English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In 2013, I chaired a Census Bureau task force on the undercount of young children. Our goal was to determine what the Census Bureau knows, and perhaps more important what the Census Bureau could know, about the undercount of young children if existing data were examined. I am convinced that the 2010 Census undercounted children under the age of 5. The task force concluded that this undercount is real and that the Census Bureau had not given the issue adequate attention prior to the 2010 Census. The task force found that managers at the Census Bureau, including those responsible for 2010 coverage improvement and 2010 coverage measurement design, were largely unaware of this coverage concern. This is changing. Senior Census Bureau managers have commissioned an inter-directorate team to research this issue and educate staff about the need to improve the methods used to count young children in the 2020 Census. In the past 18 months, the team conducted dozens of briefings with demographers, survey researchers, statisticians, and operational experts across the Census Bureau. As part of this research team, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue and encourage staff to look for opportunities to address this problem as they make decisions about 2020 methods. As the research team began to measure the extent of this problem, we acknowledged that the Census Bureau does not possess any one perfect measure of coverage, certainly not for young children. The tools available to measure quality, specifically, coverage error, all come with some flaws. The Census Bureau chose to use three different approaches to evaluate the quality of the 2010 Census – process indicators, comparisons with other estimates, and a post-enumeration survey. Our research team is looking closely at each of these approaches. While none of the 2010 research was optimized to study young children, each approach provides important clues that collectively are helping us to understand enumeration errors involving young children. Process indicators such as participation and nonresponse rates and the results of coverage improvement and quality assurance operations describe key performance metrics known to be associated with error. In 2010, process indicators revealed problems with the misclassification of units as vacant. Operational analysis found greater numbers of nonresponding households requiring imputation of a count. Results from coverage improvement efforts confirmed that households made errors involving children when they completed their census forms. The team is studying the characteristics of the households that self-reported that they might have omitted a child in error and the characteristics of the young children that coverage improvement procedures identified as initially omitted in error. From these observations we are learning about the types of errors that respondents made in 2010 that in-

Commenting on An international perspective on the undercount of young children in the U.S. Census (DOI: 10.3233/SJI-161008)