Vital Statistics Enhancement TeamAmy Symens SmithU.S. Census Bureau

Linda Gage, CaliforniaGregg Williams, AlaskaFSCPE, Research & Methodology

Subcommittee

FSCPE Mid-year MeetingMarch 28-29, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

2

Vital Statistics Enhancement Team

Census Bureau and FSCPE collaboration 1st research project of this type.

Project designed to address FSCPE recommendations and Census Bureau responseconcerning the current processing of vital statistics input data used to produce subnational population estimates.

3

FSCPE RecommendationsFSCPE vital statistics inputs should be used in the estimates.

• More current vital statistics inputs than NCHS

• More accurate inputs by race and Hispanic-origin

• Actual July-June annual period

PEP should

• Pursue a data sharing agreement with NCHS for the FSCPE

• Enhance annual vital statistics reports to learn more about effects of cut-off dates and timing of final data.

PEP and FSCPE Research and Methods Subcommittee should conduct joint research on NCHS and FSCPE vital statistics data and make further recommendations.

4

Census Bureau ResponseOverall agreement with all recommendations and enthusiastic

about a joint project.

Concerns raised: – Recommendation to use more current data that have not been

previously requested.

– Because FSCPEs may differ in their ability to provide these data we may have to design a new system to accommodate missing data.

– While designing a new system is not insurmountable, it likely will require additional time in the processing.

 

5

Vital Statistics Enhancement ResearchObjective: Design a process and methodology to efficiently

use all the vital statistics data available from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the FSCPEs in the production of subnational population estimates.

Goals: • Streamline requests for data from FSCPE.• Examine NCHS/FSCPE differences and design a method

to combine data drawing on the strengths of each data source.

• Examine characteristics data.• Examine data for more current years. 

6

Research Agenda & Schedule

1. Review of NCHS & FSCPE raw birth & death data. Comparison to subnational population estimates processing requirements. End date: 2/3/05

2. Review of current method used to reconcile differences in the NCHS & FSCPE data to create population estimates input data. End date 2/24/05

3. Comparison of NCHS & FSCPE data. End date: 3/10/05-6/2/05

4. Review of the Data Collection Process Survey to gain insights intocut-off dates & additional data availability. End date: 3/3/05

5. Testing, if changes are recommended. End date: 6/24/05

6. Preparation of report/recommendation. End date: 7/1/05

 

7

Comparison of NCHS/FSCPE Data

Evaluation tools:– National maps of outliers by year for births and

deaths– Ranking of outliers: 2000 births– Regional maps based on ranking of 2000 births

outliers– Census 2000 data for population under age 1– Index of Dissimilarity: 2000 births

ID = ½ * {ABS(NCHS or FSCPE – Census)}

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Ranking of Outliers: 2000 Births50 largest 50 largest

postive negativeoutliers: outliers:

Number of Number ofcounties in counties in

State each state each stateAlaska - 1Arizona - 1California 1 3Connecticut - 1Georgia 21 9Hawaii 4 3Idaho - 1Indiana 3 -Maryland 7 3Minnesota - 1Montana 2 -North Carolina 2 -Nevada - 4New Jersey - 12New York 1 2Ohio 5 -Virginia 3 2Wisconsin - 3West Virginia 1 -

15

Ranking of Outliers: 2000 Births

 Focus on 4 areas:– New Jersey and New York– DC Metro: DC, VA and MD– State of Georgia– Nevada, California and Arizona

16

17

18

19

20

Index of Dissimilarity: 2000 BirthsPopulation estimates must reflect change in

the population as if a census was taken.

To use birth certificate data it must capture the same universe as that captured by the census.

To measure differences use the Index of Dissimilarity to quantify the differences between each data source and the census age zero population.

21

Index of Dissimilarity: 2000 BirthsState NCHS FSCPE State NCHS FSCPE

US 2.54 2.59 Missouri 2.06 2.08Alabama 1.84 1.99 Montana 3.46 3.54Alaska 4.70 4.69 Nebraska 1.64 1.60Arizona 0.85 1.07 Nevada 0.92 1.67Arkansas 2.95 2.73 New Hampshire 0.88 0.88California 1.19 1.17 New Jersey 1.37 2.34Colorado 3.81 3.80 New York 1.96 1.98Connecticut 2.00 0.46 North Carolina 1.74 1.71Delaware 0.81 0.68 North Dakota 2.03 2.38Florida 1.09 1.09 Ohio 1.43 1.34Georgia 3.01 2.52 Oklahoma 2.45 2.49Hawaii 2.53 59.54 Oregon 2.00 1.99Idaho 2.00 2.18 Pennsylvania 1.51 1.58Illinois 1.77 1.79 Rhode Island 1.49 1.52Indiana 2.30 2.21 South Carolina 1.60 1.76Iowa 2.85 2.85 South Dakota 2.27 2.21Kansas 1.31 1.30 Tennessee 2.24 2.25Louisiana 1.78 1.79 Texas 2.14 2.14Maine 1.39 1.35 Utah 0.97 0.99Maryland 2.44 1.56 Virginia 2.63 2.28Massachusetts 1.47 1.47 Washington 0.86 0.86Michigan 0.80 0.90 West Virginia 2.49 2.65Minnesota 2.11 2.19 Wisconsin 2.16 3.22Mississippi 2.29 2.32 Wyoming 3.47 3.36

22

Index of Dissimilarity: 2000 BirthsIn 22 states the NCHS index was smaller.

