May 22, 2012 DSSD 2010 CENSUS COVERAGE MEASUREMENT MEMORANDUM SERIES #2010-G-04 MEMORANDUM FOR David C. Whitford Chief, Decennial Statistical Studies Division From: Patrick J. Cantwell (Signed) Assistant Division Chief, Sampling and Estimation Decennial Statistical Studies Division Prepared by: Andrew Keller Tyler Fox Estimation Branch Decennial Statistical Studies Division Subject: 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Components of Census Coverage for the Household Population in the United States This report is one of twelve documents providing estimation results from the 2010 Census Coverage Measurement program. This report provides estimates of components of census coverage for the household population in the United States. Any comments or questions should be directed to Andrew Keller on (301) 763-9308 or Tyler Fox on (301) 763-6667. Attachments cc: DSSD CCM Contacts List Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report Components of Census Coverage for the Household Population in the United States Prepared by Andrew Keller Tyler Fox Decennial Statistical Studies Division Table of Contents Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................2 2. Methods....................................................................................................................................2 3. 4. 2.1 Estimates of Correct Enumerations .................................................................................2 2.2 Estimates of Erroneous Enumerations .............................................................................3 2.3 Tabulations of Whole-Person Census Imputations ..........................................................4 2.4 Estimates of Omissions ....................................................................................................5 2.5 Net Coverage Estimates ...................................................................................................5 2.6 Statistical Testing .............................................................................................................5 Limitations ...............................................................................................................................6 3.1 Measures of Uncertainty Accounting for Sampling and Synthetic Error ........................6 3.2 Other Sources of Nonsampling Error ..............................................................................6 3.3 Omissions.........................................................................................................................6 Results for the Household Population......................................................................................7 4.1 National Estimates of Components of Census Coverage ................................................7 4.2 Component Estimates by Demographic Characteristics ..................................................8 4.3 Component Estimates for States, Counties, and Places .................................................12 4.4 Component Estimates by Census Regions .....................................................................14 4.5 Component Estimates by Census Operational Areas.....................................................14 4.6 Component Estimates by Census Operational Outcomes ..............................................19 References ......................................................................................................................................32 Attachment A: Component Results of Counties and Places ≥ 500,000 People ...........................33 Attachment B: Measures of Uncertainty Tables for States, Counties, and Places ......................41 i Executive Summary The Census Coverage Measurement produced the components of census coverage that include erroneous enumerations and omissions. This document provides the components of census coverage for persons in housing units. The Census Coverage Measurement estimated that the household population was 300.67 million people. The Census Coverage Measurement also produced four components of census coverage: correct enumerations, erroneous enumerations, whole-person imputations, and omissions. The correct enumeration estimate was 284.67 million people. The erroneous enumeration estimate was 10.04 million people, with 8.52 million coming from duplication and 1.52 million coming from other reasons. The tally of whole-person census imputations was 5.99 million. The Census Coverage Measurement estimated that 16.00 million people were omitted from the census. Omissions are people who should have been enumerated in the United States, but were not. Many of these people may have been accounted for by the 5.99 million whole-person census imputations. 1 1. Introduction The 2010 Census Coverage Measurement (CCM) program evaluated coverage of the 2010 Census to aid in improving future censuses. The CCM measured the net coverage and components of census coverage of housing units and persons, excluding group quarters and persons residing in group quarters. The CCM sample design was a probability sample of 170,000 housing units. Remote areas of Alaska were out of scope for the CCM. This report provides the 2010 components of census coverage that include estimates of correct enumerations, erroneous enumerations, and omissions for the national household population. Coverage component estimates for persons are provided for major demographic groups, census operational areas, states, large counties, and large places. As this is the first effort to provide detailed component estimates, this report does not provide any data from earlier censuses. Additional reports that provide measures of census coverage include estimates of net coverage for the household population (Davis and Mulligan 2012), estimates of net coverage for housing units (Olson and Viehdorfer 2012), and estimates of components of census coverage for housing units (Keller and Fox 2012b). 2. Methods The general estimation approach for components of census coverage for persons fell into four categories: estimates of correct enumerations estimates of erroneous enumerations tabulations of whole-person census imputations estimates of omissions 2.1 Estimates of Correct Enumerations In the CCM, we evaluated a sample of data-defined1 enumerations in the census to determine if they were correct enumerations. For a person to be a correct enumeration for our component estimation, the first requirement was that the census person record should have been enumerated in a housing unit in the census. If a person was determined to have been included in the census two or more times, the CCM had procedures to determine which enumeration was correct based on the Person Interview and Person Followup information. The other enumerations were classified as erroneous enumerations. Another requirement was geographic correctness. An enumeration was considered to be correct if the record was enumerated in the appropriate geographic area. Since we produced national, state, county, and place estimates, the definition of the correct geographic area changed depending on the area being evaluated. 1 A data-defined enumeration in the census had two reported characteristics, one of which can be name. 2 For national-level estimates, the geographic requirement for the enumeration to be considered correct was that the record corresponded to a person that should have been included anywhere in the United States in the coverage universe (that is, in a housing unit outside of Remote Alaska areas). This criterion applied to the estimates of the total population and other domains, like demographic characteristics and census operational areas. For state, county, and place estimates, the definition narrowed to require that the person should have been enumerated in that particular area. This definition of correct enumeration for components of census coverage was different from the definition of correct enumeration used for estimating net coverage. The definition for net error was stricter, as it applied additional criteria to minimize the bias in our dual system estimates (DSEs). For net estimation, the record must have (1) had sufficient identification information, that is, a valid name and two other characteristics, and (2) been enumerated in the specific geographic area referred to as the block cluster search area2. For component estimation, we used a different definition that was more suitable for national, state, county, and place estimates. In addition to generating estimates of levels of correct enumerations, the CCM produced percentages as well. For correct enumeration percentages, the denominator was the census count. 2.2 Estimates of Erroneous Enumerations For component estimation, we also estimated the number of erroneous enumerations. When examining the reasons that a case was erroneous, we report the results for three categories: persons that should not have been enumerated at all (“Other Reasons”) erroneous enumerations due to duplication enumerations included in the wrong location There were several types of erroneous enumerations combined into the first category of “Other Reasons.” Some of these included persons who should have been enumerated in a group quarters, who were born after Census Day or who died before Census Day, and fictitious enumerations. The second group was erroneous enumerations due to duplication. A person enumerated two or more times in the census for whom at least one of those enumerations was in a housing unit fell into this category. For the situation where the person was enumerated correctly in a group quarters and enumerated erroneously in a housing unit, the person enumeration in the housing unit was an erroneous enumeration due to duplication. The third category of erroneous enumerations, those included in the wrong location, by definition does not exist for national estimates such as total population or race groups. That is, 2 The block cluster search area is the block cluster and the one ring of surrounding census blocks. A block cluster is one or more contiguous blocks, and averages 30 housing units. 3 any person was a correct enumeration if the person should have been counted in a housing unit and was counted in a housing unit anywhere in the United States. For state, county, and place estimates, the CCM narrowed the geographic criterion of where the person should have been counted to determine whether the person was treated as erroneous or correct based on the appropriate geographic area of interest. 2.3 Tabulations of Whole-Person Census Imputations We tallied the number of whole-person census imputations. All of the characteristics were imputed for these census person records. The CCM program was not in a position to assess whether an individual whole-person census imputation was correct or erroneous because, in large part, there was no practical way to follow up on records for which all information was imputed. Therefore, this report provides the count of whole-person imputations. Table A provides the five types of imputation cases included in the count. In addition to tallying the number of whole-person census imputations, the CCM produced percentages as well. For these percentages, the denominator was the census count. Table A. Whole-Person Census Imputation Categories Count Imputation 1. Status Imputation - No information about the housing unit; housing unit imputed as occupied, vacant, or non-existent. Those imputed as nonexistent were removed from the census files. 2. Occupancy Imputation - Existence of housing unit confirmed, but no information as to occupancy status; imputed as occupied or vacant. 3. Household Size Imputation - Occupied status confirmed, but no information as to household count; the household population count was imputed. Population Count Already Known for the Housing Unit 4. Whole Household - Population count known; all characteristics imputed for the entire household. 5. Partial Household - Population count known; all characteristics imputed for some, but not all, persons in the household. Note: Any housing unit imputed as occupied during count imputation also had its household population count imputed, which resulted in whole-person census imputations. 4 2.4 Estimates of Omissions We estimated the total number of omissions in the census as well. A direct estimation method for the number of omissions is not available. In the past, different definitions and estimators of omissions were used. The CCM estimated the number of omissions by subtracting the estimate of correct enumerations from the DSE. As whole-person census imputations are a separate category from correct enumerations and erroneous enumerations, our definition of omissions effectively treats these imputations as omissions. In effect, omissions are people who should have been enumerated in the United States, but were not. Many of these people may have been accounted for in the whole-person census imputations. We believe that most of the imputed people may have been verified as correct if we could have collected a valid name and sufficient characteristics. In addition to levels, the CCM reports omissions as a percentage of the estimated population. Omission Percentage 2.5 Omissions DSE 100 Net Coverage Estimates In addition to reporting component estimates, we also show results of net coverage estimation, specifically percent net undercount. The percent net undercount is the net undercount estimate (DSE - Census Count) divided by the DSE expressed as a percentage. A positive percent indicates a net undercount and a negative percent indicates a net overcount. Percent Net Undercount 2.6 DSE Census DSE 100 Statistical Testing Statements of comparison in this report are statistically significant at the 90% confidence level (α = 0.10) using a two-sided test. “Statistically significant” means that the difference is not likely due to random chance alone. In the tables, percent net undercount estimates that are significantly different from zero are identified by an asterisk (*). 5 3. Limitations In this section, we provide statements about the data that are worth noting when reading this document. 