COMPARISON OF ACS AND ASEC DATA ON HISPANIC ORIGIN: 2004

Roberto Ramirez

Sharon Ennis

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

*This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing
research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. The views
expressed on the statistical and methodological issues in this report
are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census
Bureau.*

COMPARISON OF ACS AND ASEC DATA ON HISPANIC ORIGIN: 2004

# INTRODUCTION 

This report is one in a series that compares data from the American
Community Survey (ACS) with data from the Annual Social and Economic
Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). This report
focuses on comparisons of 2004 ACS and 2004 ASEC national-level
distribution data on Hispanic origin by type.

# METHODOLOGY

Table 1 compares the most commonly tabulated data on Hispanic origin
from the ACS and the ASEC at the national level. Comparisons consist
primarily of percentage-point differences between the two distributions.
The table displays the ACS and the ASEC estimates, the margins of error
from which 90-percent confidence intervals of the estimates can be
derived, and the difference between the two estimates. In the case of
frequency distributions, the difference is calculated as the percent
difference between the two estimates. In the case of relative frequency
distributions, the difference is calculated as the percentage-point
difference between the two estimates. An asterisk (\*) denotes
statistically significant differences.

At the national level, the ACS and the ASEC variances were small,
resulting in many statistically significant differences between the ACS
and the ASEC distributions. This report generally does not consider
statistically significant differences of 0.5 percentage points or less,
with some exceptions based on the relative size of the category. For
example, for population groups constituting a relatively large
percentage of the population (for example, non-Hispanics), a 0.5
percentage-point difference in the estimates might be considered small,
while for population groups constituting a smaller percentage of the
population (for example, Dominicans), a 0.5 percentage-point difference
could be considered large. This decision is subjective, and users can
apply their own standards to interpret the data presented in this
report.

The remainder of this section examines differences in methodology
between the two surveys.

# 

# Sample Frame

The ACS derives its sample frame from a national Master Address File
(MAF) that the Census Bureau maintains. The MAF is continuously updated
using the U.S. Postal Service Delivery Sequence File (DSF), ACS
non-response follow up, updates from special census operations, and the
Community Address Updating System (CAUS). The ASEC sample uses the
Decennial Census to produce its sample frame and updates it using the
Building Permit Survey and area samples of new construction in places
not covered by building permit offices in order to account for new
housing units.

The 2004 ACS surveyed a national sample of housing units, both occupied
and vacant. Data were collected in a total of 1,240 counties out of the
3,141 counties in the United States. The sample was designed to provide
estimates of housing and socio-economic characteristics for the nation,
all states, most areas with a population of 250,000 or more, and
selected areas of 65,000 or more.

The 2004 ASEC surveyed a national sample of households. Data were
collected in 1,211 counties in the United States. The sample was
designed primarily to produce estimates of the labor force
characteristics of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population 16
years of age and older for the nation and all states.

One difference between the two survey universes is that the ASEC
includes a small number of individuals living at addresses that were
housing units in 2000 but have since been converted into
noninstitutional group quarters (e.g. emergency and transitional
shelters and group homes).[^1]^,^[^2]

# Sample Size and Mode of Data Collection

The 2004 ACS interviewed a total of 534,383 households. Data were
collected continuously throughout the entire calendar year using a
combination of mail-out/mail-back questionnaires, Computer-Assisted
Telephone Interviewing (CATI), and Computer-Assisted Personal
Interviewing (CAPI). Each month a unique national sample of addresses
received an ACS questionnaire. Individuals at addresses that did not
respond were telephoned during the second month of collection if a phone
number for the address was available, and personal visits were conducted
during the third and the last month of data collection at a subsample of
the remaining nonresponding units. The 2004 ACS achieved an overall
survey response rate, calculated as the initially weighted estimate of
interviews divided by the initially weighted estimate of cases eligible
to be interviewed, of 93.1 percent.[^3]

The 2004 ASEC contained interviews from 77,149 households and 59
noninstitutional group quarters. The ASEC interviews were collected over
a three-month period in February, March, and April 2004 as a supplement
to the basic monthly CPS conducted during those months, with most of the
ASEC data collected in March. All ASEC data are collected via
Computer-Assisted Telephone and Personal Interviews (CATI/CAPI), with
interviews conducted during one week each month. The response rate for
the 2004 ASEC was 91.8 percent. Response rates among eligible households
were about 92 percent in February and April 2004 and 91 percent in March
2004.

