California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

In 2019, California had the highest population of unauthorized immigrants, at around **** million. The overall figure for the United States was estimated to be around ***** million unauthorized immigrants.

In 2022, an estimated 10.99 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States. This is an increase from about 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants who lived in the United States in 1990.

Abstract

The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) carried out the Migration and Remittances Survey in South Africa for the World Bank in collaboration with the African Development Bank. The primary mandate of the HSRC in this project was to come up with a migration database that includes both immigrants and emigrants. The specific activities included: · A household survey with a view of producing a detailed demographic/economic database of immigrants, emigrants and non migrants · The collation and preparation of a data set based on the survey · The production of basic primary statistics for the analysis of migration and remittance behaviour in South Africa.

Like many other African countries, South Africa lacks reliable census or other data on migrants (immigrants and emigrants), and on flows of resources that accompanies movement of people. This is so because a large proportion of African immigrants are in the country undocumented. A special effort was therefore made to design a household survey that would cover sufficient numbers and proportions of immigrants, and still conform to the principles of probability sampling. The approach that was followed gives a representative picture of migration in 2 provinces, Limpopo and Gauteng, which should be reflective of migration behaviour and its impacts in South Africa.

Geographic coverage

Two provinces: Gauteng and Limpopo

Limpopo is the main corridor for migration from African countries to the north of South Africa while Gauteng is the main port of entry as it has the largest airport in Africa. Gauteng is a destination for internal and international migrants because it has three large metropolitan cities with a great economic potential and reputation for offering employment, accommodations and access to many different opportunities within a distance of 56 km. These two provinces therefore were expected to accommodate most African migrants in South Africa, co-existing with a large host population.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Universe

The target group consists of households in all communities. The survey will be conducted among metro and non-metro households. Non-metro households include those in: - small towns, - secondary cities, - peri-urban settlements and - deep rural areas. From each selected household, one adult respondent will be selected to participate in the study.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Migration data for South Africa are available for 2007 only at the level of local governments or municipalities from the 2007 Census; for smaller areas called "sub places" (SPs) only as recently as the 2001 census, and for the desired EAs only back so far as the Census of 1996. In sum, there was no single source that provided recent data on the five types of migrants of principal interest at the level of the Enumeration Area, which was the area for which data were needed to draw the sample since it was going to be necessary to identify migrant and non-migrant households in the sample areas in order to oversample those with migrants for interview.

In an attempt to overcome the data limitations referred to above, it was necessary to adopt a novel approach to the design of the sample for the World Bank's household migration survey in South Africa, to identify EAs with a high probability of finding immigrants and those with a low probability. This required the combined use of the three sources of data described above. The starting point was the CS 2007 survey, which provided data on migration at a local government level, classifying each local government cluster in terms of migration level, taking into account the types of migrants identified. The researchers then spatially zoomed in from these clusters to the so-called sub-places (SPs) from the 2001 Census to classifying SP clusters by migration level. Finally, the 1996 Census data were used to zoom in even further down to the EA level, using the 1996 census data on migration levels of various typed, to identify the final level of clusters for the survey, namely the spatially small EAs (each typically containing about 200 households, and hence amenable to the listing operation in the field).

A higher score or weight was attached to the 2007 Community Survey municipality-level (MN) data than to the Census 2001 sub-place (SP) data, which in turn was given a greater weight than the 1996 enumerator area (EA) data. The latter was derived exclusively from the Census 1996 EA data, but has then been reallocated to the 2001 EAs proportional to geographical size. Although these weights are purely arbitrary since it was composed from different sources, they give an indication of the relevant importance attached to the different migrant categories. These weighted migrant proportions (secondary strata), therefore constituted the second level of clusters for sampling purposes.