3.1. Measures of Uncertainty Accounting for Sampling and Synthetic Error Because the CCM estimates are based on a sample survey, they are subject to sampling error. As a result, the sample estimates differ from what would have been obtained if all housing units had been included in the survey. The standard errors provided with the data reflect variation due to sampling. For the component estimation of correct and erroneous enumerations, we used a ratioadjusted design-based estimator that was benchmarked to a larger aggregate estimate. The standard error measures the uncertainty of this direct estimate. In applying dual system estimation of the population, we used several fixed-effect logistic regression models to create a "synthetic" estimator. The parameters of these models were estimated using data from the entire national sample, and then applied synthetically for any given domain of estimation. Thus, the domains were subject to a potential synthetic bias. The bias in the synthetic estimator represents the difference, if any, in the domain's population estimate one would obtain by applying the synthetic model versus by simply tabulating over the true population (if it were known). For most estimation domains, main effects and interactions related to the domain were included in these models to minimize the synthetic bias in the population estimates. For governmental entities like states, counties, and places, there was concern that the standard errors for the population estimates, percent net undercount, and percent omissions would underestimate the true error by not capturing the synthetic bias. For these governmental entities, we produced estimates of root mean squared error for the total population estimates, percent net undercount, and percent omissions. These estimates of error added an estimate of synthetic bias to the sampling variance of the synthetic estimates that used fixed-effect logistic regression. 3.2 Other Sources of Nonsampling Error Nonsampling error is a catch-all term for errors that are not a function of selecting and using a sample. They include errors that can occur during data collection and processing survey data. For example, while an interview is in progress, the respondent might make an error answering a question, or the interviewer might make an error asking a question or recording the answer. Sometimes interviews fail to take place or households provide incomplete data. Other examples of nonsampling error for the 2010 CCM include matching error, modeling error, and classification error. Unlike sampling error, nonsampling error is difficult to quantify. 3.3 Omissions Omissions were estimated by subtracting the estimate of correct enumerations from the DSE. Because DSEs were not calculated for some estimation domains, we cannot provide omissions for some types of estimates. 6 4. Results for the Household Population 4.1 National Estimates of Components of Census Coverage Table 1 shows the estimates and percentages of the components of census coverage for the household population. The first part of the table shows how the census population count of 300.70 million was divided among correct enumerations, erroneous enumerations, and wholeperson census imputations. The CCM estimated that 284.67 million (94.7%) were correct enumerations, 10.04 million (3.3%) were erroneous enumerations, and 5.99 million (2.0%) were whole-person census imputations. The CCM estimated 284.67 million correct enumerations using the geographic requirement that the person was in a housing unit anywhere in the nation. Table 1 breaks this overall estimate into four groups based on stricter geographic requirements. The CCM estimated that 280.85 million (93.4%) were included in the correct CCM block cluster search area. The block cluster search area was defined as the CCM sample block cluster and the one ring of blocks that surround the sample block cluster. See Section 2.1 for more information on the CCM search area. For the remaining three geographic categories, the CCM estimated that 2.04 million (0.7%) were enumerated outside the block cluster search area but in the same county as where the person should have been enumerated. Another 830,000 (0.3%) were enumerated in the same state but should have been included in a different county. Finally, 948,000 (0.3%) should have been enumerated in a different state. The table continues by providing details about the 10.04 million erroneous enumerations in the 2010 Census. Of the total, 8.52 million (2.8%) were erroneous enumerations due to duplication, and 1.52 million (0.5%) were erroneous enumerations for other reasons. The third component of the census count was the 5.99 million (2.0%) whole-person census imputations. The next part of the table summarizes the CCM population estimates. The CCM estimated that the household population was 300.67 million people. The CCM population estimate was broken into two groups: correct enumerations and omissions. The correct enumerations were the same 284.67 estimate shown earlier. Based on the CCM estimate of 300.67 million, the correct enumeration percentage was 94.7%. The CCM estimated that 16.00 million people were omitted from the census. Omissions are people who should have been enumerated in the United States, but were not. Many of these people may have been accounted for by the 5.99 million whole-person census imputations. 7 Table 1: Components of Census Coverage for the United States Household Population (in Thousands) Component of Census Coverage Census Count Correct Enumerations 1 Enumerated in the same block cluster2 Enumerated in the same county, though in a different block cluster Enumerated in the same state, though in a different county Enumerated in a different state Erroneous Enumerations Due to Duplication For Other Reasons 3 Whole-Person Census Imputations 4 Estimate Estimate of Population from the Census Coverage Measurement 5 Correct Enumerations 1 Omissions 6 Net Undercount SE (EST) Percent SE (Percent) 300,703 284,668 280,852 2,039 830 948 10,042 8,521 1,520 5,993 0 199 220 55 34 31 199 194 45 0 100.0 94.7 93.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 3.3 2.8 0.5 2.0 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.01 0 300,667 284,668 15,999 429 199 440 100.0 94.7 5.3 0.1 0.1 -36 429 -0.01 0.14 1. For the national table, someone who should have been counted is considered a correct enumeration if he or she was enumerated anywhere in the United States 2. More precisely, enumerated in the search area for the correct block cluster. For definitions of block cluster and search area, see accompanying text. 3. Other reasons include fictitious people, those born after April 1, 2010, those who died before April 1, 2010, etc. 4. These imputations represent people for whom we did not collect sufficient information. Their records are included in the census count. 5. This number is the CCM estimate of people who should have been counted in the CCM household universe. It does not include people in group quarters or people living in the Remote Alaska type of enumeration area. 6. Omissions are people who should have been enumerated in the United States, but were not. Many of these people may have been accounted for in the whole-person census imputations above. Note that correct and erroneous enumeration estimates in subsequent tables have been benchmarked to the national estimates in Table 1. This was done to ensure consistency across results. 4.2 Component Estimates by Demographic Characteristics This section summarizes the census coverage for demographic and tenure groups. These include estimates of coverage by Race and Hispanic Origin Tenure Age and Sex 8 Race and Hispanic Origin Table 2 shows the components of census coverage by race and Hispanic origin. Race results are shown based on being reported alone-or-in-combination with other races. Because of this, a person will fall into several rows if several races were reported. Additional estimates are shown for the Non-Hispanic White alone and American Indian and Alaskan Native (AIAN) populations. For the AIAN alone-or-in-combination population, the estimates are broken down by whether this population lives on an American Indian Reservation, on an American Indian Area3 off Reservation, or in the remainder of the nation. The Black alone-or-in-combination and Hispanic populations had larger percent omissions (9.3% and 7.7%, respectively) than the Non-Hispanic White alone population (3.8%). These two groups also had higher percentages of whole-person census imputations. Part of the omissions for these two groups may have been accounted for by the whole-person census imputations. Table 2: Components of Census Coverage by Race Alone-Or-In-Combination and Hispanic Origin Race Alone-Or-In-Combination and Hispanic Origin U.S. T otal White Non-Hispanic White Alone Black American Indian and Alaskan Native On Reservation American Indian Area Off Reservation Balance of the U.S. Asian Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some Other Race Hispanic Origin Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) 225,547 (0) 95.2 (<0.1) 2.7 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 1.7 (0) 224,341 (319) 95.7 (0.1) -0.54* (0.14) 4.3 (0.1) 191,997 (0) 95.4 (<0.1) 2.6 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 1.6 (0) 190,413 (291) 96.2 (0.1) -0.83* (0.15) 3.8 (0.1) 40,153 (0) 92.6 (0.2) 3.6 (0.2) 0.7 (<0.1) 3.1 (0) 40,999 (209) 90.7 (0.4) 2.06* (0.50) 9.3 (0.4) 5,056 (0) 571 (0) 527 (0) 3,959 (0) 92.5 (0.6) 90.8 (0.6) 87.8 (4.1) 93.4 (0.4) 4.1 (0.6) 4.7 (0.6) 9.7 (3.9) 3.2 (0.4) 0.6 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 1.0 (0.5) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.9 (0) 4.1 (0) 1.5 (0) 2.9 (0) 5,063 (36) 600 (15) 507 (15) 3,956 (23) 92.4 (0.6) 86.3 (2.1) 91.2 (2.6) 93.4 (0.6) 0.15 (0.71) 4.88* (2.37) -3.86 (2.99) -0.05 (0.58) 7.6 (0.6) 13.7 (2.1) 8.8 (2.6) 6.6 (0.6) 16,969 (0) 94.7 (0.2) 2.4 (0.2) 0.9 (<0.1) 2.1 (0) 16,969 (88) 94.7 (0.5) 0.00 (0.52) 5.3 (0.5) 1,189 (0) 93.1 (0.6) 3.4 (0.6) 0.8 (0.2) 2.8 (0) 1,201 (25) 92.1 (2.0) 1.02 (2.06) 7.9 (2.0) 21,448 (0) 92.9 (0.3) 3.5 (0.3) 0.7 (<0.1) 2.9 (0) 21,803 (69) 91.4 (0.4) 1.63* (0.31) 8.6 (0.4) 49,580 (0) 93.7 (0.2) 3.2 (0.2) 0.7 (<0.1) 2.4 (0) 50,356 (168) 92.3 (0.3) 1.54* (0.33) 7.7 (0.3) A person can be included in multiple rows. Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 3 American Indian Areas are lands considered (either wholly or partially) on an American Indian Reservation/trust land, Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area, Tribal Designated Statistical Area, or Alaska Native Village Statistical Area. 9 Tenure Table 3 shows the components of census coverage by tenure. Renters had higher percentages of erroneous enumerations due to duplication (3.7% versus 2.4%), erroneous enumeration due to other reasons (0.7% versus 0.4%) and whole-person census imputations (3.0% versus 1.5%). Table 3: Components of Census Coverage by Tenure T enure Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) U.S. T otal 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) Owner 201,241 (0) 95.7 (<0.1) 2.4 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 1.5 (0) 200,109 (244) 96.3 (0.1) -0.57* (0.12) 3.7 (0.1) 99,463 92.5 3.7 0.7 (0) (0.1) (0.1) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 3.0 (0) 100,558 (307) 91.5 (0.3) 1.09* (0.30) 8.5 (0.3) Renter 10 Age and Sex Table 4 summarizes the components of census coverage based on the nine age/sex groupings. For children under 18, we estimated erroneous enumeration due to duplication estimates of about 3%. Males and females between the ages of 18 to 29 had slightly higher estimates of erroneous enumerations due to duplication (about 4%) and whole-person census imputations (about 3%). Males and females 30+ had percentages of erroneous enumerations due to duplication between 2.1% and 2.5%. The percentage of whole-person census imputations for males and females between the ages of 30 to 49 was between the percentages seen for the 18 to 29 and the 50+ age groupings. Table 4: Components of Census Coverage by Age and Sex Age and Sex Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) 0 to 4 20,158 (0) 94.0 (0.2) 3.2 (0.2) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.2 (0) 20,304 (81) 93.4 (0.3) 0.72* (0.40) 6.6 (0.3) 5 to 9 20,315 (0) 94.8 (0.1) 3.0 (0.1) 0.2 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 20,248 (62) 95.1 (0.3) -0.33 (0.31) 4.9 (0.3) 10 to 17 33,430 (0) 94.7 (0.1) 3.2 (0.1) 0.3 (<0.1) 1.9 (0) 33,108 (96) 95.6 (0.3) -0.97* (0.29) 4.4 (0.3) 18 to 29 Males 23,982 (0) 91.8 (0.2) 4.0 (0.2) 1.2 (<0.1) 2.9 (0) 24,274 (111) 90.7 (0.4) 1.21* (0.45) 9.3 (0.4) 18 to 29 Females 23,912 (0) 92.2 (0.2) 4.2 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 2.8 (0) 23,845 (85) 92.4 (0.3) -0.28 (0.36) 7.6 (0.3) 30 to 49 Males 40,256 (0) 94.9 (<0.1) 2.3 (<0.1) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.2 (0) 41,748 (86) 91.5 (0.2) 3.57* (0.20) 8.5 (0.2) 30 to 49 Females 41,815 (0) 95.5 (<0.1) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.3 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 41,640 (86) 95.9 (0.2) -0.42* (0.21) 4.1 (0.2) 50+ Males 44,886 (0) 95.5 (<0.1) 2.5 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 1.5 (0) 44,744 (63) 95.8 (0.1) -0.32* (0.14) 4.2 (0.1) 51,950 95.7 2.5 0.4 (0) (<0.1) (<0.1) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 1.4 (0) 50,755 (72) 98.0 (0.1) -2.35* (0.14) 2.0 (0.1) U.S. T otal 50+ Females 11 4.3 Component Estimates for States, Counties, and Places States Table 5 summarizes the components of census coverage for the states and the District of Columbia. The CCM produced estimates of correct and erroneous enumerations based on the direct estimate of the states while benchmarking to national totals. Since direct estimation was used, some states had high standard errors for correct and erroneous enumerations. Counties Table A1 (in Attachment A) summarizes the components of census coverage for the 128 counties with a total census population greater than or equal to 500,000. An estimate for the balance of the state - all other counties within the state combined - is provided as well. Note that, for each state estimate in Table A1, the correct enumeration/erroneous enumeration distinction is based on the state definition used in Table 5. As a result, persons counted in the wrong county, but within the correct state are correct enumerations on the state row. For county estimates (including the balance of state), the correct enumeration/erroneous enumeration distinction is based on the county definition. As a result, persons counted in the wrong county, but within the correct state are erroneous enumerations in the county rows. Some states had no counties with a population greater than 500,000. For these states, only the state estimate is displayed. Places Table A2 (in Attachment A) summarizes the components of census coverage for the 33 places with a total census population greater than or equal to 500,000. Similar to the county table, an estimate for the balance of the state is provided as well. The same concepts described above for the county table apply to the place table as well. That is, persons counted in the wrong place, but within the correct state are correct enumerations within the state rows but erroneous enumerations within the place rows. Measures of uncertainty for States, Counties, and Places are in Attachment B. Tables B1, B2, and B3 reflect two different measurements of uncertainty depending on the column of interest. The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error since they are direct estimates. 