IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/17-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Comparison of Training Modules for Administrative Records Use in Nonresponse Followup Operations: The 2010 Census and the American Community Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa C. Chow
  • Hubert P. Janicki
  • Mark J. Kutzbach
  • Lawrence F. Warren
  • Moises Yi

Abstract

While modeling work in preparation for the 2020 Census has shown that administrative records can be predictive of Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) enumeration outcomes, there is scope to examine the robustness of the models by using more recent training data. The models deployed for workload removal from the 2015 and 2016 Census Tests were based on associations of the 2010 Census with administrative records. Training the same models with more recent data from the American Community Survey (ACS) can identify any changes in parameter associations over time that might reduce the accuracy of model predictions. Furthermore, more recent training data would allow for the incorporation of new administrative record sources not available in 2010. However, differences in ACS methodology and the smaller sample size may limit its applicability. This paper replicates earlier results and examines model predictions based on the ACS in comparison with NRFU outcomes. The evaluation consists of a comparison of predicted counts and household compositions with actual 2015 NRFU outcomes. The main findings are an overall validation of the methodology using independent data.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa C. Chow & Hubert P. Janicki & Mark J. Kutzbach & Lawrence F. Warren & Moises Yi, 2017. "A Comparison of Training Modules for Administrative Records Use in Nonresponse Followup Operations: The 2010 Census and the American Community Survey," Working Papers 17-47, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:17-47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2017/CES-WP-17-47.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew R. Graham & Mark J. Kutzbach & Danielle H. Sandler, 2017. "Developing a Residence Candidate File for Use With Employer-Employee Matched Data," Working Papers 17-40, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cen:wpaper:17-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dawn Anderson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.