Mapping “Self-Response” fora Fair and Accurate Census

1

Steven RomalewskiCenter for Urban Research at the Graduate Center,

City University of New York (CUNY)

2020 Census Week 8 / 9 Self-Response Analysis(through May 21)

Presented on May 22, 2020

2

• Households that have self-responded as a share (percent) of all known housing units (addresses on the Master Address File) for a geographic area − occupied, vacant, or nonexistent − in the mail-out and Update/Leave universes.

• Responses can be on-line, by telephone (Census Questionnaire Assistance), or using a paper questionnaire.

• Self-response universe does NOT include: group quarters, transitory locations, military/maritime vessels.

• Rates do not represent percent of people who responded!

Reminder: what self-response is, and isn’t

3

OVERALL TRENDS

• 59.8% nationwide rate as of Thurs., May 21

• Only 2.1 percentage point increase over the last 2 weeks (since May 7) compared w/prior increases of 2 points per week

• At this slower rate of increase, U.S. won’t reach 2010 self-response rate of 66.5% until July

(Reminder: this week’s analysis & earlier weeks is available at www.gc.cuny.edu/CUR-research-initiatives )

Weeks 8 / 9: self-response rates through May 21

2020 state-by-state response trends thru May 21

compared with U.S. rate of increase in 2010*

*NB: Keep in mind differences in census operations b/w 2010 & 2020 when viewing graph.

5

States ranked by May 21 response ratesTop 5Minnesota 69.8%Wisconsin 67.2%Iowa 66.7%Michigan 66.5%

U.S. 2010 66.5%Nebraska 66.3%

Bottom 5Maine 50.1%Wyoming 49.9%West Virginia 47.4%New Mexico 47.3%Alaska 40.5%Puerto Rico 8.5%

Rates in some cities beginning to outpace U.S. increases again Increases are modest, but increases nonetheless!

Philly

See Weekly Report on 2020 Census Self-Response (Rates Issued on May 14) by NYC Dept of City Planning / Population Division for more details about New York City’s recent increases.

SanAntonio

Phoenix

NYC(smallest

initialincrease)

NYC(largest

increases in Weeks 8/9)

7

• The latest response rates in states where Update/Leave operations have resumed

• Census tracts with the lowest response rates nationwide Compared to areas with the highest rates and areas that

have already surpassed their final 2010 rates

• Exploration of response rates in tracts with a plurality of foreign-born population from selected countries

Key areas of concern analyzed for Weeks 8 / 9

8

Restart of Update/Leave (U/L) Operation:Is it making a difference (yet)?

On May 6, the Census Bureau began a phased restart of U/L, hand-delivering census packets to households in some rural and remote areas, all of Puerto Rico, and on many Tribal lands as state, local, and Tribal health conditions and restrictions permit. The bureau is announcing weekly where operations will resume the following Wednesday; visit the Census Bureau’s website each Friday afternoon for updates.(Direct link: https://2020census.gov/content/dam/2020census/news/acos-reopen.pdf)

Where U/L operations are restarting

Map based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau:https://2020census.gov/content/dam/2020census/news/acos-reopen.pdf

10

• Examine rates in tracts with a majority of housing units covered by Update/Leave, compared with rates in tracts where a majority of units received census packets by mail

• Tracts in 13 states where U/L resumed starting May 6: compare rates on May 6 with rates two weeks later (May 20)

• Tracts in 9 states where U/L resumed starting May 13: compare rates on May 13 with rates one week later (May 20)

U/L response rate change analysis

11

• Tracts with a majority of housing units that received census packets by mail had greater overall rate increases than Update/Leave tracts: “Mail-out” tracts in most states had greater 2-week

increases than U.S. 2-week increase Tracts in some states had greater increases for internet

response; others had greater increases for mail response

• Majority U/L tracts tended to have greater increases for internet response than mail response.

Analysis of response rate changes:States in “Week 1” group (resumed 5/6/20)

12

Response rate changes in Week 1 states

13

• Consistent with the general slower pace of response rate increases this week, the overall changes in these states are relatively small. “Mail-out” tracts had slightly larger increases.

• In majority U/L tracts, the internet mode of response tends to have greater increases than mail/phone.

• In majority Mail-out tracts, the increases are about the same for each mode.