12 Table 5: Components of Census Coverage for States ST Census Count Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Same Different Different Duplication Other County County State AL 4,663.9 92.0 0.5 0.2 3.9 0.6 AK 629.1 93.2 0.6 0.4 3.8 0.7 AZ 6,252.6 92.0 0.3 0.7 2.9 0.7 AR 2,837.0 93.8 0.3 0.4 3.4 0.4 CA 36,434.1 94.9 0.3 0.3 2.3 0.7 CO 4,913.3 93.6 0.2 0.4 2.1 0.4 CT 3,455.9 95.5 0.2 0.2 2.3 0.4 DE 873.5 94.2 0.2 0.4 2.0 0.4 DC 561.7 93.1 0.0 0.3 3.0 0.7 FL 18,379.6 92.6 0.3 0.6 3.2 0.7 GA 9,434.5 93.3 0.3 0.2 2.3 0.5 HI 1,317.4 91.6 0.2 0.4 4.0 0.7 ID 1,538.6 93.9 0.3 0.2 2.5 0.5 IL 12,528.9 94.8 0.2 0.3 2.6 0.4 IN 6,296.9 95.5 0.2 0.2 2.8 0.2 IA 2,948.2 96.8 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.3 KS 2,774.0 95.3 0.3 0.3 3.1 0.3 KY 4,213.5 94.0 0.4 0.3 3.2 0.2 LA 4,405.9 92.4 0.5 0.5 2.8 0.8 ME 1,292.8 96.0 0.3 0.3 1.7 0.5 MD 5,635.2 94.6 0.3 0.3 2.5 0.6 MA 6,308.7 93.7 0.2 0.3 4.3 0.5 MI 9,654.6 94.6 0.3 0.4 2.7 0.4 MN 5,168.5 94.8 0.2 0.2 3.3 0.3 MS 2,875.3 91.0 0.3 0.4 5.5 0.9 MO 5,814.8 94.5 0.4 0.3 2.8 0.3 MT 960.6 93.0 0.2 0.2 3.3 0.2 NE 1,775.2 96.0 0.4 0.2 1.6 0.6 NV 2,664.4 92.9 0.1 0.4 2.0 0.5 NH 1,276.4 95.5 0.1 0.3 2.4 0.6 NJ 8,605.0 95.0 0.1 0.2 2.6 0.5 NM 2,016.6 91.9 0.3 0.2 3.3 0.5 NY 18,792.4 92.9 0.3 0.3 4.0 0.5 NC 9,278.2 92.6 0.3 0.3 3.6 0.4 ND 647.5 95.8 0.4 0.6 2.0 0.3 OH 11,230.2 95.4 0.3 0.3 2.3 0.3 OK 3,639.3 92.1 0.5 0.4 5.0 0.7 OR 3,744.4 95.8 0.2 0.2 1.9 0.3 PA 12,276.3 95.4 0.2 0.3 2.4 0.4 RI 1,009.9 93.1 0.2 0.3 3.6 1.1 SC 4,486.2 94.9 0.2 0.4 1.9 0.5 SD 780.1 95.1 0.1 0.2 2.4 0.3 TN 6,192.6 94.1 0.3 0.3 2.8 0.4 T X 24,564.4 93.6 0.3 0.3 2.7 0.6 UT 2,717.7 94.2 0.4 0.5 3.1 0.4 VT 600.4 95.6 0.3 0.2 2.8 0.6 VA 7,761.2 94.3 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.6 WA 6,585.2 95.2 0.2 0.3 2.1 0.5 WV 1,803.6 90.8 0.2 0.5 6.7 0.5 WI 5,536.8 95.5 0.2 0.3 2.5 0.4 WY 549.9 92.9 0.3 0.5 3.3 0.4 The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. ( Thousa nds) 13 WholePopulation Person Imputations Estimate ( Thousa nds) (%) 2.8 1.4 3.4 1.6 1.7 3.3 1.3 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.3 3.0 2.6 1.8 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.8 3.1 1.1 1.8 1.1 1.6 1.0 1.9 1.8 2.9 1.3 4.1 1.1 1.6 3.8 2.1 2.8 0.9 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.2 2.6 1.4 0.5 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 2.6 4,670.2 623.8 6,226.5 2,825.5 36,529.8 4,899.2 3,440.3 878.3 574.5 18,463.0 9,521.5 1,311.6 1,538.1 12,469.1 6,254.9 2,940.0 2,755.5 4,208.0 4,389.2 1,301.3 5,688.4 6,276.4 9,591.6 5,139.7 2,882.3 5,776.8 954.3 1,765.6 2,663.3 1,284.1 8,574.0 2,013.3 18,644.3 9,326.9 648.1 11,137.6 3,600.4 3,745.4 12,293.7 1,001.8 4,504.5 780.9 6,199.8 24,803.9 2,704.9 608.3 7,805.5 6,578.3 1,778.1 5,527.5 547.1 Correct (%) 92.3 94.5 92.7 94.6 94.9 94.1 96.1 93.8 91.0 92.5 92.7 92.2 94.2 95.4 96.4 97.4 96.3 94.5 93.2 95.8 94.0 94.3 95.5 95.6 91.1 95.5 93.9 96.9 93.1 95.0 95.5 92.3 93.9 92.4 96.1 96.5 93.6 96.0 95.5 94.1 94.8 95.1 94.2 93.1 95.1 94.6 94.2 95.5 92.3 95.9 93.6 Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) 0.13 -0.85 -0.42 -0.41 0.26 -0.29 -0.45 0.55 2.23 0.45 0.91 -0.44 -0.03 -0.48 -0.67 -0.28 -0.67 -0.13 -0.38 0.65 0.94 -0.52 -0.66 -0.56 0.24 -0.66 -0.65 -0.54 -0.04 0.60 -0.36 -0.16 -0.79 0.52 0.09 -0.83 -1.08 0.02 0.14 -0.81 0.41 0.10 0.12 0.97 -0.48 1.29 0.57 -0.10 -1.43 -0.17 -0.51 7.7 5.5 7.3 5.4 5.1 5.9 3.9 6.2 9.0 7.5 7.3 7.8 5.8 4.6 3.6 2.6 3.7 5.5 6.8 4.2 6.0 5.7 4.5 4.4 8.9 4.5 6.1 3.1 6.9 5.0 4.5 7.7 6.1 7.6 3.9 3.5 6.4 4.0 4.5 5.9 5.2 4.9 5.8 6.9 4.9 5.4 5.8 4.5 7.7 4.1 6.4 4.4 Component Estimates by Census Regions Table 6 provides the component estimates for census regions. For this table, we take a national perspective when estimating correct enumerations. So, a person is a correct enumeration if he or she was counted once in the nation, regardless of what region he or she should have been counted in. In other words, if someone was counted in New York, but should have been counted in California, he or she is included in the Northeast in Table 6 as a correct enumeration. The component results show that the duplication percentage ranged from 2.4% to 3.2%. The Midwest region had the lowest erroneous for other reasons percentage (0.3%), while the South region had the highest imputation and omission percentages (2.4% and 6.5% respectively). Table 6: Components of Census Coverage by Census Regions Region Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) Northeast 53,618 (0) 94.7 (0.2) 3.2 (0.2) 0.5 (<0.1) 1.6 (0) 53,424 (175) 95.1 (0.3) -0.36 (0.33) 4.9 (0.3) Midwest 65,156 (0) 95.7 (0.2) 2.6 (0.2) 0.3 (<0.1) 1.4 (0) 64,788 (157) 96.2 (0.2) -0.57* (0.24) 3.8 (0.2) 111,606 (0) 93.9 (0.1) 3.1 (0.1) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.4 (0) 112,120 (324) 93.5 (0.3) 0.46 (0.29) 6.5 (0.3) 70,324 94.9 2.4 0.6 (0) (<0.1) (<0.1) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 2.2 (0) 70,336 (170) 94.8 (0.2) 0.02 (0.24) 5.2 (0.2) U.S. T otal South West 4.5 Component Estimates by Census Operational Areas This section summarizes the coverage results for geographic areas associated with how the census was conducted. For census operational geography, we generated estimates for Type of Enumeration Area (TEA) Address Characteristic Type (ACT) Bilingual Mailing Areas Replacement Mailing Areas 14 Type of Enumeration Area Table 7 shows the components of census coverage by TEA. The TEA accounts for how we obtained addresses and conducted the census in an area. We provide estimates by combining six TEAs into three main categories. (The Remote Alaska TEA is out of scope.) The first was “Mailout/Mailback,” which included the Mailout/Mailback and the Military Mailout/Mailback TEAs. Questionnaires were delivered to housing units by mail, and respondents were instructed to return the form by mail. The second category was the “Update/Leave,” which included the Update/Leave and the Urban Update/Leave TEAs. A census worker updated the address list and delivered questionnaires to each address that was on the updated address list. Respondents were instructed to return the form by mail. The third was the “Update/Enumerate,” which included the Remote Update/Enumerate and the Update/Enumerate TEAs. A census enumerator updated the address list and conducted the enumeration at each housing unit on the updated address list. Table 7 shows that the Update/Leave areas had the highest percentage of erroneous enumerations due to duplication (4.7%), while the Update/Enumerate areas had the highest percentages of whole-person census imputations (5.3%) and omissions (16.0%). Table 7: Components of Census Coverage by Type of Enumeration Area T ype of Enumeration Area Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) U.S. T otal 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) Mailout/Mailback 278,553 (0) 94.8 (<0.1) 2.7 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 278,611 (390) 94.8 (0.1) 0.02 (0.14) 5.2 (0.1) 20,076 (0) 92.7 (0.3) 4.7 (0.3) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.2 (0) 19,804 (131) 93.9 (0.6) -1.37* (0.67) 6.1 (0.6) 2,074 91.1 3.0 0.5 (0) (0.5) (0.4) (0.2) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 5.3 (0) 2,252 (76) 84.0 (2.7) 7.87* (3.13) 16.0 (2.7) Update/Leave Update/Enumerate 15 Address Characteristic Types Table 8 shows the components of census coverage by ACT. The ACT classified a collection block to the predominant type of address in the block (city-style, rural route, P.O. Box, etc.) and whether or not the address was carried in the United States Postal Service Delivery Sequence File (DSF). The ACT classification was done prior to the start of 2010 Census operations; consequently, it does not reflect updates from Address Canvassing or later operations. There are 28 values of ACT. The CCM estimation summarized them to eight categories that were generally based on whether the block contained city-style or noncity-style addresses and the extent of DSF coverage. While the ACT was not specifically a census operation, it was the basis for defining the TEA. The component results show that among city-style only addresses, the erroneous due to duplication percentage ranged from 2.1% to 4.9%. Whole-person census imputations ranged from 1.8% to 2.6%, and omission percentages ranged from 4.5% to 7.2%. Table 8: Components of Census Coverage by Address Characteristic Type Address Characteristic T ype Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) 155,566 (0) 95.6 (<0.1) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 1.8 (0) 155,684 (205) 95.5 (0.2) 0.08 (0.13) 4.5 (0.2) 88,756 (0) 93.9 (0.2) 3.3 (0.2) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.2 (0) 88,703 (159) 94.0 (0.2) -0.06 (0.18) 6.0 (0.2) 1,406 (0) 92.1 (1.6) 4.9 (1.5) 0.3 (0.1) 2.6 (0) 1,396 (6) 92.8 (1.6) -0.70* (0.42) 7.2 (1.6) C ity-s tyle a nd no nc ity-s tyle , a ll DS F o r whe re c ity-s tyle ≥ 85% 35,591 (0) 94.2 (0.2) 3.4 (0.2) 0.4 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 35,537 (73) 94.3 (0.3) -0.15 (0.21) 5.7 (0.3) C ity-s tyle a nd no nc ity-s tyle , no DS F o r whe re c ity-s tyle ≤ 84.99% 13,123 (0) 91.5 (0.5) 5.9 (0.5) 0.4 (<0.1) 2.3 (0) 13,077 (73) 91.8 (0.6) -0.35 (0.56) 8.2 (0.6) As s o rte d no nc ity-s tyle 836 (0) 91.8 (1.5) 4.9 (1.6) 0.6 (0.2) 2.6 (0) 831 (5) 92.4 (1.5) -0.64 (0.62) 7.6 (1.5) B us ine s s , P o s t Offic e , R ura l R o ute , a nd Othe rs 776 (0) 88.7 (1.8) 5.8 (1.9) 1.0 (0.6) 4.5 (0) 778 (2) 88.5 (1.8) 0.24 (0.31) 11.5 (1.8) 4,649 92.3 3.1 1.2 (0) (0.6) (0.7) (0.3) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 3.5 (0) 4,661 (9) 92.0 (0.7) 0.27 (0.20) 8.0 (0.7) U.S. T otal C ity-s tyle , a ll DS F C ity-s tyle , s o m e DS F C ity-s tyle , no DS F No Addre s s e s F o und 16 Bilingual Mailing Areas Table 9 shows the components of census coverage of bilingual mailing areas broken down by Hispanic origin. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau mailed a bilingual (English and Spanish) census questionnaire to housing units in select areas that could require Spanish language assistance to complete their census form. For more information on bilingual mailing, see Bentley (2008) or Rothhaas et al. (2011). We estimated coverage for the areas that received the bilingual questionnaire versus the remainder of the country. The table shows that bilingual mailing areas had higher erroneous due to duplication (3.5% versus 2.7%) and whole-person census imputation (2.3% versus 1.9%) percentages than nonbilingual areas. Also, note the higher omission percentage (7.3% versus 5.1%) in bilingual mailing areas. In bilingual mailing areas, Hispanics had a 2.2% imputation percentage compared to 2.6% for Hispanics in non-bilingual areas. Table 9: Components of Census Coverage by Bilingual Mailing Areas and Hispanic Origin Bilingual Mailing Area and Hispanic Origin Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) 35,204 (0) 93.5 (0.2) 3.5 (0.2) 0.7 (<0.1) 2.3 (0) 35,488 (143) 92.7 (0.3) 0.80* (0.40) 7.3 (0.3) 22,498 (0) 12,706 (0) 93.3 (0.3) 93.8 (0.3) 3.8 (0.3) 3.0 (0.3) 0.7 (<0.1) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.2 (0) 2.6 (0) 22,800 (96) 12,687 (64) 92.1 (0.4) 94.0 (0.5) 1.33* (0.42) -0.15 (0.50) 7.9 (0.4) 6.0 (0.5) 265,499 (0) 94.8 (<0.1) 2.7 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 1.9 (0) 265,179 (413) 94.9 (0.1) -0.12 (0.16) 5.1 (0.1) 27,082 94.1 2.7 0.6 (0) (0.2) (0.2) (<0.1) Non-Hispanic 238,418 94.9 2.7 0.5 (0) (<0.1) (<0.1) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. An asterisk (*) denotes a percent net undercount that is significantly different than zero. 2.6 (0) 1.9 (0) 27,556 (116) 237,623 (371) 92.4 (0.4) 95.2 (0.1) 1.72* (0.42) -0.33* (0.16) 7.6 (0.4) 4.8 (0.1) U.S. T otal Bilingual Mailing Area Hispanic Non-Hispanic Balance of U.S. Hispanic 17 Replacement Mailing Areas Table 10 shows the components of census coverage by replacement mailing areas. For the 2010 Census, the Census Bureau mailed a replacement mailing package to some housing units in Mailout/Mailback areas of the country that had low mail response in Census 2000. Areas with low response in Census 2000 had a blanketed distribution where all housing units received a replacement mailing. For areas with mid-range response in 2000, only nonresponding housing units received a replacement mailing; this is referred to as targeted distribution. The balance of the United States did not receive a replacement questionnaire in the mail. We provided separate estimates for the two types of replacement mailing areas (blanketed and targeted) and the balance of the United States. For more information on the replacement mailing areas and the official counts, see Letourneau (2010). The component results show that blanketed areas had a higher erroneous due to duplication (4.2%) percentage than the targeted areas or the no replacement areas. The blanketed areas also had higher imputation (2.9%) and omission (8.2%) percentages as well. Table 10: Components of Census Coverage by Replacement Mailing Areas Replacement Mailing Areas Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other WholePopulation Person Estimate Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 300,667 (429) 94.7 (0.1) -0.01 (0.14) 5.3 (0.1) Blanketed Mailing Area 53,651 (0) 92.2 (0.2) 4.2 (0.2) 0.7 (<0.1) 2.9 (0) 53,854 (242) 91.8 (0.4) 0.38 (0.45) 8.2 (0.4) T argeted Mailing Area 65,952 (0) 94.2 (0.2) 3.2 (0.2) 0.6 (<0.1) 2.1 (0) 66,081 (237) 94.0 (0.3) 0.19 (0.36) 6.0 (0.3) 181,100 95.6 2.3 0.4 (0) (<0.1) (<0.1) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 1.7 (0) 180,733 (274) 95.8 (0.1) -0.20 (0.15) 4.2 (0.1) U.S. T otal Balance of U.S. 18 4.6 Component Estimates by Census Operational Outcomes This section summarizes the components of census coverage for person records based on the result of the census operations. This includes Mail Return Status, Nonresponse Followup (NRFU), and Coverage Followup (CFU). The components of census coverage discussed are correct enumerations, erroneous enumerations, and whole-person census imputations. Because operational outcomes are characteristics of the census records that we cannot measure in the P sample, we cannot generate dual system estimates for census operational outcomes. Therefore, this section does not show estimates of net coverage or omissions. Mail Return Eligible Cases Table 11 shows the component results by mail return status of the housing unit where the person was enumerated. The mail return universe included all occupied housing units in mailback TEAs that had addresses that were not checked in as undeliverable as addressed (UAA) and were not preidentified as having inadequate addresses for mailout. While most people in a housing unit for which we have a valid mail return were included on the mail return for that unit, some of the people in that housing unit were enumerated in a subsequent census operation. This analysis does not differentiate between these cases. In addition to showing estimates by the date of the mail return, we show the component estimates for persons who were in housing units in the mail return universe but did not send back a valid return. For completeness, the table shows the component structure of the 18.44 million person records that were not in the mail return universe. These included the enumerations of people in housing units in a) Update/Enumerate and Remote Update/Enumerate TEAs, b) in mailback areas whose addresses were pre-identified as having inadequate address information for mailing, c) were determined to be UAA, d) were not eligible for NRFU, but were eligible for supplemental NRFU, or e) units deleted during the Update/Leave operation that were later determined to be occupied. Letourneau (2012) has more information on the mailback operation and the official counts. Table 11 shows erroneous due to duplication percentages from 1.4% to 3.0% for the valid return categories. The whole-person census imputation percentages rose from 0.2% to 0.5% as the valid return date extended further beyond Census Day. The “No Valid Return” category had an imputation percentage of 6.9%. Finally, person records “Not in the Mail Return Universe” had the largest erroneous due to duplication (11.0%) and imputation (7.1%) percentages. 