Share this window Census 2020 Self-Response Rate Analysis
In March 2020 the Hard to Count map was revamped to focus on self-response rates across the country by state, county, local community, and census tract. All the other information that was first included with the HTC map is still there! But the self-response rates are now a higher priority, and the map reflects that.
On March 20, 2020 the Census Bureau began publishing daily self-response rate updates. Using this data, our team at the CUNY Graduate Center will be preparing weekly updates about the latest trends in 2020 Census self-response rates.
Our analyses are available at the following links, and at our Center for Urban Research website.
- Census 2020 Response Rates: Final Overview (as of Oct. 15). Highlighted topics:
- Latest self-response rates at the early end (10/15) of the data collection period;
- Overview of self-response rates throughout the extended timeframe and trends impacting those rates;
- Increase in number of states and other areas meeting or surpassing 2010 goalpost rates;
- Important demographic shifts in tracts with the lowest rates (requiring most door-knocking follow up): fewer people who are Hispanic or immigrants, and fewer renter households. But overall population in "bottom 20%" tracts are still disproportionately people of color, foreign-born, lower income, etc.;
- Response rates by predominant race/Hispanic origin in census tracts across cities by size & rural/suburban/urban areas (including tribal lands); and
- Key takeaways and final thoughts.
- Census 2020 Response Rate Trends During NRFU (as of Sept. 18). Highlighted topics:
- Latest self-response rate trends during the door-knocking operation, including efforts to boost response such as the Census Bureau's "7th mailing;"
- "Total" response rates by state, and what they can and cannot tell us;
- Nonresponse follow-up (NRFU) "completion" rates by Area Census Office, including examples of decreasing completion rates; and
- How we've mapped these rates and displayed them on our online HTC/Response Rate map, and examples of interpreting all three rate metrics together.
- Analysis of Weeks 19 and 20 (July 24 through August 6). Highlighted topics:
- Selected recent local response rate increases in areas of targeted Get Out The Count (GOTC) efforts;
- Self-response in NRFU "soft launch" areas; what it might mean when NRFU begins nationwide (Aug. 11);
- Areas that have met or surpassed their final 2010 response rates, and areas that are behind their 2010 rates and are most at risk of a rushed NRFU operation;
- Bottom 20 percent of tracts by response rate; and
- Wrapping up / taking stock.
- Analysis of Weeks 17 and 18 (July 10 through July 23). Highlighted topics:
- Areas that have met or surpassed their final 2010 response rates;
- Bottom 20 percent of tracts by response rate:
- Demographics, compared with top 20%
- Geographic patterns
- Implications for Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU); and
- Update/Leave areas have improved, but rates still low.
- Analysis of Weeks 14, 15, and 16 (June 19 through July 9). Highlighted topics:
- Modest nationwide response rate increases since June 19 but notable state and local increases;
- Details on states, counties, tracts, etc that have met or surpassed their final 2010 response rates;
- Summary updates on the latest response rate trends for:
- Internet First vs Internet Choice tracts
- Tracts by plurality race/Hispanic origin
- Tracts with lowest response rates nationwide compared with highest rates; and
- CUNY Map updates: NRFU soft launch; new features for online trendline visualization.
- Analysis of Weeks 12 and 13 (June 5 through June 18). Highlighted topics:
- Substantial nationwide and statewide (and in Puerto Rico) response rate increases the weekend of June 12;
- Details about those increases in states & communities where Update/Leave operations resumed as of May 6;
- Notable increases also in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago;
- Internet First vs Internet Choice: rates increasing for tracts that received bilingual mailing;
- Response rates across tracts by plurality race/Hispanic origin; and
- New online trendline visualization and new response rate metric to help support GOTC work during the extended self-response timeframe.
- Analysis of Weeks 10 and 11 (May 22 through June 4). Highlighted topics:
- NYC's response rate continues to outpace U.S. increases;
- The latest response rates in states where Update/Leave operations resumed as of May 6: modest increases;
- Closer look at communities already meeting their final 2010 response rates;
- Update on Internet First vs Internet Choice gap; and
- Update on response rates in plurality “historically undercounted population” census tracts.
- Analysis of Weeks 8 and 9 (May 8 through May 21). Highlighted topics:
- Rates in some cities are outpacing U.S. increases again;
- Restart of Update/Leave Operation: Is it making a difference (yet)?
- What do the lowest responding census tracts ("bottom 20%") look like? and
- Response rates in tracts with a plurality of foreign-born population from selected countries.
- Week 7 analysis (May 1 through May 7). Highlighted topics:
- more evidence of response rate boosts from 4th mailing/related outreach;
- demographics of Internet Choice vs Internet First;
- historically undercounted groups; and
- Update/Leave operations restarting in some states.
