Population 

Division 

Evaluation of Census Bureau’s 1995-2025 

State Population Projections 

by Ching-li Wang 

Working Paper Series No. 67 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Economic and Statistics Administration 

U.S. Census Bureau 

October, 2002 
ABSTRACT 

The Census Bureau’s latest series of state population projections for 1995 - 2025 was prepared in 

1995 and released in 1996. This paper examines the performance of this series of projections during 

their first five years. Using the census 2000 counts and estimated births, deaths, domestic migration, 

and international migration from administrative records, this paper examines the accuracy of 

projected total population and projected components of change for 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. The paper also examines the historical trend of projection accuracy and the geographic 

variation of projection accuracy by U.S. regions and subdivisions. A multiple regression analysis 

is used to analyze the relative impact of errors in the projected components of change, errors in state 

estimates, and 1990 census undercount on the accuracy of the latest state population projections. 

A discussion of the accuracy of national projections is also included. 

We found that the latest series of state population projections are more accurate than previous 

projections series. The projections continue to perform poorly in the West. The percent errors in 

domestic migration continue to be the highest among all projected components of change, followed 

by international migration. The projected births had the lowest average percent errors. 

The results from the multiple regression analysis show that the percent errors in the projected births 

had the largest impact on the accuracy of projections, followed by international migration and 

projected deaths. The percent errors in domestic migration cannot explain the variation of projection 

accuracy among the 50 states and District of Columbia. When the 1990 census undercount and the 

accuracy of state estimates were taken into account, the percent errors in state estimates explain most 

of the errors in state projections followed by the census undercount. All the direct impact of percent 

errors in the projected components of change were reduced. It is also found that the errors in state 

estimates are correlated with the 1990 census undercount rates. Thus, it is concluded that the 1990 

census undercount is responsible for a large proportion of the errors in state estimates which, in turn, 

affects the accuracy of state projections. In addition, the national projections which were used to 

control the state projections were also affected by the census undercount and the accuracy of the 

national estimates. 

This paper reports the results of research and analysis undertaken 

by Census Bureau’s staff. It has undergone a more limited 

review than official Census Bureau’s publications. This report is 

released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage 
____________________________________________________________________________

Evaluation of Census Bureau’s 1995 to 2025 State Population Projections 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. State Population Projections: 1995 to 2025 

III. Factors Affecting Accuracy of the State Projections 

1. Census undercount or overcount 

2. Accuracy of state population estimates 

3. Accuracy of projected components of change 

4. Accuracy of national population projections 

5. Uncertainty of demographic changes 

IV. Methods of Measuring Accuracy and Bias 

V. Results 

1. Projected state population and census 2000 count 

2. Comparison with previous series of state projections 

3. Undercount adjusted projections and census 2000 count 

4. State population estimates and census 2000 count 

5. Errors in projected components of changes 

VI. Multiple Regression Analysis

VII. Accuracy of the National Population Projections

VIII. Conclusions and Implications

References

Tables

Table 1: Mean Absolute Percent Errors (MAPE), Mean Algebraic Percent Errors(MAPLE) 

of State Population Projections for 2000 as Compared with Census 2000 

Table 2: Mean Absolute Percent Errors of Various State Population Projections Series for 5 

Years Ahead by Region 

Table 3: Mean Absolute Percent Errors (MAPE), Mean Algebraic Percent Errors (MALPE) 

of State Projections for 2000 Adjusted for 1990 Census Net Undercount 

Table 4: Difference between State Estimates for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts, and Mean 

Absolute Percentage Errors of State Estimates 

Table 5: Mean Absolute Percent Errors of Projected Components of Change as Compared 

with the Estimated Components of Change between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 
Table 6: Correlation Matrix of Absolute Percent Projection Errors and Independent Variables 

Table 7: Standardized Regression Coefficients of Independent Variables on Absolute Percent 

Error of State Projections 

Table 8: U.S. Population Projections, Census 2000 count, and Vintage 2000 Estimates: April 

1, 

2000 

Table 9: Projected and Estimated Components of Change of the U.S. Population, 1999 and 

2000 

Figures 

Figure 1: Percent Difference Between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts, 

Series A and B, ranked by Series A (Projections-Census) 

Figure 2: Percent Difference Between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts, 

with and without 1990 Census Undercount Adjustment - Series A 

Figure 3: Percent Difference Between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts, 

with and without 1990 Census Undercount Adjustment - Series B 

Figure 4: Percent Difference Between State Estimates for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts, 

with 1990 Census as Enumerated and with Undercount Adjusted Base (Estimates -

Census) 

Figure 5: Mean Absolute Percent Difference of Projected and Estimated Components of 

Change between 1995 and 2000 in 50 States and D.C. 

Figure 6: Absolute Percent Errors of Projected Domestic Migration between 1995 and 2000 

and Absolute Percent Errors of State Projections for 2000 (Series A) 

Appendix 

Appendix A: Comparison between State Population Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 

Population - Regions, Divisions, and States 

Appendix B:1990 Census Undercount Rates and State Population Projections for 2000 with 

and without Undercount Adjustment - Regions, Divisions, and States 

Appendix C: Comparison between Estimated State Population for 2000 and Census 2000 

Population - Regions, Divisions, and States 

Appendix D: 1990 Census Undercount Adjusted Population, Estimated Components of 

Change between 1990 and 2000, and Difference between the Estimates for 2000 and 

Census 2000 Population - Regions, Divisions, and States 

Appendix E: Projected and Estimated Components of Change between July 1, 1995 and July 

1, 2000 - Regions, Divisions, and States (Series A) 

Appendix F: Projected and Estimated Components of Change between July 1, 1995 and July 

1, 2000 - Regions, Divisions, and States (Series B) 

Appendix G: Ranking of Absolute Percentage Errors of Projected Components of Change 

Between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 by State - Series A 

Appendix H: Ranking of Absolute Percentage Errors of Projected Components of Change 

between July1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 by State - Series B 
Evaluation of Census Bureau’s 1995 to 2025 State Population Projections 

I. Introduction 

The purpose of the paper is to evaluate the Census Bureau’s latest series of state population 

projections for the years 1995-2025 (Campbell, 1996b, PPL47). Based on the census 2000 results, 

this paper examines the performance of the projections for only the first five years. Using the census 

2000 counts and estimated births, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration from 

administrative records, this paper examines the accuracy of projected total population and projected 

components of change for 50 states and District of Columbia. This paper also examines the historical 

trend and regional differences of the projection accuracy. A multiple regression analysis is also used 

to analyze the relative impact of errors in the projected components of change, errors in state 

estimates, and 1990 census undercounts on the accuracy of the state population projections. This 

study will provide information about the accuracy of the projections and source of errors for use in 

improving current projection models and procedures. 

The paper begins with an overview of the methodology of the state projections, followed by a 

discussion of potential factors affecting the accuracy of the projections. Then it presents a comparison 

of projected 2000 state population and the census 2000 count with and without adjustment for census 

undercount. The assessment of the accuracy of state estimates against the census 2000 is also made 

because the estimates were used for the starting base year population for the projections. The 

projected components of change - births, deaths, domestic migration, and international migration -

between 1995 and 2000 are compared with the most recent estimates of component change in the 

same period based on the administrative records data compiled in the Census Bureau’s population 

estimates program. 

Then, the paper presents the relationships between the factors affecting the accuracy of projections 

in a multiple regression analysis to demonstrate the proportion of errors explained by these factors 

collectively and independently. The analysis provides information about the relative importance of 

each factor affecting the accuracy of state projections while holding other factors constant. In 

addition, the accuracy of the national projections is also discussed to demonstrate the dependency of 

state projections on the accuracy of the national projections. 

II. State Population Projections: 1995 to 2025 

The cohort survival component method is used by the Census Bureau to prepare the state population 

projections. The components of population change - births, deaths, and migration - are projected 

separately. It requires separate projection assumptions for each birth cohort by single year of age, 

sex, race and Hispanic Origin. The race and Hispanic origin groups were non-Hispanic White, nonHispanic Black; non-Hispanic American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific 

Islander; Hispanic White, Hispanic Black, Hispanic American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and 

1
Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander. The detailed components for the projections and assumptions 

were derived from vital statistics, administrative records, 1990 census data, state population 

estimates, and the middle series of the national population projections (P25-1130, 1996). 

The cohort component method used to produce the projections for every year from 1995 to 2025 is 

based on the following formula: 

P1 = P0 + B - D + DIM - DOM + IIM - IOM 

Where, 

P1 = population at the end of the period 

P0 = Population at the beginning of the period 

B = births during the period 

D = deaths during the period 

DIM = domestic in-migration during the period 

DOM = domestic out-migration during the period 

IIM = international in-migration during the period 

IOM = international out-migration during the period 

The 1990 census base population estimates for 1994 were used as the starting base population to 

launch the projections. The first projected 1995 results were later adjusted to agree with the 1995 

state population estimates when they became available. First, survival rates were used to survive each 

age-sex-race/Hispanic group forward one year. Then the state-to-state migration rates were applied 

to the survived population in each state. The projected out-migrants were subtracted from the state 

of origin and added to the state of destination as in-migrants. Then the immigrants from abroad were 

added to each group, while emigrants were subtracted. The population under one year of age was 

created by applying age-race/Hispanic specific birth rates to females of childbearing age. The number 

of births by sex and race/Hispanic origin were survived forward and exposed to the migration rates 

to derive the population under one year of age. The results of each age group were adjusted to agree 

with the national population projections by single year of age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin. 

Two sets of state population projections were prepared based on different models used in projecting 

the domestic migration component. The migration trends data used in both projections were based 

on state-to-state migration flows data, extracted from annual matches of Internal Revenue 

Service(IRS) individual income tax returns. The data contain 19 observations from 1975-76 to 1993-

94 on each of the 2,550 state migration flows (51 x 50 matrix). Two models were used to project 

these migration flows into the future: 

(1) Series A used a time series model - regression of changes in the natural logarithms of the 

migration rates. The first five years of the projections used the time series projections exclusively. 

The next ten years of projections were interpolated from the time series projections toward the mean 

of the series. The final 15 years used the series mean exclusively. 

(2) Series B is an economic model. Changes in state-to-state migration rates were derived from the 

relationship between changes in the migration rates and Bureau of Economic Analysis projected 

2
changes in employment in the origin and the destination states. Detailed assumptions and procedures 

used in the projections are described in the Census Bureau’s report, PPL-47 (Campbell, 1996b). 

III. Factors Affecting the Accuracy of State Population Projections 

Based on the methodology of the state population projections, several factors need to be considered 

in order to evaluate the accuracy of the projections. 

1. Census undercount or overcount 

To assess the accuracy of the projections, most studies compare the projections with the census count 

for the census year or with most recent population estimates available for the inter-censal or postcensal years (Smith and Sincich, 1990, 1992; Wetrogan and Campbell, 1990; Campbell, 1996a, 

1997). Changes in net undercount between the two census affect the validity of measurement of 

accuracy of the projections. According to the Accuracy, Coverage, and Evaluation (ACE) survey and 

the Demographic Analysis (DA) by the Census Bureau, the net undercount rates in the census 2000 

are significantly lower than in the 1990 census (Robinson, et al., 2001). Based on the Post 

Enumeration Survey, the 1990 census had a net national undercount of 1.6 percent, while the net 

undercount rate for the census 2000 was reduced to 0.06 percent, based on the similar quality-check 

survey (Census 2000 Initiative, 2001). Therefore, we would expect that the projected 2000 

population based on the 1990 census would understate the 2000 population as compared with the 

census 2000 counts. 

2. Accuracy of state population estimates (Accuracy of the starting point population) 

The 1995-2025 state projections were based on July 1, 1994 state population estimates as the first 

base year population and then the first projection year was adjusted to agree with the 1995 state 

population estimates. The accuracy of the state population estimates definitely affects the base year 

population for projections. To assess the accuracy of the projections, we also need to examine the 

accuracy of the state estimates against the census 2000 population. 

The state population estimates were derived from the Census Bureau’s annual county estimates based 

on a component of change method. To derive natural increase, the Census Bureau uses vital 

statistics (births and deaths) collected from the National Center for Health Statistics and state 

agencies in the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population Estimates (FSCPE). In terms of 

the migration component, the Census Bureau uses annual matches of extracts of IRS individual 

income tax returns to derive migration rates for the population under 65 in each state and county. The 

immigration data from the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) were used to derive the 

number of legal immigrants by state of intended residence. The Census Bureau also estimates the 

number of residual foreign born and emigrants for the states. In addition, the data for movement of 

federal civilian population were also used as another component of change for state estimates. The 

Medicare enrollments were used to estimate the population 65 and over. Finally, the county estimates 

were controlled to the national estimates and the state estimates were derived. 

3
Since the state estimates are derived from the component method by adding the components of 

change to the base year population, the accuracy of state estimates depends on the accuracy of each 

component of change and the census population count as well. In other words, to assess accuracy 

of the estimates also faces the problem of different net undercount rates in the two censuses. Since 

the net undercount rates in the census 2000 are lower than the rates in the 1990 census, we should 

expect an overall under-estimate of the estimated population for 2000. 

3. Accuracy of projected components of change 

Since the state projections are derived from the demographic accounting of births, deaths, domestic 

migration, and international migration, the quality of input data and methodologies for deriving 

projection assumptions for each component will definitely affect the accuracy of the projections. To 

assess the accuracy of the projected components of change, we use the most recent available statistics 

compiled by the Census Bureau for the Population Estimates Program between 1995 and 2000. 

The accuracy of the projected components of change is affected by the input data, selection of the 

starting point of various rates used in the projections, and the statistical models used in projecting 

each component. Instead of examining the procedures to derive these components, this paper is 

limited to the comparison of the projected total births, deaths, net domestic migration, and net 

international migration with current statistics. 

4. Accuracy of national population projections 

The results of state population projections were controlled to agree with the most recent national 

population projections as the final stage of procedures. The accuracy of the national projections will 

eventually affect the accuracy of the state projections. For example, the national projections, to 

which the current series state projections were controlled, showed 274.0 millions people in 2000 

while the census 2000 showed 281.4 million. A difference of 7.4 million between projected national 

population and the census count will definitely affect the accuracy of the state projections when the 

state projections are controlled to agree with the national projections. 

The projected 2000 population in the most recent series of national projections (working paper #38) 

also shows a significantly lower projected population than the census 2000 count. It is due primarily 

to a higher undercount rate in the 1990 census than in the census 2000. A brief note of evaluation 

of the national population projections is presented at the end of the paper. 

To assess the impact of national population projections on the state projections, it is necessary to 

compare the projections with and without national controls. However, this paper will limit itself to 

discussion of the accuracy of the projected national population to infer its impact on the accuracy of 

the state projections. 

5. Uncertainty of demographic changes 

Most projections are based on the assumption that population change can be predicted if the current 

or historical demographic trends continue in the future. However, it is not always the case. 

4
Therefore, we can anticipate that the projections for the areas which experience dramatic 

socioeconomic changes will not be as accurate as the areas with stable socioeconomic conditions. The 

population change between 1990 and 2000 can be used to measure where the states have experienced 

dramatic changes or not. 

In addition, the previous studies also indicate that the population size affects the accuracy of 

population projections. It is mainly due to the relationship between so-call “true demographic rates” -

(fertility, mortality, migration rates) and the population size. Since the detailed demographic rates -

age, sex, and race for small states will be likely to have many small numbers in each cell or many 

empty cells, these rates for smaller population bases will be unstable. 

IV. Methods of Measuring Accuracy and Bias 

The paper uses two measures to evaluate the accuracy and bias of the projections. To measure 

accuracy and bias, we need a “true population” to compare for the same year. Normally, the decennial 

census count and inter-censal estimates are used as the “true population.” Due to undercount and 

coverage issues, there may not actually be a “true population.” Therefore, the measurement of 

accuracy should be considered as an approximation. 

The most commonly used measurement of accuracy of the projections is Mean Absolute Percent 

Error (MAPE), which is the average error when the direction of error (positive or negative) is 

ignored. The measurement indicates the magnitude of the errors among a specific number of 

geographic units. The formula for the MAPE is: 

MAPE = (Sum(|projection - census|/census*100))/n 

Where, n is the number of states. MAPEs are calculated for the United States (the states and the 

District of Columbia), where n is 51, and for each census region or division, where n equals the 

number of states in each region or division. This is used as a measure of accuracy of forecast or 

projections (Smith and Sincich, 1990, 1992). 

