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

This paper is a very useful contribution to understanding the complex issue of the undercount of children. It should prompt further investigation of the coverage of young children (systematically document the relative high undercounts, begin to explain why the rates are high, and do something about it in censustaking). The net undercount rates of children are high in the U.S. and unlike older ages groups, the measured rates have not been reduced in recent censuses. The paper gives an international perspective – comparing the coverage of children in the U.S. to other countries. Is poor coverage of children an issue elsewhere as well as in the U.S., adding urgency to understanding the whys of the relative high undercount of children? Yes it is. The author asks three questions: (1) Is a net undercount of children under age 5 common? (2) Is the net undercount of young children higher than that of older children? and (3) Is the net undercount of children greater than that of “any other age group”? The paper focuses on the first two and provides solid documentation to answer those. The third question about coverage of children relative to adults for later research is answered for the U.S. but not from an international perspective. Estimates for more age groups and countries are needed for a definitive assessment. Further research should also mention the impact of measurement error on the estimates of net undercount (apart from the “real” undercounts we often assume the estimates are showing). The different structure of errors across countries could affect the comparisons with the U.S. results (such as the impact of relatively high levels of duplication in the U.S. census that could distort the comparisons with other countries). And some acknowledgement should be given to the methodology used to produce the estimates of each country – is it based on coverage measurement surveys or analytic methods like Demographic Analysis? The paper clearly builds a case that the undercount of young children (age 0–4) is high relative to older children; research will help separate the measurement error of this from the “real” undercount that needs to be explained. A systematic uncovering of patterns in the coverage rates across countries (e.g., the difference of the 0–4/5–9 gap in certain Asian countries with other countries shown in the paper) will help the investigation. Most of my comments are discussion in nature – pointing to further research on the important topic of understanding differential undercounts and the accurate measurements of coverage. Section 2, measuring net undercount – The two methods used in the U.S. (Demographic Analysis and Dual Systems estimates) reveal very different results regarding the net coverage of young children. The methods used for assessing coverage of children in other countries are not documented – later research should indicate the method used to help evaluate the results. Do other countries find different results in cover-

An international perspective on the undercount of young children in the U.S. Census