2020 Census Evaluation- Admin Record Dual System Estimation Study Plan

The memorandum and attached document(s) was prepared for Census Bureau internal use. If
you have any questions regarding the use or dissemination of the information, please contact
the Stakeholder Relations Staff at dcco.stakeholder.relations.staff@census.gov.

2020 CENSUS PROGRAM INTERNAL MEMORANDUM SERIES: 2019.12.i
Date:

April 12, 2019

MEMORANDUM FOR: The Record
From:

Deborah M. Stempowski (signed April 12, 2019)
Chief, Decennial Census Management Division

Subject:

2020 Census Evaluation: Administrative Record
Dual System Estimation Study Plan

Contact:

Jennifer Reichert
Decennial Census Management Division
301-763-4298
jennifer.w.reichert@census.gov

This memorandum releases the final version of the 2020 Census Evaluation: Administrative Record
Dual System Estimation Study Plan, which is part of the 2020 Census Program for Evaluations and
Experiments (CPEX). For specific content related questions, you may also contact the authors:
Thomas Mule
Decennial Statistical Studies Division
301-763-8322
vincent.t.mule.jr@census.gov

Andrew Keller
Decennial Statistical Studies Division
301-763-9308
andrew.d.keller@census.gov

Scott Konicki
Decennial Statistical Studies Division
301-763-4292
scott.m.konicki@census.gov

census.gov

2020 Census
Evaluation
Administrative Record
Dual System Estimation Study Plan

Thomas Mule, Decennial Statistical Studies Division
Andrew Keller, Decennial Statistical Studies Division
Scott Konicki, Decennial Statistical Studies Division

April 12, 2019
Version 1.3

Page intentionally left blank.

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Table of Contents
I.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

II.

Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

III.

Assumptions........................................................................................................................ 3

IV.

Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 4

V.

Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 4

VI.

Data Requirements .............................................................................................................. 9

VII.

Risks.................................................................................................................................. 11

VIII.

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 11

IX.

Issues That Need to be Resolved ...................................................................................... 12

X.

Division Responsibilities .................................................................................................. 12

XI.

Milestone Schedule ........................................................................................................... 12

XII.

Review/Approval Table .................................................................................................... 13

XIII.

Document Revision and Version Control History ............................................................ 13

XIV. Glossary of Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 13
XV.

References ......................................................................................................................... 14

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Page intentionally left blank.

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

I.

Introduction

This evaluation expands upon the innovation of utilizing administrative records and third-party
data for the 2020 Census Address Canvassing and Nonresponse Followup operations. The
Census Bureau also has a long history of using administrative records of birth, deaths, and other
information to produce Demographic Analysis (DA) coverage estimates (Robinson et al. 1993,
Robinson et al. 2002, and U.S. Census Bureau 2012). This evaluation expands this innovation by
attempting to see if administrative records and third-party data could be used to produce capturerecapture coverage estimates. Since 1980, the Census Bureau has produced capture-recapture
coverage estimates by conducting an independent post-enumeration survey and using dual
system estimation approaches.
Because of budget constraints, the 2020 Census Post-Enumeration Survey (PES) has had limited
resources to implement the necessary housing unit and person operations. These operations
include developing and implementing the costly field and clerical matching procedures necessary
for a sample-based application of the dual system estimation. For example, the 2010 Census
coverage survey had field operation costs of $15.2 million for Independent Listing, $23.7 million
for Interviewing, and $14.9 million for additional person follow-up (Contreras et al. 2012, Linse
and Argarin 2012, Johnson et al. 2012). This does not include the system development costs and
the 2020 PES budget estimates. The 2020 PES has a projected fieldwork budget of about $50
million.
For the 2018 End-to-End Census Test, the Post-Enumeration Survey was de-scoped, so the first
time that these operations will be implemented will be during the 2020 Census. Based on these
developments, we decided to propose an evaluation to examine whether administrative records
could be used to produce coverage estimates similar to the survey-based results without having
to implement the field collection, clerical matching software development, and clerical matching
personnel costs. This evaluation will use administrative records as the second system instead of
the independent PES sample. The census will continue to serve as the first system. This
evaluation will begin by researching and prototyping approaches on the 2010 Census, and we
will compare the results to the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement (CCM) and DA coverage
estimates. Then, we will implement our approach to produce coverage estimates for the 2020
Census and again compare these with the official estimates of coverage from the 2020 PES and
DA programs.