The second measure is Mean Algebraic Percent Error (MALPE), which takes into account the 

direction of error. It has been used as a measure of forecast bias, whether under-projected or overprojected (Smith and Sincich, 1990, 1992). The formula for the MALPE is: 

MALPE = (Sum((projection - census)/census *100))/n 

It has been argued that the MAPE overstates the error of projections or estimates because a few 

extreme outliers would make the average (arithmetic mean) higher than reality (Tayman and 

Swanson, 1999; Tayman, Swanson, and Barr 1999, Swanson, Tayman, and Barr, 2000). However, 

in order to compare the results with previous studies using the MAPEs, and cross-comparison of 

errors in different variables, this study used the MAPE to discuss the accuracy of the projections. 

In addition, because the state projections were prepared as of July 1 for each year, it is necessary to 

5
develop an April 1, 2000 projection to compare with the census 2000. The July 1, 2000 projections 

are converted to April 1, 2000 based on the following formula: 

P2000(4/1) = P1999 * (P2000/P1999)(9/12) 

V. Results 

1. Projected state population and census 2000 count 

As shown in Table 1, the series A of the state projections produced a mean absolute percentage error 

(MAPE) of 2.6 and the series B had a slightly lower MAPE of 2.4. The Mean Algebraic Percent 

Error (MALPE) was -1.4 percent for Series A and -1.7 percent for Series B. This indicates a general 

tendency for the two series to under-project the state populations as expected due to higher 

undercount rates in the 1990 census. Only 10 states have the projected 2000 population more than 

the census 2000 count for Series A, and only 9 states for Series B. (See Appendix A) 

(Table 1 about here) 

The MAPEs for Series A show that the projections are more accurate in the Midwest (1.6%) and less 

accurate in the West (3.8%). Most of the states in the Midwest had the percent errors below 2.6 

percent. Only Illinois had the percent error of over three percent (3.1%). 

The MAPEs for the West vary dramatically from state to state. Generally, the projections are less 

accurate in Mountain states (MAPE of 4.4 percent) with a wide range of levels of accuracy -- from 

7.0 percent for Arizona and 7.6 percent for Nevada to -1.8 percent for New Mexico and -1.7 percent 

for Utah. The percent errors in the Pacific states also vary significantly ranging from -4.2 percent 

for California to -1.0 percent for Washington. (See Series A in Appendix A) 

The MAPE for the South is about the same level of accuracy as the average of 50 states and the 

District of Columbia (2.6%). However, the percent errors in the South also vary dramatically from 

state to state. The MAPE for the South Atlantic division is higher (3.5%) than other divisions in the 

South, while the MAPE for the East South Central division is significantly lower than other divisions 

with an MAPE of 0.9 percent. 

The percent errors of the projections for states in the Northeast region also vary in a wide range from 

-4.9 percent for Rhode Island to -0.7 percent for Pennsylvania and 1.1 percent for Vermont. 

However, the variation of percent errors in the Northeast states is much less than in the West and 

South. 

The MAPEs for Series B projections also show the similar pattern of variation among four regions 

and states as Series A. Generally, the percentage errors of Series B are very close to Series A (See 

Figure 1) 

(Figure 1 about here) 

6
2. Comparison with previous series of state projections 

Despite the errors we just described, the current set of projections tends to be more accurate than in 

the earlier projections produced before the 1990s. According to Smith and Sincich (1992), the 

MAPEs for the Census Bureau’s state projections after 5 years ranged from 3.1 to 5.0 percent for 

earlier versions of the projections (1955 through 1980). Wetrogan and Campbell (1990) analyzed 

the Census Bureau’s previous series of state projections from 1965 (P25-375) to 1980 (P25-937) and 

found the MAPEs for the first five years of projections ranged from 3.0 to 5.2 percent. 

To update the later series of projections after 1980, the MAPEs for the 1986 Series (P25-1017), 1988 

Series (P25-1053) and 1992 Series (P25-1111) are calculated to compare with the current series. As 

shown in Table 2, the overall accuracy of the state population projections has improved since the 

1986 Series (P25-1017) with an MAPE of 2.6. The first projections series after 1990 (P25-1111) was 

even more impressive with an MAPE of 1.6 for series A for the first 5 years. Then, the MAPE for 

the latest series PPL-47 returned to the same level of 2.6 as previous two series in the late 80s. 

(Table 2 about here) 

It seems that the performance of the current projections series is worse than the 1992 series (MAPE 

of 2.6 vs. 1.6). This is misleading. Since the MAPE for 1992 series was based on the 1997 estimates 

to evaluate the accuracy for the first five years, while the MAPE for the current series is based on the 

census 2000. The 1997 state population estimates were consistent with the 1990 census which had 

higher rates of undercount than did Census 2000. Comparisons based on a different census base are 

not valid. 

If we use the same series of state estimates extrapolated from 1999 to 2000, instead of census 2000 

counts, to calculate the MAPE for the current series, the results show that the MAPE for the current 

projections series was reduced to 1.5, slightly lower than the previous one (see last second column 

of Table 2). However, if we use the 1990 census based 2000 estimates (revised by the Census 

Bureau’s estimates program), interpolated from 1999 estimates, the MAPE for the current series for 

series A increases to 1.7 (see last column of Table 2). Nevertheless, the MAPEs for series B based 

on revised estimates series are still lower than the previous series. Therefore, we can conclude that 

the projections series after 1990 are generally better than the earlier series. 

Table 2 also shows that the state projections continue to do poorly in the West as compared with 

other regions, no matter what series of projections are examined. The projection errors for the 

Midwest states have been very stable within the range of 1.0 and 1.8 since the 1975 projections 

series. The projections for the Northeast has been improved over time, but the South has had the 

smallest MAPEs since the 1988 projections series if the estimates were used to measure the accuracy. 

3. Undercount Adjusted Projections and census 2000 count 

As mentioned above, the census 2000 had a higher coverage rate than the 1990 census. The 

projections based on the 1990 census will certainly tend to under-project the population. Thus, if we 

7
used the 1990 census undercount adjusted population for projections, we should see a reduction in 

percentage errors. Instead of re-running the lengthy projections program in this study, the 2000 

projections were adjusted with state specific undercount rates in 1990. The results show an 

improvement of the projections. 

(Table 3 about here) 

As table 3 shows, the MAPE for all states was reduced from 2.6 to 2.2 for Series A and from 2.4 to 

2.0 for Series B. The number of states with the percentage error of less than 1.0 percent increases 

from 10 to 20 for Series A, and from 13 to 18 for Series B.(See Appendix B) Projections are 

improved except in 12 states for Series A and 15 states for Series B.(See Figures 2 and 3) These 

exceptions are those states with high projections originally or those with low percentage errors which 

turn to over-projected values after the undercount adjustment was made. The MAPEs for all regions 

were reduced after adjusting undercount except the West. The MAPEs for the West after adjustment 

are higher because many states in that region were over-projected initially. For example, the 

projections for both Series A and B for 2000 for Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, and Alaska were 

above the census 2000 count. Once their projected populations were inflated by the undercount rates, 

the Mean Absolute Percentage Error for the region becomes higher. 

(Figure 2 and 3 about here) 

4. State population estimates and census 2000 count 

One crucial factor affecting the accuracy of the state projections is the use of state estimates as the 

base year population to launch the projections. If the estimates are not accurate, the projections will 

be automatically inaccurate. The evaluation of the estimates against the census 2000 count faces the 

same issue of census undercount as evaluating the projections. Therefore, a comparison of the 1990 

census base estimates and the estimates adjusted for net census undercount is also made. 

Table 4 shows the difference between the census 2000 count and the estimated 2000 population by 

region and division. The estimates based on the official 1990 census count under-estimated the U.S. 

population by 2.4 percent or a total of 6.8 million people. Almost all states had the estimated 

population lower than the census count except West Virginia (See Appendix C). The West had the 

highest MAPE of 3.2, followed by the South, and the Northeast region. The Midwest had the lowest 

MAPE (1.4%). However, in terms of divisions in the regions, the Mountain division had the highest 

MAPE, followed by South Atlantic states, the similar pattern of the geographic distribution of errors 

for the state population projections. (See Table 1) 

(Table 4 about here) 

If we use the net census undercount adjusted 1990 population as the base to derive the estimates, we 

can see a dramatic reduction of estimation errors. All the states have a reduction of errors except 

Alaska, Michigan, and West Virginia, where the errors remain low. (See Figure 4) The amount of 

under-estimation for the U.S. as a whole decreases from 6.8 million to 2.9 million, 57 percent 

reduction (Table 4). The negative percent difference for the entire U.S. decreases from 2.4 to 1.0 

8
percent. The mean absolute percent error (MAPE) for all states dropped from 2.6 percent to 1.5 

percent. The reduction of percent errors in state estimates based on the 1990 census adjusted for net 

undercount is so overwhelming that all regions have a reduction of estimation errors (See Table 4). 

Since the births and deaths are considered more accurate than other components, the 2.9 million 

discrepancy between the estimates adjusted for 1990 census net undercount and the census 2000 

count could be attributed to the migration component, more likely the underestimation of net 

international migration for the nation. 

(Figure 4 about here) 

5. Errors of Projected Components of Change 

Since the Cohort-Component Method was used to produce the state projections, the accuracy of every 

component will affect the accuracy of the projections. To evaluate the accuracy of each component -

births, deaths, and migration, the most current vital statistics and migration data from the 

administrative records were used. The Census Bureau has routinely compiled the annual component 

data for its Population Estimates Program. Because the components of change produced in the state 

projections are from mid-year to mid-year as in the population estimates, we can compare the 

projected components of change for 7/1/1995 to 6/30/2000 with the estimated components for the 

same period. 

As Table 5 and Figure 5 show, the projected births are more accurate than other components with 

lowest Mean Absolute Percentage Errors, followed by deaths. The net domestic migration is the 

worst component in the projection - the MAPE reached 193.3 for Series A, and 174.2 for Series B. 

The MAPE of net international migration was 31.5 for Series A and also 31.5 for Series B. The 

differences of MAPEs for births and deaths between Series A and Series B are also about the same. 

Only the MAPEs of domestic migration are different between Series A and Series B. This reflects 

the fact that the only primary difference between Series A and Series B is the use of different models 

in projecting domestic migration. 

(Table 5 and Figure 5 about here) 

Births 

Although the MAPEs for the birth component are more accurate, they vary from region to region. 

The projected births for the West had the highest MAPE with 9.6 percent as compared with 2.6 in 

the Midwest. However, the MAPE for the New England (9.1) is comparable to that in the Pacific 

division. The Mountain states had the highest MAPE for projected births (9.9 for Series A). 

The percent difference for births in Series A differs from state to state, ranging from 0.1 percent for 

South Carolina to 27.9 percent for District of Columbia.(See Appendix G) The projected numbers 

of births for South Carolina, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri are more accurate 

with the percent error of less than 1.0 percent. But, California, Maine, Hawaii, Vermont, Utah, 

Nevada, and D.C. are among the worst in projected births (11percent or higher error). The 

discrepancies for births in Series B are about the same as in Series A. 

9
Deaths 

Projected deaths are more accurate in the West, followed by the South. The MAPE for projected 

deaths is highest in the Northeast with the highest MAPE for the Middle Atlantic States (See table 

5). The states with highest discrepancies in the death component (more than 10 percent) are District 

of Columbia, New York, Rhode Island, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey and 

Illinois. (See Appendix G) In contrast, South Carolina, Utah, Wyoming, and Alaska have the 

smallest error rates (less than 1.0 percent). 

Some states have the similar levels of accuracy for projected births and deaths, such as South 

Carolina (the best) and District of Columbia (the worst). However, some states have complete 

opposite trends in their projected births and deaths. For example, Utah has 15.5 percent error in 

projected births, among the worst, but has 0.9 percent error in projected deaths, among the best. 

(Appendix Table G). The percent errors of projected deaths in Series B are about the same as in 

Series A. 

Domestic Migration 

The net domestic migration had a wider range of percentage errors among states ranging from 2.3 

percent for Georgia to 2,245 percent for Utah (Series A). The estimated net domestic migration for 

Utah between 1995 and 2000 was -5,247, but the projected net domestic migration was 112,548. 

States with the highest errors in projecting domestic migration are Montana, Indiana, New Mexico, 

Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alabama, Nebraska, California, Kansas, and Idaho with absolute 

percentage errors of 200 percent and higher. (Appendix G) 

The MAPE for the net domestic migration for the West is the highest among the four regions, 

especially among the Mountain states. (Table 5) The South had the lowest mean absolute percent 

error. However, the variations in the MAPE among divisions are very substantial. For example, the 

East South Central states had MAPEs close to 150 percent, while the South Atlantic states had a 

MAPE of 17.6 percent. 

The variation of average absolute percent errors in domestic migration projection seems to have no 

precise relationship with geographic location and size of population. For example, the Mountain 

region and New England region where many small states are located had a percent error of 606.6 

percent and 139.7 percent respectively for Series A, 554.0 percent and 113.1 percent for Series B. 

Arizona and Nevada with low projected domestic migration error rates (19.3 percent and 20.0 percent 

respectively) are located in the Mountain region where projection errors are the highest. The percent 

error for projected domestic migration error for California, the largest state, is substantially higher 

(253.9 percent), while the error for New Hampshire, one of the smallest states, is only 3.6 percent of 

error. This suggests that there is no unique pattern in percent errors in projected domestic migration 

among the 50 states and District of Columbia. 

The percent errors in projected domestic migration in Series B are generally lower than those in 

Series A except for the East North Central states (Table 5 and Appendix H). However, the overall 

10
variation of the errors among regions and subdivisions is about the same. As in Series A, Utah and 

Montana have the highest percent errors of the projected domestic migration in Series B. 

International Migration 

The percent discrepancies between projected and estimated net international migration were higher 

in the West and the Northeast. Again, the Mountain and New England states have the highest percent 

errors. (See Table 5 and Appendix G). Generally, the Mid-Atlantic, East South Central and Pacific 

states have lower percent errors in projected international migration. However, there are no particular 

patterns in the errors for the location of specific states. For example, the states with the highest and 

lowest error in international migration, New Hampshire ( 2.8%) and Rhode Island (109.5%), are both 

located in the New England area. 

Similar to domestic migration, the percent errors in international migration are not associated with 

the population size. For example, Texas (60.0%) is among the states with the highest percent error 

in projected international migration while New York (10.0%) and California (16.6%) are among the 

states with relatively lower errors in projected international migration. 

VI. Multiple Regression Analysis of Factors Affecting the Accuracy of State Projections 

The description of the errors (MAPEs and MALPEs) of the state projections, state estimates, and 

projected components of change as we presented above does not provide sufficient information to 

quantify the relationships among errors. It is only possible to say that the domestic migration has the 

highest percent errors among the four components. It cannot tell the extent to which the errors in 

projected domestic migration contributed to the variation of errors in state population projections 

among 50 states and the District of Columbia. A further question is, to what extent the potential 

factors of projections error, such as the undercount rates, errors in state estimates, and errors in 

projected components of change affect the accuracy of state projections collectively and 

independently. To answer this question, it is necessary to do a multiple regression analysis. 

The dependent variable for the analysis is the absolute percent error of state projections. The 

independent variables include - 1990 census net undercount rates, absolute percent error of state 

estimates, absolute percent error of projected births, deaths, net domestic migration, and net 

international migration. In addition, the percent population change between 1990 and 2000 is used 

to measure the uncertainty of the projections in predicting future trends. Since the pattern of 

projections errors for Series B is very close to Series A, the following analysis will present Series A 

only. 

(1). Correlation between Projection Error and Dependent Variables 

Before presenting the results of the multiple regression analysis, we need to present the correlation 

between dependent and independent variables - the gross relationship between two variables without 

holding other variables constant. Table 6 shows the simple correlations among these variables. As 

11
expected from the discussion above, the projection errors are highly correlated with percent error in 

state estimates (correlation coefficient of 0.72), and also related to the 1990 census undercount rates 

(0.47). The projection error is also associated with population change (0.42) -- a dramatic change 

in population would usually produce a larger error in projections. 

(Table 6 about here) 

The general perception is that the percent errors in the projected components should be the primary 

source of errors in the projections because the projections were based on the cohort component 

method. As expected, the error in projected births is significantly correlated with the projection 

errors (0.57). However, the percent errors in projected deaths and international migration only 

correlate moderately with errors in population projections. Surprisingly, the percent error in 

domestic migration has no correlation with percent projection errors. This indicates that a state with 

higher percent error in projected domestic migration may not necessarily have a higher percent error 

in projections. This can be seen from Figure 6. This may also reflect the problems of measurement 

of domestic migration based on IRS data. Changes in tax laws, problems in the geo-coding of tax 

returns addresses, and different levels of coverage rates of population may contribute to the 

uncertainty of this variable. The migration flows used in the projections may not reflect the true 

migration, but the estimated net domestic migration used to evaluate the projected domestic migration 

may not reflect the true migration either. 

