CREAT: Census Research Exploration and Analysis Tool

Papers Containing Keywords(s): 'respondent'

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.
Click here to search again

Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search

Current Population Survey - 61

American Community Survey - 58

Internal Revenue Service - 57

Social Security Administration - 51

Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board - 45

Protected Identification Key - 43

Survey of Income and Program Participation - 40

Social Security Number - 37

Social Security - 37

Center for Economic Studies - 36

Bureau of Labor Statistics - 30

2010 Census - 30

Person Validation System - 28

Decennial Census - 25

National Science Foundation - 25

Master Address File - 24

Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics - 22

Cornell University - 22

Employer Identification Numbers - 21

Disclosure Review Board - 21

Personally Identifiable Information - 21

Business Register - 20

Service Annual Survey - 20

Person Identification Validation System - 19

North American Industry Classification System - 19

Research Data Center - 19

Federal Statistical Research Data Center - 18

Department of Housing and Urban Development - 17

Office of Management and Budget - 16

Computer Assisted Personal Interview - 16

Census Bureau Business Register - 15

Administrative Records - 15

Longitudinal Business Database - 14

Housing and Urban Development - 14

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages - 12

Annual Survey of Manufactures - 12

Metropolitan Statistical Area - 12

Some Other Race - 12

Postal Service - 12

MAFID - 11

Health and Retirement Study - 11

Ordinary Least Squares - 11

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - 11

Standard Industrial Classification - 11

Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers - 10

Economic Census - 10

Quarterly Workforce Indicators - 10

Detailed Earnings Records - 10

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality - 10

W-2 - 9

Social and Economic Supplement - 9

Unemployment Insurance - 9

National Opinion Research Center - 9

1940 Census - 9

Census Edited File - 9

ASEC - 9

Medicaid Services - 9

Census Bureau Master Address File - 9

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - 9

Standard Statistical Establishment List - 9

SSA Numident - 8

CPS ASEC - 8

Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews and Computer Assisted Personal Interviews - 8

