Weekly Response Rate Analysis

Posted April 21, 2010

The Center for Urban Research (CUR) at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) has analyzed the latest mail-in participation rates from the 2010 decennial census in an effort to understand which areas present the greatest challenges during the Nonresponse Follow-up operation and to help census advocates target the next phase of their outreach activities based on key demographic characteristics in each neighborhood. The Census Bureau will continue publishing mail-in rate data this week and will announce the final rate on April 26. We expect to provide a final analysis soon thereafter.

Download the detailed week 4 analysis

As of April 20, the national rate was 71%, almost matching the final 2000 participation rate of 72%. Strong response by mail is important because households not counted through the mail will now be enumerated through door-to-door interviews, a much more expensive and time consuming operation. According to the Census Bureau, it saves $85 million in follow-up costs for each one percent of households that answers the census by mail. If the nation eventually exceeds its 2000 rate, it will be the second decade in a row that the census mail-back rate has increased over the previous decade, a historic shift in one barometer of the nation’s civic engagement.

Though the nation as a whole has not yet matched its 2000 mail-in participation rate, many states, counties, and tracts surged ahead of their 2000 rates, while others fell far short of that mark. This week’s analysis continues our examination of the relationship between participation rates, race/ethnicity, and hard-to-count scores, especially comparing high-response tracts with other tracts in major cities. It also highlights the low-response tracts in major cities, to provide insight for the Census Bureau and partner organizations as enumeration efforts now focus on households that did not mail back their questionnaires. The map above depicts the 2010 mail-in patterns by county as of April 20.

Advocates and others can visualize patterns of mail-in participation at the tract, county, and state levels at www.CensusHardToCountMaps.org. The map can help pinpoint areas for census participation follow up. High-achieving areas are highlighted with red check marks. The following map shows Brooklyn and lower Manhattan, NY:

Neighborhoods with relatively low participation rates are obvious on the map. (These areas will be the focus of more expansive door-to-door enumeration efforts starting May 1.) In the map example above, pockets of dark blue census tracts (with participation rates in the 30% range) stand out amid clusters of check marks indicating high-achieving tracts.

Other features at the site that are not available on the Census Bureau's “Take 10” map include:

• A searchable, sortable display of best and worst performing tracts by county nationwide (based on their latest mail-in participation rates);
• Maps of areas that received a replacement Census questionnaire;
• Map overlays showing Congressional districts, ZIP Codes, tract-level maps of 2000 Census mail return rates, and recent foreclosure risk; and
• Real-time, geo-located Census-related Tweets.

Key Findings from Week 4 (as of April 20)

1. “High achievers” nationwide

Two states – North Carolina and South Carolina – have surpassed their 2000 mail-in rate by 5 percentage points or more.

• All but two counties in North Carolina, and all but three in South Carolina, exceeded their 2000 rates.

Almost 22% of the nation’s counties (680) have exceeded their 2000 participation rate by 5 percentage points or more. Last week (as of April 13) 472 counties had achieved this level. The greatest concentrations were in the South – especially North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia, and to a lesser extent Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.

The following map shows countywide participation rates in 2010 compared with 2000. The dark green shaded counties are ahead of their 2000 rates by 5 percentage points or more.

Nearly 18% of the nation’s tracts (11,340) exceeded their 2000 participation rate by 5 percentage points or more. This is almost twice as many tracts than had achieved this level last week (as of April 13).

• Already, nine census tracts have reached 100% participation through the mail. The list below provides links to the Census 2010 map of these communities. In 2000, only 13 tracts had achieved a 100% mail-in rate.

1. Census Tract 112 in Washington County, AR (pop. in 2000: 1,860)
2. Census Tract 6035 in San Mateo County, CA (pop. in 2000: 42)
3. Census Tract 7031 in New London County, CT (pop. in 2000: 1,494)
4. Census Tract 5291 in Tolland County, CT (pop. in 2000: 5,017)
5. Census Tract 108 in Dougherty County, GA (pop. in 2000: 1,016)
6. Census Tract 68.01 in Fulton County, GA (pop. in 2000: 2,648)
7. Census Tract 6 in Douglas County, NV (pop. in 2000: 2,128)
8. Census Tract 102.01 in Butler County, OH (pop. in 2000: 1,825)
9. Census Tract 13 in Taylor County, TX (pop. in 2000: 900)

2. Low participation tracts – the focus of door-to-door enumeration starting in May

Five percent (5%) of the nation’s census tracts (3,510) had participation rates of 50 percent or less as of April 20. The Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU) operation, when more than 600,000 census takers will visit homes that did not mail back their questionnaires, will be far more difficult in communities with low participation rates in the first phase of the census.