19 Table 11: Components of Census Coverage by Mail Return Date and Other Groups Mail Returns U.S. T otal 2/25-3/17 3/18-3/24 3/25-3/31 Valid Return 4/1-4/7 4/8-4/15 4/16-4/30 5/1-9/7 No Valid Return Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other Whole-Person Imputations (%) 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 8,065 (0) 83,659 (0) 65,740 (0) 31,060 (0) 14,990 (0) 13,267 (0) 4,174 (0) 97.4 (0.3) 98.1 (<0.1) 97.5 (<0.1) 96.9 (0.2) 96.5 (0.2) 96.1 (0.3) 96.5 (0.4) 2.1 (0.3) 1.4 (<0.1) 1.9 (<0.1) 2.4 (0.1) 2.7 (0.2) 3.0 (0.3) 2.4 (0.3) 0.3 (<0.1) 0.3 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.2 (0) 0.2 (0) 0.2 (0) 0.3 (0) 0.3 (0) 0.4 (0) 0.5 (0) 61,307 (0) 88.6 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 0.9 (<0.1) 6.9 (0) 11.0 (0.8) 0.8 (<0.1) 7.1 (0) 18,442 81.2 (0) (0.8) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not in Mail Return Universe Nonresponse Followup Cases The 2010 NRFU Operation included four field operations: NRFU Field Operation NRFU Reinterview (RI) NRFU Vacant Delete Check (VDC), and NRFU Residual The NRFU field operation primarily involved census enumerators interviewing and verifying the status of housing units in areas that received a mailback 2010 Census questionnaire but did not respond by mail. NRFU RI was a quality control check on the enumerators’ work during the NRFU field operation. The NRFU VDC operation verified housing units determined to be vacant or nonexistent during the NRFU field operation. Additionally, the VDC included a firsttime enumeration of housing units. The NRFU Residual operation came about because monitoring of the NRFU field operation detected a potentially large number of occupied housing units lacking information about the number of people living in the housing unit. The NRFU Residual operation was the last attempt to complete a full interview for this type of unit. Its workload also included housing units from the NRFU field operation for which a questionnaire was completed, but no data were captured for the case in the data capture system. Jackson et al. (2012) assesses the 2010 NRFU operation and provides official workload totals and more detailed information about the operation. Differences in counts between the census assessment and the CCM occur because we evaluated 20 only the persons included in the final census while the NRFU assessment also includes housing units deleted during census processing. Table 12 displays the components of census coverage by respondent type in the NRFU field operation. Tables 13 through 16 show the results for each of the four NRFU operations. The component structure of all persons in a given housing unit is itemized in each table, albeit in different rows. For example, consider an occupied housing unit that was contacted as part of the NRFU field operation and NRFU RI, but was not contacted as part of NRFU VDC or NRFU Residual. As a result, the component structure of all persons in that housing unit is itemized in one of the respondent type rows in Table 12 (Household Member, Proxy, or Unknown Respondent Type). one of the five completion month rows in Table 13 (April, May, June, July and August, or Unknown Month). one of the four completion month rows in Table 14 (April and May, June, July and August, or Unknown Month). the “Not in NRFU VDC, but in another NRFU operation” row of Table 15. the “Not in NRFU Residual, but in another NRFU operation” row of Table 16. For another example, consider an occupied housing unit that was contacted in none of the four above NRFU field operations. The component structure of all persons in that housing unit is in the “Not in NRFU Field Operation” row in Table 12 and in the “Not in any NRFU Universe” row in Tables 13 through 16. 21 Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) For persons in housing units that were part of the NRFU field operation, Table 12 shows the components of census coverage by respondent type for the housing unit. In other words, each person in a housing unit is assigned the respondent type of that unit. As a contrast, the table also shows the components for the 222.38 million persons in housing units that were not a part of the NRFU field operation. This number is further broken down in Table 13 by records that were “Not in NRFU Field Operation, but in another NRFU operation” and those “Not in any NRFU universe.” Proxy response cases had 5.6% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 23.1% wholeperson census imputations. Household member respondent cases were 4.2% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 1.6% whole-person census imputations. Table 12: Components of Census Coverage for Nonresponse Followup Field Operation by Respondent Type Nonresponse Followup Field Operation Respondent T ype Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) Household Member 61,437 (0) 93.4 (0.2) 4.2 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 1.6 (0) Proxy 16,294 (0) 70.1 (0.3) 5.6 (0.3) 1.1 (<0.1) 23.1 (0) 589 (0) 68.2 (1.1) 3.3 (1.1) 0.5 (0.1) 28.0 (0) 2.2 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.5 (0) U.S. T otal Unknown Respondent T ype 222,384 96.9 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not in NRFU Field Operation 22 For persons in housing units that were part of the NRFU field operation, Table 13 shows the components of census coverage by completion month. As a contrast, the table also shows the components for persons that were in housing units in another field operation besides the NRFU field operation and those not in any NRFU universe. For the NRFU field operation, most of the person records were from housing units worked in May and June. As the enumeration gets further from Census Day, the table shows increasing imputation percentages (from 2.9% to 17.5%) for known completion months. The erroneous due to duplication percentage ranged from 3.8% in April to 6.5% in July and August. For the 3.18 million persons in housing units that were in another operation besides the NRFU field operation, the component structure shows that 15.3% of these cases were erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 14.2% required whole-person census imputation. Table 13: Components of Census Coverage for Nonresponse Followup Field Operation Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) Field Operation U.S. T otal April May In NRFU Field Operation June July and August Unknown Month Not in NRFU Field Operation, but in another NRFU operation Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 1,755 (0) 60,788 (0) 15,375 (0) 221 (0) 181 (0) 92.7 (0.9) 89.5 (0.2) 83.8 (0.5) 74.9 (4.0) 66.4 (1.3) 3.8 (0.9) 4.3 (0.2) 5.3 (0.5) 6.5 (4.2) 2.3 (1.2) 0.6 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 1.0 (<0.1) 1.1 (0.8) 0.5 (0.2) 2.9 (0) 5.4 (0) 9.9 (0) 17.5 (0) 30.8 (0) 3,177 (0) 69.7 (2.1) 15.3 (2.1) 0.7 (0.2) 14.2 (0) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.3 (0) 219,207 97.3 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not in any NRFU Universe 23 NRFU Reinterview Table 14 provides the component breakdown of coverage results for persons in housing units that were part of NRFU RI. As a contrast, the table also shows the components for persons in housing units in another field operation besides NRFU RI and those not in any NRFU universe. The NRFU RI table shows a component structure similar to that seen for the NRFU field operation (Table 13). As the enumeration gets further from Census Day, the table shows imputation percentages ranging from 3.4% to 14.4% for known completion months. Additionally, erroneous enumeration percentages due to duplication ranged from 2.6% in April and May to 4.4% in July and August. Table 14: Components of Census Coverage for Nonresponse Followup Reinterview Nonresponse Followp (NRFU) Reinterview (RI) Field Operation U.S. T otal April and May June In NRFU RI July and August Unknown Month Not in NRFU RI, but in another NRFU operation Not in any NRFU Universe Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 1,726 (0) 1,998 (0) 439 (0) 28 (0) 93.4 (0.6) 87.7 (0.7) 80.4 (1.2) 92.9 (0.6) 2.6 (0.5) 4.0 (0.6) 4.4 (1.2) 0.0 (<0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 0.5 (0.6) 3.4 (0) 7.2 (0) 14.4 (0) 6.6 (0) 77,306 (0) 87.5 (0.2) 5.0 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 6.6 (0) 219,207 (0) 97.3 (<0.1) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.3 (0) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 24 NRFU Vacant Delete Check Table 15 shows the components of census coverage for the NRFU VDC field operation. The results show that the census records in housing units that were part of the NRFU VDC field operation had 15.8% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 15.4% whole-person census imputations. Table 15: Components of Census Coverage for Nonresponse Followup Vacant Delete Check Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) Vacant Delete Check (VDC) Field Operation U.S. T otal In NRFU VDC Not in NRFU VDC, but in another NRFU operation Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 5,221 (0) 67.4 (1.3) 15.8 (1.3) 1.4 (0.2) 15.4 (0) 76,275 (0) 89.0 (0.2) 4.2 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 6.0 (0) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.3 (0) 219,207 97.3 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not in any NRFU Universe NRFU Residual Table 16 shows the components of census coverage for the NRFU Residual field operation. The results show that the census records in housing units that were part of the NRFU Residual field operation had 6.0% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 32.8% whole-person census imputations. Table 16: Components of Census Coverage for Nonresponse Followup Residual Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) Residual Field Operation U.S. T otal In NRFU Residual Not in NRFU Residual, but in another NRFU operation Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 1,057 (0) 60.5 (1.4) 6.0 (1.4) 0.7 (0.3) 32.8 (0) 80,440 (0) 88.0 (0.2) 4.9 (0.2) 0.8 (<0.1) 6.3 (0) 2.1 (<0.1) 0.4 (<0.1) 0.3 (0) 219,207 97.3 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not in any NRFU Universe 25 Coverage Followup Cases During the CFU operation, telephone interviews were conducted with respondents to determine if changes were required to their household roster as reported on their initial census return. The telephone interview consisted of questions intended to identify if people were missed or counted in error, and to collect missing demographic data for all persons in the household. Govern et al. (2012) has the official counts and provides more information on the operation. The CFU operation focused on situations where there might be erroneous enumerations or omissions in the 2010 Census. This section focuses on parts of the operations designed to account for coverage discrepancies. For cases that went to CFU, we report results by whether the CFU interview was a completed or a non-completed case. This allows the component structure of complete cases to be compared to non-complete cases to see if the completion of the interview changed the distribution of correct, erroneous, and whole-person census imputations in the final census. The CCM did not evaluate whether cases that were deleted by the CFU operation were correctly removed from the census. Results are shown for the following five categories of CFU cases: Large Household Cases Administrative Records Cases Count Discrepancy Cases Overcount Cases Undercount Cases 26 CFU Large Household Cases Table 17 shows the component results for large household cases in the CFU operation. One objective for these cases was to obtain the remaining demographic characteristics for all of the people in the unit. While doing this, the interview could have determined that some of these cases were erroneous enumerations and should have been removed. In large household cases, the respondent-provided population count was equal to or greater than the amount of space allotted to enumerate people on the census form. Possible large household cases were those in which the respondent-provided population count was blank, but the space allotted to enumerate people was completely filled out. The table shows that for large household cases the component structure of correct, erroneous, and whole-person census imputations was similar for the completed and non-completed cases. The possible large household category had an erroneous due to duplication percentage of 6.6% for completed cases and a 12.5% for non-completed cases. Table 17: Components of Census Coverage for Coverage Followup Large Household Coverage Followup Large Household U.S. T otal Complete Large Household Non-Complete Possible Large Household Complete Non-Complete Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 6,654 (0) 3,788 (0) 96.5 (0.4) 96.1 (0.7) 3.0 (0.4) 3.1 (0.6) 0.5 (<0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (0) 118 (0) 141 (0) 93.3 (5.3) 86.8 (5.7) 6.6 (5.4) 12.5 (5.