II.

Background

1. Post-Enumeration Surveys for the Decennial Census
The U.S. Census Bureau has a history of producing population estimates using dual system
estimation from a sample survey. Wolter (1986) gives an overview of producing a population
estimate using two lists or systems and provides the assumptions that need to be met in order to
produce valid population estimates. These assumptions include independence of being captured
on both lists, removing erroneous inclusions from each system, having no matching error, and
others.
1

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

For census applications, one system is the Enumeration or E system. This starts with the
enumerations in the census. The second system is the Population or P system. This is an
independent enumeration of the population. The Wolter (1986) paper outlines how dual system
estimates can be produced using the Petersen model to generate valid estimates in post-strata.
Synthetic estimation could then be used to produce small area estimates below the post-strata.
Hogan and Wolter (1988) document the 1980 Census coverage estimates. For the 1980 survey,
the Current Population Survey was used as the second system. The 1980 analysis produced a
series of alternative estimates based on different assumptions. Lessons learned from this
application were incorporated into the design for the 1990 PES.
Hogan (1993) documents the production of population estimates for the 1990 PES. The 1990
PES used an independent listing of sampled census blocks instead of the Current Population
Survey. Independent interviews were conducted at these addresses. This included collecting
where the person should have been counted on Census Day. The PES matched the independently
rostered people to the areas where they identified that they should have been counted. Computer
and clerical matching were used to determine the residence, Census Day, and match statuses of
the cases. Follow-up interviewers were conducted based on stringent criteria to resolve cases.
The final population estimates were based on calculating the dual system estimates for 1,392
post-strata (later revised to be 357 post-strata). See Hogan (1993) for more information about the
1990 PES.
Hogan (2003) documents the production of population estimates for the 2000 Accuracy and
Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). The 2000 A.C.E. was similar to the 1990 PES in that independent
listing and interviewing on a sample basis were conducted. The 2000 A.C.E. rostered both the
outmovers and inmovers since Census Day for independent sample addresses. The outmovers
were matched in the sample area to get the match rate for the mover population. The inmovers
were used to get an estimate of the independent mover population for a post-strata. Similar to
1990, computer, clerical, and follow-up operations were conducted.
The initial 2000 coverage survey estimates showed a difference of about 3 million people as
compared with those produced by the Demographic Analysis program (U.S. Census Bureau
2001). Robinson et al. (2002) document how estimates of births, deaths, immigration, and
emigration are put together to produce population estimates. Analysis of the initial A.C.E.
estimates led to two sets of revisions. The final revisions accounted for erroneous inclusions in
both systems and matching error. The final estimates also included an adjustment for the
violation of independence between the captures (correlation bias). The main change in the
estimates was due to erroneous inclusions in the census system that had not been removed for the
original estimates.
Mule (2012) documents the person coverage estimates from the 2010 Census Coverage
Measurement (CCM) survey. Like the 1990 and 2000 coverage surveys, the 2010 CCM
evaluated net census coverage by using dual system estimation to generate population estimates.
New for 2010, the CCM used logisitic regression modeling instead of post-stratification to
2

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

produce synthetic estimates of net coverage. The logistic regression modeling allowed for the
reduction of correlation bias in the total population estimates without having to include
unnecessary higher-order interactions as when forming post-stratification cells. Like the 2000
A.C.E., the 2010 CCM included an adjustment for remaining correlation bias for some of the
population estimates.
2. Administrative Records Research for the Decennial Census
The Census Bureau has conducted research about using administrative records during the
enumeration. Leggeri et al. (2002) document the administrative records census experiment in
Census 2000. This was an experiment to see if administrative records could be used to conduct
the decennial enumeration for two counties in Maryland and three counties in Colorado. The
results showed potential undercoverage when solely using administrative records for
enumeration at that time.
The 2010 Census also included multiple evaluations involving administrative records. Sheppard
et al. (2013) describe an evaluation that used administrative records to detect and improve
overcoverage. While not examining undercoverage, this 2010 evaluation recommended that
future studies about improving census coverage with administrative records include a follow-up
component to assess discrepancies between the census and administrative records. The 2010
Census Match Study assessed the quality and coverage of several administrative records and
third-party sources relative to the 2010 Census (Rastogi and O’Hara 2012). Relevant to our
evaluation, Rastogi and O’Hara found that the administrative records and third-party sources had
less coverage for harder-to-count populations.
Keller et al. (2018) document how administrative records and third-party data are being used to
reduce contacts in the Nonresponse Followup operation in the 2020 Census. This work includes
building rosters from administrative record sources and determining for each address if we have
enough information to reduce the number of times a fieldworker attempts to visit the address to
obtain a census response. Variations of this approach were implemented in the 2013, 2014, 2015,
2016, and 2018 census tests. Results from each test were used to refine and improve the
methodology for the next test. Our evaluation involves similar work of using administrative
records to build rosters independent of the concurrent census.

