Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'survey'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Authors
Viewing papers 1 through 10 of 172
-
Working PaperTip of the Iceberg: How Much Do Tips Bunch at Reporting Thresholds?
June 2026
Working Paper Number:
CES-26-40
We study the importance of bunching in the context of tip-income reporting by workers at full-service, single-unit restaurants in the United States. Using tax reports at both the individual and the employer levels, we show that reported tip income varies with minimum-wage laws that provide an incentive for tipped workers to report some, but not necessarily all, of their tips. As a result, reported tips bunch at the minimum required threshold. We quantify missing tips due to bunching at nearly $63 million per year in 2018 dollars, on average over the period 2005-2018. Bunching is stronger for jobs at small employers and in the earlier part of the time series and declined monotonically from 2010 to 2018. Using restaurant-level revenue data, we also estimate the total value of unreported tips assuming an average tip rate of 12%. We find that tips are missing throughout the distribution. All told, missing tips exceed $4 billion per year, implying that bunching explains only 1.5% of all missing tips.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperExperimental Capture/recapture Estimation Using Census and Administrative Data
June 2026
Working Paper Number:
CES-26-38
This report expands upon the innovation of utilizing administrative records and third-party data implemented in the 2020 Census. The 2020 Census used administrative records and third-party data in address canvassing and nonresponse followup operations. The Census Bureau also has a long history of using administrative records of births, deaths, and other information to produce Demographic Analysis coverage estimates. Since 1980, the Census Bureau has produced capture-recapture coverage estimates by conducting an independent post-enumeration survey and utilizing dual system estimation approaches. This report presents the research results of attempting to see if administrative records and third-party data could be utilized to produce capture-recapture coverage estimates. This work uses an Expectation Maximization Log Linear Modeling approach previously researched by Statistics Netherlands and Statistics New Zealand. This report documents some of the experimental results from an evaluation that was part of the 2020 Census Program for Evaluation, Experiments, and Assessments.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperNon-Random Assignment of Individual Identifiers and Selection into Linked Data: Implications for Research
January 2026
Working Paper Number:
CES-26-06
The U.S. Census Bureau's Person Identification Validation System facilitates anonymous linkages between survey and administrative records by assigning Protected Identification Keys (PIKs) to person records. While PIK assignment is generally accurate, some person records are not successfully assigned a PIK, which can lead to sample selection bias in analyses of linked data. Using the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) between 2005 and 2022, we corroborate and extend existing findings on the drivers of PIK assignment, showing that the rate of PIK assignment varies widely across socio-demographic subgroups. Using earnings as a test case, we then show that limiting a survey sample of wage earners to person records with PIKs or successful linkages to W-2 wage records tends to overestimate self-reported wage earnings, on average, indicative of linkage-induced selection bias. In a validation exercise, we demonstrate that reweighting methods, such as inverse probability weighting or entropy balancing, can mitigate this bias.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperIntegrating Multiple U.S. Census Bureau Data Assets to Create Standardized Profiles of Program Participants
January 2026
Working Paper Number:
CES-26-01
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act) directed federal agencies to systematically use data when making policy decisions. In response, the U.S. Census Bureau established the Evidence Group within its Center for Economic Studies (CES). With an interdisciplinary team of economists, sociologists, and statisticians, the Evidence Group can support the broader federal government in their efforts to use existing data to improve program operations without increasing respondent burden. For federal agencies administering social safety net and business assistance programs in particular, the team provides a no-cost evidence-building service that links program records to Census Bureau data assets and creates a series of standardized tables describing participants, their economic outcomes prior to program entry, and the communities where they live. These tables provide partner agencies with the detailed information they need to better understand their participants and potentially make their programs more accountable and effective in reaching their target populations. In this working paper, we describe the standardized tables themselves as well as the data assets available at the Census Bureau to create these tables, the data files produced by the table production process, and the methodology used to merge and harmonize data on participants and subsequently calculate unbiased and accurate estimates. We conclude with a brief discussion of steps taken to ensure confidentiality and data security. This documentation is intended to facilitate proper use and understanding of the standardized tables by partner agencies as well as researchers who are interested in leveraging these tools to explore characteristics of their samples of interest.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperGifted Identification Across the Distribution of Family Income
December 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-73
Currently, 6.1 percent of K-12 students in the United States receive gifted education. Using education and IRS data that provide information on students and their family income, we show pronounced differences in who schools identify as gifted across the distribution of family income. Under 4 percent of students in the lowest income percentile are identified as gifted, compared with 20 percent of those in the top income percentile. Income-based differences persist after accounting for student test scores and exist across students of different sexes and racial/ethnic groups, underscoring the importance of family resources for gifted identification in schools.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperOptimal Stratified Sampling for Probability-Based Online Panels