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.8 (0.7) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.1 (0) 290,002 94.6 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not a CFU Large Household Case 27 CFU Administrative Records Cases To determine CFU administrative records cases, first a list of CFU eligible housing units was compiled. Then, various administrative record sources were used to generate an “expected number of persons” residing at each unit. If the difference between the number of rostered persons in the census and the “expected number of persons” was greater than or equal to .20, the housing unit was sent to CFU. Table 18 shows the results for these cases by the interview completion status. Completed administrative records cases had 1.2% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 0.3% erroneous due to other reasons. The same estimates for non-complete cases were 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively. Table 18: Components of Census Coverage for Coverage Followup Administrative Records Coverage Followup Administrative Records U.S. T otal Administrative Records Matching Complete Non-Complete Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 1,389 (0) 916 (0) 98.5 (0.5) 95.4 (1.0) 1.2 (0.5) 2.9 (0.9) 0.3 (0.1) 1.3 (0.4) 0.0 (0) 0.5 (0) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 298,398 94.6 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not a CFU Administrative Case 28 CFU Count Discrepancy Cases Table 19 shows the components of census coverage for the person records in housing units that had discrepancies between the reported population count and the number of valid people listed on the questionnaire. A high discrepancy occurred when the number of valid people listed was more than the reported population count. A low discrepancy case occurred when the number of valid people listed was less than the reported population count. For high discrepancy cases, when comparing completed to non-completed cases, the percentage of erroneous enumerations due to duplication was seven percentage points lower (4.7% versus 11.7%) and the percentage of erroneous enumerations due to other reasons was one percentage point lower (0.8% versus 1.8%). For the low discrepancy cases, there were no whole-person census imputations when the interview was completed, compared to 13.6% of the non-complete cases. Table 19: Components of Census Coverage for Coverage Followup Count Discrepancy Coverage Followup Count Discrepancy U.S. T otal High Discrepancy Case Low Discrepancy Case Complete Non-Complete Complete Non-Complete Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 2,347 (0) 1,704 (0) 94.4 (0.6) 86.4 (1.1) 4.7 (0.6) 11.7 (1.0) 0.8 (0.2) 1.8 (0.4) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (0) 943 (0) 1,039 (0) 96.5 (0.9) 80.1 (1.2) 2.8 (0.8) 4.4 (1.1) 0.7 (0.3) 1.9 (0.5) 0.0 (0) 13.6 (0) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 294,671 94.8 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not a CFU Discrepancy Case 29 CFU Overcount Cases An additional reason cases went to CFU was the overcount coverage probe. For each person on the form, the respondent could indicate if the person sometimes stays or lives in college housing, military, jail, nursing home, or other places. Positive responses for a person or several people in a housing unit triggered the CFU interview for the housing unit. Table 20 shows the results for select overcount question probes by interview outcome. When the overcount reason was college, CFU completed interviews had 3.4% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 0.8% erroneous enumerations due to other reasons. For non-completed cases, the estimates were 16.2% and 3.5%, respectively. When several people in a housing unit indicated that they may have lived somewhere else, completed interview cases had a 6.2% estimate of erroneous enumerations due to duplication. Non-completed cases had a 13.8% estimate. When the other place was a jail, completed cases had 6.5% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 4.1% erroneous enumerations due to other reasons. Non-completed cases for this reason had estimates of 2.4% and 2.6%, respectively. An explanation for this unexpected result is a processing error that affected the roster change rate for those in the overcount reason “in jail or prison,” as documented in Govern et al. (2012). Table 20: Components of Census Coverage for Coverage Followup Overcount Cases Coverage Followup Overcount Question Status U.S. T otal Complete College Non-Complete Complete Military Non-Complete Complete Jail Non-Complete Complete Nursing Home Non-Complete Multiple Reasons for Person Multiple People in HH Case Complete Non-Complete Complete Non-Complete Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 2,034 (0) 1,224 (0) 95.8 (0.5) 80.2 (1.2) 3.4 (0.5) 16.2 (1.1) 0.8 (0.2) 3.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (0) 913 (0) 572 (0) 96.9 (0.6) 90.6 (1.6) 1.2 (0.5) 3.5 (1.2) 1.8 (0.4) 5.8 (1.0) 0.0 (0) 0.1 (0) 167 (0) 142 (0) 89.4 (1.9) 94.8 (1.6) 6.5 (1.7) 2.4 (1.2) 4.1 (1.3) 2.6 (1.1) 0.0 (0) 0.2 (0) 75 (0) 94 (0) 90.7 (3.3) 78.0 (4.6) 9.1 (3.3) 16.9 (3.9) 0.1 (<0.1) 4.7 (2.7) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (0) 283 (0) 204 (0) 92.2 (1.5) 89.0 (2.3) 7.4 (1.6) 9.2 (2.3) 0.4 (0.3) 1.5 (0.6) 0.0 (0) 0.3 (0) 1,201 (0) 827 (0) 92.0 (1.1) 83.5 (1.6) 6.2 (1.1) 13.8 (1.5) 1.8 (0.4) 2.7 (0.6) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 2.7 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 292,967 94.8 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not a CFU Overcount Case 30 CFU Undercount Cases Table 21 provides the component breakdown of coverage results of persons in housing units in which the return indicated that additional people were staying at the household who were not included in the household population count box. For example, the respondent marked that a child was not included as part of the household population count box. Table 21 reports results for all persons in these housing units by reasons and by interview outcome. When the return indicated that a relative was not included in the household population count box, CFU completed interviews had 3.3% erroneous enumerations due to duplication and 0.7% erroneous enumerations due to other reasons. For non-completed cases, the estimates were 5.3% and 1.3%, respectively. Table 21: Components of Census Coverage for Coverage Followup Undercount Cases Coverage Followup Undercount Question Status U.S. T otal Complete Child Non-Complete Complete Relative Non-Complete Complete Non-Relative Non-Complete Complete T emporary Non-Complete Multiple Reasons for Person Complete Non-Complete Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Whole-Person Imputations (%) Erroneous (%) Duplication Other 300,703 (0) 94.7 (<0.1) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 766 (0) 639 (0) 95.9 (1.3) 93.2 (1.4) 3.8 (1.3) 5.3 (1.3) 0.2 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 0.0 (0) 0.5 (0) 1,855 (0) 1,258 (0) 96.0 (0.6) 93.0 (0.8) 3.3 (0.6) 5.3 (0.8) 0.7 (0.2) 1.3 (0.3) 0.0 (0) 0.4 (0) 438 (0) 346 (0) 95.7 (1.4) 97.1 (0.7) 3.7 (1.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.6 (0.3) 1.5 (0.7) 0.0 (0) 0.7 (0) 1,291 (0) 817 (0) 95.8 (0.7) 93.3 (1.1) 3.3 (0.7) 4.2 (1.0) 0.9 (0.3) 1.9 (0.6) 0.0 (0) 0.6 (0) 256 (0) 187 (0) 95.8 (1.8) 90.9 (3.1) 3.7 (1.8) 7.6 (3.1) 0.5 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1) 0.0 (0) 1.2 (0) 2.8 (<0.1) 0.5 (<0.1) 2.0 (0) 292,851 94.7 (0) (<0.1) Standard Errors are shown in parentheses below the estimate. The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. Not a CFU Undercount Case 31 References Bentley, M. (2008), “Specifications for Bilingual Form Distribution in the 2010 Census (Phase 1),” DSSD 2010 Decennial Census Memorandum Series #B-4. Davis, P. and Mulligan, J. (2012), “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Net Coverage for the Household Population in the United States,” DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-03. Keller, A. and Fox, T. (2012b), “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Components of Census Coverage Results for Housing Units in the United States,” DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-06. Govern, K., Coombs, J., and Glorioso, R. (2012), “2010 Census Coverage Followup (CFU) Assessment Report,” United States Census Bureau. Jackson, G., Heimel, S., Walker, S., and Winder, W. (2012), “2010 Census Nonresponse Followup Operations (NRO) Assessment,” United States Census Bureau. Letourneau, E. (2010), “Specification to Identify Replacement Mailing Housing Units in the 2010 Census,” DSSD 2010 Decennial Census Memorandum Series #G-04-R1. Letourneau, E. (2012), “Mail Response/Return Rates Assessment for the 2010 Census,” United States Census Bureau. Olson, D. and Viehdorfer, C. (2012), “2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Net Coverage Error for Housing Units,” DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-05. Rothhaas, C., Bentley, M., Hill, J. M., and Lestina, F. (2011), “2010 Census: Bilingual Questionnaire Assessment Report,” DSSD 2010 CPEX Memorandum Series #C-01. 32 Attachment A: Component Results of Counties and Places ≥ 500,000 People Table A1: Components of Census Coverage for Counties ≥ 500,000 People COUNT Y Alabama (01) Jefferson County (073) Balance of Alabama Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 4,663.9 642.7 4,021.2 92.5 90.0 92.3 4.8 6.3 5.1 2.8 3.7 2.6 4,670.2 646.6 4,023.5 92.3 89.5 92.3 0.13 0.61 0.06 7.7 10.5 7.7 629.1 93.7 4.8 1.4 623.8 94.5 -0.85 5.5 Arizona (04) Maricopa County (013) Pima County (019) Balance of Arizona 6,252.6 3,763.9 956.1 1,532.6 92.3 92.6 90.7 91.3 4.3 4.2 6.6 4.4 3.4 3.2 2.7 4.3 6,226.5 3,749.9 952.8 1,523.8 92.7 93.0 91.0 91.8 -0.42 -0.37 -0.35 -0.57 7.3 7.0 9.0 8.2 Arkansas (05) 2,837.0 94.2 4.2 1.6 2,825.5 94.6 -0.41 5.4 36,434.1 1,472.8 1,038.7 912.9 802.9 9,646.9 2,971.0 2,153.8 1,395.0 1,995.2 2,993.3 781.0 671.0 709.6 1,751.3 508.1 812.7 5,817.9 95.1 96.0 96.5 95.0 92.4 95.1 95.3 92.4 96.8 94.6 95.3 93.2 95.6 94.0 95.1 95.7 94.8 94.3 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.1 5.1 3.5 3.1 5.3 2.1 3.7 2.2 5.5 2.3 4.2 3.1 2.8 4.0 3.7 1.7 0.8 0.6 1.9 2.5 1.4 1.6 2.3 1.1 1.7 2.5 1.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.2 2.0 36,529.8 1,478.0 1,039.4 916.6 802.5 9,696.2 2,975.0 2,151.3 1,394.8 1,997.7 2,990.5 781.5 672.1 710.8 1,757.1 507.7 814.1 5,844.5 94.9 95.7 96.4 94.6 92.4 94.6 95.1 92.5 96.8 94.5 95.4 93.2 95.5 93.8 94.7 95.8 94.7 93.9 0.26 0.35 0.06 0.40 -0.05 0.51 0.14 -0.12 -0.01 0.13 -0.09 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.33 -0.10 0.17 0.46 5.1 4.3 3.6 5.4 7.6 5.4 4.9 7.5 3.2 5.5 4.6 6.8 4.5 6.2 5.3 4.2 5.3 6.1 Colorado (08) Arapahoe County (005) Denver County (031) El Paso County (041) Jefferson County (059) Balance of Colorado 4,913.3 567.1 584.2 603.1 527.1 2,631.8 93.8 93.9 92.4 91.8 96.2 93.7 2.9 2.6 4.4 2.7 1.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.2 5.5 1.9 3.1 4,899.2 567.0 586.5 600.3 526.2 2,619.3 94.1 94.0 92.0 92.2 96.4 94.2 -0.29 -0.02 0.40 -0.47 -0.17 -0.48 5.9 6.0 8.0 7.8 3.6 5.8 Connecticut (09) Fairfield County (001) Hartford County (003) New Haven County (009) Balance of Connecticut 3,455.9 897.7 865.8 833.3 859.2 95.7 95.7 94.1 96.2 96.0 3.0 2.7 4.7 2.3 2.9 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.1 3,440.3 893.1 860.5 829.2 857.5 96.1 96.2 94.7 96.7 96.2 -0.45 -0.51 -0.61 -0.49 -0.20 3.9 3.8 5.3 3.3 3.8 Delaware (10) New Castle County (003) Balance of Delaware 873.5 521.3 352.2 94.3 94.2 94.1 2.8 2.7 3.5 2.8 3.1 2.4 878.3 525.4 352.9 93.8 93.5 93.9 0.55 0.77 0.21 6.2 6.5 6.1 District of Columbia (11) 561.7 93.1 4.0 2.9 574.5 91.0 2.23 9.0 Alaska (02) California (06) Alameda County (001) Contra Costa County (013) Fresno County (019) Kern County (029) Los Angeles County (037) Orange County (059) Riverside County (065) Sacramento County (067) San Bernardino County (071) San Diego County (073) San Francisco County (075) San Joaquin County (077) San Mateo County (081) Santa Clara County (085) Stanislaus County (099) Ventura County (111) Balance of California The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 33 Table A1 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Counties ≥ 500,000 People COUNT Y Florida (12) Brevard County (009) Broward County (011) Duval County (031) Hillsborough County (057) Lee County (071) Miami-Dade County (086) Orange County (095) Palm Beach County (099) Pinellas County (103) Polk County (105) Balance of Florida Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 18,379.6 535.6 1,731.2 844.3 1,207.2 610.3 2,456.4 1,112.3 1,300.2 896.9 589.8 7,095.6 92.9 93.5 92.3 92.1 92.0 91.4 94.4 89.8 93.3 94.0 92.5 92.5 4.5 3.3 5.4 3.4 6.3 5.6 3.9 6.1 4.0 3.6 3.9 4.9 2.7 3.1 2.3 4.5 1.7 3.1 1.8 4.0 2.7 2.4 3.6 2.6 18,463.0 534.0 1,745.8 846.9 1,213.2 608.4 2,483.3 1,120.2 1,307.5 894.2 589.9 7,119.6 92.5 93.8 91.5 91.8 91.5 91.6 93.4 89.2 92.8 94.3 92.5 92.1 0.45 -0.30 0.84 0.30 0.50 -0.30 1.09 0.71 0.56 -0.30 0.01 0.34 7.5 6.2 8.5 8.2 8.5 8.4 6.6 10.8 7.2 5.7 7.5 7.9 Georgia (13) Cobb County (067) DeKalb County (089) Fulton County (121) Gwinnett County (135) Balance of Georgia 9,434.5 679.0 678.8 889.2 799.6 6,387.8 93.5 94.7 91.3 93.6 94.3 93.2 3.1 3.1 5.0 2.4 1.0 3.7 3.3 2.2 3.7 4.0 4.8 3.1 9,521.5 686.6 694.0 905.5 810.4 6,425.1 92.7 93.7 89.3 91.9 93.0 92.6 0.91 1.10 2.18 1.80 1.32 0.58 7.3 6.3 10.7 8.1 7.0 7.4 Hawaii (15) Honolulu County (003) Balance of Hawaii 1,317.4 917.9 399.5 91.8 92.2 90.0 5.2 5.0 6.2 3.0 2.7 3.7 1,311.6 917.5 394.1 92.2 92.3 91.3 -0.44 -0.04 -1.38 7.8 7.7 8.7 Idaho (16) 1,538.6 94.2 3.2 2.6 1,538.1 94.2 -0.03 5.8 Illinois (17) Cook County (031) DuPage County (043) Kane County (089) Lake County (097) Will County (197) Balance of Illinois 12,528.9 5,104.4 904.8 508.5 682.8 669.0 4,659.4 95.0 92.7 96.2 97.4 92.0 97.0 96.5 3.3 4.7 2.7 2.1 7.0 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.1 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.5 12,469.1 5,071.3 896.9 504.1 676.7 664.2 4,655.9 95.4 93.4 97.0 98.3 92.8 97.7 96.5 -0.48 -0.65 -0.88 -0.87 -0.89 -0.73 -0.08 4.6 6.6 3.0 1.7 7.2 2.3 3.5 Indiana (18) Marion County (097) Balance of Indiana 6,296.9 886.7 5,410.2 95.7 96.5 95.4 3.2 1.5 3.6 1.1 2.0 1.0 6,254.9 880.5 5,374.4 96.4 97.2 96.0 -0.67 -0.71 -0.67 3.6 2.8 4.0 Iowa (19) 2,948.2 97.1 2.0 0.9 2,940.0 97.4 -0.28 2.6 Kansas (20) Johnson County (091) Balance of Kansas 2,774.0 539.0 2,235.0 95.6 95.3 95.3 3.7 3.5 4.1 0.7 1.1 0.6 2,755.5 534.2 2,221.3 96.3 96.2 95.9 -0.67 -0.90 -0.62 3.7 3.8 4.1 Kentucky (21) Jefferson County (111) Balance of Kentucky 4,213.5 726.9 3,486.6 94.4 95.8 93.7 3.7 2.4 4.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 4,208.0 728.5 3,479.4 94.5 95.5 93.8 -0.13 0.22 -0.20 5.5 4.5 6.2 Louisiana (22) 4,405.9 92.9 4.0 3.1 4,389.2 93.2 -0.38 6.8 Maine (23) 1,292.8 96.4 2.5 1.1 1,301.3 95.8 0.65 4.2 The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 34 Table A1 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Counties ≥ 500,000 People COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) Maryland (24) Anne Arundel County (003) Baltimore County (005) Montgomery County (031) Prince George's County (033) Baltimore City (510) Balance of Maryland 5,635.2 523.5 784.2 962.9 844.1 595.8 1,924.7 94.9 95.2 94.4 95.3 93.9 90.4 95.6 3.4 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.7 7.7 3.0 1.8 1.9 2.2 1.6 2.5 2.0 1.3 5,688.4 525.9 789.6 971.2 864.0 608.8 1,929.1 94.0 94.8 93.8 94.5 91.7 88.4 95.4 0.94 0.45 0.67 0.85 2.30 2.14 0.23 6.0 5.2 6.2 5.5 8.3 11.6 4.6 Massachusetts (25) Bristol County (005) Essex County (009) Middlesex County (017) Norfolk County (021) Suffolk County (025) Worcester County (027) Balance of Massachusetts 6,308.7 532.4 726.7 1,447.7 653.2 674.8 771.5 1,502.4 93.8 93.9 93.7 95.7 94.9 85.1 94.7 94.4 5.1 5.2 5.8 3.7 4.1 13.1 3.3 4.4 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.3 6,276.4 526.4 719.4 1,441.4 650.9 665.8 769.2 1,503.2 94.3 94.9 94.6 96.1 95.2 86.3 95.0 94.3 -0.52 -1.14 -1.02 -0.43 -0.35 -1.36 -0.30 0.05 5.7 5.1 5.4 3.9 4.8 13.7 5.0 5.7 Michigan (26) Kent County (081) Macomb County (099) Oakland County (125) Wayne County (163) Balance of Michigan 9,654.6 591.3 833.5 1,189.9 1,796.7 5,243.2 94.9 95.5 97.6 92.7 94.4 94.4 3.5 2.8 1.4 6.2 2.9 4.1 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.1 2.7 1.5 9,591.6 586.5 826.3 1,181.6 1,786.4 5,210.8 95.5 96.3 98.5 93.4 95.0 95.0 -0.66 -0.82 -0.88 -0.70 -0.58 -0.62 4.5 3.7 1.5 6.6 5.0 5.0 Minnesota (27) Hennepin County (053) Ramsey County (123) Balance of Minnesota 5,168.5 1,127.3 490.3 3,550.9 95.1 96.8 96.2 94.0 3.9 2.4 3.1 4.