(Figure 6 about here) 

(2). Multiple Regression of Factors Affecting Projection Accuracy 

The simple correlation between two variables may include the impact of other variables on the 

specific variable. For example, the correlation between errors in projected births and errors in 

projected population may be due to the impact of state estimates and census undercount on the 

projected births because the census undercount and state population estimates affect the accuracy of 

population base to derive fertility rates for the projections. In other words, the impact of errors in 

births on projection errors is also due to the effects of errors in state estimates or census undercount 

on projections at the same time. The results of the multiple regression analysis in Table 7 show the 

importance of each variable contributing independently to the projection errors while holding other 

variables constant in three conditions and how much all the variables together can explain the 

projection errors. 

Table 7 shows the standardized regression coefficients of the independent variables on percent 

projection error in 3 models. Model 1 includes only percent errors in births, deaths, domestic 

migration, and international migration. Model 2 includes census undercount rates and state estimates 

errors, in addition to the variables in model 1. Model 3 includes one more variable - population 

change between 1990 and 2000, 

The errors in the projected components as shown in model 1 explain 40 percent of projection error 

(R-square of 0.40). The percent error in projected births accounts for most of the weight (coefficient 

of 0.52), followed by international migration (0.21). The errors in projected deaths and domestic 

12
migration do not explain the variation in percent projection errors in the 50 states and District of 

Columbia. Surprisingly, when other components are held constant, the domestic migration tends to 

have a slight negative impact on projection accuracy. This further indicates that the problem of 

measuring the domestic migration in the state population estimates and population projections. 

When the net census undercount rate and percent errors in state estimates are included in the 

regression, the combined set of variables explain over 60 percent of variation in projection errors. 

Most of the projection errors originally explained by the projected components of change are 

replaced by the percent errors in state population estimates and the net census undercount. The 

standardized coefficient of percent errors in births was reduced from 0.53 to 0.16. The percent error 

in state estimates stands out as the most important variable in explaining errors in the state population 

projection -- 0.46, followed by the net census undercount (0.23). 

The reason for such dramatic shifts in explaining the errors in projections is that the state population 

estimates are not only used as the starting population base to launch projections, but also are used as 

the controls to develop population base for fertility, mortality, and migration rates. This can be seen 

from the correlation between percent errors in projected births and percent errors in state estimates 

(0.59), and the correlation between errors in projected deaths and state estimates (0.35). 

In model 3, the percent population change is included in the regression to see whether difference in 

rates of population change can explain the variation of errors in projections due to uncertainty of 

predicting the turning point of population growth. The results show that although population change 

correlates significantly with projection error (0.42 in Table 6), its net impact on the projection errors 

becomes unnoticeable when other variables are taken into account. 

VII. The Accuracy of National Population Projections 

As mentioned before, the results of the state projections were controlled to the national population 

projections. The accuracy of the national projections would automatically affect the accuracy of the 

state projections. The national projections series used to control the state projections total show that 

the projected U.S. population in 2000 as of April 1 was 274,055,000, an under-projection of 7.4 

million as compared with the census 2000 count of 281,422,000. The percent difference of 2.62 

percent between the national projections and the census 2000 U.S. population is about the same as 

the MAPE of the state population projections. The latest national projections to year 2100 released 

in January, 2000 show a projected population of 274,659,000 in 2000, an under-projection of 6.8 

million (see Table 8). 

The accuracy of the national projections is also affected by the 1990 Census net undercount and the 

accuracy of national estimates. As Table 8 shows, if the 1990 census undercount rates were applied 

to the projected total population, the under-projection of the U.S. population would have been 

reduced dramatically -- from 6.8 million to 2.4 million if the 1990 PES (Post-Enumeration Survey) 

undercount rate were used, and to 2.2 million if the DA (Demographic Analysis) undercount rate 

were used. The percent errors for the projections would have been reduced from 2.4 percent to 0.9 

percent with PES rate adjustment and to 0.8 percent with DA rate adjustment. This suggests that if 

13
the projections had been based on the 1990 population adjusted for net census undercount, the Census 

Bureau’s latest U.S. projections would have been more accurate. 

(Table 8 about here) 

Since the national population projections also use the most current population national estimates as 

the base, the accuracy of the national estimates would affect the accuracy of the national projections. 

As Table 8 shows, the national estimates also under-estimated the national population by 6.8 million 

and there is no significant difference between the projected U.S. population (274,649,908 ) and 

estimated population (274,608,346) as of 4/1/2000. Since the national estimates were also based on 

the 1990 census population as enumerated, the errors due to the net census undercount would also 

affect the accuracy of the national estimates. Therefore, when the estimates are adjusted by the 1990 

net census undercount rates as the adjustment for the projections, the differences between estimates 

and census 2000 are about the same as difference for projections. It becomes obvious that the 1990 

net census undercount has seriously affected the accuracy of both the population estimates and 

projections. 

The national projections were based on the component method. The latest national projections were 

done in 1999 and released in 2000. In order to evaluate the accuracy of projected components of 

change for the first two years, we compare the projected 1999 and 2000 components with the most 

recent statistics. As Table 9 shows, the projections under-projected the number of births by 65,000 

for 1999 and 148,000 for 2000 (1.65% and 3.66%) based on the provisional NCHS report. The 

projections under-projected the number of deaths by 19,000 for 1999 and 11,000 for 2000 (0.81% 

and 0.47%). If the projections had been based on the 1990 population adjusted for net census 

undercount, the projected births and deaths would have increased to some extent due to the larger 

population base. The percent errors of projected births and deaths should also be reduced. Therefore, 

we can conclude that the projected births and deaths for the first two years are quite accurate. 

(Table 9 about here) 

Table 9 also shows that the projections of net international migration in 1999 and 2000 are higher 

than the estimated figures by 10 to 11 percent. Since the projections of international migration were 

based on the estimates of international migration, the errors of the national projections for the first 

two years are largely due to the errors of the estimates of international migration. The errors of this 

component also affected the accuracy of the state population projections. 

VIII. Conclusions and Implications 

The accuracy of state projections depends upon many factors. It has been shown that the level of 

accuracy or magnitude of errors depends on the accuracy of census counts, national projections which 

are used to control the results of state projections, the accuracy of state estimates, and the components 

in the projections. The overall performance of the latest state projections series has been relatively 

more accurate than previous state projections series. The projections continue to perform poorly in 

the West. The state population estimates which were used as the population base to start the 

14
projections have similar level of errors as the projections, largely due to the net undercount in the 

1990 census. 

The percent errors in domestic migration continue to be the highest among the projected components 

of change, followed by the international migration. The projected births had the lowest average 

percent errors. However, the states with lower percent errors in projected domestic migration do not 

necessarily have more accurate state projections. 

The multiple regression analysis further confirms that errors in the state estimates are the most 

important variable contributing to the state projection errors. The errors in the projected components 

- births, deaths, domestic migration and international migration - should have contributed a 

significant amount of error to the projections. However, when the state estimates and the 1990 

census net undercount are taken into account, the impact of errors from the components becomes less. 

Since the 1990 census net undercount affected a large portion of errors in the state estimates, the net 

census undercount also had a significant impact on the accuracy of the projections. The census 

undercount and the accuracy of the U.S. population estimates also affect the accuracy of the national 

projections, which in turn, affect the accuracy of the state projections. This further indicates the 

importance of the accuracy of base year population in producing accurate projections. 

When the state estimates and 1990 census net undercount are not taken into account, the errors in 

projected births explain most of the error, followed by the error in international migration. The errors 

in projected deaths contributed less to the errors in the projections. However, the errors in domestic 

migration cannot explain the projection errors although the MAPE of the domestic migration is the 

highest among the components. This further indicates the difficulty of projecting the migration 

component in the population projections. 

These results suggest that if we want to improve the projection, we need to pay special attention to 

the accuracy of the base year population and the accuracy of the population estimates. Since the net 

undercount rates in the census 2000 are relatively low, we would expect that the new projections 

based on census 2000 or estimates based on census 2000 should not be influenced by the 2000 census 

net undercount to the extent as by the 1990 census net undercount. Therefore, it is necessary first to 

ensure the accuracy of projected births because it explains largest proportion of projection errors 

among the components. It will be more cost-effective to do so because any improvement in 

projecting births can have a noticeable effect on projection accuracy. On the contrary, it may take 

more effort to make improvement in the domestic migration component for projections because its 

direct impact is mixed - it can go in either direction depending on other errors. This does not mean 

we should not pay attention to this important component in projections. We should know that no 

matter what we do to improve this component we may not expect to get the expected results. In other 

words, we do not need a complicated model to project the migration. What we need is a simple, 

reasonable, and understandable model to explain to the user what we do. Demographers repeatedly 

indicate that complex techniques did not produce more accurate forecasts or projections (Smith and 

Sincich, 1992), 

15
References 

Campbell, Paul R. 1994, “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 

1993 to 2020" Current Population Reports, P25-1111, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C. 

Campbell, Paul R. 1996a, “How Accurate were the Census Bureau’s State Population Projections for 

the early 1990's?” Paper presented at the Federal Forecasters Conference, Washington, D.C. May 2. 

Campbell, Paul R. 1996b, “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 

1995 to 2025," PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October. 

Campbell, Paul R. 1997, “An Evaluation of the Census Bureau’s 1995 to 2025 State Population 

Projections - One Year Later.” U. S. Census Bureau, Paper presented at the Population Association 

of America Meeting, Washington D.C. (March) 

Census 2000 Initiative, 2001,” Census Bureau Says No To Adjustment; Review Finds Duplicates 

Wipe Out Most of Net Undercount” News Alert - October 18, 2001 

Day, Jennifer Cheeseman, 1996, “Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race and 

Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050.” U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P25-1120, 

Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 

Hollmann, Frederick, Tammany Mulder, and Jeffrey Kallan, 1999, “Methodology and Assumptions 

for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100.” U.S. Census Bureau, Population 

Division Working Paper, No. 38, December, 1999. 

Robinson, J. Gregory, 2001a, “Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Demographic Analysis Results,” 

U.S. Census Bureau, DSSD Census 2000 Procedure and Operations Memorandum Series B-4* 

(March 12, 2001) 

Robinson J. Gregory, 2001b, “ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results,” U.S. Census Bureau, 

Executive Steering Committee for ACE Policy II, Report No. 1 (October 13, 2001). 

Smith, Stanley K. and Terry Sincich, 1990, “ The Relationship Between the Length of the Base 

Period and Population Forecast Errors,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol 85, No. 

410, 1367-1375. 

Smith, Stanley K. and Terry Sincich,1992, “Evaluating the Forecast Accuracy and Bias of Alterative 

Population Projections for States.” International Journal of Forecasting, 8, 495-508. 

Smith Stanley K. and Scott Cody, 1994, “Evaluating the Housing Unit Method, A Case Study of 1990 

Population Estimates in Florida,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 60, No. 2 

(Spring) 

16
Swanson A. David, Jeff Tayman, and Charles F. Barr, 2000, “A Note on the Measurement of 

Accuracy for Subnational Demographic Estimates.” Demography, Vol.37, No. 2 May 2000:193-201. 

Tayman, Jeff and David A. Swanson, 1999, “On the Validity of MAPE as a Measure of Population 

Forecast Accuracy,” Population Research and Policy Review: 18: 299-322. 

Tayman, Jeff , David A. Swanson, and Charles F Barr, 1999, “In Search of the Ideal Measure of 

Accuracy for Subnational Demographic Forecasts.” Population Research and Policy Review, 18: 

387-409. 

U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/st_yr95to00.html 

U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/st_comp-chg.html 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Press Release, 2001, “Statement of Acting Census Bureau Director 

William Barron Regarding the Adjustment Decision.” CB01-CS.08, October 17, 2001. 

Wetrogan, Signe I. And Paul R. Campbell, 1990, “Evaluation of State Population Projections.” Paper 

presented at the Population Association of America, Toronto, Canada, May 3-5. 

17
-- 

July 31, 2002 

POPULATION DIVISION WORKING PAPER SERIES 

For copies of these working papers, please contact the Statistical Information Staff, Population 

Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233-8800 (301)763-2422/pop@census.gov 

No. 1 - The Census Bureau Approach for Allocating International Migration to States, Counties, 

and Places: 1981-1991. David L. Word. October 1992. 

No. 2 - Geographic Coding of Administrative Records--Past Experience and Current Research. 

Douglas K.Sater. April 1993. 

No. 3 - Postcensal Population Estimates: States, Counties, and Places. John F. Long. August 

1993. 

No. 4 - Evaluating the Passel-Word Spanish Surname List: 1990 Decennial Census Post 

Enumeration Survey Results. R. Colby Perkins. August 1993. 

No. 5 - Evaluation of Postcensal County Estimates for the 1980s. Sam T. Davis. March 1994. 

No. 6 - Metropolitan Growth and Expansion in the 1980s. Richard L. Forstall and James D. 

Fitzsimmons. April 1993. 

No. 7 - Geographic Coding of Administrative Records Current Research in ZIP/Sector-toCounty Coding Process. Douglas K. Sater. June 1994. 

No. 8 - Illustrative Ranges of the Distribution of Undocumented Immigrants by State. Edward 

W. Fernandez and J. Gregory Robinson. October 1994. 

No. 9 - Estimates of Emigration of the Foreign-Born Population: 1980-l990. Bashir Ahmed and 

J. Gregory Robinson. December 1994. 

No. 10 - Estimation of the Annual Emigration of U.S. Born Persons by Using Foreign Censuses 

and Selected Administrative Data: Circa 1980. Edward W. Fernandez. January 1995. 

No. ll - Using Analytic Techniques to Evaluate the 1990 Census Coverage of Young Hispanics. 

Edward Fernandez. May 1995. 

No. 12 - Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas: New Approaches to Geographical Definition. 

Donald C. Dahmann and James D. Fitzsimmons. October 1995. 

No. 13 - Building a Spanish Surname List for the 1990's--New Approach to An Old Problem. 

David L. Word and R. Colby Perkins, Jr. February 1996. 

18
No. 14 - Fertility of American Men. Amara Bachu. March 1996. 

No. 15 - Comparisons of Selected Social and Economic Characteristics Between Asians, 

Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and American Indians (Including Alaskan Natives). Edward 

W. Fernandez. June 1996. 

No. 16 - Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic Origin Tested in the 1996 National Content 

Survey. Prepared in the Population Division by the Racial Statistics Branch and the 

Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch. December 1996. 

No. 17 - Race and Ethnicity Classification Consistency Between the Census Bureau and the 

National Center for Health Statistics. Larry Sink. February 1997. 

No. 18 - Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. May 1997. 

No. 19 - Who Responds/Who Doesn’t? Analyzing Variation in Mail Response Rates During the 

1990 Census. David L. Word. July 1997. 

No. 20 - Trends in Marital Status of U.S. Women at First Birth: 1930 to 1994. Amara Bachu. 

March 1998. 

No. 21 - State Estimates of Organized Child Care Facilities. Lynne Casper and Martin O’Connell. 

March 1998. 

No. 22 - How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in 

the United States Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson. April 1998 

No. 23 - Poverty, Family Structure, and Child Well-Being: Indicators from the SIPP. Jason Fields 

and Kristin Smith. April 1998 

No. 24 - Child Well-Being Indicators from the SIPP. Kristin Smith, Loretta Bass, and Jason 

Fields. April 1998 

No. 25 - Timing of First Births: 1930-34, 1990-94. Amara Bachu. May 1998 

No. 26 - Co-Resident Grandparents and Grandchildren: Grandparent Maintained Families. Lynne 

Casper and Ken Bryson. March 1998. 

No. 27 - Population of the 100 Largest Cities and Other Urban Places in the United States: 1790 

to 1990. Campbell Gibson. June 1998 

No. 28 - Are There Differences in Voting Behavior Between Naturalized and Native-born 

Americans? Loretta E. Bass and Lynne M. Casper. March 1999. 