III.

Assumptions

This evaluation has the following assumptions.
1. The project team will have adequate time to implement the evaluation as it is designed in
this study plan.
2. The administrative records sources, including federal tax information, that are needed to
conduct this evaluation will be approved and made available to the research team. See
Section VI for a list of the requested sources.
3. The administrative records sources approved for this research will be consistent between
2010 and 2020, to the extent possible. That is, the universe, format, and data contents of
the administrative records sources will be the same over time. If the files are inconsistent
3

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

between 2010 and 2020, then the methods we develop on the 2010 data may not work
well for 2020.
4. 2020 Census files such as the Census Unedited File (CUF) and Census Edited File (CEF)
will be available for the required analysis. The 2020 CUF will be processed through the
Person Identification Validation System (PVS) to apply the Person Identification Keys
(PIKs) that facilitate matching between administrative records and census sources.
5. Coverage estimates for the 2020 Census will be produced via the PES and DA as in
previous decennial censuses.

IV.

Research Questions

Our evaluation will address the following two research questions:
1. How do the administrative record coverage estimates compare with the 2010 Census Coverage
Measurement and Demographic Analysis estimates?
2. How do the administrative record coverage estimates compare with the 2020 PostEnumeration Survey and Demographic Analysis estimates?

V.

Methodology

In order for our approach to be used to generate coverage estimates for the 2020 Census, we will
use the administrative records and third-party data to implement a proof of concept on the 2010
Census. This will allow our results to be compared with the 2010 Census and the official
estimates of coverage. We will then implement our approach to produce coverage estimates for
the 2020 Census. Based on the results of the 2010 research, we will identify the coverage
estimates that we can produce. The evaluation will assess these alternative coverage results by
comparing them with the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey and the Demographic Analysis official
estimates of coverage.

A. Evaluation Design
This section provides an overview of the initial methodology being considered for this project.
We describe the methodology to generate estimates for the 2010 Census using census data,
American Community Survey (ACS) data, administrative records, and third-party data for the
2010 time frame. The goal is to implement the approaches that we tested with the 2010 data to
produce coverage estimates using the 2020 Census data.
1. Producing Administrative Records Dual System Estimates
The proposed research will see if population estimates can be generated using administrative
records as the second source in dual system estimation. Our initial goal is to generate population
estimates. Our analysis will see if we can generate estimates for the total population or if we are
4

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

restricted to the household population like the survey approach. Our approach will generate
population estimates for different search areas. This includes tract, state, and nation. Based on
having estimates for each tract, then estimates for national, site, state, county, or other
geographic areas can be aggregated. While having a national search area, this approach does not
require putting a response in a specific geographic location for estimation but could possibly
require synthetic assumptions for generating subnational estimates.
Our secondary objective is to generate estimates of the population by age, sex, and race and
Hispanic origin. For the tract level search area approach, we will attempt to generate these
estimates for each tract. Again, these tract-level estimates of demographic groups could be
aggregated up to produce estimates of those characteristics for the nation, states, or counties.
This will be compared with results using state or national search area methods. This research will
use census, administrative records, ACS, and possibly third-party information to generate these
estimates.
The census will continue to be the first system for the dual system estimation. This approach will
use all responses. Since we are not doing any fieldwork, no sampling of the census responses is
needed. Our approach will attempt to apply the following same four criteria as used by the
survey-based enumeration:





Appropriateness
Uniqueness
Completeness
Geographic correctness

For appropriateness, we will check that the person should be included in the census by using
Social Security Administration information to check if the person was born after Census Day or
died before Census Day. For uniqueness, we will use the Protected Identification Keys (PIKs)
assigned to the census record to retain only one record for each person. Our initial rule will keep
the response closer to Census Day. If the responses are on the same day, we will investigate
decision rules like using the case with more item responses or other criteria. For completeness,
we will have a rule about a census record having enough information to identify a single person.
For this research, we will start by using a completeness rule that a PIK needs to be assigned to
each record. For geographic correctness, we will research different geographic areas. This
includes using tract, state, or national search areas. However, with the absence of a coverage
survey, we do not have information from the survey interview to determine whether the census
people were counted in the tract in which they should have been. We will begin by assuming that
people are in the correct tract, and we will consider ways to address this issue.
The people from the administrative record sources will be the second system. Since we are not
doing listing, clerical matching, or follow-up, no sampling of the administrative records is
needed. For administrative record people, we will determine rules about which person records to
include. A conservative rule for IRS 1040 responses could be to use only people from 1040
filings that were filed after census data collection started in March. Research could determine

5

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

how to use IRS 1040 deliveries in February. Our research will also determine how to use other
sources depending on when they were delivered to the Census Bureau and their reference dates.
We will apply the same four criteria to the administrative record people. For completeness, we
will only use person records from administrative record sources that have a PIK assigned. For
appropriateness, we will confirm based on information available at that time that the
administrative record person was alive on Census Day. For uniqueness, we will make sure that
each administrative record person is only associated with one address. Reference date
information from the different sources can be used to develop rules to associate individuals with
only one address. We will implement uniqueness by only using administrative record individuals
that were assigned a PIK. We will implement geographic correctness by testing different search
areas to which the administrative record was assigned.
Dual system estimation requires accurate matching between the two systems. For matching, we
will match based on the PIKs assigned to the census and the administrative records individuals.
Based on this, we will be able to tally the number of people with PIKs who were counted in a)
both the census and administrative records (N11), b) only the census (N10), and c) only the
administrative records (N01). Thus, we will have counts for three of the four cells for the
traditional two-by-two table shown below.
Table 1. Dual System Estimation Example
Administrative Records
In
Out
Census
In
N11
N10
Out
N01
N00
Total
N.1

Total
N1.
N

By having information available for three of the four cells, we will research estimation
approaches that produce an estimate of the size of the fourth cell. This will be different from the
survey-based approach that measures the population total based on the Petersen estimator. The
post-stratification approach used by the Census Bureau estimates the marginal estimate of
meeting the four correctness criteria in the census and divides that by the rate of matching
independent individuals to those census cases. The 2010 CCM implemented a logistic regression
equivalent.
To minimize the bias because of either dependence of capture and heterogeneous capture
probabilities, we will use characteristics of the people in the estimation. Since we are using only
census and administrative records that have been assigned a PIK, we will have age and sex
available for those cases from the Census Numident file. For race and Hispanic origin, we will
consider using 2010 Census responses or the Center for Administrative Records Research and
Applications (CARRA) Best Race and Hispanic origin file. Methods using race and Hispanic
origin may require the development of imputation methods to assign to cases without that
characteristic available.