The nationwide median HTC score for these lowest-achieving census tracts is 59, indicating that they tend to be somewhat hard to count historically.

Based on 2000 demographic data, these low-performing tracts tended to have more diverse populations than tracts with higher participation rates, on average:

• 46% non-Hispanic White
• 31% non-Hispanic Black
• 16% Hispanic
• 3% non-Hispanic Asian
• 4% other races.

By comparison, tracts with mail-in rates above 50% have a very different race/ethnic composition on average nationwide:

• 70% non-Hispanic White
• 13% non-Hispanic Black
• 11% Hispanic
• 3% non-Hispanic Asian
• 2% other races.

3. Low participation tracts in cities

A comparison of non-urbanized areas to cities shows substantial differences in characteristics of low-participation tracts (those with mail-in rates of 50% or less).

The median HTC score for low-performing tracts in cities is 80 compared with 41 in non-urban areas.

On average, low-performing tracts in non-urban areas have a non-Hispanic White population of 71%. In inner cities, these tracts on average are predominantly non-Hispanic Black (51%) and Hispanic (19%), while the non-Hispanic White population is 21%.

Several of the nation’s largest cities have a much greater concentration of tracts with mail-in rates of 50% or less. In Newark (NJ) and New Orleans, more than half of those cities’ tracts are in this low-participation range. In Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City, between 20 and 31% of the tracts have low mail-in rates.

• A city-by-city list is included in the detailed findings below, which displays these statistics as well as the median HTC scores for low- and high-participation tracts.

4. High participation tracts in major cities

In the nation’s largest cities, “high achieving” tracts tend to have higher hard-to-count (HTC) scores. On April 20, the 2,338 tracts in these cities with 2010 participation rates at least 5 percentage points higher than 2000 had a median HTC score of 69, compared with the other tracts in these cities that had a median HTC score of 51.

• This difference is similar to last week (Week 3), when the high achieving tracts had a median HTC score of 74 compared with other tracts with a median HTC score of 53. This indicates that tracts that have substantially improved on their 2000 performance continue to be in neighborhoods generally considered hard to count.
• According to the Census Bureau’s HTC index, tracts with scores of 60 or higher are considered hard to count, and tracts with HTC scores of 76 or more are considered “very hard-to-count.”

Our detailed analysis provides a city-by-city comparison of HTC scores for these high achieving tracts and each city’s remaining tracts.

Posted April 15, 2010

The Center for Urban Research (CUR) at The Graduate Center, CUNY has analyzed the latest participation rates from the 2010 decennial census in an ongoing effort to understand which areas are not responding well and why. This week we also focus on areas that are participating substantially better than in 2000 with a new map feature that highlights the extent of improvement down to the census tract level.

Download the full week 3 analysis

On March 31 we prepared an analysis of the first week of census participation, when the nationwide rate was 50%. One week later, on April 6, the nationwide participation rate had risen to 62%. The rate rose more slowly in the third week of the Mail out/Mail back program: As of April 13 the nationwide rate was 67%. But several areas of the country are not only participating at much higher rates than the nationwide average, but have surged ahead of their participation levels in the 2000 census.

Our analysis below highlights these increases and examines whether the improvement occurred in areas that the Census Bureau had considered “hard-to-count.” The Week 3 report also updates:

• trends between urban/non-urban areas; and
• city-by-city tract-level correlations between participation rates and race/ethnicity.

We have introduced a new feature to our interactive Census mapping site. The maps now highlight the tracts, counties, and states that have surpassed their 2000 participation rates by at least 5% (i.e., 5 percentage points). We use red check marks to identify these “high achievers”, as the screen image below illustrates.

On April 13, this particular tract’s 2010 participation rate was 52%, almost twice its 2000 level of 29%. (Its HTC score was 93, indicating it was “very hard-to-count.”)

Key findings from Week 3 (as of April 13)

1. “High achievers” nationwide

• More than 10% of the nation’s counties (427 of them) have exceeded their 2000 participation rate by 5 percentage points or more. Most of these are in the upper Midwest (especially Michigan and Minnesota) or the South (including North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, and Georgia). One week earlier, fewer than 200 counties had surpassed their 2000 rates.