Despite the fact that both the ACS and the ASEC employ experienced,
permanent interviewers for CATI and CAPI data collection, a difference
in data collection procedures could account for some of the differences
in response. Most respondents in the ACS for example, were enumerated by
mail questionnaire (55% mail, 13% CATI, and 32% CAPI) while all the
respondents in the ASEC were enumerated by CAPI and CATI. The
corresponding percentages in ACS for Hispanics enumerated by mail, CATI,
and CAPI were 30%, 16%, and 54%, respectively).[^4]

# Residence Rules

The ACS and the ASEC employ different residence rules to determine which
individuals in a household are eligible for interview. The ACS uses the
concept of current residence, while the ASEC uses a version of usual
residence. This difference may contribute to variations in the universes
for which social characteristics depend.

The ACS interviews everyone in the housing unit on the day of interview
who is living or staying there for more than two months, regardless of
whether or not they maintain a usual residence elsewhere, or who does
not have a usual residence elsewhere. If a person who usually lives in
the housing unit is away for more than two months at the time of the
survey contact, he or she is not considered to be a current resident of
that unit. This rule recognizes that people can have more than one place
where they live or stay over the course of a year, and these people may
affect estimates of the characteristics of the population for some
areas.

The ASEC interviews everyone staying in the housing unit at the time of
the interview who considers the housing unit their usual residence or
who has no usual residence elsewhere. In addition, the ASEC also
includes temporarily absent individuals who consider the housing unit
their usual residence.

The different residence rules resulted in one notable difference in the
universe of the two surveys. Because the 2004 ACS excluded group
quarters from the sample frame and interviewed individuals at their
current residence, college students living in dormitories were not
included in the ACS universe. In contrast, the ASEC interviewers are
instructed to include as household members any college students who are
temporarily absent from the household, including those who are currently
residing in college dormitories. The result being that the ASEC sample
universe should include more college students than the ACS sample
universe.

# Question Wording

# Differences between the ACS and the ASEC in presentation and wording of the question on Hispanic origin may contribute to differences in estimates. The ACS uses two versions of the Hispanic-origin question, one designed for the mail questionnaire and one for CATI/CAPI administration (see below). The ASEC has only one version of the Hispanic-origin question used for both CATI and CAPI interviews. Paper questionnaires are not used in the ASEC.

# The mail version of the ACS asks the Hispanic-origin item as follows:

Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?

Mark (X) the "No" box if not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.

No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino

Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano

> Yes, Puerto Rican
>
> Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino -- Print group.

The CATI/CAPI version of the ACS asks the Hispanic-origin item as
follows:

(Is (name)/ Are you) Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? \[1\]

> Yes
>
> No

Is (he/she/ Are you) of Mexican origin, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or some
other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino group? \[2\]

Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino

What is the other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group? \[3\]

(For example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran,
Spaniard)

The ASEC asks the Hispanic-origin item as follows:

Are you/Is (name) Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? \[1\]

> Yes
>
> No

Are you/Is (name) Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican,
Cuban, Cuban-American, or some other Spanish, Hispanic or Latino group?
\[2\]

Mexican

Mexican-American

Chicano

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Cuban-American

Other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group

What is the name of his/her other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group?
\[3\]

(Listed are 42 Hispanic and Non-Hispanic origin groups -- see Appendix
A.)