6

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Some initial methodologies for estimating the size of the fourth cell include the following.
George and Robert (1991) provide an approach for calculating Bayes estimates for capturerecapture models. Other possibilities include log-linear modeling approaches. Cormack (1989)
has an approach for using log-linear models for capture-recapture. The R package RCAPTURE
implements several of these approaches. Part of this work will be attempting to identify other
estimation approaches that could be used as well.
One concern with implementing the administrative record dual system estimates is that the
population estimates may suggest large overcounts or undercounts. This could be because of
violations of the assumptions for producing estimates. To potentially guard against this, we will
see if we can use information already available about the size of the population. Our approach
will be to research if the latest 5-year ACS estimate for the total population or subgroups can be
used. The final population estimates could be a combination of the administrative record DSE
and the ACS 5-year estimate.
Based on producing estimates of subpopulations for the tracts, these estimates can then be
aggregated to produce national, state, county, or other geographic area estimates. The
methodology would need to be determined to check the measures of uncertainty associated with
the necessary point estimates.
If the tract-level search area approach is used then when we are aggregating up the tract
estimates, this approach should not require the synthetic bias adjustment to produce root mean
square error that was done in 2010. Besides potentially not having sampling error, this approach
would also be able to address synthetic error that was present in the 2010 CCM estimates. The
2010 CCM estimates had synthetic error for state, county, and place estimates because a
national-level fixed-effects logistic regression model was used, and the model did not have any
fixed effects for these lower levels of geography. Furthermore, the 2010 CCM estimation
methodology did not use small area estimation techniques like using random effects. The 2010
CCM root mean square error estimates included estimates of synthetic bias, and as a result of this
additional uncertainty, none of the state, county, nor place estimates of person net coverage were
statistically different from zero. This tract-level search area approach addresses the synthetic bias
issue by producing population estimates at the tract-level and then aggregating those to states and
other geographic areas. If our research shows that viable population estimates can only be
produced from the national search area, then an estimation methodology for subnational
estimates may need to be developed.
The proof of concept work on the 2010 Census data may determine that this approach of using
only the census and the administrative records produces population estimates that have too much
bias or have too much uncertainty. If this is happening, then we will investigate using the ACS
responses collected in or around April 2010 as a third system. We can use the PIKs assigned to
the ACS responses as a third set of data. This will allow estimation approaches that account for
multiple systems to be investigated. The introduction of the ACS responses as a third source
would require appropriate changes in the estimation methodology. The methods described so far
are based on having census and administrative records available for every housing unit across the
country, but the ACS is for only a sample. We would then assess if this improves the results.
7

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

2. Prototype Analysis using the 2010 Census
The first step is to develop and show how an administrative record dual system estimation
approach can generate coverage estimates using 2010 data. Our research will attempt to produce
net coverage estimates for the same estimation domains as in the 2010 CCM. Mule (2012) and
Davis and Mulligan (2012) document the 2010 CCM person coverage results.
Evaluation Research Question #1: How do the administrative record coverage estimates
compare with the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement and Demographic Analysis estimates?
We will assess our coverage results by quantifying the percent differences between the 2010
CCM estimates and our administrative record DSE results. For each estimate, we can calculate
the percent difference by formula (1).
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =

2010𝐶𝐶𝑀−𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐸𝐶𝐷𝑆𝐸
2010𝐶𝐶𝑀

× 100 (1)

For state estimates where there are multiple percent differences to analyze, we will summarize
the differences by using approaches used to assess population estimates. We will investigate
using mean algebraic percent differences and mean absolute percent differences. Since mean
absolute percent difference measures are sensitive to outliers, one alternative summary measure
is to use a rescaled version developed by Coleman and Swanson (2007).
If we are successfully able to implement the tract-level search area approach, we will calculate
percent undercount estimates for each tract. We will summarize the percent undercount estimates
by calculating mean algebraic percent undercount estimates to assess on average how close our
estimates are to the census counts. These tract analyses can be done by response rate or other
tract measure groupings. This will allow us to see if this coverage approach works in areas with
higher or lower responses. While we do not have official estimates to compare, we can see what
the coverage results from this approach would be. We will explore calculating mean absolute
percent undercounts or other measures that show the distribution of the percent undercount
estimates. Formula 2 shows the percent undercount calculation.
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑈𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 =

𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐸𝐶𝐷𝑆𝐸−2010𝐶𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑠
𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐸𝐶𝐷𝑆𝐸

× 100 (2)

3. Coverage Analysis of the 2020 Census
We will implement the researched methodology to develop coverage estimates for the 2020
Census. The results of the 2010 prototype research will factor into the estimation domains that
can be produced. If possible, we will see if the methodology can also be implemented on data
from the 2018 End-to-End Census Test.
Evaluation Research Question #2: How do the administrative record coverage estimates
compare with the 2020 Post-Enumeration Survey and Demographic Analysis estimates?
8

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Similar to the prototype analysis of the 2010 CCM estimates, we will produce similar estimation
domains as being done for the 2020 PES. We will assess our alternative coverage estimates by
quantifying the percent differences between the 2020 PES and our results. We will use similar
mean algebraic percent differences and mean absolute percent differences for estimation
domains like states.
B. Interventions with the 2020 Census
Our analysis will require the following information and access listed below. We estimate our
impact on the system resources needed for a successful 2020 Census to be very small.