The map below shows countywide participation rates in 2010 compared with 2000. The dark green shaded counties are ahead of their 2000 rates by 5 percentage points or more.

Click to view full-size map (PDF)

• Nearly 10% of the nation’s tracts (6,093 of them) exceeded their 2000 participation rate by 5 percentage points or more. Many of these were in the same states as those with high-achieving counties, but other states stood out: 401 of these tracts are in New York, 285 are in Pennsylvania, and 240 are in Illinois. (Any given county may have a number of high-achieving tracts, but this may not be enough to boost the county’s participation rate above the 5% threshold.)

2. High participation tracts in large cities 

• In the nation’s largest cities, “high achieving” tracts tend to have higher hard-to-count (HTC) scores. On April 13, the 1,015 tracts in these cities with 2010 participation rates at least 5 percentage points higher than 2000 had a median HTC score of 74, compared with the other tracts in these cities that had a median HTC score of 53. According to the Census Bureau’s HTC index, tracts with HTC scores of 76 or more are considered “very hard-to-count.”
• It is too early to know why participation in 2010 tends to be much better than 2000 in these hard-to-count neighborhoods. Possible factors include advertising campaigns targeted toward HTC areas, local community outreach efforts focused on these neighborhoods, and changing demographic characteristics. Once final participation rates and 2010 Census demographic data are published, we plan to analyze these relationships in more detail.
• We provide a city-by-city comparison of HTC scores for these high achieving tracts and each city’s remaining tracts in the detailed analysis below.

3. Urban/Non-Urban trends

• Census tracts in cities continue to have much lower participation rates than non-urbanized areas. The median participation rate as of April 13 in tracts located in major cities was 62%, while the median participation rate in tracts in non-urban areas was eight points higher, at 70%.

• Generally, hard-to-count tracts continued to have lower participation rates – regardless of urban/non-urban location – than tracts with lower HTC scores.

4. Race/Ethnicity patterns in major cities

In Week 3, we examined tract-level correlations between census participation and race and ethnicity characteristics nationwide, and in the nation’s 67 largest cities (based on 2007 population estimates). Key findings include:

At the tract level nationwide, census participation continues to be correlated with race and ethnicity.

• Neighborhoods in large cities tended to follow this pattern, though some cities exhibited stronger connections between race/ethnicity and census participation.

  • For example, in 20 large cities — including Boston, MA; Oakland, CA; St. Louis, MO; and Pittsburgh, PA — participation rates are more likely to be lower in census tracts whose Black population was larger than in other tracts, compared to what we found nationally.

• Detroit was once again an exception, as the only major city in which the patterns of White and Black population and census participation are reversed. Participation rates in Detroit (as of April 13) tended to be lower in tracts with a greater percentage of Whites, and tended to be higher in tracts with a greater percentage of Blacks, though the statistical strength of these associations is only moderate.

• Several cities — including Boston, MA; Milwaukee, WI; Toledo, OH; Oakland, CA; and Pittsburgh, PA — again had stronger correlations for tract-level White and Black populations and census participation.

• In Miami, Newark, NJ, and New York City, tract-level Hispanic population concentrations continued to have the opposite relationship with census participation than the national pattern. In these three cities, participation rates tended to be higher in tracts with greater Hispanic populations. Nationally, tracts with greater Hispanic populations tended to have lower participation rates.

Posted April 8, 2010

The Center for Urban Research (CUR) at The Graduate Center, CUNY has analyzed the latest participation rates from the 2010 decennial census, in an ongoing effort to understand which areas are not responding as well and why.

On March 31 we prepared an analysis of the first week of participation, when the nationwide rate was 50%. One week later, on April 6, the nationwide participation rate had risen to 62%. Participation rates also increased locally across the country, but the increases were uneven from one area to the next. Also, while there was a generally consistent correlation between participation rates and demographic characteristics, these relationships varied widely from one city to the next.

In addition to this analysis, CUR continues to provide easy access to the latest participation rates mapped at the census tract, county, and state levels nationwide with CUNY’s Census 2010 Hard to Count mapping site. Our application provides features that the Census Bureau’s Take 10 map does not have, allowing users to:

• type in a county and highlight the tracts below a certain participation rate (you can enter whatever threshold you want);
• sort the resulting list so you can see at a glance the highest and lowest performing tracts (results are highlighted on the map to show geographic concentrations); and
• compare the 2010 rate map with the 2000 rate map (click the “More…” tab and check the box for “Participation Rate in 2000”).

