The U.S. Census Bureau provides an estimate of the true population as a supplement to the basic census numbers. This estimate is constructed from data in a post-censal survey. The overall procedure is referred to as dual system estimation. Dual system estimation is designed to produce revised estimates at all levels of geography, via a synthetic estimation procedure.
We design three alternative formulas for dual system estimation and investigate the differences in area estimates produced as a result of using those formulas. The primary target of this exercise is to better understand the nature of the homogeneity assumptions involved in dual system estimation and their consequences when used for the enumeration data that occurs in an actual large scale application like the Census. (Assumptions of this nature are sometimes collectively referred to as the “synthetic assumption” for dual system estimation.)
The specific focus of our study is the treatment of the category of census counts referred to as imputations in dual system estimation. Our results show the degree to which varying treatment of these imputation counts can result in differences in population estimates for local areas such as states or counties.
References
[1] Bell, W. (1993). Using information from demographic analysis in pose-enumeration survey estimation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88 1106–1118.
[2] Brown, L., Eaton, M., Freedman, D., Klein, S., Olshen, R., Wachter, K., Wells, M. and Ylvisaker, D. (1999). Statistical controversies in Census 2000. Jurimetrics 39 347–375.
[3] Davis, P. (2001). Accuracy and coverage evaluation: Dual system estimates. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-9. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
[4] Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy. (2001). Report of the executive steering committee for accuracy and coverage evaluation policy (ESCAP). Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
[5] Freedman, D. and Wachter, K. (1994). Heterogeneity and census adjustment for the intercensal base. Statist. Sci. 9 476–485.
[6] Freedman, D. and Wachter, K. (2003). On the likelihood of improving the accuracy of the census through statistical adjustment. Science and Statistics. A Festschrift for Terry Speed (D. R. Goldstein and S. Dudoit, eds.) 40 197–230.
[7] Hogan, H. (1993). The 1990 post-enumeration survey: Operation and results. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88 1047–1060.
[8] Hogan, H. (2000). Accuracy and coverage evaluation: Theory and application. Prepared for the February 2-3 2000 DSE Workshop of the National Academy of Sciences Panel to Review the 2000 Census Data and Analysis to Inform the ESCAP report. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
[9] Hogan, H. (2001). Accuracy and coverage evaluation: Data and analysis to inform the ESCAP report. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum Series B-1 2001. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
[10] Kostanich, D. (2003). A.C.E. revision II: Design and methodology. DSSD A.C.E. Revision II Memorandum Series PP-30. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
[11] Norwood, J. and Citro, C. (2002). The 2000 Census: Interim assessment. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
[12] Seker, C. and Deming, W. (1949). On a method of estimating birth and death rates and the extent of registration. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 44 101–115.
[13] The Census Bureau. United States Census 2000 Operations. Available at http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/refroom.html. The Census Bureau, Washington, D.C.
[14] Zhao, Z. (2003). Analysis of dual system estimation in the 2000 decennial census. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. Pennsylvania.