Specify "Other" Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino
group\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

ACS Mail or Paper Questionnaire

The Hispanic-origin question in the ACS paper questionnaire is presented
as an item consisting of five check boxes and one write-in line. The
write-in line is provided to capture other Hispanic origin groups not
offered as check-box categories (such as Dominican, Columbian,
Venezuelan, etc.). A maximum of two write-in entries are coded in the
ACS. No printed examples of detailed Hispanic-origin groups are provided
under the \"Yes, other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino\" category.

CATI /CAPI in the ACS and the ASEC

The CATI/CAPI version of the Hispanic-origin question in the ACS is
similar to the ASEC version but with slight differences. Both surveys
use three separate questions (see items above) with the last being an
open-ended question. Both surveys also use a short \"Yes\" or \"No\"
question followed by a second question (for those respondents who
answered \"yes\" to the first question) soliciting more detailed
Hispanic-origin group information. The ACS version of the second
question has four categories for respondents to choose from, with the
last category \"Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.\" The ASEC version, on
the other hand, has seven categories for respondents to choose from.

The ASEC includes an additional "Cuban-American" category that the ACS
does not have. Also, the ASEC creates separate individual categories for
"Mexican," "Mexican-American," and "Chicano," while the ACS includes all
three of these terms in one category with a reference to \"Mexican
origin.\" Most respondents to the ACS and the ASEC find a response
category within the second question, but if they do not, they are asked
a third question, which is open-ended. A flashcard is shown with
detailed examples only in the CAPI mode. Only one response to the third
question is coded in the ASEC (a list of 42 Hispanic and non-Hispanic
origin groups is available to the interviewer) while two responses may
be coded in the ACS.

Both the ACS and the ASEC instruct the respondent to answer both the
Hispanic-origin question and the race question, but the instructions are
worded differently in each survey. In the ACS, the instruction is stated
as follows: \"NOTE: Please answer BOTH questions 5 and 6.\" Question 5
is the Hispanic-origin item and question 6 is the race item. In the
ASEC, the instruction reads: \"Please answer the questions both about
being Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino and about Race.\" The purpose of this
instruction is to prompt respondents (mainly Hispanics) to answer the
race question. These differences in presentation and wording may account
for differences in responses between the two surveys.

**Sequencing of the Hispanic-Origin Question and the Race Question**

There is no difference in the placement of the Hispanic-origin question
between the ACS and the ASEC. Both surveys place the Hispanic-origin
item immediately before the race question.

# Data Editing and Imputation Procedures

# The ACS and the ASEC edit and imputation rules are designed to ensure that the final edited data are as consistent and complete as possible. These rules are used to identify and account for missing, incomplete, and contradictory responses. In each case where a problem is detected, pre-established edit rules govern its resolution.

The ACS and the ASEC employ two principal imputation methods: relational
imputation and hot deck allocation. Relational imputation assigns values
for blank or inconsistent responses on the basis of other
characteristics on the person's record or within the household. Hot deck
allocation supplies responses for missing or inconsistent data items
from the responses of similar housing units or people who did respond to
the survey.

**Edit and Allocation Procedures in the ACS** **and the ASEC**

The process for the ACS and the ASEC divides edit and imputation into
two procedures: assignment and allocation.

**Edit Procedures**

Before missing Hispanic-origin values are assigned, imputed, or
allocated, the unedited data are first edited and coded. Edits are
designed to ensure that all appropriate questions have valid responses.
The edit procedures for the Hispanic-origin question in the ACS consist
of the following rules: 1) Convert check-box marks into three-digit
codes (see the Hispanic code list in Appendix B); 2) Ensure that all
write-in responses are valid and coded appropriately; and 3) Override
the code for the \"Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino\" check box with a
specific write-in code for any origin that was provided. The main
purpose of edits in the ASEC is to assign values where the response was
missing, "Don't Know, " or "Refused." Similar edit procedures are done
in the ASEC, as in the ACS.