19
No. 29 - Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-

1990. Campbell J. Gibson. February 1999 

No. 30 - Direct Measures of Poverty as Indicators of Economic Need: Evidence from the Survey 

of Income and Program Participation. Kurt J. Bauman. November 1998 

No. 31 - American Community Survey and Intercensal Population Estimates: Where Are the 

Cross-roads? Amy Symens. December 1998 

No. 32 - Women’s Labor Force Attachment Patterns and Maternity Leave: A Review of the 

Literature. Kristen Smith and Amara Bachu. January 1999 

No. 33 - Evaluation of Relationship, Marital Status, and Grandparents Items on the Census 2000 

Dress Rehearsal Charles Clark and Jason Fields. April 1999. 

No. 34 - Unbinding the Ties: Edit Effects of Marital Status on Same Gender Couples. Charles 

Clark and Jason Fields. April 1999. 

No. 35 - Racial-Ethnic and Gender Differences in Returns to Cohabitation and Marriage: Evidence 

from the Current Population Survey. Philip N. Cohen. May 1999. 

No. 36 - How Does POSSLQ Measure Up? Historical Estimates of Cohabitation. Lynne Casper, 

Philip N. Cohen, and Tavia Simmons. May 1999. 

No. 37 - Childlessness Among American Women On the Rise? Amara Bachu. May 1999. 

No. 38 - Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States: 1999 

to 2100. Frederick Hollman, Tammany Mulder, and Jeffrey Kallan. January 1999. 

No. 39 - What Do We Know About the Undercount of Children? Kirsten K. West and J. Gregory 

Robinson. August 1999. 

No. 40 - Canceled 

No. 41 - Canceled 

No. 42 - Measures of Help Available to Households in Need: Their Relationship to Well-Being, 

Welfare, and Work. Kurt Bauman and Barbara Downs. May 2000 

No. 43 - Have We Reached the Top? Educational Attainment Projections of the U.S. Population. 

Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Kurt Bauman. May 2000. 

No. 44 - The Emerging American Voter: An Examination of the Increase in the Black Vote in 

November 1998. Avalaura L. Gaither and Eric C. Newburger. June 2000 

20
No. 45 - An Analysis of State and County Population Changes by Characteristics: 1990-1999. 

Amy Symens Smith, Bashir Ahmed, and Larry Sink. November 2000. 

No. 46 - The Effect of Work and Welfare on Living Conditions in Single Parent Households. Kurt 

Bauman. August 2000. 

No. 47 - Canceled 

No. 48 - Canceled 

No. 49 - Canceled 

No. 50 - Accuracy of the U.S. Census Bureau National Population Projections and Their 

Respective Components of Change. Tammany Mulder. Release Pending. 

No. 51 - U.S. Census Bureau Measurement of Net International Migration to the United States: 

1990 to 2000. Tammany Mulder, Frederick Hollmann, Lisa Lollock, Rachel Cassidy, 

Joseph Costanzo, and Josephine Baker. Release Pending. 

No. 52 - At-Risk Conditions of U.S. School-Age Children. Robert Kominski, Amie Jamieson, and 

Gladys Martinez. June 2001. 

No. 53 - Home Schooling in the United States: Trends and Characteristics. K. J. Bauman. August 

2001. 

No. 54 - Evaluation of the 1990 School District Level Population Estimates Based on the Synthetic 

Ratio Approach. E. R. Miller. September 2001. 

No. 55 - State Estimates of Child Care Establishments 1977-1997. Grace O’Neil and Martin 

O’Connell. August 2001. 

No. 56 - Historical Census Statistics on Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic 

Origin, 1970 to 1990, for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and States. Campbell 

Gibson and Kay Jung. September 2002. 

No. 57 - Evaluating Forecast Error in State Population Projections Using Census 2000 Counts. 

Paul Campbell. July 2002. 

No. 58 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Estimates of the Foreign-Born 

Population by Migrant Status: 2000. Kevin Deardorff and Lisa Blumerman. November 

2002. 

No. 59 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Legal Migrants. Marc Perry, 

Barbara Van der Vate, Lea Auman, and Kathy Morris. November 2001. 

21
No. 60 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Temporary (Legal) Migrants. Rachel 

Cassidy and Lucinda Pearson. November 2001 

No. 61 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: The Residual Foreign Born. Joe 

Costanzo, Cynthia Davis, Caribert Irazi, Daniel Goodkind, Roberto Ramirez. 

January 2002. 

No. 62 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Foreign-Born Emigrants. Tammany 

Mulder, Betsy Guzmán, and Angela Brittingham. Release Pending. 

No. 63 - Paper Pending Review. 

No. 64 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Migration Between Puerto Rico and 

the United States. Matt Christenson. January 2002. 

No. 65 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Quality of Foreign-Born and 

Hispanic Population Data. Art Cresce, Roberto Ramirez, and Gregory Spencer. 

July 2002. 

No. 66 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity Data. 

Nolan Malone. July 2002. 

No. 67 - Evaluation of Census Bureau’s1995-2025 State Population Projections. 

Ching Li Wang. October 2002.. 

22
Table 1: 

of State Population Projections for 2000 as Compared with the Census 2000: 

Regions and Divisions 

MAPE MALPE MAPE MALPE 

U.S. Total 51 2.64 -1.40 2.44 -1.65 

Northeast 9 2.50 -2.26 2.57 -2.57 

New England 6 2.42 -2.06 2.58 -2.58 

Middle Atlantic 3 2.67 -2.67 2.55 -2.55 

Midwest 12 1.58 -0.65 1.40 -0.74 

East North Central 5 1.54 -1.54 1.36 -1.36 

West North Central 7 1.60 -0.01 1.43 -0.30 

South 17 2.60 -2.39 2.58 -2.42 

South Atlantic 9 3.50 -3.11 3.50 -3.20 

East South Central 4 0.89 -0.89 0.87 -0.87 

West South Central 4 2.29 -2.29 2.22 -2.22 

West 13 3.75 -0.18 3.13 -0.86 

Mountain 8 4.41 -0.44 3.91 -0.86 

Pacific 5 2.69 0.22 1.89 -0.86 

Region and Division Number Series A Series B

of States 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 

Origin: 1995 to 2025," PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October, 1996 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Table 2:

Mean Absolute Percent Errors of Various State Population Projections Series for 5 Years Ahead by Region

Projection Reports P25-375 P25-477 P25-796 P25-937 P25-1017 P25-1053 P25-1111 

Jump off Year 1965 1970 1975 1980 1986 1988 1992 

Evaluation Year 1970 1975 1980 1985 1991 1993 1997 2000 2000 Revised ** 

Evaluation Yr Data Census Estimates Census Estimates Estimates Estimates Estimates Census Estimates* Estimates 

1995 

Current PPL-47 

Series I-D Series I-E Series II-A Series A Series A Series A 

Total (N=51) 3.1 5.2 4.7 3.2 2.6 2.6 1.6 2.6 1.5 1.7 

Northeast (N=9) 2.9 4.0 2.9 2.7 1.6 2.3 1.1 2.5 0.8 0.8 

Midwest (N=12) 2.7 2.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.5 

South (N=17) 2.9 6.0 5.2 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.6 2.6 0.5 0.9 

West (N=13) 3.7 7.6 8.4 6.2 4.7 5.1 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.7 

Series II-D series II-B Series B Series B Series B 

Total (N=51) 3.0 3.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.3 1.5 

Northeast (N=9) 2.7 2.3 1.4 3.0 2.6 0.7 0.7 

Midwest (N=12) 2.7 1.1 1.8 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.3 

South (N=17) 3.1 4.0 1.6 0.8 2.6 0.5 0.9 

West (N=13) 3.5 7.0 3.9 4.9 3.1 2.6 2.9 

Series C Series C 

Total (N=51) 2.4 1.7 

Northeast (N=9) 2.5 1.3 

Midwest (N=12) 1.0 0.9 

South (N=17) 0.9 0.8 

West (N=13) 4.8 3.4 

*The 2000 state population estimates as 4/1/2000 are obtained from the Population Estimates Program with extrapolation. 

**The revised 2000 state estimates are obtained from the Population Estimates Program with interpolation to 4/1 from 7/1/2000. 

Sources: 

Wetrogan, Signe I., 1988, "Projections of the Population of States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1988 to 2010," U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Reports, Series P25-1017, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Wetrogan, Signe I., 1990, "Projections of the Population of States by Age, Sex, and Race: 1989 to 2020," U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Reports, Series P25-1053, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C 

Wetrogan, Signe I. And Paul R. Campbell, 1990, "Evaluation of State Population Projections," presented at the Population Association of 

America Annual Meetings, Toronto, Canada, May 3-5. 

Campbell, Paul R.,1994, "Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2020," U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Reports, P-25-1111, U.S. government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Campbell, Paul R.,1996, "Population Projections for States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025," U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population Division Working Papers, PPL-47. 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Table 3:

Mean Absolute Percent Error (MAPE) and Mean Algebraic Percent Error (MALPE) of State 

Projections for 2000 Adjusted for 1990 Census Net Undercount

MAPE MALPE MAPE MALPE 

U.S. Total 51 2.21 0.13 1.99 -0.14 

Northeast 9 2.06 -1.57 2.03 -1.88 

New England 6 2.14 -1.40 2.15 -1.93 

Middle Atlantic 3 1.90 -1.90 1.78 -1.78 

Midwest 12 1.27 0.01 1.12 -0.08 

East North Central 5 0.98 -0.85 0.91 -0.67 

West North Central 7 1.47 0.63 1.27 0.35 

South 17 1.58 -0.38 1.54 -0.40 

South Atlantic 9 2.24 -1.05 2.09 -1.15 

East South Central 4 0.95 0.95 0.97 0.97 

West South Central 4 0.73 -0.17 0.87 -0.09 

West 13 4.00 2.06 3.36 1.37 

Mountain 8 4.68 1.90 4.27 1.47 

Pacific 5 2.91 2.33 1.91 1.22 

Region and Subdivision Number Series A Series B

of States 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 

Origin: 1995 to 2025," PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October,1996 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Table 4:

Difference between State Estimates for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts and Mean Absolute Percent Errors

Number Percent Number Percent 

All States -6,813,550 -2.42 -2,874,106 -1.02 2.57 1.47 

Northeast -1,460,378 -2.72 -1,051,712 -1.96 2.61 1.98 

New England -350,186 -2.52 -273,885 -1.97 2.60 1.98 

Middle Atlantic -1,110,192 -2.80 -777,827 -1.96 2.65 1.97 

Midwest -797,850 -1.24 -384,335 -0.60 1.44 0.95 

East North Central -473,715 -1.05 -161,533 -0.36 1.13 0.79 

West North Central -324,135 -1.68 -222,802 -1.16 1.65 1.06 

South -3,013,859 -3.01 -1,178,952 -1.18 2.89 1.35 

South Atlantic -1,815,340 -3.51 -931,958 -1.80 3.47 1.95 

East South Central -339,067 -1.99 -65,363 -0.38 1.91 0.50 

West South Central -859,452 -2.73 -181,631 -0.58 2.56 0.83 

West -1,541,463 -2.44 -259,107 -0.41 3.16 1.76 

Mountain -884,818 -4.87 -566,573 -3.12 4.10 2.40 

Pacific -656,645 -1.46 307,466 0.68 1.66 0.73 

Region and Division Difference between Estimates and Census 2000 MAPE

1990 

Census 

Base 

Undercount 

Adjusted 

Base 

1990 Census Base Undercount Adjusted Base 

Notes: 

1. The estimates are derived by adding the components of change between 4/1/90 and 4/1/2000 to the 1990 

Census count. 

2. The 1990 census base estimates use the 1990 census count as enumerated as the base. 

3. The estimates adjusted for net census undercount use the 1990 census counts adjusted for net census 

undercount as base. 

4. The components of change include births, deaths, net domestic migration, net international migration, 

federal-civilian movement and residual adjustments. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002
Table 5: 

Mean Absolute Percent Errors of Projected Components of Change as Compared with Estimated 

Components of Change between July 1,1995 and July 1, 2000 

Domestic International Domestic 

All States 6.3 7.0 193.3 31.5 6.2 7.0 174.2 

Northeast 7.5 10.5 104.5 35.9 7.4 10.5 87.8 

New England 9.1 8.6 139.7 49.1 8.8 8.5 113.1 

Middle Atlantic 4.4 14.3 34.0 9.6 4.5 14.3 37.1 

Midwest 2.6 7.9 186.1 33.5 2.5 7.8 176.6 

East North Central 2.4 7.4 213.6 29.8 2.5 7.4 222.5 

West North Central 2.7 8.2 166.4 36.2 2.6 8.1 143.8 

South 5.7 6.0 71.9 22.4 5.7 6.0 62.5 

South Atlantic 6.5 7.1 44.1 22.6 6.5 7.1 27.5 

East South Central 4.3 4.0 147.4 17.6 4.3 4.0 138.7 

West South Central 5.3 5.5 58.7 26.5 5.3 5.5 65.1 

West 9.6 5.1 420.1 38.5 9.4 5.0 377.7 

Mountain 9.9 4.1 606.6 50.9 9.8 4.0 554.0 

Pacific 9.2 6.7 121.8 18.6 8.9 6.5 95.7 

Net mi

Region and Division 

Births Deaths Births Deaths 

Series A Series B 

Net migration 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025," PP

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October,1996 

Estimated components of change are derivied from the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Table 6:

Correlation Matrix of Absolute Percent Projections Errors and Independent VariablesSeries A

Projections 

Error 

Undercount 

Rate 

Estimates 

Error 

Births 

Error 

Deaths 

Error 

Domestic 

Mig Error 

International 

Mig Error 

Pop Cha

1990-2

Projections 1 Undercount 0.474* 1 Estimates 0.724* 0.411* 1 

Births 0.565* 0.394* 0.591* 1 

Deaths 0.334* -0.051 0.332* 1 

Domestic -0.057 -0.018 0.160 -0.205 1 

International 0.272* -0.002 0.182 0.147 1 Pop Change 0.419* 0.493* 0.595* 0.338* -0.273* 0.092 

Absolute Percent 

Variables Absolute % Error 

0.353* 

0.068 

0.255* 0.272* 

0.124 

* Significant at 0.05 level. Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
--

--

-- --

Table 7:

Standardized Regression Coefficients of Independent Variables on Absolute Percent Error 

of State Projections

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 

Absolute % error in projected births 0.525* 0.164 0.166 

Absolute % error in projected deaths 0.092 0.084 0.068 

Absolute % error in projected domestic migration -0.180 -0.113 -0.114 

Absolute % error in projected international migration 0.212* 0.143 0.144 

1990 census undercount rate 0.231* 0.236* 

Absolute % error in state estimates 0.464* 0.485* 

Absoulte % population change 1990-2000 -0.031 

R 0.629 0.782 0.782 

R-Square 0.395 0.611 0.612 

Adjusted R-Square 0.343 0.558 0.548 

Residual 0.778 0.623 0.623 

F 7.522 11.533 9.674 

Significance <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

Independent Series A

Variables 

* Significant at 0.05 level. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002
--

--

Table 8: U.S. Population Projections, Census 2000 Count, and Vintage 2000 Estimates: 4/1/2000

Number Percent Number Perc

Official Population 274,649,908 274,608,346 281,421,906 -6,771,998 -2.41 41,562 

Adjustment based on: 

PES undercount rate** 278,989,377 278,947,158 -2,432,529 -0.86 42,219 DA undercount rate** 279,181,631 279,139,384 -2,240,275 -0.80 42,248 

Official/Adjustment 

2000 Projections - Census Projections-Estim

Projections* 

Estimates 

Vintage 2000 Census 2000 

* Population Projections of the United States: 1999 to 2100 (Population Division Working Paper No. 38)**The adjustment for 1990 census undercount is based on the following information.