Access to the administrative records and third-party data that is stored in the Census Data
Warehouse for 2010 and 2017 through 2020. These datasets have already been or are
planned to be processed by the Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division (ERD).
Obtaining access for this evaluation should have no impact on a successful 2020 Census.



Access to the Protected Identification Keys assigned by ERD for the 2010 Census, 2018
End-to-End Census Test, and 2020 Census files. The 2010 assignments are already
processed. The assignments for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test and the 2020 Census
are planned production processes to support characteristic imputation for the census. Our
evaluation simply requires access to these same datasets when they are available.
Obtaining access for this evaluation should have no impact on a successful 2020 Census.

C. Implications for 2030 Census Design Decisions and Future Research and Testing
The outcome of this evaluation will provide the Census Bureau with information for the 2021 to
2025 research and testing phase and early design of the 2030 Census to determine whether this
approach is a possible viable alternative to doing dual system estimation based on independent
field interviews and clerical matching. If this less expensive approach is deemed a viable
alternative, then additional research into the methodology could be planned for the 2021 to 2025
research and testing phase in anticipation of implementation in the 2030 Census.

VI.

Data Requirements

Data File/Report

Source

Purpose

Expected
Delivery Date

IRS 1040 Tax Returns TY 20082009, 2017, and 2019

IRS

IRS 1099 Information Returns
TY 2008-2009, 2017, and 2019

IRS

Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010

TY 2008-2009 and
2017: Already
available.
TY 2019: Monthly
starting March 2020
TY 2008-2009 and
2017: Already
available.

9

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Data File/Report

Source

CMS Medicare Enrollment
Database 2009-2010, 2017-2020

CMS

IHS Patient Registration 20092010, 2017-2020

IHS

CARRA Kidlink File

CARRA

Census PIK crosswalk 2010,
2018, and 2020

ERD/Census Data
Warehouse

Census Unedited File 2010,
2018, and 2020

ERD/Census Data
Warehouse

Census Edited File 2010, 2018,
and 2020

ERD/Census Data
Warehouse

Census Numident 2010, 2018,
and 2020

SSA

American Community Survey
PIK crosswalks 2010, 2018, and
2020

ERD/Census Data
Warehouse

American Community Survey
unswapped edited response file
2010, 2018, and 2020

ACSO

CARRA Best Race and
Hispanic Origin file

CARRA

10

Purpose

Expected
Delivery Date

Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.

TY 2019: Monthly
starting March 2020
2009-2010 and
2017: Already
available.
2018-2020: Sept. of
given year.
2009-2010 and
2017: Already
available.
2018-2020: Aug. of
given year.
Previous versions
already available.
Future versions near
March of given
year.
2010: Already
available.
2018 and 2020: Fall
of given year.
2010: Already
available.
2018 and 2020: Fall
of given year.
2010: Already
available.
2018 and 2020:
February of
subsequent year.
2010 and 2018:
Already available.
2020: April 2020.

2010: Already
available.
2018 and 2020:
Subsequent year.
2010: Already
available.
2018 and 2020:
Subsequent year.
2010 and 2018:
Already available.
2020: February
2020.

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Data File/Report

Source

Purpose

Expected
Delivery Date

2010 CCM and DA coverage
estimates

DSSD (for CCM) and
POP (for DA)

Already available

2020 PES and DA coverage
estimates

DSSD (for PES) and
POP (for DA)

Additional administrative
records and third-party sources

Federal, state, and local
governments.
Commercial vendors.

Compare administrative
records dual system
estimates to official 2010
coverage estimates
Compare administrative
records dual system
estimates to official 2020
coverage estimates
Produce administrative
records dual system
estimates for the 2010
Census, 2018 Census Test,
and 2020 Census.

PES: June 2021
DA: December 2020

2010 and 2018:
Many files already
available.
2020: Late 2019 to
2020.