In addition, a system of weighting or scoring the different persons by migrant type was applied to ensure that the likelihood of finding migrants would be optimised. As part of this procedure, recent migrants (who had migrated in the preceding five years) received a higher score than lifetime migrants (who had not migrated during the preceding five years). Similarly, a higher score was attached to international immigrants (both recent and lifetime, who had come to SA from abroad) than to internal migrants (who had only moved within SA's borders). A greater weight also applied to inter-provincial (internal) than to intra-provincial migrants (who only moved within the same South African province).

How the three data sources were combined to provide overall scores for EA can be briefly described. First, in each of the two provinces, all local government units were given migration scores according to the numbers or relative proportions of the population classified in the various categories of migrants (with non-migrants given a score of 1.0. Migrants were assigned higher scores according to their priority, with international migrants given higher scores than internal migrants and recent migrants higher scores than lifetime migrants. Then within the local governments, sub-places were assigned scores assigned on the basis of inter vs. intra-provincial migrants using the 2001 census data. Each SP area in a local government was thus assigned a value which was the product of its local government score (the same for all SPs in the local government) and its own SP score. The third and final stage was to develop relative migration scores for all the EAs from the 1996 census by similarly weighting the proportions of migrants (and non-migrants, assigned always 1.0) of each type. The the final migration score for an EA is the product of its own EA score from 1996, the SP score of which it is a part (assigned to all the EAs within the SP), and the local government score from the 2007 survey.

Based on all the above principles the set of weights or scores was developed.

In sum, we multiplied the proportion of populations of each migrant type, or their incidence, by the appropriate final corresponding EA scores for persons of each type in the EA (based on multiplying the three weights together), to obtain the overall score for each EA. This takes into account the distribution of persons in the EA according to migration status in 1996, the SP score of the EA in 2001, and the local government score (in which the EA is located) from 2007. Finally, all EAs in each province were then classified into quartiles, prior to sampling from the quartiles.

From the EAs so classified, the sampling took the form of selecting EAs, i.e., primary sampling units (PSUs, which in this case are also Ultimate Sampling Units, since this is a single stage sample), according to their classification into quartiles. The proportions selected from each quartile are based on the range of EA-level scores which are assumed to reflect weighted probabilities of finding desired migrants in each EA. To enhance the likelihood of finding migrants, much higher proportions of EAs were selected into the sample from the quartiles with the higher scores compared to the lower scores (disproportionate sampling). The decision on the most appropriate categorisations was informed by the observed migration levels in the two provinces of the study area during 2007, 2001 and 1996, analysed at the lowest spatial level for which migration data was available in each case.

Because of the differences in their characteristics it was decided that the provinces of Gauteng and Limpopo should each be regarded as an explicit stratum for sampling purposes. These two provinces therefore represented the primary explicit strata. It was decided to select an equal number of EAs from these two primary strata.

The migration-level categories referred to above were treated as secondary explicit strata to ensure optimal coverage of each in the sample. The distribution of migration levels was then used to draw EAs in such a way that greater preference could be given to areas with higher proportions of migrants in general, but especially immigrants (note the relative scores assigned to each type of person above). The proportion of EAs selected into the sample from the quartiles draws upon the relative mean weighted migrant scores (referred to as proportions) found below the table, but this is a coincidence and not necessary, as any disproportionate sampling of EAs from the quartiles could be done, since it would be rectified in the weighting at the end for the analysis.

The resultant proportions of migrants then led to the following proportional allocation of sampled EAs (Quartile 1: 5 per cent (instead of 25% as in an equal distribution), Quartile 2: 15 per cent (instead