Official U.S. Population 248,709,873Undercount Adjusted (PES) 252,730,369Net Undercount Rates

Post Enumeration Survey(PES 1.58 

Demographic Analysis(DA) 1.65 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results, October 13, 2001.and http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/understate.pdf. Internet Release date: October 30, 2002
Table 9:

Projected and Estimated Components of Change of the U.S. Population, 1999 and 2000

1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 

Births 3,899,691 3,914,173 3,965,000 4,063,000 -65,309 -148,827 -1.65 Deaths 2,376,563 2,392,804 2,396,000 2,404,000 -19,437 -11,196 -0.81 Net International Migration 960,215 970,368 864,844 880,119 95,371 90,249 11.03 

Components 

Projections - Estimates 

Number Percen

Reported/Estimated ** 

Calendar Year 

Projections 

** NCHS, National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No.6, August 22, 2001.

**Net International migration is derived from the annual estimates in the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Population Projections 1999 - 2100; Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Figure 1 

Percent Difference Between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Coun

Series A and B, Ranked by Series A (Projections-Census) 

8.00 

NV 

AZ

6.00 

FL 

RI 

NY 

4.00

GA 

CA 

SC 

TX

2.00

NC 

CT 

CO 

IL

0.00 

HJ 

MI 

MA 

OK

-2.00 

DE 

MN 

AR 

UT

-4.00 

VA 

KY 

ME 

-6.00

MS 

NH 

MO 

LA 

-8.00

OR 

IA 

WA 

KS

-10.00 TN 

WI 

IN 

PA 

MD 

NE 

OH 

AL 

VT 

WV 

Series Series 

% Difference 

DC 

State 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
Figure 2

Percent Difference between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Coun

with and without 1990 Census Undercount Adjustment - Series A

NV

8.00 

AZ 

FL 

RI

6.00 

NY 

GA 

CA 

4.00 

SC 

TX 

NC 

CT

2.00 

CO 

IL 

HJ

0.00 

MI 

MA 

OK 

-2.00 

DE 

MN 

AR 

UT

-4.00 

VA 

KY 

ME

-6.00 

MS 

NH 

MO 

-8.00 

LA 

OR 

IA 

WA

-10.00 KS 

TN 

WI 

State 

IN 

PA 

MD 

NE 

OH 

AL 

VT 

WV 

NM 

Adjusted Unadjusted 

% Difference 

DC 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
Figure 3

Percent Difference between State Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Coun

with and without 1990 Census Undercount Adjustment - Series B

8.006.004.002.00

AdUn

% Difference 0.00 -2.00

-4.00-6.00-8.00

-10.00

NVDCAZ RI FLCANYSCGACONCTXCTDE ILHJOK MIMNARMAMEVANHKYWAUT IAORMOWIMSMDNETNKSLAPA INALVTOHAKWV

State 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
Figure 4

Percent Difference between State Estimates for 2000 and Census 2000 Counts with 

Census as Enumerated and with Undercount Adjusted Base (Estimates - Censu

4.00 2.00 0.00 

Adjusted Unadjusted 

1990 Census Undercont Adjustment 

% Difference -2.00 -4.00 

-6.00 -8.00 

-10.00 

DCNVAZ RICO FLNCGANMARUTNYDECTTNTX HJORSC IDWYSDMNMA HINENHVAMSPAVTOK IL IN LAMOWAMDWIMTKY IAMECAAL

State 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
Figure 5

Mean Absolute Percent Difference between Projected and Estimated Components of 

between 1995 and 2000 in 50 States and D.C.

250.0200.0150.0

6.3 7.0 

193.3 

31.5 

6.2 7.0 

3

174.2 

Series A Series B 

Percent 

100.0

50.0

0.0

Births Deaths Net Domestic Mig Net Internatio

Components of Change 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
% difference (log scale) 

10,000.00 

1,000.00 

100.00 

10.00 

1.00 0.10 

Figure 6

Absolute Percent Errors of Projected Domestic Migration Between 1995 and 20

and Absolute Percent Errors of Projected State Projections for 2000 (Series A

%(prj-census) Domestic 

AL NY MS KY OH HI VT IL SD PA ID TX IA ND MI MA MT KS IN TN NV UT SC AZ MD CO NC LA PA ME NM NE GA GA FL CA CA AK HJ RI OR AR DC 

State 

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: October 30, 2002
Appendix A

Comparison between State Population Projections for 2000 and Census 2000 Population - Regions, Divisions, and States

Difference from Census 2000 

Series A Series B Series A Series B Series A Series B Series A Series B 

U.S. Total 281,421,906 274,055,235 274,055,214 -7,366,671 -7,366,692 -2.62 -2.62 2.62 2.62 

Northeast 53,594,378 52,076,453 52,120,430 -1,517,925 -1,473,948 -2.83 -2.75 2.83 2.75 

New England 13,922,517 13,568,193 13,560,712 -354,324 -361,805 -2.54 -2.60 2.54 2.60 

Connecticut 3,405,565 3,283,681 3,285,885 -121,884 -119,680 -3.58 -3.51 3.58 3.51 

Maine 1,274,923 1,258,270 1,249,993 -16,653 -24,930 -1.31 -1.96 1.31 1.96 

Massachusetts 6,349,097 6,192,833 6,216,210 -156,264 -132,887 -2.46 -2.09 2.46 2.09 

New Hampshire 1,235,786 1,220,880 1,213,900 -14,906 -21,886 -1.21 -1.77 1.21 1.77 

Rhode Island 1,048,319 997,145 988,592 -51,174 -59,727 -4.88 -5.70 4.88 5.70 

Vermont 608,827 615,384 606,132 6,557 -2,695 1.08 -0.44 1.08 0.44 

Middle Atlantic 39,671,861 38,508,260 38,559,718 -1,163,601 -1,112,143 -2.93 -2.80 2.93 2.80 

New Jersey 8,414,350 8,166,968 8,174,506 -247,382 -239,844 -2.94 -2.85 2.94 2.85 

New York 18,976,457 18,144,477 18,171,570 -831,980 -804,887 -4.38 -4.24 4.38 4.24 

Pennsylvania 12,281,054 12,196,815 12,213,642 -84,239 -67,412 -0.69 -0.55 0.69 0.55 

Midwest 64,392,776 63,424,441 63,494,539 -968,335 -898,237 -1.50 -1.39 1.50 1.39 

East North Central 45,155,037 44,376,225 44,466,529 -778,812 -688,508 -1.72 -1.52 1.72 1.52 

Illinois 12,419,293 12,040,161 12,057,389 -379,132 -361,904 -3.05 -2.91 3.05 2.91 

Indiana 6,080,485 6,033,613 6,047,623 -46,872 -32,862 -0.77 -0.54 0.77 0.54 

Michigan 9,938,444 9,673,666 9,703,903 -264,778 -234,541 -2.66 -2.36 2.66 2.36 

Ohio 11,353,140 11,311,746 11,343,145 -41,394 -9,995 -0.36 -0.09 0.36 0.09 

Wisconsin 5,363,675 5,317,039 5,314,469 -46,636 -49,206 -0.87 -0.92 0.87 0.92 

West North Central 19,237,739 19,048,216 19,028,010 -189,523 -209,729 -0.99 -1.09 0.99 1.09 

Iowa 2,926,324 2,897,187 2,888,900 -29,137 -37,424 -1.00 -1.28 1.00 1.28 

Kansas 2,688,418 2,663,323 2,669,433 -25,095 -18,985 -0.93 -0.71 0.93 0.71 

Minnesota 4,919,479 4,819,623 4,812,042 -99,856 -107,437 -2.03 -2.18 2.03 2.18 

Missouri 5,595,211 5,530,194 5,535,890 -65,017 -59,321 -1.16 -1.06 1.16 1.06 

Nebraska 1,711,263 1,702,248 1,697,122 -9,015 -14,141 -0.53 -0.83 0.53 0.83 

North Dakota 642,200 660,757 656,266 18,557 14,066 2.89 2.19 2.89 2.19 

South Dakota 754,844 774,884 768,357 20,040 13,513 2.65 1.79 2.65 1.79 

South 100,236,820 97,336,073 97,385,339 -2,900,747 -2,851,481 -2.89 -2.84 2.89 2.84 

South Atlantic 51,769,160 49,995,862 49,981,000 -1,773,298 -1,788,160 -3.43 -3.45 3.43 3.45 

Delaware 783,600 765,314 756,464 -18,286 -27,136 -2.33 -3.46 2.33 3.46 

District of Columbia 572,059 524,106 530,118 -47,953 -41,941 -8.38 -7.33 8.38 7.33 

Florida 15,982,378 15,180,438 15,197,100 -801,940 -785,278 -5.02 -4.91 5.02 4.91 

Georgia 8,186,453 7,843,112 7,859,307 -343,341 -327,146 -4.19 -4.00 4.19 4.00 

Maryland 5,296,486 5,264,121 5,251,178 -32,365 -45,308 -0.61 -0.86 0.61 0.86 

North Carolina 8,049,313 7,750,020 7,760,759 -299,293 -288,554 -3.72 -3.58 3.72 3.58 

South Carolina 4,012,012 3,849,025 3,843,724 -162,987 -168,288 -4.06 -4.19 4.06 4.19 

Virginia 7,078,515 6,979,323 6,949,497 -99,192 -129,018 -1.40 -1.82 1.40 1.82 

West Virginia 1,808,344 1,840,403 1,832,853 32,059 24,509 1.77 1.36 1.77 1.36 

East South Central 17,022,810 16,877,949 16,878,280 -144,861 -144,530 -0.85 -0.85 0.85 0.85 

Alabama 4,447,100 4,440,992 4,426,649 -6,108 -20,451 -0.14 -0.46 0.14 0.46 

Kentucky 4,041,769 3,988,348 3,983,336 -53,421 -58,433 -1.32 -1.45 1.32 1.45 

Mississippi 2,844,658 2,810,149 2,819,826 -34,509 -24,832 -1.21 -0.87 1.21 0.87 

Tennessee 5,689,283 5,638,460 5,648,469 -50,823 -40,814 -0.89 -0.72 0.89 0.72 

West South Central 31,444,850 30,462,262 30,526,059 -982,588 -918,791 -3.12 -2.92 3.12 2.92 

Arkansas 2,673,400 2,624,416 2,615,737 -48,984 -57,663 -1.83 -2.16 1.83 2.16 

Louisiana 4,468,976 4,420,260 4,439,628 -48,716 -29,348 -1.09 -0.66 1.09 0.66 

Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,367,509 3,365,441 -83,145 -85,213 -2.41 -2.47 2.41 2.47 

Texas 20,851,820 20,050,077 20,105,253 -801,743 -746,567 -3.84 -3.58 3.84 3.58 

West 63,197,932 61,218,268 61,054,906 -1,979,664 -2,143,026 -3.13 -3.39 3.13 3.39 

Mountain 18,172,295 17,628,766 17,616,233 -543,529 -556,062 -2.99 -3.06 2.99 3.06 

Arizona 5,130,632 4,770,448 4,806,924 -360,184 -323,708 -7.02 -6.31 7.02 6.31 

Colorado 4,301,261 4,149,025 4,134,808 -152,236 -166,453 -3.54 -3.87 3.54 3.87 

Idaho 1,293,953 1,337,940 1,324,114 43,987 30,161 3.40 2.33 3.40 2.33 

Montana 902,195 946,013 933,479 43,818 31,284 4.86 3.47 4.86 3.47 

Nevada 1,998,257 1,856,175 1,847,432 -142,082 -150,825 -7.11 -7.55 7.11 7.55 

New Mexico 1,819,046 1,851,902 1,849,747 32,856 30,701 1.81 1.69 1.81 1.69 

Utah 2,233,169 2,194,770 2,202,733 -38,399 -30,436 -1.72 -1.36 1.72 1.36 

Wyoming 493,782 522,493 516,996 28,711 23,214 5.81 4.70 5.81 4.70 

Pacific 45,025,637 43,589,502 43,438,673 -1,436,135 -1,586,964 -3.19 -3.52 3.19 3.52 

Alaska 626,932 650,896 630,974 23,964 4,042 3.82 0.64 3.82 0.64 

California 33,871,648 32,462,045 32,377,381 -1,409,603 -1,494,267 -4.16 -4.41 4.16 4.41 

Hawaii 1,211,537 1,253,623 1,234,902 42,086 23,365 3.47 1.93 3.47 1.93 

Oregon 3,421,399 3,385,094 3,384,821 -36,305 -36,578 -1.06 -1.07 1.06 1.07 

Washington 5,894,121 5,837,844 5,810,595 -56,277 -83,526 -0.95 -1.42 0.95 1.42 

Region, Division, and 2000 Projections* % Difference Absolute % Errors

State 

2000 

Census 

* Projected 2000 was as of July 1, 2000. In order to make appropriate comparison, the July 1 figures are converted to April 1, 2000 based on the 

following procedure: Geometric Interpolation 

P(4/1) = P(1999)*(P2000/P1999)^(9/12) 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025," 

PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October, 1996 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Appendix B 

1990 Census Undercount Rates and State Population Projections for 2000 with and without Undercount Adjustment - Regions, 

Divisions, and States 

Series A Series B Series A Series B Series A Series B 

U.S. Total 248,709,873 1.62 252,730,369 274,055,235 274,055,214 278,572,861 278,571,537 -1.01 -1.01 

Northeast 50,809,229 0.84 51,236,979 52,076,453 52,120,430 52,512,544 52,556,913 -2.02 -1.94 

New England 13,206,943 0.58 13,283,244 13,568,193 13,560,712 13,647,072 13,639,480 -1.98 -2.03 

Connecticut 3,287,116 0.65 3,308,343 3,283,681 3,285,885 3,304,886 3,307,104 -2.96 -2.89 

Maine 1,227,928 0.75 1,237,130 1,258,270 1,249,993 1,267,699 1,259,360 -0.57 -1.22 

Massachusetts 6,016,425 0.48 6,045,224 6,192,833 6,216,210 6,222,476 6,245,965 -1.99 -1.62 

New Hampshire 1,109,252 0.85 1,118,632 1,220,880 1,213,900 1,231,204 1,224,165 -0.37 -0.94 

Rhode Island 1,003,464 0.13 1,004,815 997,145 988,592 998,487 989,923 -4.75 -5.57 

Vermont 562,758 1.13 569,100 615,384 606,132 622,319 612,963 2.22 0.68 

Middle Atlantic 37,602,286 0.93 37,953,735 38,508,260 38,559,718 38,865,472 38,917,432 -2.03 -1.90 

New Jersey 7,730,188 0.57 7,774,461 8,166,968 8,174,506 8,213,743 8,221,324 -2.38 -2.29 

New York 17,990,455 1.51 18,262,491 18,144,477 18,171,570 18,418,842 18,446,345 -2.94 -2.79 

Pennsylvania 11,881,643 0.30 11,916,783 12,196,815 12,213,642 12,232,887 12,249,764 -0.39 -0.25 

Midwest 59,668,632 0.69 60,082,835 63,424,441 63,494,539 63,863,772 63,934,410 -0.82 -0.71 

East North Central 42,008,942 0.74 42,321,296 44,376,225 44,466,529 44,705,607 44,796,567 -1.00 -0.79 

Illinois 11,430,602 0.99 11,544,319 12,040,161 12,057,389 12,159,942 12,177,342 -2.09 -1.95 

Indiana 5,544,159 0.50 5,572,057 6,033,613 6,047,623 6,063,974 6,078,054 -0.27 -0.04 

Michigan 9,295,297 0.71 9,361,308 9,673,666 9,703,903 9,742,364 9,772,816 -1.97 -1.67 

Ohio 10,847,115 0.69 10,921,741 11,311,746 11,343,145 11,389,569 11,421,184 0.32 0.60 

Wisconsin 4,891,769 0.62 4,921,871 5,317,039 5,314,469 5,349,758 5,347,172 -0.26 -0.31 

West North Central 17,659,690 0.58 17,761,539 19,048,216 19,028,010 19,158,166 19,137,842 -0.41 -0.52 

Iowa 2,776,755 0.42 2,788,332 2,897,187 2,888,900 2,909,266 2,900,945 -0.58 -0.87 

Kansas 2,477,574 0.70 2,495,014 2,663,323 2,669,433 2,682,071 2,688,224 -0.24 -0.01 

Minnesota 4,375,099 0.45 4,394,610 4,819,623 4,812,042 4,841,116 4,833,502 -1.59 -1.75 

Missouri 5,117,073 0.62 5,148,974 5,530,194 5,535,890 5,564,670 5,570,402 -0.55 -0.44 

Nebraska 1,578,385 0.65 1,588,712 1,702,248 1,697,122 1,713,385 1,708,226 0.12 -0.18 

North Dakota 638,800 0.66 643,033 660,757 656,266 665,135 660,615 3.57 2.87 

South Dakota 696,004 0.99 702,864 774,884 768,357 782,521 775,930 3.67 2.79 

South 85,445,930 2.16 87,290,700 97,336,073 97,385,339 99,442,794 99,493,768 -0.79 -0.74 

South Atlantic 43,566,853 2.04 44,454,855 49,995,862 49,981,000 51,013,738 50,998,718 -1.46 -1.49 

Delaware 666,168 1.83 678,385 765,314 756,464 779,349 770,337 -0.54 -1.69 

District of Columbia 606,900 3.53 628,309 524,106 530,118 542,594 548,818 -5.15 -4.06 

Florida 12,937,926 2.01 13,197,755 15,180,438 15,197,100 15,485,303 15,502,299 -3.11 -3.00 