Census of Manufactures - 8

National Center for Health Statistics - 8

American Housing Survey - 8

Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research - 8

Indian Health Service - 8

Bureau of Economic Analysis - 8

Department of Health and Human Services - 8

Alfred P Sloan Foundation - 8

National Academy of Sciences - 7

PIKed - 7

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth - 7

LEHD Program - 7

Centers for Medicare - 7

Census Numident - 7

Census Bureau Person Identification Validation System - 7

Master Beneficiary Record - 7

Census Household Composition Key - 7

Public Use Micro Sample - 7

CATI - 7

Longitudinal Research Database - 7

Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications - 7

Special Sworn Status - 7

Local Employment Dynamics - 6

MAF-ARF - 6

Citizenship and Immigration Services - 6

Department of Economics - 6

Disability Insurance - 6

Social Science Research Institute - 6

Indian Housing Information Center - 6

Statistics Canada - 6

Medical Expenditure Panel Survey - 6

National Health Interview Survey - 6

National Bureau of Economic Research - 6

Sloan Foundation - 6

Chicago Census Research Data Center - 6

Securities and Exchange Commission - 6

Total Factor Productivity - 5

Department of Labor - 5

Department of Education - 5

NUMIDENT - 5

General Accounting Office - 5

Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Industries - 5

Business Dynamics Statistics - 5

Adjusted Gross Income - 5

University of Chicago - 5

University of Michigan - 5

American Statistical Association - 5

Federal Reserve Bank - 5

Census 2000 - 5

Permanent Plant Number - 5

Annual Business Survey - 4

Individual Characteristics File - 4

United States Census Bureau - 4

County Business Patterns - 4

Office of Personnel Management - 4

Federal Insurance Contribution Act - 4

Characteristics of Business Owners - 4

Management and Organizational Practices Survey - 4

COVID - 4

Earned Income Tax Credit - 4

Data Management System - 4

Master Earnings File - 4

American Economic Association - 4

National Institute on Aging - 4

Survey of Business Owners - 4

Kauffman Foundation - 4

Federal Tax Information - 4

Journal of Economic Literature - 4

PSID - 4

COVID-19 - 3

Bureau of Labor - 3

Employment History File - 3

Occupational Employment Statistics - 3

Department of Homeland Security - 3

General Education Development - 3

Company Organization Survey - 3

Composite Person Record - 3

Accommodation and Food Services - 3

Department of Agriculture - 3

Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement - 3

Consumer Expenditure Survey - 3

Core Based Statistical Area - 3

Customs and Border Protection - 3

Department of Justice - 3

Michigan Institute for Teaching and Research in Economics - 3

University of Minnesota - 3

Center for Administrative Records Research - 3

Urban Institute - 3

Geographic Information Systems - 3

National Institutes of Health - 3

Small Business Administration - 3

Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies - 3

Probability Density Function - 3

Census Bureau Longitudinal Business Database - 3

Georgetown University - 3

Duke University - 3

Minnesota Population Center - 3

Census of Manufacturing Firms - 3

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development - 3

Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures - 3

survey - 92

population - 55

census bureau - 46

data - 44

statistical - 40

data census - 33

census data - 33

agency - 27

estimating - 26

report - 24

imputation - 23

use census - 22

microdata - 22

datasets - 21

record - 21

census survey - 20

earnings - 19

hispanic - 18

irs - 17

coverage - 17

resident - 17

sampling - 16

statistician - 16

employed - 16

ethnicity - 16

census responses - 16

analysis - 15

survey income - 15

citizen - 15

census research - 15

household surveys - 14

federal - 14

assessed - 14

2010 census - 14

survey data - 14

sample - 13

research census - 13

medicaid - 13

study - 12

research - 12

expenditure - 12

percentile - 12

minority - 12

insurance - 12

enrollment - 12

1040 - 12

economist - 11

researcher - 11

census employment - 11

assessing - 11

payroll - 11

workforce - 11

ssa - 11

tax - 11

income data - 11

earner - 10

employ - 10

economic census - 10

estimation - 10

population survey - 10

poverty - 10

disclosure - 10

census records - 10

confidentiality - 10

race - 9

average - 9

aggregate - 9

censuses surveys - 9

prevalence - 9

survey households - 9

information - 9

filing - 9

income survey - 9

privacy - 9

socioeconomic - 8

revenue - 8

ethnic - 8

salary - 8

taxpayer - 8

linked census - 8

immigrant - 8

surveys censuses - 8

race census - 8

firms census - 8

bias - 7

matching - 7

yearly - 7

individuals census - 7

trend - 7

quarterly - 7

labor - 7

disadvantaged - 7

disparity - 7

work census - 7

provided census - 7

estimator - 7

sector - 7

residential - 7

residence - 7

census linked - 7

immigration - 7

public - 7

census use - 7

longitudinal - 7

department - 6

census disclosure - 6

employment data - 6

employee data - 6

census 2020 - 6

racial - 6

enrolled - 6

census household - 6

unemployed - 6

records census - 6

employee - 6

econometric - 6

recession - 6

reporting - 6

healthcare - 6

database - 6

linkage - 5

manufacturing - 5

information census - 5

employment statistics - 5

latino - 5

eligibility - 5

disability - 5

eligible - 5

income individuals - 5

family - 5

income households - 5

census years - 5

citizenship - 5

state - 5

statistical disclosure - 5

housing - 5

discrepancy - 5

neighborhood - 5

ancestry - 5

medicare - 5

enrollee - 5

statistical agencies - 5

earn - 5

imputation model - 4

labor statistics - 4

employed census - 4

propensity - 4

household income - 4

environmental - 4

social - 4

migration - 4

publicly - 4

welfare - 4

metropolitan - 4

worker - 4

establishment - 4

business data - 4

native - 4

insurance coverage - 4

white - 4

health insurance - 4

aging - 4

gdp - 4

paper census - 3

occupation - 3

residing - 3

retirement - 3

agriculture - 3

dependent - 3

pandemic - 3

associate - 3

migrant - 3

unobserved - 3

empirical - 3

home - 3

housing survey - 3

census business - 3

policymakers - 3

estimates employment - 3

sale - 3

uninsured - 3

inference - 3

company - 3

analyst - 3

insured - 3

matched - 3

census file - 3

workplace - 3

income year - 3

manufacturer - 3

Viewing papers 1 through 10 of 121


  • Working Paper

    Non-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 Paper

    Integrating 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 Paper

    Optimal 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 Paper

    Manufacturing Dispersion: How Data Cleaning Choices Affect Measured Misallocation and Productivity Growth in the Annual Survey of Manufactures

    September 2025

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-25-67

    Measurement of dispersion of productivity levels and productivity growth rates across businesses is a key input for answering a variety of important economic questions, such as understanding the allocation of economic inputs across businesses and over time. While item nonresponse is a readily quantifiable issue, we show there is also misreporting by respondents in the Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM). Aware of these measurement issues, the Census Bureau edits and imputes survey responses before tabulation and dissemination. However, edit and imputation methods that are suitable for publishing aggregate totals may not be suitable for estimating other measures from the microdata. We show that the methods used dramatically affect estimates of productivity dispersion, allocative efficiency, and aggregate productivity growth. Using a Bayesian approach for editing and imputation, we model the joint distributions of all variables needed to estimate these measures, and we quantify the degree of uncertainty in the estimates due to imputations for faulty or missing data.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    Job 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 Paper

    Estimating the Graduate Coverage of Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes

    September 2025

    Authors: Cody Orr

    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 Paper

    Revisiting 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 Paper

    A 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
  • Working Paper

    Education and Mortality: Evidence for the Silent Generation from Linked Census and Administrative Data

    August 2025

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-25-56

    We quantify the effect of education on mortality using a linkage of the full count 1940, 2000, and 2010 US census files and the Numident death records file. Our sample is composed of children aged 0-18 in 1940, observed living with at least one parent, for whom we can construct a rich set of parental and neighborhood characteristics. We estimate effects of educational attainment in 1940 on survival to 2000, as well as the effects of completed education, observed in 2000, on 10-year survival to 2010. The educational gradients in longevity that we estimate are robust to the inclusion of detailed individual, parental, household, neighborhood and county covariates. Given our full population census sample, we also explore rich patterns of heterogeneity and examine the effect of mediators of the education-mortality relationship. The mediators we consider in this study explain more than half of the relationship between education and mortality. We further show that the mechanisms underlying the education-mortality gradient might be different at different margins of educational attainment.
    View Full Paper PDF
  • Working Paper

    LODES Design and Methodology Report: Methodology Version 7

    August 2025

    Working Paper Number:

    CES-25-52

    The purpose of this report is to document the important features of Version 7 of the LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) processing system. This includes data sources, data processing methodology, confidentiality protection methodology, some quality measures, and a high-level description of the published data. The intended audience for this document includes LODES data users, Local Employment Dynamics (LED) Partnership members, U.S. Census Bureau management, program quality auditors, and current and future research and development staff members.
    View Full Paper PDF