- Week 6 analysis (April 24 through April 30). Highlighted topics:
- pace of daily change in rates for internet-only compared with mail/phone;
- Internet Choice, Internet First (4th mailing with paper questionnaire boosting mail response, result most noticeable in Internet First areas, response rates in Internet Choice areas still lagging); and
- demographic trends (rates in areas with concentrations of historically undercounted groups).
- Week 5 analysis (April 17 through April 23). Highlighted topics:
- pace of daily change for internet-only compared with mail/phone;
- city / metropolitan area / suburb / rural trends (two examples: Michigan/Detroit & Texas/Houston);
- demographic trends for tracts with lowest rates; and
- response rate gap between Internet Choice and Internet First tracts.
- Week 4 analysis (April 10 through April 16). Highlighted topics:
- using HTC/Response Rate map to identify uneven response rates locally & regionally;
- new extended census timeframe (and new approach to assessing self-response/nonresponse follow-up implications for historically undercounted populations);
- Update/Leave and internet access; and
- Internet First compared with Internet Choice census tracts.
- Week 3 analysis (April 3 through April 9). Highlighted topics:
- progress in Update/Leave areas (especially response rates on tribal lands);
- response rates in tracts across cities, by size of city; and
- historically undercounted populations.
- Week 2 analysis (March 27 through April 2). Highlighted topics:
- suspension of Update/Leave operation;
- possible relationship with COVID-19 trends;
- Internet First / Internet Choice / bilingual mailings; and
- response rates by demographic characteristics.
- Week 1 analysis (March 20 through March 26). Highlighted topics:
- internet response patterns & Internet First and Internet Choice;
- bilingual mailings; and
- historically undercounted populations.
- Census 2020 Self-Response data
- Census 2020 Self-Response Rates Explained.
Data sources
In order to map hard-to-count tracts and population estimates related to them, we used several data sources starting with data from the U.S. Census Bureau itself:
- The Planning Database, which provides operational variables from the 2010 census for each tract (especially the mail return rates) not found in any other publicly accessible database.
- The American Community Survey (ACS), providing tract-level population estimates for the 2014-2018 period. ACS estimates were downloaded from the Census Bureau's data.census.gov online application. Earlier ACS estimates for the 2013-2017 period had been downloaded from the Census Bureau's American FactFinder application and from the National Historic GIS website via IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota.
The map uses tract boundaries & Congressional and State Legislative district boundaries from the Census Bureau's TIGER databases. The congressional districts correspond to the 116th Congress. The state legislative boundaries initially represented district lines as of 2016, but have been updated to reflect changes since then in North Carolina and Alabama (current as of 2019).
In order to calculate district-level population estimates for people living in HTC tracts, we used the Missouri Census Data Center's "Geographic Correspondence Engine" to assign tracts to districts. If an HTC tract was split across more than one district, we used the Geographic Correspondence Engine to determine which district had the greatest share of the tract's population, and allocated that tract's population entirely to that overlapping district.
For each Congressional district and state legislative district, the Census 2020 HTC application provides the district representative's name and contact information. This is accessed through ProPublica's Congress API & the the Open States API.
back to top Credits
- The Census 2020 HTC map application was developed by the CUNY Mapping Service at the City University of New York's Graduate Center. The Mapping Service, part of the Center for Urban Research, engages with foundations, government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, and other CUNY researchers to use spatial information and analysis techniques to develop and execute applied research projects. The Census 2020 HTC map reprises a similar application developed by CUNY for the 2010 census.
- The Census 2020 HTC mapping effort is coordinated by Steven Romalewski. The Mapping Service's application architect David Burgoon designed, created, & coded the Census 2020 HTC application. Will Field, our senior application developer, is updating & enhancing the site through 2020 and beyond. Simon Liu, a graduate student at Lehman College's Geographic Information Science program, initially analyzed much of the data behind the map. Valerie Bauer, also a Lehman College graduate student, is helping with the data & maps. The Census 2020 HTC website relies on the Graduate Center's server infrastructure and the support of the Graduate Center's information technology team.
- Funding support for the project is provided by the 2020 Census Project (special thanks to the Bauman Foundation).
- The Mapping Service worked closely with The Leadership Conference and census consultants Dr. William O'Hare and Terri Ann Lowenthal, the Georgetown University Law Center on Poverty and Inequality, and other civil rights groups to seek guidance and feedback on the mapping application. Logic Department also provided helpful user interaction feedback and advice.
- The application itself is built using a mix of open source and proprietary tools and technologies including:
- Mapbox, which is providing generous support hosting nationwide tract-level map layers that are featured on the HTC map;
- Esri's ArcGIS software, including map layers hosted via ArcGIS Online;
- Google's places API;
- Leaflet and Esri's Leaflet tools;
- Bootstrap, Vue.js, Lodash, jQuery, and Visual Studio.