Abstract (en): The United States Census Bureau conducts a Census of Governments every five years -- in years ending in "2" or "7" -- to collect information about governments in the United States. The Government Organization branch of the 1997 Census of Governments describes the organization and activities of local governments. The 1997 Local Government Directory Survey covered all county, municipal, town or township, school district, special district governments, school systems, and education service agencies that met the Census Bureau criteria for independent governments. The counts of local governments reflect those in operation in June 1997. This collection includes eight parts, each including information regarding a different type of government: (1) county governments, (2) municipal governments, (3) township governments, (4) special district governments, (5) school district governments, (6) state dependent school systems, (7) local dependent school systems, and (8) education service agencies. The data include information on various codes used to identify the government unit, government name, population in 1996 (or enrollment in 1996 for data collected from schools), and government functions. Census statistics on governments are designed to account for the totality of public sector activity without omission or duplication. There are no weight variables included in this collection. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Response Rates: The final response rate was 83.4 percent. Local governments in the United States. Data that are derived from a census are not subject to sampling variability. 2014-06-20 SPSS, SAS, and Stata setup files, as well as SPSS and Stata system files, a SAS transport (CPORT) file, a tab-delimited data file, and an R data file have been added to the collection. Additionally, a codebook has been created. mail questionnaire For additional information on the Census of Governments, 1997, please refer to the United States Census Bureau Web site.

In January 2022, it was estimated that about 1.85 million male illegal immigrants living in the United States were aged between 35 and 44 years old. In that same year, it was estimated that 1.52 million female illegal immigrants living in the U.S. were between 35 and 44 years old.

Abstract (en): This poll, fielded February, 2012, and the first of two, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicits public opinion on a range of political and social issues. Respondents were asked whether they approved of the way Barack Obama was handling his job as president, foreign policy, the economy, the situation in Afghanistan, job creation, and the federal budget deficit. Respondents were also asked whether they approved of Congress, about the condition of the economy, and whether things in the country were on the right track. Multiple questions addressed the 2012 Republican presidential candidates, including respondents' overall opinions of several of the candidates and their policies. Respondents were asked what issues and qualities were most important in deciding who to support for the Republican nomination, what topics they would like to hear them discuss, as well as the Tea Party movement and the amount of influence they have in the Republican Party. Additionally, respondents were questioned whether they voted in the 2008 presidential election and who they voted for, whether they voted or plan to vote in a Democratic or Republican 2012 primary or caucus, their first and second choice for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, which candidate would have the best chance of winning against Barack Obama, and who they would vote for in the 2012 presidential election. Other topics include the housing market, the federal budget deficit, birth control, same-sex marriage, and illegal immigrants. Demographic variables include sex, age, race, education level, household income, religious preference, type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural), whether respondents thought of themselves as born-again Christians, marital status, number of people in the household between the ages of 18 and 29, political party affiliation, political philosophy, and voter registration status. The data contain a weight variable that should be used in analyzing the data. According to the CBS News Web site, the data were weighted to match United States Census Bureau breakdowns on age, sex, race, education, and region of the country. The data were also adjusted for the fact that people who share a telephone with others have less chance to be contacted than people who live alone and have their own telephones, and that households with more than one telephone number have more chances to be called than households with only one telephone number. ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Persons aged 18 years and older living in households with telephones in the United States. Smallest Geographic Unit: congressional district A variation of random-digit dialing (RDD) using primary sampling units (PSUs) was employed, consisting of blocks of 100 telephone numbers identical through the eighth digit and stratified by geographic region, area code, and size of place. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. Within households, respondents were selected using a method developed by Leslie Kish and modified by Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh (see Backstrom and Hursh, SURVEY RESEARCH. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1963). telephone interview

As of 2023, 27.3 percent of California's population were born in a country other than the United States. New Jersey, New York, Florida, and Nevada rounded out the top five states with the largest population of foreign born residents in that year. For the country as a whole, 14.3 percent of residents were foreign born.

The project was divided into two studies that together sought to compare criminal histories and victimization experiences for immigrants compared to U.S.-born citizens in the U.S.-México border region. Study one (datasets 1 and 2) of the project consists of secondary data from the El Paso County Sheriff's office, the US Census, and the El Paso Neighborhood Survey. Study two (dataset 3) of the project consists of interviews with inmates from El Paso county jails.