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 1.2 5,139.7 1,121.7 486.2 3,531.9 95.6 97.3 97.1 94.5 -0.56 -0.50 -0.84 -0.54 4.4 2.7 2.9 5.5 Mississippi (28) 2,875.3 91.3 6.7 1.9 2,882.3 91.1 0.24 8.9 Missouri (29) Jackson County (095) St. Louis County (189) Balance of Missouri 5,814.8 662.9 979.5 4,172.3 94.9 94.4 94.2 94.6 3.4 3.7 4.3 3.6 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 5,776.8 658.0 973.2 4,145.6 95.5 95.1 94.8 95.2 -0.66 -0.76 -0.65 -0.64 4.5 4.9 5.2 4.8 960.6 93.3 3.8 2.9 954.3 93.9 -0.65 6.1 Nebraska (31) Douglas County (055) Balance of Nebraska 1,775.2 504.9 1,270.3 96.4 97.0 95.6 2.4 1.9 3.1 1.3 1.0 1.3 1,765.6 500.6 1,265.1 96.9 97.9 96.0 -0.54 -0.87 -0.41 3.1 2.1 4.0 Nevada (32) Clark County (003) Balance of Nevada 2,664.4 1,929.3 735.1 93.0 92.0 95.3 2.9 3.4 2.0 4.1 4.6 2.7 2,663.3 1,924.1 739.2 93.1 92.2 94.8 -0.04 -0.27 0.55 6.9 7.8 5.2 New Hampshire (33) 1,276.4 95.6 3.3 1.1 1,284.1 95.0 0.60 5.0 Montana (30) The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 35 Table A1 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Counties ≥ 500,000 People COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) New Jersey (34) Bergen County (003) Camden County (007) Essex County (013) Hudson County (017) Middlesex County (023) Monmouth County (025) Ocean County (029) Passaic County (031) Union County (039) Balance of New Jersey 8,605.0 894.7 506.2 760.2 624.9 786.0 622.7 569.4 490.2 529.7 2,821.0 95.1 95.7 96.4 90.4 91.8 93.5 97.3 93.2 93.5 94.3 97.2 3.3 3.3 3.1 6.7 6.1 4.2 1.8 5.1 3.3 3.4 1.9 1.6 1.0 0.6 2.9 2.1 2.3 0.9 1.8 3.2 2.4 0.9 8,574.0 889.7 506.0 755.5 617.0 785.1 620.2 565.6 486.9 529.2 2,818.8 95.5 96.2 96.4 91.0 93.0 93.6 97.7 93.8 94.1 94.3 97.2 -0.36 -0.56 -0.05 -0.62 -1.27 -0.12 -0.41 -0.67 -0.67 -0.10 -0.08 4.5 3.8 3.6 9.0 7.0 6.4 2.3 6.2 5.9 5.7 2.8 New Mexico (35) Bernalillo County (001) Balance of New Mexico 2,016.6 650.6 1,365.9 92.2 93.8 91.0 4.0 3.9 4.5 3.8 2.3 4.5 2,013.3 650.1 1,363.2 92.3 93.8 91.2 -0.16 -0.08 -0.20 7.7 6.2 8.8 New York (36) Bronx County (005) Erie County (029) Kings County (047) Monroe County (055) Nassau County (059) New York County (061) Queens County (081) Suffolk County (103) Westchester County (119) Balance of New York 18,792.4 1,338.4 890.7 2,469.1 718.1 1,317.9 1,518.5 2,202.7 1,463.9 920.4 5,952.8 93.1 90.7 95.2 87.4 94.9 95.1 93.0 91.3 94.7 91.7 94.8 4.8 6.2 3.8 8.4 4.6 3.3 5.1 6.4 3.4 4.8 4.0 2.1 3.1 1.0 4.2 0.5 1.6 1.8 2.3 1.9 3.5 1.1 18,644.3 1,333.2 883.2 2,406.3 715.7 1,307.1 1,509.2 2,158.8 1,461.6 914.8 5,954.5 93.9 91.1 96.1 89.6 95.2 95.9 93.6 93.2 94.9 92.2 94.8 -0.79 -0.39 -0.85 -2.61 -0.33 -0.82 -0.62 -2.04 -0.16 -0.61 0.03 6.1 8.9 3.9 10.4 4.8 4.1 6.4 6.8 5.1 7.8 5.2 North Carolina (37) Mecklenburg County (119) Wake County (183) Balance of North Carolina 9,278.2 903.6 880.0 7,494.6 92.8 91.3 95.7 92.4 4.4 3.9 2.0 5.0 2.8 4.8 2.3 2.6 9,326.9 912.3 885.4 7,529.2 92.4 90.4 95.1 91.9 0.52 0.95 0.61 0.46 7.6 9.6 4.9 8.1 647.5 96.1 2.9 0.9 648.1 96.1 0.09 3.9 11,230.2 1,250.9 1,138.2 782.9 521.0 531.8 7,005.5 95.7 92.8 94.9 93.9 96.4 97.0 96.0 2.9 5.3 3.0 4.7 1.8 1.0 2.9 1.4 1.8 2.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.2 11,137.6 1,241.2 1,129.3 777.8 516.2 526.9 6,946.3 96.5 93.5 95.6 94.5 97.3 97.9 96.8 -0.83 -0.78 -0.79 -0.65 -0.94 -0.93 -0.85 3.5 6.5 4.4 5.5 2.7 2.1 3.2 Oklahoma (40) Oklahoma County (109) T ulsa County (143) Balance of Oklahoma 3,639.3 703.6 593.6 2,342.1 92.6 94.1 93.2 91.2 6.0 2.9 5.8 7.9 1.4 3.0 0.9 1.0 3,600.4 704.7 592.9 2,302.8 93.6 94.0 93.3 92.7 -1.08 0.16 -0.12 -1.71 6.4 6.0 6.7 7.3 Oregon (41) Multnomah County (051) Washington County (067) Balance of Oregon 3,744.4 715.8 522.9 2,505.8 96.0 96.1 94.8 96.0 2.4 2.8 4.3 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.8 3,745.4 713.8 522.4 2,509.2 96.0 96.3 94.9 95.9 0.02 -0.28 -0.09 0.14 4.0 3.7 5.1 4.1 North Dakota (38) Ohio (39) Cuyahoga County (035) Franklin County (049) Hamilton County (061) Montgomery County (113) Summit County (153) Balance of Ohio The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 36 Table A1 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Counties ≥ 500,000 People COUNT Y Pennsylvania (42) Allegheny County (003) Bucks County (017) Delaware County (045) Lancaster County (071) Montgomery County (091) Philadelphia County (101) Balance of Pennsylvania Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) 12,276.3 1,188.3 617.0 535.9 506.8 778.9 1,468.6 7,180.7 95.6 96.0 97.9 96.8 96.7 95.2 92.4 95.5 3.1 2.9 1.4 1.8 3.0 3.9 4.6 3.5 1.2 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.3 0.9 3.0 1.0 12,293.7 1,183.9 616.2 536.4 505.8 780.5 1,459.0 7,211.9 95.5 96.3 98.0 96.7 96.9 95.0 93.1 95.1 0.14 -0.37 -0.13 0.08 -0.20 0.21 -0.66 0.43 4.5 3.7 2.0 3.3 3.1 5.0 6.9 4.9 Rhode Island (44) Providence County (007) Balance of Rhode Island 1,009.9 598.9 411.0 93.3 92.0 94.9 5.0 6.1 3.9 1.7 2.0 1.3 1,001.8 593.2 408.6 94.1 92.8 95.4 -0.81 -0.96 -0.58 5.9 7.2 4.6 South Carolina (45) 4,486.2 95.2 2.7 2.1 4,504.5 94.8 0.41 5.2 780.1 95.2 2.9 1.9 780.9 95.1 0.10 4.9 T ennessee (47) Davidson County (037) Shelby County (157) Balance of T ennessee 6,192.6 600.8 909.3 4,682.5 94.3 94.1 93.6 94.2 3.5 3.2 2.5 4.1 2.2 2.7 3.9 1.8 6,199.8 605.5 918.5 4,675.8 94.2 93.3 92.6 94.3 0.12 0.77 1.00 -0.14 5.8 6.7 7.4 5.7 T exas (48) Bexar County (029) Collin County (085) Dallas County (113) Denton County (121) El Paso County (141) Fort Bend County (157) Harris County (201) Hidalgo County (215) T arrant County (439) T ravis County (453) Balance of T exas 24,564.4 1,672.8 778.4 2,337.7 652.3 784.9 579.4 4,047.9 767.8 1,788.4 1,001.2 10,153.6 94.0 92.5 97.0 91.9 94.3 93.5 93.9 95.5 87.8 95.5 95.2 93.1 3.5 4.4 0.6 5.3 2.2 2.9 2.9 2.4 8.1 3.3 3.0 4.2 2.6 3.1 2.4 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.2 2.1 4.1 1.2 1.8 2.6 24,803.9 1,679.4 783.1 2,380.3 657.1 799.5 582.6 4,109.4 811.9 1,805.2 1,013.2 10,182.2 93.1 92.1 96.4 90.3 93.6 91.8 93.4 94.1 83.1 94.6 94.0 92.9 0.97 0.39 0.60 1.79 0.73 1.83 0.54 1.50 5.43 0.93 1.18 0.28 6.9 7.9 3.6 9.7 6.4 8.2 6.6 5.9 16.9 5.4 6.0 7.1 Utah (49) Salt Lake County (035) Utah County (049) Balance of Utah 2,717.7 1,015.6 502.7 1,199.4 94.6 90.9 96.6 96.0 4.0 7.6 2.2 2.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.4 2,704.9 1,012.2 500.0 1,192.7 95.1 91.2 97.2 96.6 -0.48 -0.34 -0.53 -0.57 4.9 8.8 2.8 3.4 600.4 95.9 3.7 0.5 608.3 94.6 1.29 5.4 Virginia (51) Fairfax County (059) Balance of Virginia 7,761.2 1,072.4 6,688.8 94.7 96.0 94.0 3.3 2.1 4.1 1.9 1.9 2.0 7,805.5 1,080.6 6,724.8 94.2 95.3 93.5 0.57 0.76 0.54 5.8 4.7 6.5 Washington (53) King County (033) Pierce County (053) Snohomish County (061) Balance of Washington 6,585.2 1,894.1 777.3 702.9 3,210.8 95.4 96.9 94.4 95.1 94.4 2.9 2.0 4.2 3.0 3.7 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.9 6,578.3 1,891.3 772.8 699.1 3,215.1 95.5 97.1 95.0 95.7 94.3 -0.10 -0.15 -0.58 -0.54 0.13 4.5 2.9 5.0 4.3 5.7 West Virginia (54) 1,803.6 91.0 7.7 1.3 1,778.1 92.3 -1.43 7.7 Wisconsin (55) Milwaukee County (079) Balance of Wisconsin 5,536.8 923.2 4,613.5 95.7 97.0 95.2 3.1 1.6 3.6 1.2 1.3 1.1 5,527.5 919.0 4,608.5 95.9 97.5 95.3 -0.17 -0.47 -0.11 4.1 2.5 4.7 549.9 93.2 4.2 2.6 547.1 93.6 -0.51 6.4 South Dakota (46) Vermont (50) Wyoming (56) The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 37 Table A2: Components of Census Coverage for Places ≥ 500,000 People PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Alabama (01) Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) 4,663.9 92.5 4.8 2.8 4,670.2 92.3 0.13 7.7 629.1 93.7 4.8 1.4 623.8 94.5 -0.85 5.5 Arizona (04) Phoenix city (55000) T ucson city (77000) Balance of Arizona 6,252.6 1,423.9 499.4 4,329.3 92.3 93.1 96.4 90.8 4.3 3.3 1.6 5.7 3.4 3.6 2.0 3.5 6,226.5 1,424.6 499.0 4,302.9 92.7 93.1 96.5 91.4 -0.42 0.05 -0.08 -0.62 7.3 6.9 3.5 8.6 Arkansas (05) 2,837.0 94.2 4.2 1.6 2,825.5 94.6 -0.41 5.4 36,434.1 3,708.0 1,255.4 781.0 932.6 29,757.1 95.1 95.1 95.1 93.2 93.7 94.5 3.2 3.5 2.6 5.5 4.5 3.7 1.7 1.4 2.3 1.3 1.8 1.7 36,529.8 3,734.9 1,257.2 781.5 937.3 29,818.8 94.9 94.4 95.0 93.2 93.2 94.3 0.26 0.72 0.14 0.07 0.50 0.21 5.1 5.6 5.0 6.8 6.8 5.7 Colorado (08) Denver city (20000) Balance of Colorado 4,913.3 584.2 4,329.1 93.8 92.4 93.6 2.9 4.4 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.4 4,899.2 586.5 4,312.7 94.1 92.0 94.0 -0.29 0.40 -0.38 5.9 8.0 6.0 Connecticut (09) 3,455.9 95.7 3.0 1.3 3,440.3 96.1 -0.45 3.9 Delaware (10) 873.5 94.3 2.8 2.8 878.3 93.8 0.55 6.2 District of Columbia (11) 561.7 93.1 4.0 2.9 574.5 91.0 2.23 9.0 18,379.6 802.0 17,577.6 92.9 91.8 92.4 4.5 3.6 5.0 2.7 4.6 2.6 18,463.0 804.7 17,658.3 92.5 91.5 92.0 0.45 0.34 0.46 7.5 8.5 8.0 Georgia (13) 9,434.5 93.5 3.1 3.3 9,521.5 92.7 0.91 7.3 Hawaii (15) 1,317.4 91.8 5.2 3.0 1,311.6 92.2 -0.44 7.8 Idaho (16) 1,538.6 94.2 3.2 2.6 1,538.1 94.2 -0.03 5.8 12,528.9 2,635.4 9,893.5 95.0 90.9 95.6 3.3 5.6 3.1 1.8 3.4 1.3 12,469.1 2,623.6 9,845.5 95.4 91.3 96.0 -0.48 -0.45 -0.49 4.6 8.7 4.0 Indiana (18) Indianapolis city (36003) Balance of Indiana 6,296.9 804.4 5,492.5 95.7 96.2 95.3 3.2 1.7 3.8 1.1 2.1 1.0 6,254.9 798.9 5,455.9 96.4 96.9 95.9 -0.67 -0.69 -0.67 3.6 3.1 4.1 Iowa (19) 2,948.2 97.1 2.0 0.9 2,940.0 97.4 -0.28 2.6 Kansas (20) 2,774.0 95.6 3.7 0.7 2,755.5 96.3 -0.67 3.7 Kentucky (21) Louisville/Jefferson County (48006) Balance of Kentucky 4,213.5 584.8 3,628.7 94.4 95.6 93.6 3.7 2.5 4.6 1.8 1.9 1.8 4,208.0 586.4 3,621.5 94.5 95.3 93.8 -0.13 0.28 -0.20 5.5 4.7 6.2 Louisiana (22) 4,405.9 92.9 4.0 3.1 4,389.2 93.2 -0.38 6.8 Alaska (02) California (06) Los Angeles (44000) San Diego city (66000) San Francisco city (67000) San Jose city (68000) Balance of California Florida (12) Jacksonville (35000) Balance of Florida Illinois (17) Chicago city (14000) Balance of Illinois The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 38 Table A2 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Places ≥ 500,000 People PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) Maine (23) 1,292.8 96.4 2.5 1.1 1,301.3 95.8 0.65 4.2 Maryland (24) Baltimore (04000) Balance of Maryland 5,635.2 595.8 5,039.4 94.9 90.4 94.9 3.4 7.7 3.3 1.8 2.0 1.8 5,688.4 608.8 5,079.7 94.0 88.4 94.2 0.94 2.14 0.79 6.0 11.6 5.8 Massachusetts (25) Boston city (07000) Balance of Massachusetts 6,308.7 571.4 5,737.4 93.8 83.9 94.5 5.1 14.3 4.5 1.1 1.8 1.0 6,276.4 564.2 5,712.1 94.3 84.9 94.9 -0.52 -1.27 -0.44 5.7 15.1 5.1 Michigan (26) Detroit city (22000) Balance of Michigan 9,654.6 699.0 8,955.6 94.9 93.3 94.5 3.5 2.7 4.1 1.6 4.0 1.5 9,591.6 699.4 8,892.2 95.5 93.3 95.1 -0.66 0.05 -0.71 4.5 6.7 4.9 Minnesota (27) 5,168.5 95.1 3.9 1.0 5,139.7 95.6 -0.56 4.4 Mississippi (28) 2,875.3 91.3 6.7 1.9 2,882.3 91.1 0.24 8.9 Missouri (29) 5,814.8 94.9 3.4 1.8 5,776.8 95.5 -0.66 4.5 Montana (30) 960.6 93.3 3.8 2.9 954.3 93.9 -0.65 6.1 Nebraska (31) 1,775.2 96.4 2.4 1.3 1,765.6 96.9 -0.54 3.1 Nevada (32) Las Vegas city (40000) Balance of Nevada 2,664.4 574.3 2,090.1 93.0 93.8 92.3 2.9 2.9 3.4 4.1 3.4 4.3 2,663.3 574.7 2,088.7 93.1 93.7 92.4 -0.04 0.07 -0.07 6.9 6.3 7.6 New Hampshire (33) 1,276.4 95.6 3.3 1.1 1,284.1 95.0 0.60 5.0 New Jersey (34) 8,605.0 95.1 3.3 1.6 8,574.0 95.5 -0.36 4.5 New Mexico (35) Albuquerque (02000) Balance of New Mexico 2,016.6 538.2 1,478.4 92.2 94.5 90.5 4.0 3.3 5.2 3.8 2.3 4.4 2,013.3 538.0 1,475.3 92.3 94.5 90.7 -0.16 -0.03 -0.21 7.7 5.5 9.3 18,792.4 7,989.6 10,802.8 93.1 90.6 94.4 4.8 6.5 4.1 2.1 2.9 1.5 18,644.3 7,858.4 10,785.8 93.9 92.1 94.6 -0.79 -1.67 -0.16 6.1 7.9 5.4 9,278.2 718.1 8,560.2 92.8 90.0 92.7 4.4 4.8 4.7 2.8 5.2 2.6 9,326.9 726.6 8,600.3 92.4 89.0 92.2 0.52 1.17 0.47 7.6 11.0 7.8 647.5 96.1 2.9 0.9 648.1 96.1 0.09 3.9 11,230.2 765.9 10,464.3 95.7 93.9 95.3 2.9 3.5 3.4 1.4 2.6 1.3 11,137.6 761.0 10,376.6 96.5 94.5 96.1 -0.83 -0.65 -0.84 3.5 5.5 3.9 3,639.3 567.9 3,071.5 92.6 94.1 91.4 6.0 3.2 7.5 1.4 2.7 1.1 3,600.4 569.9 3,030.6 93.6 93.7 92.6 -1.08 0.35 -1.35 6.4 6.3 7.4 New York (36) New York (51000) Balance of New York North Carolina (37) Charlotte city (12000) Balance of North Carolina North Dakota (38) Ohio (39) Columbus (18000) Balance of Ohio Oklahoma (40) Oklahoma City (55000) Balance of Oklahoma The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 39 Table A2 Continued: Components of Census Coverage for Places ≥ 500,000 People PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Oregon (41) Portland (59000) Balance of Oregon Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) 3,744.4 566.0 3,178.4 96.0 95.8 95.6 2.4 3.2 2.7 1.6 1.0 1.7 3,745.4 565.0 3,180.3 96.0 95.9 95.6 0.02 -0.18 0.06 4.0 4.1 4.4 12,276.3 1,468.6 10,807.6 95.6 92.4 95.6 3.1 4.6 3.4 1.2 3.0 1.0 12,293.7 1,459.0 10,834.7 95.5 93.1 95.4 0.14 -0.66 0.25 4.5 6.9 4.6 Rhode Island (44) 1,009.9 93.3 5.0 1.7 1,001.8 94.1 -0.81 5.9 South Carolina (45) 4,486.2 95.2 2.7 2.1 4,504.5 94.8 0.41 5.2 780.1 95.2 2.9 1.9 780.9 95.1 0.10 4.9 Balance of T ennessee 6,192.6 630.4 575.4 4,986.9 94.3 92.6 93.9 94.2 3.5 3.4 3.4 4.0 2.2 4.0 2.7 1.9 6,199.8 639.4 580.2 4,980.2 94.2 91.3 93.1 94.3 0.12 1.42 0.82 -0.13 5.8 8.7 6.9 5.7 T exas (48) Austin city (05000) Dallas city (19000) El Paso city (24000) Fort Worth (27000) Houston (35000) San Antonio (65000) Balance of T exas 24,564.4 770.1 1,179.1 639.7 727.2 2,062.4 1,299.6 17,886.3 94.0 94.0 89.0 93.6 95.4 94.7 92.3 93.6 3.5 4.0 7.9 3.3 3.4 3.0 4.6 3.8 2.6 2.0 3.2 3.1 1.2 2.3 3.2 2.6 24,803.9 782.0 1,209.3 639.4 735.6 2,108.4 1,306.7 18,022.5 93.1 92.6 86.7 93.6 94.3 92.6 91.8 92.9 0.97 1.52 2.50 -0.04 1.14 2.18 0.54 0.76 6.9 7.4 13.3 6.4 5.7 7.4 8.2 7.1 2,717.7 94.6 4.0 1.4 2,704.9 95.1 -0.48 4.9 600.4 95.9 3.7 0.5 608.3 94.6 1.29 5.4 Virginia (51) 7,761.2 94.7 3.3 1.9 7,805.5 94.2 0.57 5.8 Washington (53) Seattle (63000) Balance of Washington 6,585.2 583.7 6,001.4 95.4 98.1 94.7 2.9 0.7 3.6 1.6 1.2 1.7 6,578.3 584.8 5,993.5 95.5 98.0 94.8 -0.10 0.18 -0.13 4.5 2.0 5.2 West Virginia (54) 1,803.6 91.0 7.7 1.3 1,778.1 92.3 -1.43 7.7 Wisconsin (55) Milwaukee city (53000) Balance of Wisconsin 5,536.8 576.4 4,960.3 95.7 96.6 95.2 3.1 1.7 3.7 1.2 1.7 1.1 5,527.5 575.4 4,952.1 95.9 96.8 95.4 -0.17 -0.18 -0.17 4.1 3.2 4.6 549.9 93.2 4.2 2.6 547.1 93.6 -0.51 6.4 Pennsylvania (42) Philadelphia (60000) Balance of Pennsylvania South Dakota (46) T ennessee (47) Memphis city (48000) Na s hville -Da vids o n m e tro po lita n (52006) Utah (49) Vermont (50) Wyoming (56) The 2010 Census count excludes persons in group quarters and persons in Remote Alaska. 