September 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-69
Online probability-based panels have emerged as a cost-efficient means of conducting surveys in the 21st century. While there have been various recent advancements in sampling techniques for online panels, several critical aspects of sampling theory for online panels are lacking. Much of current sampling theory from the middle of the 20th century, when response rates were high, and online panels did not exist. This paper presents a mathematical model of stratified sampling for online panels that takes into account historical response rates and survey costs. Through some simplifying assumptions, the model shows that the optimal sample allocation for online panels can largely resemble the solution for a cross-sectional survey. To apply the model, I use the Census Household Panel to show how this method could improve the average precision of key estimates. Holding fielding costs constant, the new sample rates improve the average precision of estimates between 1.47 and 17.25 percent, depending on the importance weight given to an overall population mean compared to mean estimates for racial and ethnic subgroups.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperJob Tasks, Worker Skills, and Productivity
September 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-63
We present new empirical evidence suggesting that we can better understand productivity dispersion across businesses by accounting for differences in how tasks, skills, and occupations are organized. This aligns with growing attention to the task content of production. We link establishment-level data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey with productivity data from the Census Bureau's manufacturing surveys. Our analysis reveals strong relationships between establishment productivity and task, skill, and occupation inputs. These relationships are highly nonlinear and vary by industry. When we account for these patterns, we can explain a substantial share of productivity dispersion across establishments.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperEstimating the Graduate Coverage of Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes
September 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-61
This paper proposes a new methodology for estimating the coverage rate of the Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes data product (PSEO), both as a share of new graduates and as a share of total working-age degree holders in the United States. This paper also assesses how representative PSEO is of the broader population of college graduates across an array of institutional and individual characteristics.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperRevisiting the Unintended Consequences of Ban the Box
August 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-58
Ban-the-Box (BTB) policies intend to help formerly incarcerated individuals find employment by delaying when employers can ask about criminal records. We revisit the finding in Doleac and Hansen (2020) that BTB causes statistical discrimination against minority men. We correct miscoded BTB laws and show that estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS) remain quantitatively similar, while those from the American Community Survey (ACS) now fail to reject the null hypothesis of no effect of BTB on employment. In contrast to the published estimates, these ACS results are statistically significantly different from the CPS results, indicating a lack of robustness across datasets. We do not find evidence that these differences are due to sample composition or survey weights. There is limited evidence that these divergent results are explained by the different frequencies of these surveys. Differences in sample sizes may also lead to different estimates; the ACS has a much larger sample and more statistical power to detect effects near the corrected CPS estimates.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperA Simulated Reconstruction and Reidentification Attack on the 2010 U.S. Census
August 2025
Working Paper Number:
CES-25-57
For the last half-century, it has been a common and accepted practice for statistical agencies, including the United States Census Bureau, to adopt different strategies to protect the confidentiality of aggregate tabular data products from those used to protect the individual records contained in publicly released microdata products. This strategy was premised on the assumption that the aggregation used to generate tabular data products made the resulting statistics inherently less disclosive than the microdata from which they were tabulated. Consistent with this common assumption, the 2010 Census of Population and Housing in the U.S. used different disclosure limitation rules for its tabular and microdata publications. This paper demonstrates that, in the context of disclosure limitation for the 2010 Census, the assumption that tabular data are inherently less disclosive than their underlying microdata is fundamentally flawed. The 2010 Census published more than 150 billion aggregate statistics in 180 table sets. Most of these tables were published at the most detailed geographic level'individual census blocks, which can have populations as small as one person. Using only 34 of the published table sets, we reconstructed microdata records including five variables (census block, sex, age, race, and ethnicity) from the confidential 2010 Census person records. Using only published data, an attacker using our methods can verify that all records in 70% of all census blocks (97 million people) are perfectly reconstructed. We further confirm, through reidentification studies, that an attacker can, within census blocks with perfect reconstruction accuracy, correctly infer the actual census response on race and ethnicity for 3.4 million vulnerable population uniques (persons with race and ethnicity different from the modal person on the census block) with 95% accuracy. Having shown the vulnerabilities inherent to the disclosure limitation methods used for the 2010 Census, we proceed to demonstrate that the more robust disclosure limitation framework used for the 2020 Census publications defends against attacks that are based on reconstruction. Finally, we show that available alternatives to the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System would either fail to protect confidentiality, or would overly degrade the statistics' utility for the primary statutory use case: redrawing the boundaries of all of the nation's legislative and voting districts in compliance with the 1965 Voting Rights Act.View Full Paper PDF
