IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/poprpr/v44y2025i1d10.1007_s11113-024-09931-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Protecting Vulnerable Respondents: A Critical Analysis of the Privacy-Preserving Methods of the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census

Author

Listed:
  • Krishnamurty Muralidhar

    (University of Oklahoma)

  • Josep Domingo-Ferrer

    (CYBERCAT-Center for Cybersecurity Research of Catalonia, Universitat Rovira I Virgili)

  • David Sánchez

    (CYBERCAT-Center for Cybersecurity Research of Catalonia, Universitat Rovira I Virgili)

  • Steven Ruggles

    (University of Minnesota)

Abstract

This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the statistical disclosure limitation (SDL) methodologies employed by the U.S. Census Bureau on the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census releases under the perspective of the disclosure risk of the most vulnerable respondents. We first review the SDL methodology used up to the Decennial Census 2010, which was based on targeted swapping. Second, we examine recently reported reconstruction and reidentification results on the Decennial Census 2010 outputs, which form the foundation for the U.S. Census Bureau’s decision to switch to a differentially private (DP) method for the 2020 release. Third, we examine the actual privacy and data accuracy achieved by the DP method and compare with the privacy and accuracy offered by the formerly employed swapping mechanism. We conclude that the DP method is not an adequate solution to protect the typically sparse tables present in the Decennial Censuses because it does not offer meaningful privacy guarantees in general, it poorly protects the privacy of the most vulnerable respondents in particular, and it significantly degrades the quality of the released data. We also argue that the claimed disclosure risks of previous Census releases were overstated because of a flawed reidentification procedure. Therefore, the U.S. Census Bureau’s decision to change the SDL methodology to a DP-based one for the 2020 release was not only unwarranted, but it also reduced privacy and data quality compared to former releases.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishnamurty Muralidhar & Josep Domingo-Ferrer & David Sánchez & Steven Ruggles, 2025. "Protecting Vulnerable Respondents: A Critical Analysis of the Privacy-Preserving Methods of the 2010 and 2020 Decennial Census," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 44(1), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:poprpr:v:44:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11113-024-09931-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11113-024-09931-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11113-024-09931-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11113-024-09931-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laura McKenna, 2018. "Disclosure Avoidance Techniques Used for the 1970 through 2010 Decennial Censuses of Population and Housing," Working Papers 18-47, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sigurd Dyrting & Abraham Flaxman & Ethan Sharygin, 2022. "Reconstruction of age distributions from differentially private census data," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(6), pages 2311-2329, December.
    2. John M. Abowd & Robert Ashmead & Ryan Cumings-Menon & Simson Garfinkel & Micah Heineck & Christine Heiss & Robert Johns & Daniel Kifer & Philip Leclerc & Ashwin Machanavajjhala & Brett Moran & William, 2022. "The 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System TopDown Algorithm," Papers 2204.08986, arXiv.org.
    3. Richelle L. Winkler & Jaclyn L. Butler & Katherine J. Curtis & David Egan-Robertson, 2022. "Differential Privacy and the Accuracy of County-Level Net Migration Estimates," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(2), pages 417-435, April.
    4. John M Abowd & Michael B Hawes, 2022. "Confidentiality Protection in the 2020 US Census of Population and Housing," Papers 2206.03524, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2022.
    5. Steven Ruggles & Diana L. Magnuson, 2023. "“It's None of Their Damn Business”: Privacy and Disclosure Control in the U.S. Census, 1790–2020," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 49(3), pages 651-679, September.
    6. John M. Abowd & William R. Bell & J. David Brown & Michael B. Hawes & Misty L. Heggeness & Andrew D. Keller & Vincent T. Mule Jr. & Joseph L. Schafer & Matthew Spence & Lawrence Warren & Moises Yi, 2020. "Determination of the 2020 U.S. Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) Using Administrative Records and Statistical Methodology Technical Report," Working Papers 20-33, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    7. Steven Ruggles & David Riper, 2022. "The Role of Chance in the Census Bureau Database Reconstruction Experiment," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 781-788, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:poprpr:v:44:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s11113-024-09931-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.