**Assignment**

Multiple Response Edit

Unlike the race question, where more than one response is solicited, the
Hispanic-origin question asks for a single response in both the ACS and
the ASEC. However, some respondents report multiple origins. Multiple
origin responses are collected in the ACS for research purposes,
including in CATI/CAPI, where the respondent may choose as many
categories as apply. Multiple responses to the question on Hispanic
origin are coded as such, however, no detailed-group combinations are
tabulated or coded. Respondents who report multiple detailed groups are
given a unique three-digit code depending on the kind of multiple-origin
combination reported. That is, if all the multiple responses are
Hispanic-origin groups (e.g., Mexican and Cuban), the respondent is
assigned a code of 291 (Multiple Hispanic). If all of the multiple
responses are non-Hispanic-origin groups (e.g., French and German), the
respondent is assigned a code of 190 (Multiple non-Hispanic). If the
multiple responses are a mix of Hispanic and non-Hispanic terms (e.g.,
respondent marks both "No, not Hispanic" and "Yes, Cuban") the responses
are edited to obtain a single origin code.[^5] The mix response edit
consists of three basic steps: 1) assign Hispanic origin if there is a
Hispanic origin response in the Race question, 2) if not, then directly
assign Hispanic origin if the respondent has a Spanish surname and
finally, 3) if the respondent does not have a Spanish surname then a
single origin is obtained by random selection.

The ASEC does not collect multiple responses to the question on
Hispanic-origin. If respondents report more than one origin, then the
first origin is taken.

Hispanic Origin Assigned from the Race Edit

In both the ACS and the ASEC, Hispanic-origin responses in the "Other
Race" category are used to assign a missing Hispanic-origin response. If
a Hispanic-origin response is missing after the pre-editing procedures,
it is assigned from the race question if a Hispanic-origin response is
reported in the race question (usually obtained from the \"Other Race\"
category). In the ACS, this procedure is part of a \"joint edit\" of the
Hispanic-origin question and the race question whereby, if either one is
missing, a value is assigned from the other question if a valid response
is provided. The ASEC does not use the Hispanic-origin question to
assign missing race data.

Longitudinal Edit

In the ASEC only, the respondent\'s previous month\'s response to the
question on Hispanic origin (whether it was allocated or not) is used to
assign the current month\'s Hispanic-origin data if they are missing.

**Within-Household Imputation**

The within-household imputation procedure is similar in both the ACS and
the ASEC. If Hispanic-origin information is missing after the
pre-editing procedures and an origin cannot be assigned from the race
question, a Hispanic-origin value is imputed using a value from other
household members in a particular hierarchical household donor sequence.
This sequence is based on household relationship. Thus, if members of a
particular household are missing origin data (donees), they are assigned
the origin of the householder (donor). On the other hand, if the
householder\'s origin data are missing, then origin would be assigned to
the householder based on the origin of his or her spouse. In addition,
household members can only \"donate\" an origin if the household member
needing an origin (donee) is the same race as the donor.

**Hot Deck Allocation**

If Hispanic origin cannot be imputed from other members of the
household, origin is allocated from a hot deck matrix. A hot deck is a
geographically based data table (or \"matrix\") in which the values of
reported responses (donor) are stored and updated on a flow basis and
are used to assign missing values to people (donees) with similar
characteristics. In both the ACS and the ASEC, hot decks are stratified
by three basic characteristics: age, sex, and Hispanic origin. Race is
used to stratify hot decks in the ACS but not in the ASEC.

In addition to the variables mentioned above, hot decks in both the ACS
and the ASEC are aided by a surname list originally developed during
Census 2000.[^6] The ACS has three surname-assisted hot decks and the
ASEC has two.

