The Impact of the U.S. Census Disclosure Avoidance System on Redistricting and Voting Rights Analysis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.14197v3
• Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 14:26:43 GMT
• Title: The Impact of the U.S. Census Disclosure Avoidance System on Redistricting and Voting Rights Analysis
• Authors: Christopher T. Kenny (1), Shiro Kuriwaki (1), Cory McCartan (2), Evan Rosenman (3), Tyler Simko (1), Kosuke Imai (1 and 2) ((1) Department of Government, Harvard University, (2) Department of Statistics, Harvard University, (3) Harvard Data Science Initiative)
• Abstract summary: The US Census Bureau plans to protect the privacy of 2020 Census respondents through its Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) We find that the protected data are not of sufficient quality for redistricting purposes. Our analysis finds that the DAS-protected data are biased against certain areas, depending on voter turnout and partisan and racial composition.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The US Census Bureau plans to protect the privacy of 2020 Census respondents through its Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS), which attempts to achieve differential privacy guarantees by adding noise to the Census microdata. By applying redistricting simulation and analysis methods to DAS-protected 2010 Census data, we find that the protected data are not of sufficient quality for redistricting purposes. We demonstrate that the injected noise makes it impossible for states to accurately comply with the One Person, One Vote principle. Our analysis finds that the DAS-protected data are biased against certain areas, depending on voter turnout and partisan and racial composition, and that these biases lead to large and unpredictable errors in the analysis of partisan and racial gerrymanders. Finally, we show that the DAS algorithm does not universally protect respondent privacy. Based on the names and addresses of registered voters, we are able to predict their race as accurately using the DAS-protected data as when using the 2010 Census data. Despite this, the DAS-protected data can still inaccurately estimate the number of majority-minority districts. We conclude with recommendations for how the Census Bureau should proceed with privacy protection for the 2020 Census.

Related papers

• The 2020 United States Decennial Census Is More Private Than You (Might) Think [25.32778927275117]
  We show that between 8.50% and 13.76% of the privacy budget for the 2020 U.S. Census remains unused for each of the eight geographical levels. We mitigate noise variances by 15.08% to 24.82% while maintaining the same privacy budget for each geographical level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T23:06:15Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating the Impacts of Differentially Private Census Data on State Level Redistricting [4.589972411795548]
  Data users were shaken by the adoption of differential privacy in the 2020 DAS. We consider two redistricting settings in which a data user might be concerned about the impacts of privacy preserving noise. We observe that an analyst may come to incorrect conclusions if they do not account for noise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-10T18:11:54Z)
• Evaluating Bias and Noise Induced by the U.S. Census Bureau's Privacy Protection Methods [0.0]
  The U.S. Census Bureau faces a difficult trade-off between the accuracy of Census statistics and the protection of individual information. We conduct the first independent evaluation of bias and noise induced by the Bureau's two main disclosure avoidance systems. TopDown's post-processing dramatically reduces the NMF noise and produces data whose accuracy is similar to that of swapping.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T03:30:19Z)
• Design and analysis of tweet-based election models for the 2021 Mexican legislative election [55.41644538483948]
  We use a dataset of 15 million election-related tweets in the six months preceding election day. We find that models using data with geographical attributes determine the results of the election with better precision and accuracy than conventional polling methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-02T12:40:05Z)
• Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System [0.0]
  boyd and Sarathy, "Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy" We argue that empirical evaluations of the Census Disclosure Avoidance System failed to recognize how the benchmark data is never a ground truth of population counts. We argue that policy makers must confront a key trade-off between data utility and privacy protection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T21:41:54Z)
• No Free Lunch in "Privacy for Free: How does Dataset Condensation Help Privacy" [75.98836424725437]
  New methods designed to preserve data privacy require careful scrutiny. Failure to preserve privacy is hard to detect, and yet can lead to catastrophic results when a system implementing a privacy-preserving'' method is attacked.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-29T17:50:23Z)
• Releasing survey microdata with exact cluster locations and additional privacy safeguards [77.34726150561087]
  We propose an alternative microdata dissemination strategy that leverages the utility of the original microdata with additional privacy safeguards. Our strategy reduces the respondents' re-identification risk for any number of disclosed attributes by 60-80% even under re-identification attempts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T19:37:11Z)
• Census TopDown: The Impacts of Differential Privacy on Redistricting [0.3746889836344765]
  We consider several key applications of Census data in redistricting. We find reassuring evidence that TopDown will not threaten the ability to produce districts with tolerable population balance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-09T23:28:53Z)
• Post-processing of Differentially Private Data: A Fairness Perspective [53.29035917495491]
  This paper shows that post-processing causes disparate impacts on individuals or groups. It analyzes two critical settings: the release of differentially private datasets and the use of such private datasets for downstream decisions. It proposes a novel post-processing mechanism that is (approximately) optimal under different fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-24T02:45:03Z)
• Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy [61.60099467888073]
  We show how linking administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias. We show that older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-14T02:04:14Z)
• Magnify Your Population: Statistical Downscaling to Augment the Spatial Resolution of Socioeconomic Census Data [48.7576911714538]
  We present a new statistical downscaling approach to derive fine-scale estimates of key socioeconomic attributes. For each selected socioeconomic variable, a Random Forest model is trained on the source Census units and then used to generate fine-scale gridded predictions. As a case study, we apply this method to Census data in the United States, downscaling the selected socioeconomic variables available at the block group level, to a grid of 300 spatial resolution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-23T16:52:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.