Georgia 6,478,216 2.20 6,620,641 7,843,112 7,859,307 8,015,545 8,032,096 -2.09 -1.89 

Maryland 4,781,468 2.11 4,882,452 5,264,121 5,251,178 5,375,299 5,362,082 1.49 1.24 

North Carolina 6,628,637 1.90 6,754,567 7,750,020 7,760,759 7,897,254 7,908,197 -1.89 -1.75 

South Carolina 3,486,703 2.09 3,559,547 3,849,025 3,843,724 3,929,439 3,924,027 -2.06 -2.19 

Virginia 6,187,358 2.04 6,313,836 6,979,323 6,949,497 7,121,990 7,091,554 0.61 0.18 

West Virginia 1,793,477 1.44 1,819,363 1,840,403 1,832,853 1,866,966 1,859,307 3.24 2.82 

East South Central 15,176,284 1.83 15,453,663 16,877,949 16,878,280 17,186,358 17,186,737 0.96 0.96 

Alabama 4,040,587 1.81 4,113,810 4,440,992 4,426,649 4,521,471 4,506,868 1.67 1.34 

Kentucky 3,685,296 1.65 3,746,044 3,988,348 3,983,336 4,054,091 4,048,997 0.30 0.18 

Mississippi 2,573,216 2.19 2,629,548 2,810,149 2,819,826 2,871,668 2,881,557 0.95 1.30 

Tennessee 4,877,185 1.79 4,964,261 5,638,460 5,648,469 5,739,128 5,749,315 0.88 1.06 

West South Central 26,702,793 2.54 27,382,182 30,462,262 30,526,059 31,242,697 31,308,313 -0.64 -0.43 

Arkansas 2,350,725 1.78 2,392,596 2,624,416 2,615,737 2,671,162 2,662,328 -0.08 -0.41 

Louisiana 4,219,973 2.23 4,314,085 4,420,260 4,439,628 4,518,839 4,538,639 1.12 1.56 

Oklahoma 3,145,585 1.82 3,202,963 3,367,509 3,365,441 3,428,935 3,426,829 -0.63 -0.69 

Texas 16,986,510 2.86 17,472,538 20,050,077 20,105,253 20,623,762 20,680,516 -1.09 -0.82 

West 52,786,082 2.53 54,119,855 61,218,268 61,054,906 62,753,752 62,586,447 -0.70 -0.97 

Mountain 13,658,776 2.33 13,977,039 17,628,766 17,616,233 18,039,262 18,026,448 -0.73 -0.80 

Arizona 3,665,228 2.44 3,754,666 4,770,448 4,806,924 4,886,855 4,924,221 -4.75 -4.02 

Colorado 3,294,394 2.10 3,363,637 4,149,025 4,134,808 4,236,231 4,221,715 -1.51 -1.85 

Idaho 1,006,749 2.24 1,029,283 1,337,940 1,324,114 1,367,887 1,353,752 5.71 4.62 

Montana 799,065 2.41 818,348 946,013 933,479 968,842 956,006 7.39 5.96 

Nevada 1,201,833 2.40 1,230,709 1,856,175 1,847,432 1,900,773 1,891,820 -4.88 -5.33 

New Mexico 1,515,069 3.20 1,563,579 1,851,902 1,849,747 1,911,197 1,908,973 5.07 4.94 

Utah 1,722,850 1.76 1,753,188 2,194,770 2,202,733 2,233,418 2,241,521 0.01 0.37 

Wyoming 453,588 2.21 463,629 522,493 516,996 534,059 528,441 8.16 7.02 

Pacific 39,127,306 2.60 40,142,816 43,589,502 43,438,673 44,714,489 44,559,999 -0.69 -1.03 

Alaska 550,043 2.04 561,276 650,896 630,974 664,189 643,860 5.94 2.70 

California 29,760,021 2.81 30,597,578 32,462,045 32,377,381 33,375,647 33,288,600 -1.46 -1.72 

Hawaii 1,108,229 1.89 1,129,170 1,253,623 1,234,902 1,277,311 1,258,237 5.43 3.85 

Oregon 2,842,321 1.91 2,896,472 3,385,094 3,384,821 3,449,586 3,449,308 0.82 0.82 

Washington 4,866,692 1.88 4,958,320 5,837,844 5,810,595 5,947,756 5,919,994 0.91 0.44 

% difference between 

Region, Division, and Adjusted and Census 

State 

1990 Census 

Official 

Counts 

Net Undercount Rate Under-count 

Adjusted 

1990 Official Based 

2000 Projections 

Undercount Adjusted 

2000 Projections 

The undercount adjusted 2000 projections are calculated from the formula: 

1990 census based projections * (1+undercount rate) 

Source:http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/understate.pdf 

The official counts are slightly different from the base for estimates due to adjustment after the census counts were released. 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Appendix C 

Comparison between Estimated State Population for 2000 and Census 2000 Population - Regions, 

Divisions, and States 

Number Percent Difference 

U.S. Total 281,421,906 274,608,356 -6,813,550 -2.42 2.42 

Northeast 53,594,378 52,134,000 -1,460,378 -2.72 2.72 

New England 13,922,517 13,572,331 -350,186 -2.52 2.52 

Connecticut 3,405,565 3,301,171 -104,394 -3.07 3.07 

Maine 1,274,923 1,257,471 -17,452 -1.37 1.37 

Massachusetts 6,349,097 6,210,437 -138,660 -2.18 2.18 

New Hampshire 1,235,786 1,209,330 -26,456 -2.14 2.14 

Rhode Island 1,048,319 996,660 -51,659 -4.93 4.93 

Vermont 608,827 597,262 -11,565 -1.90 1.90 

Middle Atlantic 39,671,861 38,561,669 -1,110,192 -2.80 2.80 

New Jersey 8,414,350 8,201,975 -212,375 -2.52 2.52 

New York 18,976,457 18,319,570 -656,887 -3.46 3.46 

Pennsylvania 12,281,054 12,040,124 -240,930 -1.96 1.96 

Midwest 64,392,776 63,594,926 -797,850 -1.24 1.24 

East North Central 45,155,037 44,681,322 -473,715 -1.05 1.05 

Illinois 12,419,293 12,195,719 -223,574 -1.80 1.80 

Indiana 6,080,485 5,975,111 -105,374 -1.73 1.73 

Michigan 9,938,444 9,924,362 -14,082 -0.14 0.14 

Ohio 11,353,140 11,307,334 -45,806 -0.40 0.40 

Wisconsin 5,363,675 5,278,796 -84,879 -1.58 1.58 

West North Central 19,237,739 18,913,604 -324,135 -1.68 1.68 

Iowa 2,926,324 2,885,193 -41,131 -1.41 1.41 

Kansas 2,688,418 2,669,205 -19,213 -0.71 0.71 

Minnesota 4,919,479 4,811,819 -107,660 -2.19 2.19 

Missouri 5,595,211 5,500,607 -94,604 -1.69 1.69 

Nebraska 1,711,263 1,674,322 -36,941 -2.16 2.16 

North Dakota 642,200 634,942 -7,258 -1.13 1.13 

South Dakota 754,844 737,516 -17,328 -2.30 2.30 

South 100,236,820 97,222,961 -3,013,859 -3.01 3.01 

South Atlantic 51,769,160 49,953,820 -1,815,340 -3.51 3.51 

Delaware 783,600 758,928 -24,672 -3.15 3.15 

District of Columbia 572,059 522,660 -49,399 -8.64 8.64 

Florida 15,982,378 15,236,554 -745,824 -4.67 4.67 

Georgia 8,186,453 7,859,660 -326,793 -3.99 3.99 

Maryland 5,296,486 5,210,265 -86,221 -1.63 1.63 

North Carolina 8,049,313 7,708,225 -341,088 -4.24 4.24 

South Carolina 4,012,012 3,911,324 -100,688 -2.51 2.51 

Virginia 7,078,515 6,931,998 -146,517 -2.07 2.07 

West Virginia 1,808,344 1,814,206 5,862 0.32 0.32 

East South Central 17,022,810 16,683,743 -339,067 -1.99 1.99 

Alabama 4,447,100 4,392,493 -54,607 -1.23 1.23 

Kentucky 4,041,769 3,983,897 -57,872 -1.43 1.43 

Mississippi 2,844,658 2,787,366 -57,292 -2.01 2.01 

Tennessee 5,689,283 5,519,987 -169,296 -2.98 2.98 

West South Central 31,444,850 30,585,398 -859,452 -2.73 2.73 

Arkansas 2,673,400 2,574,274 -99,126 -3.71 3.71 

Louisiana 4,468,976 4,392,425 -76,551 -1.71 1.71 

Oklahoma 3,450,654 3,386,422 -64,232 -1.86 1.86 

Texas 20,851,820 20,232,277 -619,543 -2.97 2.97 

West 63,197,932 61,656,469 -1,541,463 -2.44 2.44 

Mountain 18,172,295 17,287,477 -884,818 -4.87 4.87 

Arizona 5,130,632 4,822,321 -308,311 -6.01 6.01 

Colorado 4,301,261 4,095,485 -205,776 -4.78 4.78 

Idaho 1,293,953 1,262,736 -31,217 -2.41 2.41 

Montana 902,195 888,220 -13,975 -1.55 1.55 

Nevada 1,998,257 1,838,372 -159,885 -8.00 8.00 

New Mexico 1,819,046 1,747,535 -71,511 -3.93 3.93 

Utah 2,233,169 2,150,800 -82,369 -3.69 3.69 

Wyoming 493,782 482,008 -11,774 -2.38 2.38 

Pacific 45,025,637 44,368,992 -656,645 -1.46 1.46 

Alaska 626,932 622,931 -4,001 -0.64 0.64 

California 33,871,648 33,430,763 -440,885 -1.30 1.30 

Hawaii 1,211,537 1,185,309 -26,228 -2.16 2.16 

Oregon 3,421,399 3,335,521 -85,878 -2.51 2.51 

Washington 5,894,121 5,794,468 -99,653 -1.69 1.69 

Absolute 

Region, Division, and percent

State 

2000 

Census 

1990 Census 

Base 2000 

Estimates 

Difference between 

Estimates and Census 

The 1990 undercount adjusted 2000 estimates = Undercount adjusted 1990census + estimated (births-deaths 

+net domestic migration + net international migration + federal movement)+residuals 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, special tabulation (components of change from Population Estimates Branch -

Chuck Coleman) 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Appendix D

1990 Census Undercount Adjusted Population, Estimated Components of Change between 1990 and 2000, and Difference between the Estimates for 2000 and 

Census 2000 Population - Regions, Divisions, and States

Number Percent 

U.S. Total 252,730,369 39,815,103 22,781,223 0 8,232,004 551,541 0 278,547,800 -2,874,106 -1.02 

Northeast 51,236,979 7,255,955 4,823,492 -3,179,005 2,022,385 30,571 -727 52,542,666 -1,051,712 -1.96 

New England 13,283,244 1,801,684 1,193,852 -513,674 283,162 11,357 -23,289 13,648,632 -273,885 -1.97 

Connecticut 3,308,343 456,768 291,146 -232,297 81,328 3,763 -4,361 3,322,398 -83,167 -2.44 

Maine 1,237,130 147,902 117,225 -4,868 4,499 2,158 -2,923 1,266,673 -8,250 -0.65 

Massachusetts 6,045,224 839,120 549,599 -257,580 165,455 3,254 -6,638 6,239,236 -109,861 -1.73 

New Hampshire 1,118,632 152,075 36,034 90,899 8,442 324 -5,898 1,218,710 -17,076 -1.38 

Rhode Island 1,004,815 133,823 96,252 -62,014 17,661 1,832 -1,854 998,011 -50,308 -4.80 

Vermont 569,100 71,996 48,731 7,051 5,777 26 -1,615 603,604 -5,223 -0.86 

Middle Atlantic 37,953,735 5,454,271 3,629,640 -2,665,331 1,739,223 19,214 22,562 38,894,034 -777,827 -1.96 

New Jersey 7,774,461 1,168,668 727,637 -401,047 419,354 4,917 -10,030 8,228,686 -185,664 -2.21 

New York 18,262,491 2,738,346 1,640,227 -1,980,378 1,188,722 11,119 11,210 18,591,283 -385,174 -2.03 

Pennsylvania 11,916,783 1,547,257 1,261,776 -283,906 131,147 3,178 21,382 12,074,065 -206,989 -1.69 

Midwest 60,082,835 8,948,909 5,597,301 -732,196 863,184 42,830 400,180 64,008,441 -384,335 -0.60 

East North Central 42,321,296 6,360,652 3,902,629 -842,331 669,876 18,756 367,884 44,993,504 -161,533 -0.36 

Illinois 11,544,319 1,872,485 1,056,111 -616,307 427,352 10,697 127,001 12,309,436 -109,857 -0.88 

Indiana 5,572,057 844,509 525,940 79,987 34,434 1,432 -3,467 6,003,012 -77,473 -1.27 

Michigan 9,361,308 1,387,497 830,505 -208,462 118,955 2,236 159,354 9,990,383 51,939 0.52 

Ohio 10,921,741 1,566,745 1,041,705 -191,788 61,369 4,020 61,578 11,381,960 28,820 0.25 

Wisconsin 4,921,871 689,416 448,368 94,239 27,766 371 23,418 5,308,713 -54,962 -1.02 

West North Central 17,761,539 2,588,257 1,694,672 110,135 193,308 24,074 32,296 19,014,937 -222,802 -1.16 

Iowa 2,788,332 377,519 278,335 -19,157 24,653 139 3,543 2,896,694 -29,630 -1.01 

Kansas 2,495,014 377,528 234,423 -21,981 32,216 8,519 29,758 2,686,631 -1,787 -0.07 

Minnesota 4,394,610 653,245 367,912 99,036 62,530 974 -11,719 4,830,764 -88,715 -1.80 

Missouri 5,148,974 753,823 535,208 106,533 44,669 5,459 8,430 5,532,680 -62,531 -1.12 

Nebraska 1,588,712 235,647 151,859 -8,398 17,240 3,921 -646 1,684,617 -26,646 -1.56 

North Dakota 643,033 84,439 58,856 -42,634 6,171 3,059 3,963 639,175 -3,025 -0.47 

South Dakota 702,864 106,056 68,079 -3,264 5,829 2,003 -1,033 744,376 -10,468 -1.39 

South 87,290,700 13,899,365 8,220,273 3,815,215 2,217,343 299,332 -243,814 99,057,868 -1,178,952 -1.18 

South Atlantic 44,454,855 6,776,273 4,301,516 2,569,611 1,277,108 201,560 -140,689 50,837,202 -931,958 -1.80 

Delaware 678,385 105,850 63,305 37,119 10,733 1,717 646 771,145 -12,455 -1.59 

District of Columbia 628,309 92,808 64,530 -150,056 32,080 2,782 2,676 544,069 -27,990 -4.89 

Florida 13,197,755 1,930,880 1,496,675 1,156,463 713,396 34,296 -39,877 15,496,238 -486,140 -3.04 

Georgia 6,620,641 1,151,419 574,562 717,169 117,521 26,159 -56,195 8,002,152 -184,301 -2.25 

Maryland 4,882,452 741,659 408,715 -53,986 149,764 15,619 -14,829 5,311,964 15,478 0.29 

North Carolina 6,754,567 1,054,274 640,285 583,381 66,468 39,622 -27,683 7,830,344 -218,969 -2.72 

South Carolina 3,559,547 539,784 329,703 156,111 20,307 17,835 20,680 3,984,561 -27,451 -0.68 

Virginia 6,313,836 945,084 519,983 121,998 162,739 63,352 -30,389 7,056,637 -21,878 -0.31 

West Virginia 1,819,363 214,515 203,758 1,412 4,100 178 4,282 1,840,092 31,748 1.76 

East South Central 15,453,663 2,319,643 1,566,071 631,470 77,748 30,040 10,954 16,957,447 -65,363 -0.38 

Alabama 4,113,810 615,889 422,044 109,548 16,225 7,095 25,391 4,465,914 18,814 0.42 

Kentucky 3,746,044 535,421 371,086 102,441 18,668 10,212 1,349 4,043,049 1,280 0.03 

Mississippi 2,629,548 421,590 267,835 46,967 7,992 6,070 -2,893 2,841,439 -3,219 -0.11 

Tennessee 4,964,261 746,743 505,106 372,514 34,863 6,663 -12,893 5,607,045 -82,238 -1.45 

West South Central 27,382,182 4,803,449 2,352,686 614,134 862,487 67,732 -114,079 31,263,219 -181,631 -0.58 