In general, people with a reported origin (either not Hispanic or
Hispanic) and a Spanish surname donate their origin to the
Spanish-surname-assisted hot deck. People with a reported origin (either
not Hispanic or Hispanic) and a non-Spanish surname donate their origin
to the non-Spanish-surname-assisted hot deck. All other people who
report a Hispanic or non-Hispanic origin and whose surname is
indeterminate or are missing their surname donate their origin to a
non-surname-assisted hot deck.[^7] If a person requiring an origin from
the hot deck has a Spanish surname, he or she would receive an origin
from the Spanish-surname-assisted hot deck. If a person requiring an
origin from the hot deck has a non-Spanish surname, he or she would
receive an origin from the non-Spanish-surname-assisted hot deck. All
other people requiring an origin from the hot deck would receive an
origin from the non-surname-assisted hot deck.

The surname-assisted hot deck procedure is similar in both the ACS and
the ASEC, except that in the ASEC, the non-Spanish-surname-assisted hot
deck and the non-surname-assisted hot deck are combined into one hot
deck, thus yielding two surname-assisted hot decks instead of the three
as in the ACS.

# Imputation Flags and Item Nonresponse

# During the edit and imputation process, an internal flag is assigned to the person record to indicate the source of the Hispanic-origin value. Both the ACS and the ASEC assign flags to any value that is assigned or allocated. These flags provide the basis for the calculation of assignment and allocation rates. Allocation rates measure the proportion of values that required hot deck allocation and are an important measure of data quality.

# 

Item nonresponse occurs when an individual does not provide complete and
usable information for a data item. Item allocation rates are often used
as a measure of the level of item nonresponse. These rates are computed
as the ratio of the number of eligible people or households for which a
value was allocated during the editing process for a specific item to
the number of people or households eligible to have responded to that
item.

For the 2004 ACS, the allocation rate for the Hispanic-origin item was
1.6 percent, compared with 0.9 percent for the 2004 ASEC. [^8]

# Controls and Weighting 

## There are notable differences in the selection of controls and the calculation of weights between the two surveys that may lead to differences in estimates. The ACS and the ASEC are both weighted to account for the probability of selection and housing-unit nonresponse.

## 

## After the initial weighting, data from the ACS and the ASEC are controlled to independent population estimates of sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. The Estimates Program at the U.S. Census Bureau produces these independent estimates annually. Differences in the way the controls are applied in each survey may lead to differences in the estimate of the size of the total Hispanic population. For example, data from the 2004 ACS are controlled at the county level to independent estimates of the household population and the number of housing units as of July 1, 2004.[^9] The 2004 ASEC, on the other hand, is controlled at the national and state levels to independent estimates of the civilian noninstitutionalized population as of March 2004.[^10] In addition, the ACS presents the responses over a 12-month period, while the ASEC shows the Hispanic origin of people for the February-April time period, although the population is controlled to March estimates. Because the ACS controls to both the total population and the total number of housing units, the ACS files contain both person weights and housing-unit weights. The ASEC does not control to the total number of housing units and, thus, the ASEC files do not contain an independent housing-unit weight but instead use the weight of the householder as the weight of the housing unit.

After the application of the controls, the ASEC data are raked (iterated
at least 6 times) to ensure a total consistency between the ASEC
estimate of the Hispanic population and the controlled Hispanic total.
Thus, there is no margin of error associated with the Hispanic
population estimate in the ASEC, but there is one for the ACS Hispanic
estimate because the ACS does not use this raking procedure (Table 1).
The differences noted in Table 1 in the total Hispanic populations and
the Non-Hispanic populations between the ASEC and ACS are due primarily
to the differences in the independent estimates used as controls. The
report will thus focus primarily on the differences between the two
surveys in the Hispanic origin population by type of Hispanic.

