic areas within the United States. Operational plans call for ACS to serve not only as a substitute for the decennial census long-form, but as a means of providing annual data at the national, state, county, and subcounty levels. In addition to being highly ambitious, this approach represents a major change in how data are collected and interpreted. Two of the major questions facing the ACS are its functionality and usability. This paper explores the latter of these two questions by examining “persons per household (PPH),” a variable of high interest to demographers and others preparing regular post-censal population estimates. The data used in this exploration are taken from 18 of the counties that formed the set of 1999 ACS test sites. The examination proceeds by first comparing 1-year ACS PPH estimates to Census 2010 PPH values along with extrapolated estimates generated using a geometric model based on PPH change between the 1990 and 2000 census counts. Both sets of estimates are then compared to annual 2001–2009 PPH interpolated estimates generated by a geometric model based on PPH from the 2000 census to the 2010 census. The ACS PPH estimates represent what could be called the “statistical perspective” because variations in the estimates of specific variables over time and space are viewed largely by statisticians with an eye toward sample error. The model-based PPH estimates represent a “demographic perspective” because PPH estimates are largely viewed by demographers as varying systematically and changing relatively slowly over time, an orientation stemming from theory and empirical evidence that PPH estimates respond to demographic and related determinants. The comparisons suggest that the ACS PPH estimates exhibit too much “noisy” variation for a given area over time to be usable by demographers and others preparing post-censal population estimates. These findings should be confirmed through further analysis and suggestions are provided for the directions this research could take. We conclude by noting that the statistical and demographic perspectives are not incompatible and that one of the aims of our paper is to encourage the U.S. Census Bureau to consider ways to improve the usability of the 1-year ACS PPH estimates.     

Inferring Directional Migration Propensities from the Migration Propensities of Infants in the United States

Beginning with the 2010 decennial census, the U.S. Census Bureau plans to drop its long-form questionnaire and to replace it with the American Community Survey (ACS). The resulting absence of the larger sample provided by the census count will complicate the measurement and analysis of internal migration flows. In addition, the strategy of averaging accumulated samples over time will mix changing migration patterns. The migration question will refer to a one-year time interval instead of the five-year interval used in the censuses between 1960 and 2000, complicating historical comparisons and the production of multiregional projections based on five-year age groups. Consequently, students of territorial mobility increasingly will find it necessary to complement or augment possibly inadequate data collected on migration with estimates obtained by means of “indirect estimation.” A method is presented that allows one to infer age-specific directional migration propensities at the regional level from birthplace-specific infant population data, which approximates infant migration propensities, and from these infers the migration propensities of all other ages. The method is applied to at the nine-division spatial scale.     

Vladimir Putin on Raising Russia's Birth Rate

The total fertility rate in what is now the Russian Federation has been below replacement level during much of the last 40 years. By the late 1990s it was barely above 1.2 children per woman. There may have been some recovery since: the United Nations estimate for 2000–05 is 1.33. Other reports set the 2004 rate at 1.17. Countries elsewhere in Europe have fertility levels that are equally low or even lower, but the Russian demographic predicament is aggravated by mortality that is exceptionally high by modern standards. Thus, despite large‐scale net immigration (mostly due to return of ethnic Russians from other republics of the former Soviet Union), the population in the last decade‐and‐a‐half has been shrinking: of late by some 700,000 persons per year. The United Nations medium estimate assumes a steady recovery of the total fertility rate to reach a level of 1.85 by 2050 and a considerable improvement in survival rates during that period—notably an increase in male life expectancy at birth of more than ten years. It also assumes further modest net immigration at a steady rate, amounting to a total of somewhat over 2 million by midcentury. Under these stipulations the projected population of Russia in 2050 would be 112 million—some 31 million below its present size. By that time, 23 percent of the population would be aged 65 and older. The government's concern with the demographic situation of the country and its intent to improve it have been manifest in various official statements, notably in the annual State of the Nation Address given by the president to the Federal Assembly (or State Duma). Formerly a subordinate theme (see the Documents item in the June 2005 issue of PDR), the issue constituted the centerpiece of the 2006 Address, delivered on 10 May in the Kremlin by President Vladimir Putin. Policies regarding health and mortality were given short shrift in the speech—road safety, bootleg alcohol, and cardiovascular diseases being singled out as areas of special concern. The president's remarks on immigration are of greater interest: immigration of skilled persons is to be encouraged. They must be educated and law‐abiding and must treat the country's culture and national tradition with respect. The main focus of the address, however, was on the birth rate and policies to be introduced to raise it. (The need for an “effective demographic policy” as seen from the Kremlin was of course also voiced in the later stages of the Soviet era. See, for example, the excerpts from the addresses delivered by then Party Chairman Leonid Brezhnev and Premier Nikolai Tikhonov to the 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1981 that appear in the Documents item in the June 1981 issue of PDR.) In detail and specificity, and also in terms of the economic cost of the measures envisaged, Putin's speech is without parallel in addressing population policy matters by a head of state in Europe. The demo graphically relevant portion of the address is reproduced below in the English translation provided by the website of the president's office « http://www.kremlin.ru/eng ». Calling Russia's demographic situation “the most acute problem facing our country today,” Putin terms its causes as “well known,” but lists only economic factors, presumably because these, at least in principle, lend themselves to remedial measures that the Russian government, its coffers now swollen with petrodollars, should be able to provide. His starkly economic interpretation of the problem of low fertility (in Russia apparently taking the form of convergence to a single‐child pattern) may be overly optimistic. Causes of electing to have only one child may lie deeper than those Putin names: low incomes, inadequate housing, poor‐quality health care and inadequate educational opportunities for children, and even lack of food. Putin's proposed policies to attack these problems in part consist of a major upgrading of existing child care benefits: to 1,500 roubles a month for the first child and 3,000 roubles for the second. The latter amount is roughly equivalent to US$113, a significant sum given Russian income levels. Maternity leave for 18 months at 40 percent of the mother's previous wage (subject to a ceiling) and compensation for the cost of preschool childcare round out the basic package proposed. Benefits are to be parity‐dependent, highlighting the pronatalist intent of the measures. Thus the child benefit for the second child is to be twice as large as for the first, and payment for preschool childcare is to cover 20 percent of parental costs for the first, 50 percent for the second, and 70 percent for the third child. Putin mentions “young families” as recipients, but the payments are clearly directed to mothers. (Even the usually obligatory reference to western European–style paternity leave is missing.) The most innovative element of the proposed measures, however, is support for women who have a second birth. The state should provide such women (not the child, as called for in some European precedents) “with an initial maternity capital that will raise their social status and help resolve future problems.” Citing expert opinion, Putin says that such support “should total at least 250,000 roubles [about $9,300] indexed to annual inflation.” Evidently assuming, optimistically, that there will be many takers, Putin says that carrying out all these plans will require not only a lot of work but also “an immense amount of money.” The measures are to be launched starting January 2007.