Analysis of response rate changes:States in “Week 2” group (resumed 5/13/20)

14

Response rate changes in Week 2 states

15

Tracts with the lowest & highest response rates• What do we know about their populations?

“Goalpost” 2010 response rates• Which communities have already met their final 2010 rates?

16

Population characteristics for these tracts: similar patterns compared to recent weeks

• Estimated 50.5 million people in these tracts • Population in poverty: 12.5 million people (26% of

population in bottom 20% of tracts)• Language challenges: 1.7 million LEP households (9.2%)• Non-Hispanic White population: 18.7 million (37.1%)• Non-Hispanic Black population: 12.7 million (25.1%)• Hispanic population: 15.1 million (30%)• Households with no internet: 4.4 million (24.1%)

(Omits tracts with 10% or more units in Update/Leave or fewer than 100 residents.)

On May 21, tracts with response in lowest fifth had rates less than 50.4%

17

On May 21, tracts with response rates in highest fifth had rates of 73.3% or more

• Estimated 67 million people in these tracts (33% more than bottom 20%)

• Poverty: 3.8 million people (8.8 million fewer than bottom 20)• Language challenges: 468K Limited English Proficiency

households (72% fewer than the bottom 20%)• Non-Hispanic White population: 52.5 million (more than 2.8x

as many as in bottom 20%)• Non-Hispanic Black population: 2.9 million (77% fewer)• Hispanic population: 5.1 million (67% fewer)• Households with no internet: 2.1 million (half as many) • Foreign-born population: 6.8 million (31% fewer)

Top 20% of tracts compared with bottom 20%

18

One congressional district Michigan 9th district (just north of Detroit)

136 counties 31 in Kentucky 25 in Virginia 3 in West Virginia; 1 in New Mexico

~2,300 cities/incorporated places Over 100 each in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, N. Carolina,

Ohio, Pennsylvania, & Wisconsin

~9,300 census tracts 11% of all tracts nationwide At least one in every state plus DC

Communities that have already surpassed final 2010 rates

37 Tribal lands Some have doubled

their 2010 rate

19

Race/Hispanic origin and nativity

Review from Week 7 written report

Tracts whose population is predominantly foreign-borntend to have lower response rates than tracts that are predominantly native-born for each racial group and by Hispanic origin.• Pattern also holds for tracts that are predominantly foreign-

born non-Hispanic White compared with native-born White.

Lowest average response rates across tracts whose population is predominantly foreign-born people of color are in the largest cities (>1 million population).

20

Race/Hispanic origin and nativity

New analysis by place of birth of the foreign-born population

Examine response rates for tracts with a plurality of foreign-born population from selected countries. These include:

• Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico

• Ethiopia, Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria

• China, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam

21

Response rates for tracts whose foreign-born populations are predominantly from Cuba, Dominican Rep., El Salvador, Mexico

• Rates in tracts in largest cities tend to be lowest (of all place sizes shown)

• Rates across cities of all sizes for tracts with foreign-born pluralities of people from Dominican Republic are lower than U.S. rates

• Higher rates outside cities/incorporated places, and even in small cities, for tracts w/foreign-born plurality of people from Cuba, El Salvador, Mexico

22

Response rates for tracts whose foreign-born populations are predominantly from Ethiopia, Haiti, Jamaica, Nigeria

• Rates in tracts in largest cities tend to be lowest (of all place sizes shown)

• Higher rates outside cities/incorporated places, and even in small/medium cities, for tracts w/foreign-born plurality of people from Ethiopia & Nigeria

• Rates across cities of all sizes for tracts with foreign-born pluralities of people from Jamaica and Haiti are lower than U.S. rates

23

Response rates for tracts whose foreign-born populations are predominantly from China, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam

• Rates in the largest cities tend to be lowest for tracts with foreign-born pluralities of people from China and Korea (but not Philippines or Vietnam)

• Rates across cities of all sizes for tracts with foreign-born pluralities of people from Vietnam or the Philippines are higher than U.S. rates

• Higher rates outside cities/incorporated places, and even in small/medium cities, for tracts w/foreign-born plurality of people from all 4 countries

Contact for questions, additional information:

24

www.CensusHardtoCountMaps2020.us

Steven RomalewskiCenter for Urban Research at the

Graduate Center, CUNY212-817-2033sromalewski@gc.cuny.edu