VII. Risks
1. If the IRS, CMS, HIS, or other agencies do not approve the use of their data for this
evaluation, then this evaluation will not be able to be completed as planned. This evaluation will
use federal tax information from the IRS and patient information from CMS and IHS.
2. If the rate at which administrative records are used in the 2020 and future census is high, then
the assumption of independence between the census system (which would include administrative
records enumerations) and the administrative records system may not hold. The 2020 Census
will use administrative records to enumerate some nonresponding households. Another
evaluation project is investigating an increased use of administrative records for future censuses.
Many of the administrative records sources that we plan to use for this evaluation are the same as
those being used for the 2020 and future censuses.
3. If the staff need to put more time into these production activities, this evaluation may be
delayed. The staff for this evaluation will be involved in production activities for the 2020
Census and 2020 PES.
4. If there is a significant increase in missing characteristic data in the 2020 Census, this may
affect the ability to apply PIKs to census individuals and carry out the analysis.
One criterion to execute this study is to have sufficiently complete response data so that PIKs can
be applied to census individuals. This is achieved through reporting of characteristic data.

VIII. Limitations
1. Coverage estimates from the 2010 Census are not available at low levels of geography like the
census tract. The tract-level estimates we plan to develop in this evaluation will not have point of
comparison.

11

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

2. While the administrative records DSEs will not be subject to sampling error, they are subject
to various nonsampling errors like matching error and classification error. Unlike sampling error,
nonsampling errors are difficult to quantify.
3. By only using PIKed records, we will not be able to match records for populations that cannot
be assigned a PIK. These populations include people without a Social Security Number or Tax
Identification Number as well as records with insufficient information for assigning a PIK. This
may lead to biased coverage estimates for areas or groups with large concentrations of these
populations.

IX.

Issues That Need to be Resolved

None at this time

X.

Division Responsibilities

Division or Office
DSSD

Responsibilities
 Develop methodology for administrative records dual
system estimation.
 Compile administrative records and census data for
research.
 Produce report(s) summarizing findings of research.

ERD/CES



XI.

Process administrative records and census files through
the PVS to assign PIKs. Make these files available to
DSSD researchers.

Milestone Schedule

Evaluation Milestone

Date

Conduct research and prototype analysis on the 2010 Census.

August 2018 to
August 2020

Conduct coverage analysis for the 2020 Census

September 2020 to
December 2021

Distribute Initial Draft Administrative Record Dual System Estimation Report to the
Decennial Research Objectives and Methods (DROM) Working Group for PreBriefing Review

December 2021

Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO) Staff Formally Release the
FINAL Administrative Record Dual System Estimation Report in the 2020
Memorandum Series

September 2022

12

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

XII. Review/Approval Table
Role

Approval Date

Primary Author’s Division Chief (or designee)

3/15/2019

Decennial Census Management Division (DCMD) ADC for Nonresponse,
Evaluations, and Experiments

2/19/2019

Decennial Research Objectives and Methods (DROM) Working Group

2/19/2019

Decennial Census Communications Office (DCCO)

mm/dd/yyyy

XIII. Document Revision and Version Control History
Version/Editor
1.0
1.1

Date
8/31/18
11/15/18

1.2

3/15/19

1.3

4/12/19

Revision Description
Initial draft study plan for DROM review.
Incorporating comments from DROM review.
Incorporating DROM workshop comments and quality
review.
Incorporating DCCO edits.

XIV. Glossary of Acronyms
Acronym

Definition

A.C.E.
ACS
ACSO
CARRA

Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation
American Community Survey
American Community Survey Office
Center for Administrative Records Research and
Applications
Census Coverage Measurement
Census Edited File
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Census Unedited File
Demographic Analysis
Decennial Research Objectives and Methods
Dual System Estimates/Estimation
Decennial Statistical Studies Division
Economic Reimbursable Surveys Division
Indian Health Service
Internal Revenue Service
Post-Enumeration Survey
Person/Protected Identification Key
Population Division
Person Validation System
Social Security Administration