40 Attachment B: Measures of Uncertainty Tables for States, Counties, and Places Table B1: Measures of Uncertainty for States ST Census Count Correct (%) WholePopulation Person Imputations Estimate ( Thousa nds) (%) Erroneous (%) Correct (%) Same Different Different Duplication Other County County State AL (0) (0.8) (0.1) (<0.1) (0.7) (0.2) (0) (58.1) (1.4) AK (0) (0.9) (0.2) (0.1) (0.9) (0.2) (0) (13.8) (2.3) AZ (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (0.2) (0.4) (0.1) (0) (73.9) (1.2) AR (0) (0.6) (0.1) (0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (40.7) (1.5) CA (0) (0.1) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.1) (<0.1) (0) (265.6) (0.7) CO (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (59.9) (1.2) CT (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (45.8) (1.4) DE (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.6) (0.1) (0) (17.1) (1.9) DC (0) (0.4) (0.0) (<0.1) (0.4) (0.2) (0) (12.9) (2.1) FL (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (160.3) (0.9) GA (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (99.9) (1.0) HI (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (27.2) (2.0) ID (0) (0.6) (0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (0.2) (0) (26.1) (1.7) IL (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (<0.1) (0) (126.1) (1.1) IN (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (<0.1) (0) (71.1) (1.2) IA (0) (0.4) (0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0) (41.4) (1.4) KS (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.7) (<0.1) (0) (39.3) (1.5) KY (0) (0.6) (0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (<0.1) (0) (53.6) (1.3) LA (0) (0.6) (0.2) (0.1) (0.5) (0.2) (0) (57.2) (1.3) ME (0) (0.6) (0.1) (0.1) (0.5) (0.2) (0) (26.0) (2.0) MD (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (0.2) (0) (68.6) (1.2) MA (0) (0.8) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.8) (<0.1) (0) (72.0) (1.4) MI (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (<0.1) (0) (97.7) (1.0) MN (0) (1.2) (<0.1) (<0.1) (1.2) (0.1) (0) (61.5) (1.7) MS (0) (1.1) (<0.1) (0.1) (1.1) (0.4) (0) (41.8) (1.7) MO (0) (0.5) (0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (<0.1) (0) (68.2) (1.2) MT (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (<0.1) (0) (19.0) (1.9) NE (0) (0.4) (0.2) (<0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0) (28.3) (1.6) NV (0) (0.3) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0) (38.8) (1.4) NH (0) (0.8) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.6) (0.2) (0) (26.8) (2.1) NJ (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0) (91.2) (1.1) NM (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.7) (0.1) (0) (31.8) (1.6) NY (0) (0.3) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (170.7) (0.9) NC (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.7) (<0.1) (0) (96.2) (1.2) ND (0) (0.8) (0.2) (0.3) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (14.1) (2.2) OH (0) (0.3) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.2) (<0.1) (0) (110.2) (1.0) OK (0) (0.8) (0.2) (<0.1) (0.8) (0.1) (0) (49.9) (1.5) OR (0) (0.5) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (0.1) (0) (49.6) (1.4) PA (0) (0.3) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (119.8) (1.0) RI (0) (0.9) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.7) (0.3) (0) (19.0) (2.0) SC (0) (0.6) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (56.6) (1.3) SD (0) (0.6) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.5) (0.1) (0) (16.0) (2.0) TN (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (<0.1) (0) (71.5) (1.2) TX (0) (0.3) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (212.1) (0.8) UT (0) (1.6) (0.1) (0.2) (1.6) (<0.1) (0) (38.9) (2.1) VT (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.6) (0.2) (0) (14.9) (2.4) VA (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0) (83.4) (1.1) WA (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.3) (<0.1) (0) (75.0) (1.1) WV (0) (2.0) (<0.1) (0.4) (1.8) (0.2) (0) (29.8) (2.6) WI (0) (0.4) (<0.1) (<0.1) (0.4) (<0.1) (0) (66.0) (1.2) WY (0) (0.7) (<0.1) (0.1) (0.7) (0.1) (0) (12.6) (2.3) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. ( Thousa nds) 41 Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) (1.24) (2.22) (1.19) (1.45) (0.73) (1.23) (1.34) (1.93) (2.20) (0.86) (1.04) (2.08) (1.70) (1.02) (1.14) (1.41) (1.44) (1.28) (1.31) (1.99) (1.19) (1.15) (1.02) (1.20) (1.45) (1.19) (2.01) (1.61) (1.46) (2.07) (1.07) (1.58) (0.92) (1.03) (2.17) (1.00) (1.40) (1.32) (0.97) (1.91) (1.25) (2.05) (1.15) (0.85) (1.44) (2.43) (1.06) (1.14) (1.70) (1.20) (2.31) (1.4) (2.3) (1.2) (1.5) (0.7) (1.2) (1.4) (1.9) (2.1) (0.9) (1.0) (2.0) (1.7) (1.1) (1.2) (1.4) (1.5) (1.3) (1.3) (2.0) (1.2) (1.4) (1.0) (1.7) (1.7) (1.2) (1.9) (1.6) (1.4) (2.1) (1.1) (1.6) (0.9) (1.2) (2.2) (1.0) (1.5) (1.4) (1.0) (2.0) (1.3) (2.0) (1.2) (0.8) (2.1) (2.4) (1.1) (1.1) (2.6) (1.2) (2.3) Table B2: Measures of Uncertainty for Counties COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) Alabama (01) Jefferson County (073) Balance of Alabama (0) (0) (0) (0.8) (2.2) (0.9) (0.8) (2.2) (0.9) (0) (0) (0) (58.1) (13.8) (59.0) (1.4) (2.9) (1.6) (1.24) (2.12) (1.46) (1.4) (2.9) (1.6) Alaska (02) (0) (0.9) (0.9) (0) (13.8) (2.3) (2.22) (2.3) Arizona (04) Maricopa County (013) Pima County (019) Balance of Arizona (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.5) (1.5) (1.1) (0.4) (0.5) (1.5) (1.1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (73.9) (55.5) (18.8) (26.4) (1.2) (1.5) (2.3) (1.9) (1.19) (1.49) (1.98) (1.74) (1.2) (1.5) (2.3) (1.9) Arkansas (05) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (40.7) (1.5) (1.45) (1.5) California (06) Alameda County (001) Contra Costa County (013) Fresno County (019) Kern County (029) Los Angeles County (037) Orange County (059) Riverside County (065) Sacramento County (067) San Bernardino County (071) San Diego County (073) San Francisco County (075) San Joaquin County (077) San Mateo County (081) Santa Clara County (085) Stanislaus County (099) Ventura County (111) Balance of California (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.9) (1.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.6) (0.3) (0.6) (0.3) (1.6) (0.7) (1.8) (0.7) (0.6) (1.0) (0.4) (0.1) (0.6) (0.8) (0.9) (1.2) (0.2) (0.7) (0.6) (0.3) (0.6) (0.3) (1.6) (0.7) (1.8) (0.7) (0.6) (1.0) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (265.6) (26.3) (19.9) (18.3) (16.5) (116.2) (45.5) (35.4) (25.3) (33.2) (46.4) (16.1) (14.3) (14.8) (30.0) (11.4) (16.5) (81.1) (0.7) (1.8) (2.0) (2.1) (2.3) (1.2) (1.6) (1.6) (1.8) (1.7) (1.5) (2.5) (2.1) (2.7) (1.8) (2.2) (2.2) (1.4) (0.73) (1.77) (1.91) (1.99) (2.06) (1.19) (1.53) (1.65) (1.82) (1.66) (1.55) (2.06) (2.13) (2.08) (1.70) (2.25) (2.02) (1.38) (0.7) (1.8) (2.0) (2.1) (2.3) (1.2) (1.6) (1.6) (1.8) (1.7) (1.5) (2.5) (2.1) (2.7) (1.8) (2.2) (2.2) (1.4) Colorado (08) Arapahoe County (005) Denver County (031) El Paso County (041) Jefferson County (059) Balance of Colorado (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.0) (1.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.4) (1.0) (1.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (59.9) (12.4) (12.8) (13.0) (11.7) (40.6) (1.2) (2.3) (2.5) (2.1) (2.2) (1.6) (1.23) (2.19) (2.17) (2.17) (2.23) (1.56) (1.2) (2.3) (2.5) (2.1) (2.2) (1.6) Connecticut (09) Fairfield County (001) Hartford County (003) New Haven County (009) Balance of Connecticut (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (1.2) (1.3) (0.7) (1.2) (0.5) (1.2) (1.3) (0.7) (1.2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (45.8) (17.6) (17.5) (16.7) (15.5) (1.4) (2.2) (2.4) (2.1) (2.1) (1.34) (1.99) (2.05) (2.02) (1.81) (1.4) (2.2) (2.4) (2.1) (2.1) Delaware (10) New Castle County (003) Balance of Delaware (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (0.8) (1.2) (0.7) (0.8) (1.2) (0) (0) (0) (17.1) (11.8) (7.2) (1.9) (2.2) (2.3) (1.93) (2.22) (2.04) (1.9) (2.2) (2.3) District of Columbia (11) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (12.9) (2.1) (2.20) (2.1) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 42 Table B2 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Counties COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) Florida (12) Brevard County (009) Broward County (011) Duval County (031) Hillsborough County (057) Lee County (071) Miami-Dade County (086) Orange County (095) Palm Beach County (099) Pinellas County (103) Polk County (105) Balance of Florida (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.1) (1.7) (1.0) (2.4) (1.5) (0.9) (2.7) (0.8) (1.0) (2.0) (0.6) (0.4) (1.1) (1.7) (1.0) (2.4) (1.5) (0.9) (2.7) (0.8) (1.0) (2.0) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (160.3) (11.8) (30.3) (17.1) (22.6) (13.3) (40.0) (21.4) (24.1) (17.8) (12.9) (97.0) (0.9) (2.3) (2.3) (2.1) (2.9) (2.5) (1.8) (3.2) (1.9) (2.1) (2.9) (1.4) (0.86) (2.22) (1.72) (2.01) (1.85) (2.19) (1.59) (1.90) (1.83) (1.99) (2.18) (1.36) (0.9) (2.3) (2.3) (2.1) (2.9) (2.5) (1.8) (3.2) (1.9) (2.1) (2.9) (1.4) Georgia (13) Cobb County (067) DeKalb County (089) Fulton County (121) Gwinnett County (135) Balance of Georgia (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.2) (1.2) (0.8) (0.4) (0.5) (0.3) (1.2) (1.2) (0.8) (0.4) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (99.9) (14.4) (15.0) (18.4) (16.6) (88.4) (1.0) (2.3) (2.3) (2.0) (1.9) (1.4) (1.04) (2.08) (2.11) (1.99) (2.02) (1.37) (1.0) (2.3) (2.3) (2.0) (1.9) (1.4) Hawaii (15) Honolulu County (003) Balance of Hawaii (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0.5) (0.7) (0.9) (0) (0) (0) (27.2) (20.4) (10.4) (2.0) (2.2) (2.6) (2.08) (2.23) (2.68) (2.0) (2.2) (2.6) Idaho (16) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (26.1) (1.7) (1.70) (1.7) Illinois (17) Cook County (031) DuPage County (043) Kane County (089) Lake County (097) Will County (197) Balance of Illinois (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (6.3) (1.3) (0.3) (0.4) (0.7) (0.6) (0.9) (6.3) (1.3) (0.3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (126.1) (77.0) (18.0) (11.7) (14.5) (14.2) (67.8) (1.1) (1.6) (2.1) (2.4) (6.6) (2.4) (1.4) (1.02) (1.53) (2.03) (2.33) (2.17) (2.15) (1.46) (1.1) (1.6) (2.1) (2.4) (6.6) (2.4) (1.4) Indiana (18) Marion County (097) Balance of Indiana (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (71.1) (17.7) (75.1) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) (1.14) (2.02) (1.41) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) Iowa (19) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (41.4) (1.4) (1.41) (1.4) Kansas (20) Johnson County (091) Balance of Kansas (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (2.4) (0.9) (0.7) (2.4) (0.9) (0) (0) (0) (39.3) (11.9) (35.3) (1.5) (3.2) (1.8) (1.44) (2.24) (1.60) (1.5) (3.2) (1.8) Kentucky (21) Jefferson County (111) Balance of Kentucky (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0.5) (0.6) (0.7) (0) (0) (0) (53.6) (15.1) (52.0) (1.3) (2.1) (1.6) (1.28) (2.07) (1.50) (1.3) (2.1) (1.6) Louisiana (22) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (57.2) (1.3) (1.31) (1.3) Maine (23) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (26.0) (2.0) (1.99) (2.0) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 43 Table B2 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Counties COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) Maryland (24) Anne Arundel County (003) Baltimore County (005) Montgomery County (031) Prince George's County (033) Baltimore City (510) Balance of Maryland (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (1.3) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (3.4) (0.6) (0.5) (1.3) (0.8) (0.9) (0.9) (3.4) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (68.6) (11.7) (16.1) (18.9) (17.5) (13.8) (30.9) (1.2) (2.5) (2.1) (2.0) (2.0) (3.9) (1.6) (1.19) (2.22) (2.03) (1.93) (1.97) (2.22) (1.60) (1.2) (2.5) (2.1) (2.0) (2.0) (3.9) (1.6) Massachusetts (25) Bristol County (005) Essex County (009) Middlesex County (017) Norfolk County (021) Suffolk County (025) Worcester County (027) Balance of Massachusetts (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.8) (2.6) (1.3) (1.2) (0.9) (5.0) (0.9) (1.3) (0.8) (2.6) (1.3) (1.2) (0.9) (5.0) (0.9) (1.3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (72.0) (11.7) (15.0) (25.6) (13.8) (14.7) (15.7) (25.8) (1.4) (3.4) (2.4) (2.1) (2.2) (5.4) (2.1) (2.1) (1.15) (2.26) (2.10) (1.78) (2.12) (2.24) (2.05) (1.71) (1.4) (3.4) (2.4) (2.1) (2.2) (5.4) (2.1) (2.1) Michigan (26) Kent County (081) Macomb County (099) Oakland County (125) Wayne County (163) Balance of Michigan (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.2) (0.6) (1.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0.4) (1.2) (0.6) (1.8) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (97.7) (12.8) (16.8) (22.2) (31.8) (73.1) (1.0) (2.4) (2.1) (2.5) (1.8) (1.5) (1.02) (2.20) (2.05) (1.90) (1.79) (1.41) (1.0) (2.4) (2.1) (2.5) (1.8) (1.5) Minnesota (27) Hennepin County (053) Ramsey County (123) Balance of Minnesota (0) (0) (0) (0) (1.2) (0.5) (1.5) (1.8) (1.2) (0.5) (1.5) (1.8) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61.5) (21.2) (11.1) (52.1) (1.7) (1.9) (2.7) (2.3) (1.20) (1.90) (2.31) (1.48) (1.7) (1.9) (2.7) (2.3) Mississippi (28) (0) (1.1) (1.1) (0) (41.8) (1.7) (1.45) (1.7) Missouri (29) Jackson County (095) St. Louis County (189) Balance of Missouri (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (2.0) (2.1) (0.5) (0.5) (2.0) (2.1) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (68.2) (14.0) (18.9) (61.6) (1.2) (2.8) (2.8) (1.5) (1.19) (2.14) (1.96) (1.50) (1.2) (2.8) (2.8) (1.5) Montana (30) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (19.0) (1.9) (2.01) (1.9) Nebraska (31) Douglas County (055) Balance of Nebraska (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.6) (0.5) (0.3) (0.6) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (28.3) (11.3) (21.6) (1.6) (2.3) (1.7) (1.61) (2.28) (1.71) (1.6) (2.3) (1.7) Nevada (32) Clark County (003) Balance of Nevada (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.4) (0.6) (0.3) (0.4) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (38.8) (33.0) (13.6) (1.4) (1.6) (1.9) (1.46) (1.72) (1.84) (1.4) (1.6) (1.9) New Hampshire (33) (0) (0.8) (0.8) (0) (26.8) (2.1) (2.07) (2.1) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 44 Table B2 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Counties COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) New Jersey (34) Bergen County (003) Camden County (007) Essex County (013) Hudson County (017) Middlesex County (023) Monmouth County (025) Ocean County (029) Passaic County (031) Union County (039) Balance of New Jersey (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (2.1) (1.6) (3.3) (1.1) (3.2) (1.2) (1.2) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (0.6) (2.1) (1.6) (3.3) (1.1) (3.2) (1.2) (1.2) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (91.2) (17.6) (11.3) (16.3) (13.7) (16.0) (13.2) (12.4) (11.2) (11.8) (43.1) (1.1) (2.0) (2.2) (2.9) (2.6) (3.8) (2.3) (3.8) (2.5) (2.4) (1.6) (1.07) (1.98) (2.24) (2.17) (2.25) (2.03) (2.14) (2.20) (2.31) (2.23) (1.53) (1.1) (2.0) (2.2) (2.9) (2.6) (3.8) (2.3) (3.8) (2.5) (2.4) (1.6) New Mexico (35) Bernalillo County (001) Balance of New Mexico (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (0.8) (1.0) (0.7) (0.8) (1.0) (0) (0) (0) (31.8) (13.9) (23.6) (1.6) (2.2) (1.9) (1.58) (2.14) (1.74) (1.6) (2.2) (1.9) New York (36) Bronx County (005) Erie County (029) Kings County (047) Monroe County (055) Nassau County (059) New York County (061) Queens County (081) Suffolk County (103) Westchester County (119) Balance of New York (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.3) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) (0.8) (0.6) (1.3) (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0.3) (1.3) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) (0.8) (0.6) (1.3) (0.7) (0.8) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (170.7) (26.2) (17.9) (44.7) (15.1) (23.7) (27.4) (39.5) (29.3) (18.0) (86.1) (0.9) (2.2) (2.3) (2.1) (2.3) (1.9) (1.8) (2.2) (2.0) (2.0) (1.5) (0.92) (1.97) (2.04) (1.91) (2.11) (1.83) (1.83) (1.87) (2.01) (1.98) (1.45) (0.9) (2.2) (2.3) (2.1) (2.3) (1.9) (1.8) (2.2) (2.0) (2.0) (1.5) North Carolina (37) Mecklenburg County (119) Wake County (183) Balance of North Carolina (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.9) (0.7) (0.6) (0.6) (0.9) (0) (0) (0) (0) (96.2) (18.0) (17.5) (101.3) (1.2) (1.9) (2.0) (1.5) (1.03) (1.95) (1.96) (1.34) (1.2) (1.9) (2.0) (1.5) North Dakota (38) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (14.1) (2.2) (2.17) (2.2) Ohio (39) Cuyahoga County (035) Franklin County (049) Hamilton County (061) Montgomery County (113) Summit County (153) Balance of Ohio (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.4) (0.8) (1.3) (0.7) (0.9) (0.3) (0.3) (1.4) (0.8) (1.3) (0.7) (0.9) (0.3) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (110.2) (23.2) (21.6) (16.0) (11.6) (11.8) (94.2) (1.0) (2.3) (2.0) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (1.3) (1.00) (1.88) (1.93) (2.07) (2.27) (2.25) (1.37) (1.0) (2.3) (2.0) (2.3) (2.3) (2.4) (1.3) Oklahoma (40) Oklahoma County (109) T ulsa County (143) Balance of Oklahoma (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.8) (0.8) (2.7) (1.1) (0.8) (0.8) (2.7) (1.1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (49.9) (14.8) (13.0) (38.8) (1.5) (2.1) (3.4) (1.9) (1.40) (2.09) (2.19) (1.72) (1.5) (2.1) (3.4) (1.9) Oregon (41) Multnomah County (051) Washington County (067) Balance of Oregon (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.9) (2.2) (0.5) (0.5) (0.9) (2.2) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (49.6) (14.9) (11.7) (39.8) (1.4) (2.2) (3.0) (1.6) (1.32) (2.10) (2.23) (1.58) (1.4) (2.2) (3.0) (1.6) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 45 Table B2 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Counties COUNT Y Census Count (T housands) Correct (%) Erroneous (%) Whole Population Person Estimate Imputations (T housands) (%) Correct (%) Pct Undercount (%) Omissions (%) Pennsylvania (42) Allegheny County (003) Bucks County (017) Delaware County (045) Lancaster County (071) Montgomery County (091) Philadelphia County (101) Balance of Pennsylvania (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.0) (0.9) (0.5) (0.3) (0.5) (0.5) (1.2) (1.2) (1.0) (0.9) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (119.8) (22.3) (13.2) (11.9) (11.4) (15.8) (27.5) (101.2) (1.0) (1.9) (2.2) (2.4) (2.5) (2.2) (2.0) (1.4) (0.97) (1.89) (2.14) (2.21) (2.25) (2.02) (1.90) (1.40) (1.0) (1.9) (2.2) (2.4) (2.5) (2.2) (2.0) (1.4) Rhode Island (44) Providence County (007) Balance of Rhode Island (0) (0) (0) (0.9) (1.2) (1.3) (0.9) (1.2) (1.3) (0) (0) (0) (19.0) (13.0) (8.1) (2.0) (2.4) (2.3) (1.91) (2.22) (1.99) (2.0) (2.4) (2.3) South Carolina (45) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (56.6) (1.3) (1.25) (1.3) South Dakota (46) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (16.0) (2.0) (2.05) (2.0) T ennessee (47) Davidson County (037) Shelby County (157) Balance of T ennessee (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.5) (1.1) (0.5) (0.4) (0.5) (1.1) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (71.5) (13.1) (18.6) (66.9) (1.2) (2.1) (2.2) (1.4) (1.15) (2.15) (2.00) (1.43) (1.2) (2.1) (2.2) (1.4) T exas (48) Bexar County (029) Collin County (085) Dallas County (113) Denton County (121) El Paso County (141) Fort Bend County (157) Harris County (201) Hidalgo County (215) T arrant County (439) T ravis County (453) Balance of T exas (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.3) (0.2) (1.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.4) (5.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.4) (0.3) (1.3) (0.2) (1.7) (0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.4) (5.8) (1.1) (0.8) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (212.1) (29.7) (15.9) (40.0) (13.9) (18.8) (12.6) (60.4) (31.3) (31.2) (19.9) (134.5) (0.8) (2.1) (2.0) (2.3) (2.1) (2.3) (2.2) (1.4) (6.3) (2.0) (2.0) (1.3) (0.85) (1.76) (2.02) (1.65) (2.11) (2.31) (2.15) (1.45) (3.65) (1.71) (1.94) (1.32) (0.8) (2.1) (2.0) (2.3) (2.1) (2.3) (2.2) (1.4) (6.3) (2.0) (2.0) (1.3) Utah (49) Salt Lake County (035) Utah County (049) Balance of Utah (0) (0) (0) (0) (1.6) (4.5) (0.7) (0.7) (1.6) (4.5) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (0) (0) (0) (38.9) (19.6) (11.3) (20.4) (2.1) (4.9) (2.3) (1.8) (1.44) (1.94) (2.27) (1.72) (2.1) (4.9) (2.3) (1.8) Vermont (50) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (14.9) (2.4) (2.43) (2.4) Virginia (51) Fairfax County (059) Balance of Virginia (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.1) (0.5) (0.4) (1.1) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (83.4) (20.6) (90.6) (1.1) (2.1) (1.3) (1.06) (1.89) (1.34) (1.1) (2.1) (1.3) Washington (53) King County (033) Pierce County (053) Snohomish County (061) Balance of Washington (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.7) (1.4) (1.2) (0.5) (0.3) (0.7) (1.4) (1.2) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (75.0) (32.0) (15.9) (14.7) (48.9) (1.1) (1.8) (2.4) (2.3) (1.5) (1.14) (1.69) (2.07) (2.11) (1.52) (1.1) (1.8) (2.4) (2.3) (1.5) West Virginia (54) (0) (2.0) (2.0) (0) (29.8) (2.6) (1.70) (2.6) Wisconsin (55) Milwaukee County (079) Balance of Wisconsin (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (66.0) (18.5) (66.8) (1.2) (2.1) (1.5) (1.20) (2.02) (1.45) (1.2) (2.1) (1.5) Wyoming (56) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (12.6) (2.3) (2.31) (2.3) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 46 Table B3: Measures of Uncertainty for Places PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) Alabama (01) (0) (0.8) (0.8) (0) (58.1) (1.4) (1.24) (1.4) Alaska (02) (0) (0.9) (0.9) (0) (13.8) (2.3) (2.22) (2.3) Arizona (04) Phoenix city (55000) T ucson city (77000) Balance of Arizona (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.5) (1.1) (0.6) (0.4) (0.5) (1.1) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (0) (73.9) (26.1) (11.4) (63.3) (1.2) (1.8) (2.5) (1.5) (1.19) (1.83) (2.28) (1.48) (1.2) (1.8) (2.5) (1.5) Arkansas (05) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (40.7) (1.5) (1.45) (1.5) California (06) Los Angeles (44000) San Diego city (66000) San Francisco city (67000) San Jose city (68000) Balance of California (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.1) (0.3) (0.5) (1.6) (1.3) (0.2) (0.1) (0.3) (0.5) (1.6) (1.3) (0.2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (265.6) (55.1) (23.5) (16.1) (18.3) (331.7) (0.7) (1.4) (1.8) (2.5) (2.2) (1.1) (0.73) (1.46) (1.86) (2.06) (1.94) (1.11) (0.7) (1.4) (1.8) (2.5) (2.2) (1.1) Colorado (08) Denver city (20000) Balance of Colorado (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.4) (0.4) (0.4) (1.4) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (59.9) (12.8) (62.4) (1.2) (2.5) (1.4) (1.23) (2.17) (1.45) (1.2) (2.5) (1.4) Connecticut (09) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (45.8) (1.4) (1.34) (1.4) Delaware (10) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (17.1) (1.9) (1.93) (1.9) District of Columbia (11) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (12.9) (2.1) (2.20) (2.1) Florida (12) Jacksonville (35000) Balance of Florida (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.1) (0.4) (0.4) (1.1) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (160.3) (16.4) (211.4) (0.9) (2.1) (1.2) (0.86) (2.03) (1.19) (0.9) (2.1) (1.2) Georgia (13) (0) (0.3) (0.3) (0) (99.9) (1.0) (1.04) (1.0) Hawaii (15) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (27.2) (2.0) (2.08) (2.0) Idaho (16) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (26.1) (1.7) (1.70) (1.7) Illinois (17) Chicago city (14000) Balance of Illinois (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.9) (0.5) (0.4) (0.9) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (126.1) (48.8) (128.5) (1.1) (1.9) (1.3) (1.02) (1.87) (1.31) (1.1) (1.9) (1.3) Indiana (18) Indianapolis city (36003) Balance of Indiana (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0.5) (0.4) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (71.1) (16.4) (76.1) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) (1.14) (2.07) (1.40) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) Iowa (19) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (41.4) (1.4) (1.41) (1.4) Kansas (20) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (39.3) (1.5) (1.44) (1.5) Kentucky (21) Louisville/Jefferson County (48006) Balance of Kentucky (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (0.8) (0.6) (0.5) (0.8) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (53.6) (12.8) (53.8) (1.3) (2.2) (1.5) (1.28) (2.17) (1.49) (1.3) (2.2) (1.5) Louisiana (22) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (57.2) (1.3) (1.31) (1.3) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 47 Table B3 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Places PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) Maine (23) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (26.0) (2.0) (1.99) (2.0) Maryland (24) Baltimore (04000) Balance of Maryland (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (3.4) (0.4) (0.5) (3.4) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (68.6) (13.8) (72.5) (1.2) (3.9) (1.4) (1.19) (2.22) (1.42) (1.2) (3.9) (1.4) Massachusetts (25) Boston city (07000) Balance of Massachusetts (0) (0) (0) (0.8) (5.8) (0.6) (0.8) (5.8) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (72.0) (12.9) (79.5) (1.4) (6.2) (1.5) (1.15) (2.32) (1.40) (1.4) (6.2) (1.5) Michigan (26) Detroit city (22000) Balance of Michigan (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.7) (0.4) (0.4) (0.7) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (97.7) (16.3) (116.2) (1.0) (2.3) (1.3) (1.02) (2.32) (1.32) (1.0) (2.3) (1.3) Minnesota (27) (0) (1.2) (1.2) (0) (61.5) (1.7) (1.20) (1.7) Mississippi (28) (0) (1.1) (1.1) (0) (41.8) (1.7) (1.45) (1.7) Missouri (29) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (68.2) (1.2) (1.19) (1.2) Montana (30) (0) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (19.0) (1.9) (2.01) (1.9) Nebraska (31) (0) (0.3) (0.3) (0) (28.3) (1.6) (1.61) (1.6) Nevada (32) Las Vegas city (40000) Balance of Nevada (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (38.8) (12.6) (33.5) (1.4) (2.1) (1.5) (1.46) (2.20) (1.60) (1.4) (2.1) (1.5) New Hampshire (33) (0) (0.8) (0.8) (0) (26.8) (2.1) (2.07) (2.1) New Jersey (34) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (91.2) (1.1) (1.07) (1.1) New Mexico (35) Albuquerque (02000) Balance of New Mexico (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0.7) (0.9) (1.0) (0) (0) (0) (31.8) (12.0) (25.2) (1.6) (2.3) (1.9) (1.58) (2.24) (1.71) (1.6) (2.3) (1.9) New York (36) New York (51000) Balance of New York (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0.3) (0.5) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (170.7) (110.0) (139.8) (0.9) (1.4) (1.3) (0.92) (1.42) (1.30) (0.9) (1.4) (1.3) North Carolina (37) Charlotte city (12000) Balance of North Carolina (0) (0) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0) (0) (0) (96.2) (15.1) (113.3) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) (1.03) (2.05) (1.31) (1.2) (2.0) (1.5) North Dakota (38) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (14.1) (2.2) (2.17) (2.2) Ohio (39) Columbus (18000) Balance of Ohio (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.1) (0.3) (0.3) (1.1) (0.3) (0) (0) (0) (110.2) (16.1) (133.9) (1.0) (2.3) (1.3) (1.00) (2.12) (1.30) (1.0) (2.3) (1.3) Oklahoma (40) Oklahoma City (55000) Balance of Oklahoma (0) (0) (0) (0.8) (1.3) (0.9) (0.8) (1.3) (0.9) (0) (0) (0) (49.9) (12.5) (48.2) (1.5) (2.4) (1.7) (1.40) (2.19) (1.61) (1.5) (2.4) (1.7) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 48 Table B3 Continued: Measures of Uncertainty for Places PLACE Census Count (Tho us a nds ) Correct (%) Whole Population Erroneous Person Estimate (%) Imputations (Tho us a nds ) (%) Correct (%) Pct Omissions Undercount (%) (%) Oregon (41) Portland (59000) Balance of Oregon (0) (0) (0) (0.5) (1.1) (0.6) (0.5) (1.1) (0.6) (0) (0) (0) (49.6) (12.4) (48.4) (1.4) (2.4) (1.6) (1.32) (2.20) (1.52) (1.4) (2.4) (1.6) Pennsylvania (42) Philadelphia (60000) Balance of Pennsylvania (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.9) (0.3) (0.3) (0.9) (0.3) (0) (0) (0) (119.8) (27.5) (140.6) (1.0) (2.0) (1.3) (0.97) (1.90) (1.29) (1.0) (2.0) (1.3) Rhode Island (44) (0) (0.9) (0.9) (0) (19.0) (2.0) (1.91) (2.0) South Carolina (45) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (56.6) (1.3) (1.25) (1.3) South Dakota (46) (0) (0.6) (0.6) (0) (16.0) (2.0) (2.05) (2.0) T ennessee (47) Memphis city (48000) Balance of T ennessee (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (1.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0.4) (1.6) (0.5) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (71.5) (14.3) (12.7) (70.6) (1.2) (2.6) (2.1) (1.4) (1.15) (2.21) (2.17) (1.42) (1.2) (2.6) (2.1) (1.4) T exas (48) Austin city (05000) Dallas city (19000) El Paso city (24000) Fort Worth (27000) Houston (35000) San Antonio (65000) Balance of T exas (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (1.0) (3.2) (0.9) (2.4) (0.7) (1.6) (0.2) (0.3) (1.0) (3.2) (0.9) (2.4) (0.7) (1.6) (0.2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (212.1) (16.4) (24.2) (14.1) (15.3) (36.3) (24.5) (221.9) (0.8) (2.2) (3.6) (2.2) (3.1) (1.7) (2.4) (1.2) (0.85) (2.06) (1.95) (2.20) (2.06) (1.68) (1.87) (1.22) (0.8) (2.2) (3.6) (2.2) (3.1) (1.7) (2.4) (1.2) Utah (49) (0) (1.6) (1.6) (0) (38.9) (2.1) (1.44) (2.1) Vermont (50) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (14.9) (2.4) (2.43) (2.4) Virginia (51) (0) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (83.4) (1.1) (1.06) (1.1) Washington (53) Seattle (63000) Balance of Washington (0) (0) (0) (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) (0.3) (0.4) (0.4) (0) (0) (0) (75.0) (12.8) (83.3) (1.1) (2.2) (1.4) (1.14) (2.18) (1.39) (1.1) (2.2) (1.4) West Virginia (54) (0) (2.0) (2.0) (0) (29.8) (2.6) (1.70) (2.6) Wisconsin (55) Milwaukee city (53000) Balance of Wisconsin (0) (0) (0) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0.4) (0.7) (0.5) (0) (0) (0) (66.0) (13.2) (70.9) (1.2) (2.3) (1.5) (1.20) (2.30) (1.43) (1.2) (2.3) (1.5) Wyoming (56) (0) (0.7) (0.7) (0) (12.6) (2.3) (2.31) (2.3) Na s hville -Da vids o n m e tro po lita n (52006) The rightmost four columns are an estimate of the root mean squared error. All other columns are an estimate of the standard error. 49