Work with interactive mapping tools from across the Census Bureau.
Read briefs and reports from Census Bureau experts.
Watch Census Bureau vignettes, testimonials, and video files.
Read research analyses from Census Bureau experts.
Developer portal to access services and documentation for the Census Bureau's APIs.
Explore Census Bureau data on your mobile device with interactive tools.
Find a multitude of DVDs, CDs and publications in print by topic.
These external sites provide more data.
Download extraction tools to help you get the in-depth data you need.
Explore Census data with interactive visualizations covering a broad range of topics.
Information about the U.S. Census Bureau.
Information about what we do at the U.S. Census Bureau.
Learn about other opportunities to collaborate with us.
Explore the rich historical background of an organization with roots almost as old as the nation.
Explore prospective positions available at the U.S. Census Bureau.
Information about the current field vacancies available at the U.S. Census Bureau Regional Offices.
Discover the latest in Census Bureau data releases, reports, and events.
The Census Bureau's Director writes on how we measure America's people, places and economy.
Find interesting and quirky statistics regarding national celebrations and major events.
Find media toolkits, advisories, and all the latest Census news.
See what's coming up in releases and reports.
Cell suppression has been a commonly used method at the Census Bureau and at other agencies for protecting sensitive cells in statistical tables whose cells contain magnitude data. In this method, the sensitivity of each cell depends on the distribution of the respondent values which are summed to form the cell value. Those cells determined to be sensitive are suppressed and then a cell suppression program is run to determine which additional cells (called secondary suppressions) need to be suppressed in order to protect the sensitive ones. In this study, we compare two ways of protecting sensitive cells and their effects on the suppression patterns, i.e., the set of secondary ones. These ways are (1) fixed interval protection and (2) sliding protection. In studies done over a decade ago by researchers at the University of Maryland, it was shown that sliding protection often leads to fewer secondary suppressions than fixed interval protection. Here we show that this result does not hold when the cell suppression program incorporates the following assumption: if v is any respondent value, then any table user knows, from publicly available information, that the value lies in the interval [0, 2*v]. In other words, respondent values are known by interested parties to within 100% of their actual value.