# RESULTS

Table 1 presents data on "Hispanic Origin by Type." In the 2004 ACS,
40.5 million people (14.2 percent) reported as Hispanic or Latino,
compared with 40.4 million (14.0 percent) in the 2004 ASEC. The
difference between these two percentages is statistically significant
but small (0.1 percentage points). Statistically significant differences
are noted for the estimates of Mexican, Cuban, Central American, and
Other Hispanic or Latino populations. Among the Hispanic population,
smaller proportions reported Mexican, Cuban, and Central American in the
ACS (64.0 percent, 3.6 percent, and 7.2 percent, respectively) than in
the ASEC (65.9 percent, 4.0 percent, and 7.8 percent, respectively).
Other Hispanic or Latino was reported by 7.6 percent of the Hispanic
population in the ACS and 5.0 percent in the ASEC, a difference of 2.6
percentage points. These differences may in part be due to differences
in mode collection and in question wording. For example, in the ACS, the
category \"Other Hispanic or Latino\" is more frequently reported
through the mail questionnaire (54 percent) than either the CATI (13
percent) or CAPI (33 percent) modes of collection. Since 30 percent of
all Hispanic responses are obtained through the mail in the ACS,
compared with no mail questionnaire collection in the ASEC, this
difference in mode likely contributes to the higher percentage of Other
Hispanic or Latino responses in the ACS than in the ASEC. The ASEC
offers three separate categories for "Mexican," "Mexican-American," and
"Chicano," while the ACS combines them into one category. The ASEC
offers both a "Cuban" and a "Cuban-American" category, while the ACS
offers only a "Cuban" category. For reasons such as these, the ACS and
the ASEC differ in distributions related to types of Hispanic origin.

# SUMMARY

Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) on Hispanic origin are
consistent with those from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). The principal differences
noted in this paper are the larger proportion of Mexicans, Cubans, and
Central Americans in the ASEC and the larger proportion of people who
reported Other Hispanic or Latino origins in the ACS. Some of these
differences can be traced to the different collection and editing
procedures.

  ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------- ---- -------
  Table 1. Hispanic Origin                                                                  
  by Type: 2004                                                                             

                                                                                            

                           2004 ACS              2004 ASEC             Difference^2^        

                                      Margin of             Margin of                       
                                      error^1^              error^1^                        

                                                                                            

  Characteristic           Estimate              Estimate                                   

                                                                                            

  NUMBER (in thousands)                                                                     

  **Total**                285,692    \(X\)      288,280    \(X\)      -0.9                 

                                                                                            

  Not Hispanic or Latino   245,232    24         247,856    \(X\)      -1.1            \*   

  Hispanic or Latino:      40,459     24         40,425     \(X\)      0.1             \*   

  Mexican                  25,895     160        26,623     196        -2.7            \*   

  Puerto Rican             3,874      91         3,842      124        0.9                  

  Cuban                    1,438      53         1,618      83         -11.1           \*   

  Dominican                1,051      60         1,039      67         1.2                  

  Central American         2,902      116        3,161      113        -8.2            \*   

  South American           2,216      75         2,113      94         4.9                  

  Other Hispanic or Latino 3,084      110        2,030      92         51.9            \*   

                                                                                            

  PERCENT OF TOTAL                                                                          

  **Total**                100.0      \(X\)      100.0      \(X\)      \(X\)                

  Not Hispanic or Latino   85.8       0.0        86.0       0.1        -0.1            \*   

  Hispanic or Latino       14.2       0.0        14.0       0.1        0.1             \*   

                                                                                            

  PERCENT OF HISPANIC                                                                       

  **Total Hispanic or      100.0      \(X\)      100.0      \(X\)      \(X\)                
  Latino:**                                                                                 

  Mexican                  64.0       0.4        65.9       0.5        -1.9            \*   

  Puerto Rican             9.6        0.2        9.5        0.3        0.1                  

  Cuban                    3.6        0.1        4.0        0.2        -0.4            \*   

  Dominican                2.6        0.1        2.6        0.2        0.0                  

  Central American         7.2        0.3        7.8        0.3        -0.6            \*   

  South American           5.5        0.2        5.2        0.2        0.2                  

  Other Hispanic or Latino 7.6        0.3        5.0        0.2        2.6             \*   