CCM
CEF
CMS
CUF
DA
DROM
DSE
DSSD
ERD
IHS
IRS
PES
PIK
POP
PVS
SSA

13

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

XV. References
Coleman, C., and Swanson, D. (2007), “On MAPE-R as a measure of cross-sectional estimation
and forecast accuracy” Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 32, Issue 4
https://content.iospress.com/journals/journal-of-economic-and-social-measurement/32/4
Contreras, G., Cronkite, D., Rosenberger, L., Wakim, A. and Argarin, A. (2012), “Assessment
for the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Initial Housing Unit Independent Listing, Matching
and Followup Operations” 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 178 Reissue, U.S.
Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_CCM_IHU_Assessment.pdf
Cormack, R.M. (1989), “Log-Linear Models for Capture-Recapture,” Biometrics, June 1989
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2531485
Davis, P. and Mulligan, J. (2012) ”2010 Census Coverage Measurement Report: Net Coverage
for Household Population in the United States” 2010 Census Coverage Measurement
Memorandum Series 2010-G-03.
https://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/pdfs/g03.pdf
George, E. and Robert, C. (1991) “Calculating Bayes Estimates for Capture-Recapture Models”
Technical Report #90-36C, University of Purdue, revised August 1991.
http://www.stat.purdue.edu/docs/research/tech-reports/1990/tr90-36c.pdf
Hogan, H. (1993), “The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: operations and results” Journal of the
American Statistical Association, September 1993.
https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1993.10476374
Hogan, H. (2003), “The Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Theory and Design” Survey
Methodology, December 2003.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-001-x/2003002/article/6782-eng.pdf
Hogan and Wolter (1988), “Measuring Accuracy in a Post-Enumeration Survey” Survey
Methodology, June 1988.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-001-x/1988001/article/14597-eng.pdf
Johnson, S., Sanchez, P., Wakim, A. and Henderson, K. (2012), “Assessment Report for the
2010 Census Coverage Measurement Person Matching and Followup Operations” 2010 Census
Planning Memoranda Series No. 242, U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_CCM_PMF_Assessment.pdf
Keller, A., Mule, V., Morris, D. and Konicki, S. (2018 upcoming), “A Distance Metric for
Modeling the Quality of Administrative Records for Use in the 2020 U.S. Census,” Journal of
Official Statistics, accepted for publication in 2018.
14

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

Leggeri, C., Pistiner, A., and Farber, J. (2002), “Methods for Conducting an Administrative
Record Experiment in Census 2000” Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3591/cdf4581a5af83c9b2ffbad0b41a2335ca03c.pdf
Linse, K. and Argarin, A. (2012), “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Person Interview
Operation Assessment” 2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 208, U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_CCM_PI_Assessment.pdf
Mule (2012), “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Report: Summary of Estimates of Coverage
for Persons in the United States” 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series
2010-G-01.
https://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/pdfs/g01.pdf
Rastogi, S. and O’Hara, A. (2012). “2010 Census Match Study Report.” 2010 Census Planning
Memoranda Series No. 247, U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_Census_Match_Study_Report.pdf
Robinson, J.G., Ahmed, B., Das Gupta, P., and Woodrow, K.A. (1993). “Estimation of
Population Coverage in the 1990 United States Census Based on Demographic Analysis” Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 88: 1061-1071.
https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1993.10476375#.XLDCoGN7lpg
Robinson, J. Gregory, A. Adlakha, and K.K. West. (2002). “Coverage of Population in Census
2000: Results from Demographic Analysis” Population Research and Policy Review, April 2002.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1016537822148
Sheppard, D., Stewart, T., Rothhaas, C., Lestina, F., Compton, E., Machowski, J., and Smith, D.
(2013). “2010 Census Administrative Records Use for Coverage Problems Evaluation Report,”
2010 Census Planning Memoranda Series No. 254, U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/2010census/pdf/2010_census_administrative_records_use_for_coverage
_problems_evaluation_report.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2001), “Report of the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and
Coverage Evaluation Policy”. March 2001.
https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/Escap2.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau (2012), “Documentation for the Revised 2010 Demographic Analysis
Middle Series Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau Technical Documentation.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technicaldocumentation/methodology/da_methodology.pdf
Wolter (1986) “Some Coverage Error Models for Census Data” Journal of the American
Statistical Association.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d5d6/ba73b10d527c6961726f23da1ebbb27b2df8.pdf
15

Administrative Record Dual System Estimation, Version 1.3

16