Key findings from Week 2 (as of April 6)

As with our report for Week 1, we compared trends between urban/non-urban areas and analyzed correlations nationwide at the county-level between participation and race/ethnic population characteristics. New for this week: we looked more closely at race/ethnicity characteristics and participation rate correlations at the tract level on a city-by-city basis (for the 67 largest cities with populations greater than 250,000). We also examined the relationship between county-level unemployment in 2008 and participation rates.

Based on the 2010 participation rates published by the Census Bureau on April 6, we found that:

1. On average nationwide, there continues to be a positive correlation at the county level between participation rates and the percent of the population that is White, while the correlations between participation rate and the percentage of the population that is Hispanic or Black remains negative.

(The county-level race and ethnicity data is from the Census Bureau’s population estimates program (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/), as of 2008.)

Correlation of County-level Population Characteristics with Participation Rates
(as of April 6, 2010)

(Correlations based on N = 3,112 counties. * indicates finding is not significant at the .01 level.)

2. Within counties, however, race and ethnicity are even more strongly negatively correlated with participation rates nationwide, especially regarding the percent of a tract’s population that is Black (the greater percentage of Black population, the lower the participation rate).

(Note that the tract-level analysis uses race/ethnicity data from the 2000 Census (SF3, table P7), the latest data available for that level of geography.)

Correlation of Tract-level Population Characteristics with Participation Rates
(as of April 6, 2010)

(Correlations based on N = 63,653 tracts. All r values significant at the 2-tail, .01 level.)

While the relationship between participation rate and the percent of a county’s population that is Asian is not statistically significant, the tract level correlation is significant.

3. In Week 1 (as of March 30), the correlations between participation and race/ethnicity population characteristics were of similar strength and direction (we did not test the statistical significance of the differences in the correlations from Week 1 to Week 2).

4. At the county level, unemployment rates were negatively correlated with participation rates. This finding was statistically significant, though the association was not substantial (r = -.078). (Unemployment data was downloaded from ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/la/laucnty08.txt)

Local Patterns in Major Cities

We also analyzed the relationship between participation rate as of April 6 and race/ethnicity characteristics of tracts for the country’s 67 largest cities (those with populations greater than 250,000, based on 2007 population estimates). The results were quite varied. These local exceptions to the nationwide patterns underscore that our overall findings noted above need to be understood within a local context – and census outreach efforts need to be responsive to these local trends.

Because the tract-level analysis uses race/ethnicity data from the 2000 Census (SF3, table P7), the latest data available at that level of geography, the relationships described below may not be as reliable in local communities whose racial and ethnic (Hispanic) composition has changed substantially since 2000. Otherwise, they provide useful indicators regarding associations at the neighborhood level between race/ethnicity and participation in the 2010 Census.

Here are some interesting variations identified by our analysis of tract population characteristics and participation rates within these cities. The results listed below are only for cities in which the correlations were found to be statistically significant. The data used for this analysis is available in this spreadsheet [Excel].

1. In 19 major cities (especially St. Louis, Boston, and Oakland), the negative correlation between participation rates and the percent of the population that is Black is stronger than the national pattern (nationally, the tract-level correlation statistic = -.428). In these cities, participation rates are more likely to be lower in census tracts compared to a given percent of a tract’s population that is Black than what we found nationally. (The list below is limited to cities with a Black population greater than 20% of total population.)

2. Only 9 cities (Houston, Dallas, and 7 others) had negative correlations at the tract level between participation rates and a tract’s Black population that were weaker than the national pattern (r = -.428). (The list below is limited to cities with a Black population of 20% or more.)

3. In 34 cities, the positive correlation between census participation and the percent of a tract’s population that is White is stronger than the overall national pattern (r = .588).

4. The positive correlation between census participation rates and the percent of a tract’s population that is White is weaker than the national pattern (r = .588) in 27 other cities.

In contrast to the national tract-level pattern of positive correlation for Whites, a greater percent of a tract’s population that is White in Honolulu, HI tends to lower participation rates (r = -.298).

5. The only major city in which the patterns of White and Black population and census participation are reversed is Detroit. Participation rates in Detroit as of April 6 tended to be lower in tracts with a greater percentage of Whites (r = -.154), and tended to be higher in tracts with a greater percentage of Blacks (r = .235), though the statistical strength of these associations is only moderate.