Arkansas 2,392,596 357,667 265,871 120,276 11,726 2,203 -2,351 2,616,246 -57,154 -2.14 

Louisiana 4,314,085 680,191 393,684 -159,652 28,677 9,179 5,888 4,484,684 15,708 0.35 

Oklahoma 3,202,963 474,038 325,388 49,248 31,433 10,733 782 3,443,809 -6,845 -0.20 

Texas 17,472,538 3,291,553 1,367,743 604,262 790,651 45,617 -118,398 20,718,480 -133,340 -0.64 

West 54,119,855 9,710,874 4,140,157 95,984 3,129,092 178,808 -155,631 62,938,825 -259,107 -0.41 

Mountain 13,977,039 2,580,321 1,141,084 1,789,816 361,952 38,962 -1,284 17,605,722 -566,573 -3.12 

Arizona 3,754,666 732,440 347,811 608,762 118,881 8,513 36,197 4,911,648 -218,984 -4.27 

Colorado 3,363,637 561,829 246,503 427,066 74,088 14,419 -29,887 4,164,649 -136,612 -3.18 

Idaho 1,029,283 181,450 142,038 85,362 20,744 1,743 -4,611 1,285,285 -8,668 -0.67 

Montana 818,348 111,455 75,573 49,832 2,984 1,643 -1,186 907,503 5,308 0.59 

Nevada 1,230,709 249,082 121,129 465,317 65,101 3,311 -24,985 1,867,406 -130,851 -6.55 

New Mexico 1,563,579 274,915 121,503 32,592 42,423 5,777 -1,738 1,796,045 -23,001 -1.26 

Utah 1,753,188 404,520 107,293 68,625 35,312 2,142 24,644 2,181,138 -52,031 -2.33 

Wyoming 463,629 64,630 35,910 -4,416 2,419 1,414 282 492,048 -1,734 -0.35 

Pacific 40,142,816 7,130,553 2,999,073 -1,693,832 2,767,140 139,846 -154,347 45,333,103 307,466 0.68 

Alaska 561,276 106,528 24,439 -28,319 9,636 8,776 706 634,164 7,232 1.15 

California 30,597,578 5,615,770 2,215,421 -2,206,565 2,469,815 89,830 -134,093 34,216,914 345,266 1.02 

Hawaii 1,129,170 186,115 -113,371 74,489 55,672 19,731 3,422 1,206,250 -5,287 -0.44 

Oregon 2,896,472 433,323 277,675 271,599 72,575 676 -7,314 3,389,656 -31,743 -0.93 

4,958,320 788,817 407,049 382,824 159,442 20,833 -17,068 5,886,119 -8,002 -0.14 

1990 Census 

Adjusted for 

Undercount* Births Deaths 

Domestic 

Migration 

International 

Migration 

Federal 

Movement Residual 

2000 Estimates 

Based on 

Adjusted counts 

Difference between 

Estimates and Census 

Components of Change: 4/1990-4/2000 

Region, Division, and 

State 

Washington 

* See Appendix B 

** The expected 2000 population (estimates) = Undercount adjusted 1990 census + (births-deaths+net domestic migration + net international migration + federal 

movement)+residuals 

Source: U.S.Census Bureau, special tabulation (components of change from Population Estimates Branch) 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Appendix E

Projected and Estimated Components of Change between July1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 - Regions, Divisoins, and States

Series A

U.S. Total 19,673,034 12,618,224 - 4,112,850 19,598,973 11,716,693 - 4,418,851 0.49 6.39 5.91 -9.87 

Northeast 3,637,357 2,745,535 -1,549,879 1,102,887 3,457,636 2,410,155 -1,417,887 1,000,100 7.54 10.49 55.16 17.88 

New England 910,572 666,560 -250,228 219,983 858,048 606,803 -92,167 144,123 9.11 8.59 94.53 28.29 

Connecticut 226,377 162,304 -123,205 54,977 218,608 148,248 -77,973 42,600 3.55 9.48 58.01 29.05 

Maine 76,909 63,677 -4,688 3,386 68,551 60,268 14,664 2,752 12.19 5.66 -131.97 23.04 

Massachusetts 421,920 309,982 -149,740 136,483 403,730 277,714 -59,386 80,900 4.51 11.62 152.15 68.71 

New Hampshire 78,511 49,327 39,827 5,454 71,752 47,349 41,292 5,308 9.42 4.18 -3.55 2.75 

Rhode Island 69,034 54,352 -30,999 18,247 62,250 48,342 -14,629 8,752 10.90 12.43 111.90 108.49 

Vermont 37,821 26,918 18,577 1,436 33,157 24,882 3,865 3,811 14.07 8.18 380.65 -62.32 

Middle Atlantic 2,726,785 2,078,975 -1,299,651 882,904 2,599,588 1,803,352 -1,325,720 855,977 4.41 14.27 -23.58 -2.93 

New Jersey 572,491 410,085 -149,065 197,366 569,004 367,739 -180,563 221,333 0.61 11.52 -17.44 -10.83 

New York 1,372,388 964,858 -1,086,860 620,035 1,300,471 796,914 -940,318 563,448 5.53 21.07 15.58 10.04 

Pennsylvania 781,906 704,032 -63,726 65,503 730,113 638,699 -204,839 71,196 7.09 10.23 -68.89 -8.00 

Midwest 4,387,008 3,078,431 -215,218 395,377 4,377,252 2,859,698 -514,708 502,377 0.07 7.87 6.36 -21.18 

East North Central 3,123,631 2,144,855 -452,499 307,482 3,095,229 1,991,414 -524,046 382,695 0.53 7.41 201.83 -0.20 

Illinois 919,695 590,628 -312,739 174,835 912,197 531,409 -330,952 234,263 0.82 11.14 -5.50 -25.37 

Indiana 402,727 285,773 90,281 19,079 422,871 270,184 11,609 22,634 -4.76 5.77 677.68 -15.71 

Michigan 691,585 453,767 -186,790 50,710 666,148 425,739 -78,823 76,673 3.82 6.58 136.97 -33.86 

Ohio 769,383 567,711 -111,689 40,668 758,022 533,664 -147,001 35,083 1.50 6.38 -24.02 15.92 

Wisconsin 340,241 246,976 68,438 22,190 335,991 230,418 21,121 14,042 1.26 7.19 224.03 58.03 

West North Central 1,263,377 933,576 237,281 87,895 1,282,023 868,284 9,338 119,682 -0.25 8.19 -133.26 -36.17 

Iowa 184,299 155,045 951 13,344 185,995 141,445 -21,264 16,007 -0.91 9.62 -104.47 -16.64 

Kansas 182,977 128,392 19,341 17,431 188,966 120,611 -16,967 20,029 -3.17 6.45 -213.99 -12.97 

Minnesota 316,294 203,903 58,670 31,191 324,069 189,078 51,479 37,659 -2.40 7.84 13.97 -17.18 

Missouri 369,368 291,075 99,594 17,472 372,930 274,987 49,270 27,521 -0.96 5.85 102.14 -36.51 

Nebraska 114,539 84,399 25,765 5,312 117,831 77,469 -14,508 10,543 -2.79 8.95 -277.59 -49.62 

North Dakota 42,818 32,632 4,344 2,140 40,301 30,140 -26,573 3,914 6.25 8.27 -116.35 -45.32 

South Dakota 53,082 38,130 28,616 1,005 51,931 34,554 -12,099 4,009 2.22 10.35 -336.52 -74.93 

South 6,712,045 4,484,908 2,366,811 895,930 7,015,095 4,288,069 1,758,851 1,281,294 -1.59 6.00 37.24 -7.73 

South Atlantic 3,266,015 2,345,425 1,473,349 616,141 3,398,061 2,251,955 1,276,523 759,935 0.79 7.09 -7.86 -5.65 

Delaware 51,712 34,828 28,598 3,999 52,061 33,022 18,201 6,441 -0.67 5.47 57.12 -37.91 

District of Columbia 50,578 39,564 -73,383 21,728 39,558 30,563 -58,311 15,294 27.86 29.45 25.85 42.07 

Florida 934,995 816,972 587,036 295,924 969,192 788,529 515,787 426,841 -3.53 3.61 13.81 -30.67 

Georgia 539,257 309,564 385,529 52,024 600,868 303,137 376,771 69,815 -10.25 2.12 2.32 -25.48 

Maryland 367,454 225,522 -16,937 96,806 356,487 211,808 -37,356 92,203 3.08 6.47 -54.66 4.99 

North Carolina 489,595 346,352 390,769 33,209 544,587 337,110 305,962 39,765 -10.10 2.74 27.72 -16.49 

South Carolina 265,383 175,404 72,938 10,106 265,177 174,035 108,449 12,142 0.08 0.79 -32.74 -16.77 

Virginia 461,366 285,710 89,967 100,009 466,240 269,775 66,035 95,561 -1.05 5.91 36.24 4.65 

West Virginia 105,675 111,509 8,832 2,336 103,891 103,976 -19,015 1,873 1.72 7.24 -146.45 24.72 

East South Central 1,111,891 841,751 492,299 43,875 1,164,434 811,825 239,346 46,227 -4.27 4.01 147.39 1.59 

Alabama 296,328 227,583 102,886 11,889 306,753 218,705 24,655 8,588 -3.40 4.06 317.30 38.44 

Kentucky 255,077 200,611 56,790 11,080 268,293 190,611 40,708 11,498 -4.93 5.25 39.51 -3.64 

Mississippi 204,928 145,312 47,008 4,461 210,249 137,910 18,911 4,704 -2.53 5.37 148.57 -5.17 

Tennessee 355,558 268,245 285,615 16,445 379,139 264,599 155,072 21,437 -6.22 1.38 84.18 -23.29 

West South Central 2,334,139 1,297,732 401,163 235,914 2,452,600 1,224,289 242,982 475,132 -4.28 5.53 28.59 -21.71 

Arkansas 169,968 143,378 107,513 5,186 182,794 137,568 43,555 6,968 -7.02 4.22 146.84 -25.57 

Louisiana 338,048 216,893 -70,975 14,738 331,513 201,253 -96,302 13,454 1.97 7.77 -26.30 9.54 

Oklahoma 224,647 175,786 14,319 14,978 239,934 169,424 21,697 18,014 -6.37 3.76 -34.00 -16.85 

Texas 1,601,476 761,675 350,306 201,012 1,698,359 716,044 274,032 436,696 -5.70 6.37 27.83 -53.97 

West 4,936,624 2,309,350 -601,702 1,718,656 4,748,990 2,158,771 173,744 1,635,080 -1.29 2.70 -69.58 -21.46 

Mountain 1,235,490 613,310 1,348,982 123,567 1,355,202 617,984 730,979 218,523 -5.42 0.22 -143.96 -33.98 

Arizona 348,292 182,845 367,377 51,143 388,268 190,842 308,037 64,672 -10.30 -4.19 19.26 -20.92 

Colorado 269,873 135,448 267,775 24,457 292,731 131,369 188,159 45,738 -7.81 3.10 42.31 -46.53 

Idaho 86,903 46,505 136,899 6,486 95,617 45,604 43,994 13,128 -9.11 1.98 211.18 -50.59 

Montana 56,860 41,456 59,157 2,315 54,241 39,568 3,568 1,381 4.83 4.77 1557.99 67.63 

Nevada 112,187 61,073 281,868 19,768 137,536 69,032 234,953 45,935 -18.43 -11.53 19.97 -56.97 

New Mexico 142,156 68,242 95,705 4,717 136,288 64,509 -31,636 23,543 4.31 5.79 -402.52 -79.96 

Utah 185,294 58,317 112,548 13,927 219,307 57,822 -5,247 22,735 -15.51 0.86 -2245.00 -38.74 

Wyoming 33,925 19,424 27,653 754 31,214 19,238 -10,849 1,391 8.69 0.97 -354.89 -45.79 

Pacific 3,701,134 1,696,040 -1,950,684 1,595,089 3,393,788 1,540,787 -557,235 1,416,557 5.32 6.67 49.44 -1.42 

Alaska 55,286 13,242 802 4,987 49,833 13,113 -22,589 5,173 10.94 0.98 -103.55 -3.60 

California 2,956,850 1,263,719 -2,284,097 1,458,005 2,640,619 1,128,583 -645,385 1,250,063 11.98 11.97 253.91 16.63 

Hawaii 99,360 43,764 -17,468 30,794 87,607 39,096 -76,769 24,368 13.42 11.94 -77.25 26.37 

Oregon 206,374 152,001 161,496 34,037 222,129 146,081 84,709 40,699 -7.09 4.05 90.65 -16.37 

Washington 383,264 223,314 188,583 67,266 393,600 213,914 102,799 96,254 -2.63 4.39 83.45 -30.12 

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

International 

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

International Births Deaths 

Projections (Series A) Intercensal Estimates % difference 

Region, Division, and 

State Births Deaths 

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

International Births Deaths 

(projections - estimates) 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025," PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October, 1996 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
Appendix F

Projected and Estimated Components of Change between July 1,1995 and July 1, 2000 - Regions, Divisions, and States

Series B

U.S. Total 19,672,920 12,618,273 - 4,112,842 19,598,973 11,716,693 - 4,418,851 0.37 6.34 -5.97 -9.82 

Northeast 3,638,088 2,746,014 -1,503,823 1,102,823 3,457,636 2,410,155 -1,417,887 1,000,100 7.37 10.45 18.62 17.97 

New England 910,126 666,543 -260,073 220,001 858,048 606,803 -92,167 144,123 8.83 8.53 42.38 28.42 

Connecticut 226,336 162,331 -120,731 54,980 218,608 148,248 -77,973 42,600 3.54 9.50 54.84 29.06 

Maine 76,706 63,626 -13,375 3,392 68,551 60,268 14,664 2,752 11.90 5.57 -191.21 23.26 

Massachusetts 422,432 310,111 -127,297 136,456 403,730 277,714 -59,386 80,900 4.63 11.67 114.36 68.67 

New Hampshire 78,309 49,290 32,594 5,461 71,752 47,349 41,292 5,308 9.14 4.10 -21.06 2.88 

Rhode Island 68,759 54,317 -39,936 18,266 62,250 48,342 -14,629 8,752 10.46 12.36 172.99 108.71 

Vermont 37,584 26,868 8,672 1,446 33,157 24,882 3,865 3,811 13.35 7.98 124.37 -62.06 

Middle Atlantic 2,727,962 2,079,471 -1,243,750 882,822 2,599,588 1,803,352 -1,325,720 855,977 4.45 14.30 -28.90 -2.94 

New Jersey 572,540 410,199 -139,867 197,365 569,004 367,739 -180,563 221,333 0.62 11.55 -22.54 -10.83 

New York 1,373,169 965,156 -1,055,589 619,962 1,300,471 796,914 -940,318 563,448 5.59 21.11 12.26 10.03 

Pennsylvania 782,253 704,116 -48,294 65,495 730,113 638,699 -204,839 71,196 7.14 10.24 -76.42 -8.01 

Midwest 4,387,885 3,078,502 -167,265 395,346 4,377,252 2,859,698 -514,708 502,377 0.00 7.82 18.52 -21.16 

East North Central 3,125,359 2,145,252 -374,647 307,428 3,095,229 1,991,414 -524,046 382,695 0.58 7.43 201.40 -0.21 

Illinois 920,032 590,740 -295,975 174,810 912,197 531,409 -330,952 234,263 0.86 11.16 -10.57 -25.38 

Indiana 402,950 285,808 99,359 19,077 422,871 270,184 11,609 22,634 -4.71 5.78 755.88 -15.72 

Michigan 692,264 453,951 -157,433 50,689 666,148 425,739 -78,823 76,673 3.92 6.63 99.73 -33.89 

Ohio 769,995 567,841 -84,852 40,659 758,022 533,664 -147,001 35,083 1.58 6.40 -42.28 15.89 

Wisconsin 340,118 246,912 64,254 22,193 335,991 230,418 21,121 14,042 1.23 7.16 204.22 58.05 

West North Central 1,262,526 933,250 207,382 87,918 1,282,023 868,284 9,338 119,682 -0.41 8.11 -112.10 -36.12 

Iowa 184,086 154,954 -8,467 13,350 185,995 141,445 -21,264 16,007 -1.03 9.55 -60.18 -16.60 

Kansas 183,055 128,406 23,114 17,429 188,966 120,611 -16,967 20,029 -3.13 6.46 -236.23 -12.98 

Minnesota 316,021 203,818 50,392 31,198 324,069 189,078 51,479 37,659 -2.48 7.80 -2.11 -17.16 

