2010 and 2011 - Census Bureau

More documents

Recommendations

Info

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 3. Response Rates Lower in Tracts With Large Hispanic Shares Participation rate (percent) 100 Less than 5 percent Hispanic Note: Rates as of 3/22/2010 and 3/20/2000. Source: Authors’ calculations. rates for tracts with relatively low Hispanic concentration (less than 5 percent); while the right-most pair of boxes shows response rates for tracts with relatively high Hispanic concentration (more than 20 percent). The plot illustrates that participation rates were lower in tracts in which Hispanics were a larger share of residents, and that pattern was more marked in 2010 than in 2000. Advertising was one of the main tools available to spur mail returns during the mailout/ 5–20 percent Hispanic mailback period. Our analysis of response patterns by demographic groups was used as an input into decisions regarding how to target advertising in this phase. Differences across groups and by geographic areas helped identify markets with a high share of nonresponding households. The communications team then used this information in making decisions about local and national advertising and advertising directed to target populations. 2010 2000 20 percent or more Hispanic Another use of our analysis was to give early feedback on the success of changes in procedures introduced in 2010 to increase response rates. One such change was mailing a second round of forms midway through the mailout/mailback phase. While the distribution of forms was not based on an experimental design, we could examine if the growth rate of responses differed for tracts that received the treatment versus those that did not. 16 Research at the Center for Economic Studies and the Research Data Centers: 2010–2011 U.S. Census Bureau
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Figure 4. Participation Rates Improve After Replacement Mailings Percent 0 Mar 12 Mar 19 Mar 26 Apr 02 Apr 09 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 30 Notes: Includes only mailout/mailback tracts. 2000 tracts categorized based on 2010 treatment. Source: Authors’ calculations. The second round mailings were done two ways: blanket mailings in which all households in an area received a second form, and targeted mailings in which only nonresponding households received a second form. As part of the blanket mailings, forms were sent out on April 1–3 to all of the 25 million households living in areas with 2000 response rates below 59 percent. In the targeted mailing operation, replacement forms were sent out on April 6–10 to approximately 15 million nonrespondent households in areas with 2000 response rates in the 59 to 67 percent range. The second round forms were tallied separately from the original forms during check-in, so we were able to identify when the replacement mailing began to affect total check-ins. In “blanketed areas,” replacement forms first appeared among checkedin forms on April 4th, while in “targeted areas” they first appeared in April 12th checkins. Figure 4 plots participation rates for tracts in three categories: blanketed tracts, targeted tracts, and tracts not included in replacement mailing. Note that there was no replacement mailing in 2000—the 2000 lines simply give the response rate for 2000 2010 2010 2000 2010 2000 the sets of tracts based on their treatment in 2010. The vertical lines mark the dates when replacement forms began to be checked in. The graph does not provide a definitive answer on the effectiveness of these mailings—but the steeper slope in returns among blanketed and targeted tracts that appears shortly after the replacement forms arrived suggests that the second round of mailings may have helped increase response rates. U.S. Census Bureau Research at the Center for Economic Studies and the Research Data Centers: 2010–2011 17 None Target Blanket
Page 1 and 2: Center for Economic Studies and Res
Page 3 and 4: Center for Economic Studies and Res
Page 5: Contents A Message From the Chief E
Page 8 and 9: A MessAge FroM tHe cHieF econoMist
Page 10 and 11: new web site The new CES Web site w
Page 12 and 13: ontHeMAp wins doc gold MedAl And di
Page 14 and 15: The CES Decennial Analysis Team hel
Page 16 and 17: sAng nguyen retires Sang Nguyen her
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 2. real-time Analysis infor
Page 21: Figure 2. Less Variation in 2010 Pa
Page 25 and 26: Figure 6. Productivity Varies Widel
Page 27: Figure 8. Enumeration Reduces Respo
Page 30 and 31: Table 1. Model vAriAbles: descripti
Page 32 and 33: interactions of various business ch
Page 34 and 35: eFerences Petroni, R., R. Sigman, D
Page 36 and 37: Text Box A-1-1. wHAt is A census re
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 2. center For econoMic stu
Page 41 and 42: Campbell, Benjamin A., Martin Ganco
Page 43 and 44: Hipp, John R. 2010. “Resident Per
Page 45 and 46: Woodcock, Simon D. 2010. “Heterog
Page 47 and 48: Cooper, Russell, John Haltiwanger,
Page 49 and 50: Isenberg, Emily Pas. 2010. “The E
Page 51: Saldanha, Terence J., Nigel P. Melv
Page 54 and 55: geogrApHic deregulAtion oF u.s. bAn
Page 56 and 57: MeAsuring outcoMes FroM pollution A
Page 58 and 59: coMMunity HAzArd MitigAtion And tHe
Page 60 and 61: tHe power oF tHe pill in sHAping u.
Page 63 and 64: Appendix 3-B. AbstrActs oF proJects
Page 65 and 66: tHe role oF MAcroeconoMic condition
Page 67 and 68: eFFects oF clinicAl depression on l
Page 69 and 70: tHe sHort- And long-terM eFFects oF
Page 71 and 72: tHe eFFects oF tHe Food stAMp progr
Page 73:
does tHe neigHborHood Food environM
Page 76 and 77:
10-24 “Past Experience and Future
Page 78 and 79:
11-30 “Job Displacement and the D
Page 80 and 81:
data product description Census of
Page 82 and 83:
data product description Manufactur
Page 84 and 85:
Table A-5.2. HouseHold dAtA 1 data
Page 86 and 87:
data product description Quarterly
Page 88 and 89:
triangle census rdc (duke and rti)
Page 90 and 91:
California Steve Saxton, Chief Labo
Page 92 and 93:
Puerto Rico Elda Ivelisse Pares, Di
Page 94 and 95:
Kristin Sandusky Economist Liliana
show all

2010 and 2011 - Census Bureau

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?