6. Several cities had stronger correlations for tract-level White and Black populations and census participation. (The list below omits cities with Black population less than 20%. It also omits New Orleans, given the problems of attempting to analyze post-Katrina population patterns using pre-Katrina data from the 2000 Census.)

7. In Miami, Newark, NJ and New York, tract-level Hispanic population concentrations had the opposite effect on census participation than the national pattern. In tracts in these 3 cities, greater Hispanic populations tended to increase participation rates. The strength of this relationship is greatest in Miami (r = .631), and only moderate in Newark (r = .340) and New York (r = .138). Nationally, tracts with greater Hispanic populations tended to lower participation rates (r = -.344).

8. The correlation between participation rates and the percent of a tract’s population that is Asian was slightly negative on a national basis (r = -.062). But the tract-level percent of Asians had a much stronger association with census participation, either positive or negative, in several cities. The list below is limited to cities with an Asian population greater than 5% of total population.

9. The negative correlation between participation rates and the percent of the population that is Hispanic is stronger than the national correlation (r = -.344) in 17 major cities (limited to cities with Hispanic population greater than 20%).

The New York exception

We also examined the relationship between census participation and Hard-to-Count (HTC) scores in these 67 major cities. Generally there was strong negative correlation at the tract-level. Census tracts with higher scores (i.e., characterized by the Census Bureau as harder to count) tended to have lower participation rates.

The one major city with a very weak correlation between participation rate and HTC score is New York City. New York had a correlation statistic of -.111 between participation and HTC score. At the same time, the relationships between race/ethnicity and participation tended to be weak in New York (the percent of an average tract’s population that is Black or White had a weaker relationship with participation rates; the trend was in the opposite direction for the Hispanic population).

For example, the following two maps show the HTC scores compared with the latest participation rates for tracts in southeast Queens:

April 6, 2010 participation rate by tract (dark blue/green color = low participation)

Tracts with HTC scores > 60 (yellow = HTC score 61-70; orange = 71-75; red = 76+)

(Map source: www.CensusHardToCountMaps.org)

While the Mayor’s office in New York City has noted that the city has “the highest percent of hard-to-count residents of any city in the nation”, the hard-to-count scores may not have as much bearing on why New Yorkers are not participating as fully in the Census as residents of other cities. (Source: “Mayor Bloomberg Details Neighborhood by Neighborhood 2010 Census Response Rates in Final Push to Increase Participation”, News Release PR- 147-10, April 7, 2010. Downloaded from www.nyc.gov.)

Follow up from Week 1

1. Census tracts in cities have much lower participation rates than non-urbanized areas. The median participation rate as of April 6 in tracts located in major cities was 56%, while the median participation rate in tracts in non-urban areas was ten points higher, at 66%. ( We used ArcGIS geographic information system (GIS) software to determine which tracts were located in urbanized areas, based on Census Bureau geographic classifications (www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/uaucbndy.html). We also separately determined which tracts were located in central cities based on metropolitan statistical areas. Central cities can be inside or outside urbanized areas.)

2. Rates continued to rise, however, across urban and non-urban areas. In the week between March 30 and April 6, the median participation rate in major cities rose by 13 points (from 53%). In non-urban areas it rose somewhat slower, by 12 points (from 54%).

3. Generally, hard to count tracts continued to have lower participation rates – regardless of urban/non-urban location – than tracts with lower HTC scores. See chart and table below.

Median Participation Rate by HTC score and Type of Central City/Urban Indicator

We mapped the latest participation rates nationwide by county, and compared the latest rates to the county-level rates in 2000:

• The Midwest continues to have the highest rates, consistent with that region’s participation rate in the 2000 Census.
• But county-level participation in several states in the South, along the east coast, upper Midwest, and Pacific Northwest continues to grow. This map [PDF] highlights these increases.
• A growing number of counties – 538 of them as of April 6 – have met or exceeded their 2000 participation rates. On March 30, only 44 counties had met or exceeded their 2000 rates. (This analysis excludes the 29 counties for which the Census Bureau was not able to calculate a participation rate in 2000.)

Posted March 31, 2010

The Center for Urban Research at The Graduate Center, CUNY has analyzed the latest participation rates from the 2010 decennial census to help outreach groups understand what areas are not fully being counted and why. The census aims to count everyone, but historical returns show that some areas are counted more fully than others. Who's lagging behind in the 2010 Census? And can we compare the participation rates with local demographic characteristics to better understand why?

