An analysis of net immigration in census coverage evaluation

National surveys monitored growth in the foreign-born population for the 1980s, especially net undocumented migration's continuing role, but the 1990 census portrayed an even larger foreign-born population than these surveys. Undercoverage in 1990 could have been higher than initially presented because preliminary studies may have insufficiently accounted for decadal net immigration. Assumptions intended to maintain a high undocumented undercount performed poorly when census counts of foreign-born residents became known. Any point estimate for net undocumented migration, calculated as a residual, is likely to be biased by assumptions and data gaps for components of calculating net legal immigration, especially in the direction of underestimation. A reasonable statement is that at least 2.1–2.4 million undocumented residents were enumerated in the 1990 census. The number of unenumerated undocumented residents may easily have ranged between 0.5 million and 3.0 million, and a narrower range of 1 million to 2 million is plausible. Despite the importance of undocumented migration measurement for census evaluation and policy purposes, differences among various undocumented estimates are more likely to stem from discrepancies in universe, reference dates, or individual judgment, rather than analytic refinement. Better measurement of the foreignborn population or its census coverage would aid in setting upper limits on net undocumented migration.     

An alternative view of the 2001 census and future census taking

Summary.  The 2001 census in the UK asked for a return of people 'usually living at this address'. But this phrase is fuzzy and may have led to undercount. In addition, analysis of the sex ratios in the 2001 census of England and Wales points to a sex bias in the adjustments for net undercount—too few males in relation to females. The Office for National Statistics's abandonment of the method of demographic analysis for the population of working ages has allowed these biases to creep in. The paper presents a demographic account to check on the plausibility of census results. The need to revise preliminary estimates of the national population over a period of years following census day—as experienced in North America and now in the UK—calls into question the feasibility of a one-number census. Looking to the future, the environment for taking a reliable census by conventional methods is deteriorating. The UK Government's proposals for a population register open up the possibility of a Nordic-style administrative record census in the longer term.     

The effect of undercount on the accuracy of small-area population estimates: Implications for the use of administrative data for improving population enumeration

The effects of underenumeration on the accuracy of alternative methods of population estimation have not been sufficiently analyzed. Although the US Bureau of the Census has decided not to adjust either the counts or its estimates for underenumeration in 1990, the extent to which local population estimates may account for underenumeration is of importance both for those who may wish to adjust existing estimates and in anticipation of future census adjustments. This paper examines the accuracy of small-area population estimation methods with and without adjustment. Mean Percent Errors, Mean Absolute Percent Errors, and Mean Percent Absolute Differences between local estimates for 1990 and 1990 adjusted and unadjusted census counts are computed. Population estimates for 1990 made using housing unit, ratio correlation, and component methods are compared for 451 counties and 2,633 places in the states of California, Florida, Texas, and Wisconsin. An analysis of the data for counties shows little indication that local estimates more accurately estimate the adjusted than the unadjusted population counts. The results for places show clear improvements in accuracy for places in Florida and Texas. Implications of the findings for issues related to undercount adjustment and local population estimates are discussed.