  \(X\) Not applicable.                                                                     

  \* Statistically                                                                          
  significant difference                                                                    
  at the 90-percent                                                                         
  confidence level.                                                                         

  ^1.^ This number added                                                                    
  to and subtracted from                                                                    
  the estimate yields the                                                                   
  90-percent confidence                                                                     
  interval around the                                                                       
  estimate.                                                                                 

  ^2.^ For the numbers,                                                                     
  the difference is the                                                                     
  percent difference and                                                                    
  is calculated as                                                                          
  {(ACS-ASEC)/ASEC}x100.                                                                    
  For the percentages, the                                                                  
  difference is the                                                                         
  percentage-point                                                                          
  difference and is                                                                         
  calculated as ACS-ASEC.                                                                   
  All calculations and                                                                      
  tests of significance                                                                     
  are done on unrounded                                                                     
  estimates and standard                                                                    
  errors.                                                                                   

                                                                                            

                                                                                            

  Source: 2004 ACS Table                                                                    
  B03001; 2004 ASEC,                                                                        
  special tabulation**.**                                                                   
  ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- --------------- ---- -------

**References**

U.S. Census Bureau, [Design and Methodology, American Community
Survey]{.underline}, Technical Paper 67, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 2006.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, [The Current
Population Survey: Design and Methodology]{.underline}, Technical Paper
63RV, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.

Word, David L. and R. Colby Perkins Jr., "Building A Spanish Surname
List for the 1990's --A New Approach to an Old Problem," Technical
Working Paper #13, Washington, DC, 1996.

**Appendix A**

2004 ASEC Hispanic-origin Question 3

What is the name of his/her other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group?