In addition to our analysis, CUR has added the latest participation rates to its Census 2010 Hard to Count mapping site, at www.CensusHardToCountMaps.org [NB the domain is temporarily offline]. You can find the lowest performing rates by tract in any county nationwide, to help census advocates zero in on areas that need the greatest help with completing and sending in their forms. We’ll be updating the map daily with the Census Bureau’s data, in coordination with the Bureau’s Take 10 map.

The Census Bureau began publishing 2010 participation rates on March 23. The analysis below presents our findings for the participation rates one week later, as of March 30, 2010:

• Census tracts in urban cities have much lower participation rates than areas outside these urban inner city areas. The median participation rate as of Tuesday in tracts located in central cities in urban areas was 43%, while tracts in cities but in non-urban areas as well as tracts in other non-urbanized areas of the country had median participation rates of 49 and 54%, respectively.¹

• Nonetheless, rates are rising across all these areas. The participation rate data from a day earlier (March 29, 2010) was 5 percentage points lower. In Census tracts in urban central cities the median rate was 39%, while tracts in cities in non-urban areas and other non-urbanized areas of the country had a median participation rate of between 45 and 49%, respectively. (The tracts in cities but not in urban areas are within city limits but in areas of land characterized as non-urban by the Census.)

• The Census Bureau’s “hard to count” (HTC) scoring system seems to be a good predictor, so far, of what areas are mailing back more of their Census forms. The HTC index ranges from 1 to 130. The median HTC score for inner city (and, so far, low participation) areas was 53, while the median HTC scores for non-urban areas and even cities in non-urbanized regions are between 16 and 26, respectively. Generally, tracts with HTC scores of 61 or more are considered particularly hard to count.

• Generally speaking, hard to count tracts have lower participation rates – regardless of urban/non-urban location – than tracts with lower HTC scores. See chart and table below.

The following table shows the median participation rates for the chart above:

Median Participation Rate by HTC score and Type of Central City/Urban Indicator

The distribution of tracts in each of these four geographic categories is as follows:

At the county level, we compared the latest participation rates with 2008 race and ethnicity data from the Census Bureau’s population estimates program (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/). The table below shows the correlations between participation rates by county as of March 30, and percent of a county’s population that is white (non-Hispanic), black (non-Hispanic), Asian (non-Hispanic), Hispanic, and other races (non-Hispanic). There is a strong positive correlation at the county level between participation rates and the percent of the population that is white, while there are somewhat more moderate negative correlation between participation rate and the size of the Hispanic or Black population. In general, participation rates in the first week of the 2010 Census tend to be higher in counties with a greater percentage of whites. On the other hand, participation rates tend to be lower in counties with a greater percentage of blacks and Latinos. The following chart provides the correlation statistics for these findings:

Correlation of County-level Population Characteristics with Participation Rates (as of March 30, 2010)

We also mapped the changing participation rates by county nationwide between March 23 and March 30, and compared the latest rates to the county-level rates in 2000. 

Participation by county, by day

Changes in 1st week, compared to 2000

Several regional patterns are emerging:

• The Midwest so far has the highest rates, consistent with that region’s participation rate in the 2000 Census.
• Initial participation in the 2010 Census was highest in the Midwest but has been spreading out along both coasts, the Pacific Northwest, and to some extent into the South.
• The greatest increases so far have been in counties in Tennessee and western Pennsylvania, as well as generally in the Pacific Northwest and Florida. The states of Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, Connecticut and Massachusetts all have seen solid increases in participation in this first week of the census.
• A handful of counties have already exceeded their 2000 participation rates, but many are still 25% or more lower than their 2000 rates. In particular, several counties along Texas’s southern border are still between 30 and 50 percentage points below their 2000 rates.

A news release from the Census Bureau from September 2000 discusses the geographic patterns in participation in the 2000 Census. So far the 2010 rates show a similar pattern.

Counties exceeding their 2000 rates by 5% or more are:

Will other areas across America do better this time, and will we have a more accurate count nationwide and by community? Only if you and your friends, family, and neighbors send in your forms. Be counted!

Footnotes

1. We used ArcGIS geographic information system (GIS) software to determine which tracts were located in urbanized areas, based on Census Bureau geographic classifications (see http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/uaucbndy.html). We also separately determined which tracts were located in central cities based on metropolitan statistical areas. Central cities can be inside or outside urbanized areas.