In 16 states the FSCPE index was smaller.

In 9 states both indexes were the same.

NCHS index larger than national index of 2.54 in: VA, IA, AR, GA, MT, WY, CO and AK

FSCPE index larger than national index of 2.59 in: WV, AR, IA, WI, WY, MT, CO, HI, and AK

23

Index of Dissimilarity: 2000 BirthsAbsolute of

State NCHS FSCPE differenceUS 2.54 2.59 0.05Pennsylvania 1.51 1.58 0.07Minnesota 2.11 2.19 0.08Montana 3.46 3.54 0.08Indiana 2.30 2.21 0.09Ohio 1.43 1.34 0.09Michigan 0.80 0.90 0.11Wyoming 3.47 3.36 0.11Delaware 0.81 0.68 0.13Alabama 1.84 1.99 0.15South Carolina 1.60 1.76 0.17West Virginia 2.49 2.65 0.17Idaho 2.00 2.18 0.19Arizona 0.85 1.07 0.22Arkansas 2.95 2.73 0.22Virginia 2.63 2.28 0.35North Dakota 2.03 2.38 0.35Georgia 3.01 2.52 0.49Nevada 0.92 1.67 0.75Maryland 2.44 1.56 0.89New Jersey 1.37 2.34 0.97Wisconsin 2.16 3.22 1.06Connecticut 2.00 0.46 1.54Hawaii 2.53 59.54 57.01

24

Current Reconciliation MethodGoal is to draw on the strengths of each data source.

Current Reconciliation Method: 1. Remove counties with zero differences or counties where

no FSCPE data was supplied so NCHS data is used. Sum counties

2. Rake FSCPE counties to the sum of counties in #13. Rake NCHS data with characteristics to new county totals in

#2.

Method draws on the strengths of each data source:FSCPE st/co distributions NCHS characteristics data 

25

Current Reconciliation Method

Calendar Counties Countiesyear Rake removed Rake removeddata factor from rake factor from rake

2000 1.00324 1,529 1.00611 1,2182001 1.00246 1,699 1.00462 1,3392002 1.00200 1,589 1.00523 1,350

Births Deaths

In both 2001 and 2002 the majority of counties (54.1% and 50.6%) were removed from the rake process and in 2000 nearly forty-nine percent were removed. Of those counties that were raked, the rake factors for each year were very small, ranging from 1.00200 in 2002 to 1.00324 in 2000.

26

NCHS/FSCPE Births CY 2002

27

NCHS/FSCPE Input Data Comparison

28

29

30

FSCPE CY02/Census Bureau FY03 Comparison

31

NCHS CY02/Census Bureau FY03 Comparison

32

FSCPE FY03/Census Bureau FY03 Comparison

33

FSCPE or NCHS Input Births Compared to Census Bureau Output Births

34

35

NCHS/FSCPE Discrepancies in Births(California Counties adjacent to Nevada)

County

Census Population 2000 2001 2002

Modoc 9,449 16 2 3

Lassen 33,828 42 44 2

Plumas 20,824 28 18 2

Sierra 3,555 8 4 0

Mono 12,853 9 9 0

Sum 103 77 7

36

Census Bureau/FSCPE Joint Research

• Found great consistency between NCHS and FSCPE vital statistics.

• Identified and continue to analyze areas with large differences in NCHS/FSCPE vital statistics.

• Identified processing methods that distort the vital statistics input data.

37

Goal for NCHS/FSCPE/Census Bureau Vital Statistics

38

US All Counties Vital Statistics 2000NCHS-FSCPE

NCHS

Census EstimatesData Processing

Avg Abs Err = 6.7MAPE = 1.0%

Avg Abs Err = 8.6MAPE = 1.2%

Births Deaths

39

US All Counties Vital Statistics 2001NCHS-FSCPE

NCHS

Census EstimatesData Processing

Avg Abs Err = 24.9MAPE = 2.5%

Avg Abs Err = 6.0MAPE = 1.1%

Births Deaths

40

US All Counties Vital Statistics 2002NCHS –FSCPE

NCHS

Census EstimatesData Processing

Avg Abs Err = 5.4MAPE = 1.0%

Avg Abs Err = 6.7MAPE = 1.1%

DeathsBirths

41

Alaska County Births 2000-2002

State Microdata NCHS

ALASKADept of Labor

Census EstimatesData Processing

Census EstimatesReview file

?

Avg Abs Err = 2.8MAPE = 6.2%

Avg Abs Err = 6.9MAPE = 6.0

Avg Abs Err = 12.1MAPE = 8.0%

?

42

Alaska County Deaths 2000-2002

State Microdata NCHS

ALASKADept of Labor

Census EstimatesData Processing

Census EstimatesReview file

?

Avg Abs Err = 1.7MAPE = 6.0%

Avg Abs Err = 3.0MAPE = 4.2%

Avg Abs Err = 11.4MAPE = 23.2%

?

43

Future Steps

Report/Recommendation by July 1, 2005

Likely will not be included in 2005 vintage, but will be considered for 2006 vintage

Additional research needed on assignment of race/Hispanic origin in subnational estimates.