(1) Argentinean

(2) Baleric Islands

(3) Basque

(4) Belize or British Honduras

(5) Bolivian

(6) Brazilian

(7) Canary Islands

(8) Castilian

(9) Catalan

(10) Central American

(11) Central American Indian

(12) Chilean

(13) Colombian

(14) Costa Rican

(15) Dominican

(16) Ecuadorian

(17) Filipino

(18) Guatemalan

(19) Guamanian or Chamorro and some other group

(20) Haitian

(21) Hispanic

(22) Honduran

(23) Latin American

(24) Latino

(25) Nicaraguan

(26) Panamanian or Belice

(27) Paraguayan

(28) Peruvian

(29) Portuguese

(30) Salvadoran

(31) Sephardic

(32) South American

(33) South American Indian

(34) Spanish

(35) Spanish American

(36) Spanish American Indian

(37) Spanish Basque

(38) Spaniard

(39) Uruguayan

(40) Venezuelan

(41) Both Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino

(42) Other

> **Appendix B**

ACS Hispanic Code List

[Code]{.underline} [Detailed Hispanic Origin]{.underline}

Number range CHAPTER**NOT SPANISH/HISPANIC**

100 Not Spanish/Hispanic (check box)

101 Not Spanish/Hispanic

110 Portuguese

111 Azorean

112 Brazilian

116 Belizean

117 British Honduran

118 Haitian

119 Dominica Island

120 Basque

121 Sephardic

130 White

135 Black (African American)

145 American Indian

146 Alaska Native

150 Other Asian

151 Asian Indian

152 Chinese

153 Filipino

154 Japanese

155 Korean

156 Vietnamese

160 Native Hawaiian

166 Other Pacific Islander

167 Guamanian or Chamorro

168 Samoan

190 Multiple Not Hispanic

**SPANIARD**

200 Spaniard

201 Andalusian

202 Asturian

203 Castillian

204 Catalonian

205 Balearic Islander

206 Gallego

207 Valencian

208 Canarian

209 Spanish Basque

[Code]{.underline} [Detailed Hispanic Origin]{.underline}

**MEXICAN**

210 Mexican (check box)

211 Mexican

212 Mexican American

213 Mexicano

214 Chicano

215 La Raza

216 Mexican American Indian

218 Mexico

**CENTRAL AMERICAN**

221 Costa Rican

222 Guatemalan

223 Honduran

224 Nicaraguan

225 Panamanian

226 Salvadoran

227 Central American

228 Central American Indian

229 Canal Zone

**SOUTH AMERICAN**

231 Argentinean

232 Bolivian

233 Chilean

234 Colombian

235 Ecuadorian

236 Paraguayan

237 Peruvian

238 Uruguayan

239 Venezuelan

240 South American Indian

241 Criollo

242 South American

[Code]{.underline} [Detailed Hispanic Origin]{.underline}

**LATIN AMERICAN**

250 Latin American

251 Latin

252 Latino

**PUERTO RICAN**

260 Puerto Rican (check box)

261 Puerto Rican

**CUBAN**

270 Cuban (check box)

271 Cuban

[Code]{.underline} [Detailed Hispanic Origin]{.underline}

**DOMINICAN**

275 Dominican

**OTHER SPANISH/HISPANIC**

280 Other Spanish/Hispanic

(check box)

281 Hispanic

282 Spanish

283 Californio

284 Tejano

285 Nuevo Mexicano

286 Spanish American

287 Spanish American Indian

288 Meso American Indian

289 Mestizo

290 Caribbean

291 Multiple Hispanic Origin

299 Other Spanish/Hispanic,

n.e.c.

[^1]: Less than one-tenth of a percent of the sample were housing units
    that fit this description.

[^2]: For purposes of this report, we did not exclude group quarters
    from our analysis of ASEC data.

[^3]: As a result of a reduction in funding in 2004, ACS dropped the
    telephone and personal visit followup operations for the January
    2004 panel, thus only allowing mail respondents to contribute to the
    overall response for that panel. Dropping the nonresponse followup
    operations for that single panel month reduced the annual response
    rate by about four percentage points. If we exclude the January
    panel from the calculation, the annual response rate rises to 97.3%.

[^4]: It is possible that respondents with a given characteristic chose
    to respond by mail in higher numbers even though they would have
    given the same answer by either mode.

[^5]: The Census Bureau follows the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) 1997 revised standards for the collection of data on race and
    ethnicity. For further details on the Federal Register, please see
    [www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html](http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html).

[^6]: The ACS and ASEC use a static surname list of about 25,000 names,
    of which, 12,215 are considered \"Heavily Spanish.\" This Spanish
    surname list was compiled using data (extract) from the 1990 Post
    Enumeration Survey (PES), which was used to estimate the undercount
    in the 1990 Census. The surname of householders was classified by
    ethnicity. A surname was determined to be \"Spanish\" if there were
    10 or more occurrences of a particular surname and at least 75
    percent of them self-reported Hispanic to the Hispanic-origin
    question. For more information please refer to working paper #13,
    "Building A Spanish Surname List for the 1990's --A New Approach to
    an Old Problem" by David L. Word and R. Colby Perkins Jr. at
    <http://www.census.gov/population/documentation/twpno13.pdf>.

[^7]: An indeterminate surname occurs when a surname is missing or when
    a surname cannot be determined as Spanish or non-Spanish.

[^8]: The \"Edit and Allocation Procedures in the ACS and the ASEC\"
    section above explains allocation procedures.

[^9]: ACS does not control to the county level for small counties. For
    small counties, the 2004 ACS grouped the counties into weighting
    areas with a minimum population of 250,000. Data is then controlled
    at the weighting area level.

[^10]: For more information regarding the application of population
    controls in the ACS and the ASEC, please refer to the following
    documents: U.S. Census Bureau, [Design and Methodology, American
    Community Survey]{.underline}, Technical Paper 67, Washington, DC:
    U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006 and U.S. Department of Labor,
    Bureau of Labor Statistics, [The Current Population Survey: Design
    and Methodology]{.underline}, Technical Paper 63RV, Washington, DC:
    U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002.