Missouri 369,468 291,101 104,014 17,471 372,930 274,987 49,270 27,521 -0.93 5.86 111.11 -36.52 

Nebraska 114,362 84,333 19,272 5,316 117,831 77,469 -14,508 10,543 -2.94 8.86 -232.84 -49.58 

North Dakota 42,667 32,572 -1,538 2,145 40,301 30,140 -26,573 3,914 5.87 8.07 -94.21 -45.20 

South Dakota 52,867 38,066 20,595 1,009 51,931 34,554 -12,099 4,009 1.80 10.16 -270.22 -74.83 

South 6,714,005 4,484,990 2,408,828 895,825 7,015,095 4,288,069 1,758,851 1,281,294 -1.60 5.99 32.21 -7.70 

South Atlantic 3,266,056 2,345,507 1,461,466 616,144 3,398,061 2,251,955 1,276,523 759,935 0.76 7.08 -9.67 -5.59 

Delaware 51,474 34,755 19,008 4,012 52,061 33,022 18,201 6,441 -1.13 5.25 4.43 -37.71 

District of Columbia 50,720 39,640 -70,667 21,737 39,558 30,563 -58,311 15,294 28.22 29.70 21.19 42.13 

Florida 935,577 817,284 608,336 295,886 969,192 788,529 515,787 426,841 -3.47 3.65 17.94 -30.68 

Georgia 539,557 309,621 398,217 52,015 600,868 303,137 376,771 69,815 -10.20 2.14 5.69 -25.50 

Maryland 367,126 225,466 -26,390 96,812 356,487 211,808 -37,356 92,203 2.98 6.45 -29.36 5.00 

North Carolina 489,904 346,376 400,167 33,205 544,587 337,110 305,962 39,765 -10.04 2.75 30.79 -16.50 

South Carolina 265,355 175,363 67,589 10,109 265,177 174,035 108,449 12,142 0.07 0.76 -37.68 -16.74 

Virginia 460,807 285,568 65,382 100,027 466,240 269,775 66,035 95,561 -1.17 5.85 -0.99 4.67 

West Virginia 105,536 111,434 -176 2,341 103,891 103,976 -19,015 1,873 1.58 7.17 -99.07 24.99 

East South Central 1,112,043 841,660 485,869 43,872 1,164,434 811,825 239,346 46,227 -4.25 4.00 138.72 1.58 

Alabama 296,100 227,483 87,855 11,891 306,753 218,705 24,655 8,588 -3.47 4.01 256.34 38.46 

Kentucky 255,017 200,552 50,829 11,081 268,293 190,611 40,708 11,498 -4.95 5.22 24.86 -3.63 

Mississippi 205,160 145,349 53,799 4,458 210,249 137,910 18,911 4,704 -2.42 5.39 184.49 -5.23 

Tennessee 355,766 268,276 293,386 16,442 379,139 264,599 155,072 21,437 -6.16 1.39 89.19 -23.30 

West South Central 2,335,906 1,297,823 461,493 235,809 2,452,600 1,224,289 242,982 475,132 -4.24 5.52 19.94 -21.73 

Arkansas 169,821 143,282 96,949 5,187 182,794 137,568 43,555 6,968 -7.10 4.15 122.59 -25.56 

Louisiana 338,584 216,944 -51,579 14,729 331,513 201,253 -96,302 13,454 2.13 7.80 -46.44 9.48 

Oklahoma 224,636 175,730 12,194 14,978 239,934 169,424 21,697 18,014 -6.38 3.72 -43.80 -16.85 

Texas 1,602,865 761,867 403,929 200,915 1,698,359 716,044 274,032 436,696 -5.62 6.40 47.40 -53.99 

West 4,932,942 2,308,767 -737,759 1,718,848 4,748,990 2,158,771 173,744 1,635,080 -1.57 2.60 -95.55 -21.38 

Mountain 1,234,694 613,124 1,319,361 123,570 1,355,202 617,984 730,979 218,523 -5.62 0.13 -196.50 -33.90 

Arizona 348,881 183,077 397,461 51,117 388,268 190,842 308,037 64,672 -10.14 -4.07 29.03 -20.96 

Colorado 269,470 135,327 251,097 24,468 292,731 131,369 188,159 45,738 -7.95 3.01 33.45 -46.50 

Idaho 86,546 46,414 121,832 6,495 95,617 45,604 43,994 13,128 -9.49 1.78 176.93 -50.53 

Montana 56,556 41,359 45,456 2,322 54,241 39,568 3,568 1,381 4.27 4.53 1,173.99 68.14 

Nevada 112,014 61,034 274,043 19,771 137,536 69,032 234,953 45,935 -18.56 -11.59 16.64 -56.96 

New Mexico 142,074 68,216 92,005 4,718 136,288 64,509 -31,636 23,543 4.25 5.75 -390.82 -79.96 

Utah 185,408 58,315 116,262 13,923 219,307 57,822 -5,247 22,735 -15.46 0.85 -2,315.78 -38.76 

Wyoming 33,745 19,382 21,205 756 31,214 19,238 -10,849 1,391 8.11 0.75 -295.46 -45.65 

Pacific 3,698,248 1,695,643 -2,057,120 1,595,278 3,393,788 1,540,787 -557,235 1,416,557 4.92 6.55 65.98 -1.35 

Alaska 54,686 13,196 -18,094 4,999 49,833 13,113 -22,589 5,173 9.74 0.63 -19.90 -3.36 

California 2,955,850 1,263,640 -2,324,036 1,458,138 2,640,619 1,128,583 -645,385 1,250,063 11.94 11.97 260.10 16.65 

Hawaii 98,857 43,708 -34,954 30,810 87,607 39,096 -76,769 24,368 12.84 11.80 -54.47 26.44 

Oregon 206,271 151,942 158,433 34,042 222,129 146,081 84,709 40,699 -7.14 4.01 87.03 -16.36 

Washington 382,584 223,157 161,531 67,289 393,600 213,914 102,799 96,254 -2.80 4.32 57.13 -30.09 

Projections (Series B) Intercensal Estimates % difference 

Region, Division, and 

State Births Deaths 

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

International Births Deaths 

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

Deaths International

Net 

Domestic 

Net 

International Births 

(projections - estimates) 

Source: Campbell, Paul R. “Population Projections for States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2025," PPL-47, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, October, 1996 

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

Appendix G

Ranking of Absolute Percent Errors of Projected Components of Change between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 by State - Series A

Ranking 

South Carolina 0.08 South Carolina 0.79 Georgia 2.32 New Hampshire 2.75 

New Jersey 0.61 Utah 0.86 New Hampshire 3.55 Alaska 3.60 

Delaware 0.67 Wyoming 0.97 Illinois 5.50 Kentucky 3.64 

Illinois 0.82 Alaska 0.98 Florida 13.81 Virginia 4.65 

Iowa 0.91 Tennessee 1.38 Minnesota 13.97 Maryland 4.99 

Missouri 0.96 Idaho 1.98 New York 15.58 Mississippi 5.17 

Virginia 1.05 Georgia 2.12 New Jersey 17.44 Pennsylvania 8.00 

Wisconsin 1.26 North Carolina 2.74 Arizona 19.26 Louisiana 9.54 

Ohio 1.50 Colorado 3.10 Nevada 19.97 New York 10.04 

West Virginia 1.72 Florida 3.61 Ohio 24.02 New Jersey 10.83 

Louisiana 1.97 Oklahoma 3.76 District of Columbia 25.85 Kansas 12.97 

South Dakota 2.22 Oregon 4.05 Louisiana 26.30 Indiana 15.71 

Minnesota 2.40 Alabama 4.06 North Carolina 27.72 Ohio 15.92 

Mississippi 2.53 New Hampshire 4.18 Texas 27.83 Oregon 16.37 

Washington 2.63 Arizona 4.19 South Carolina 32.74 North Carolina 16.49 

Nebraska 2.79 Arkansas 4.22 Oklahoma 34.00 California 16.63 

Maryland 3.08 Washington 4.39 Virginia 36.24 Iowa 16.64 

Kansas 3.17 Montana 4.77 Kentucky 39.51 South Carolina 16.77 

Alabama 3.40 Kentucky 5.25 Colorado 42.31 Oklahoma 16.85 

Florida 3.53 Mississippi 5.37 Maryland 54.66 Minnesota 17.18 

Connecticut 3.55 Delaware 5.47 Delaware 57.12 Arizona 20.92 

Michigan 3.82 Maine 5.66 Connecticut 58.01 Maine 23.04 

New Mexico 4.31 Indiana 5.77 Pennsylvania 68.89 Tennessee 23.29 

Massachusetts 4.51 New Mexico 5.79 Hawaii 77.25 West Virginia 24.72 

Indiana 4.76 Missouri 5.85 Washington 83.45 Illinois 25.37 

Montana 4.83 Virginia 5.91 Tennessee 84.18 Georgia 25.48 

Kentucky 4.93 Texas 6.37 Oregon 90.65 Arkansas 25.57 

New York 5.53 Ohio 6.38 Missouri 102.14 Hawaii 26.37 

Texas 5.70 Kansas 6.45 Alaska 103.55 Connecticut 29.05 

Tennessee 6.22 Maryland 6.47 Iowa 104.47 Washington 30.12 

North Dakota 6.25 Michigan 6.58 Rhode Island 111.90 Florida 30.67 

Oklahoma 6.37 Wisconsin 7.19 North Dakota 116.35 Michigan 33.86 

Arkansas 7.02 West Virginia 7.24 Maine 131.97 Missouri 36.51 

Oregon 7.09 Louisiana 7.77 Michigan 136.97 Delaware 37.91 

Pennsylvania 7.09 Minnesota 7.84 West Virginia 146.45 Alabama 38.44 

Colorado 7.81 Vermont 8.18 Arkansas 146.84 Utah 38.74 

Wyoming 8.69 North Dakota 8.27 Mississippi 148.57 District of Columbia 42.07 

Idaho 9.11 Nebraska 8.95 Massachusetts 152.15 North Dakota 45.32 

New Hampshire 9.42 Connecticut 9.48 Idaho 211.18 Wyoming 45.79 

North Carolina 10.10 Iowa 9.62 Kansas 213.99 Colorado 46.53 

Georgia 10.25 Pennsylvania 10.23 Wisconsin 224.03 Nebraska 49.62 

Arizona 10.30 South Dakota 10.35 California 253.91 Idaho 50.59 

Rhode Island 10.90 Illinois 11.14 Nebraska 277.59 Texas 53.97 

Alaska 10.94 New Jersey 11.52 Alabama 317.30 Nevada 56.97 

California 11.98 Nevada 11.53 South Dakota 336.52 Wisconsin 58.03 

Maine 12.19 Massachusetts 11.62 Wyoming 354.89 Vermont 62.32 

Hawaii 13.42 Hawaii 11.94 Vermont 380.65 Montana 67.63 

Vermont 14.07 California 11.97 New Mexico 402.52 Massachusetts 68.71 

Utah 15.51 Rhode Island 12.43 Indiana 677.68 South Dakota 74.93 

Nevada 18.43 New York 21.07 Montana 1557.99 New Mexico 79.96 

District of Columbia 27.86 District of Columbia 29.45 Utah 2245.00 Rhode Island 108.49 

Births Deaths Domestic Migration International Migration 

Absolute 

State State State State % Error

Absolute 

% Error 

Absolute 

% Error 

Absolute 

% Error 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002
Appendix H

Ranking of Absolute Percentage Error of Projected Components of Change between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 2000 by State - Series B

Ranking Absolute Absolute Absolute Absolute 

State % Error State % Error State % Error State % Error 

1 South Carolina 0.07 Alaska 0.63 Virginia 0.99 New Hampshire 2.88 

2 New Jersey 0.62 Wyoming 0.75 Minnesota 2.11 Alaska 3.36 

3 Illinois 0.86 South Carolina 0.76 Delaware 4.43 Kentucky 3.63 

4 Missouri 0.93 Utah 0.85 Georgia 5.69 Virginia 4.67 

5 Iowa 1.03 Tennessee 1.39 Illinois 10.57 Maryland 5.00 

6 Delaware 1.13 Idaho 1.78 New York 12.26 Mississippi 5.23 

7 Virginia 1.17 Georgia 2.14 Nevada 16.64 Pennsylvania 8.01 

8 Wisconsin 1.23 North Carolina 2.75 Florida 17.94 Louisiana 9.48 

9 Ohio 1.58 Colorado 3.01 Alaska 19.90 New York 10.03 

10 West Virginia 1.58 Florida 3.65 New Hampshire 21.06 New Jersey 10.83 

11 South Dakota 1.80 Oklahoma 3.72 District of Columbia 21.19 Kansas 12.98 

12 Louisiana 2.13 Oregon 4.01 New Jersey 22.54 Indiana 15.72 

13 Mississippi 2.42 Alabama 4.01 Kentucky 24.86 Ohio 15.89 

14 Minnesota 2.48 Arizona 4.07 Arizona 29.03 Oregon 16.36 

15 Washington 2.80 New Hampshire 4.10 Maryland 29.36 North Carolina 16.50 

16 Nebraska 2.94 Arkansas 4.15 North Carolina 30.79 Iowa 16.60 

17 Maryland 2.98 Washington 4.32 Colorado 33.45 California 16.65 

18 Kansas 3.13 Montana 4.53 South Carolina 37.68 South Carolina 16.74 

19 Florida 3.47 Kentucky 5.22 Ohio 42.28 Oklahoma 16.85 

20 Alabama 3.47 Delaware 5.25 Oklahoma 43.80 Minnesota 17.16 

21 Connecticut 3.54 Mississippi 5.39 Louisiana 46.44 Arizona 20.96 

22 Michigan 3.92 Maine 5.57 Texas 47.40 Maine 23.26 

23 New Mexico 4.25 New Mexico 5.75 Hawaii 54.47 Tennessee 23.30 

24 Montana 4.27 Indiana 5.78 Connecticut 54.84 West Virginia 24.99 

25 Massachusetts 4.63 Virginia 5.85 Washington 57.13 Illinois 25.38 

26 Indiana 4.71 Missouri 5.86 Iowa 60.18 Georgia 25.50 

27 Kentucky 4.95 Texas 6.40 Pennsylvania 76.42 Arkansas 25.56 

28 New York 5.59 Ohio 6.40 Oregon 87.03 Hawaii 26.44 

29 Texas 5.62 Maryland 6.45 Tennessee 89.19 Connecticut 29.06 

30 North Dakota 5.87 Kansas 6.46 North Dakota 94.21 Washington 30.09 

31 Tennessee 6.16 Michigan 6.63 West Virginia 99.07 Florida 30.68 

32 Oklahoma 6.38 Wisconsin 7.16 Michigan 99.73 Michigan 33.89 

33 Arkansas 7.10 West Virginia 7.17 Missouri 111.11 Missouri 36.52 

34 Oregon 7.14 Minnesota 7.80 Massachusetts 114.36 Delaware 37.71 

35 Pennsylvania 7.14 Louisiana 7.80 Arkansas 122.59 Alabama 38.46 

36 Colorado 7.95 Vermont 7.98 Vermont 124.37 Utah 38.76 

37 Wyoming 8.11 North Dakota 8.07 Rhode Island 172.99 District of Columbia 42.13 

38 New Hampshire 9.14 Nebraska 8.86 Idaho 176.93 North Dakota 45.20 

39 Idaho 9.49 Connecticut 9.50 Mississippi 184.49 Wyoming 45.65 

40 Alaska 9.74 Iowa 9.55 Maine 191.21 Colorado 46.50 

41 North Carolina 10.04 South Dakota 10.16 Wisconsin 204.22 Nebraska 49.58 

42 Arizona 10.14 Pennsylvania 10.24 Nebraska 232.84 Idaho 50.53 

43 Georgia 10.20 Illinois 11.16 Kansas 236.23 Texas 53.99 

44 Rhode Island 10.46 New Jersey 11.55 Alabama 256.34 Nevada 56.96 

45 Maine 11.90 Nevada 11.59 California 260.10 Wisconsin 58.05 

46 California 11.94 Massachusetts 11.67 South Dakota 270.22 Vermont 62.06 

47 Hawaii 12.84 Hawaii 11.80 Wyoming 295.46 Montana 68.14 

48 Vermont 13.35 California 11.97 New Mexico 390.82 Massachusetts 68.67 

49 Utah 15.46 Rhode Island 12.36 Indiana 755.88 South Dakota 74.83 

50 Nevada 18.56 New York 21.11 Montana 1173.99 New Mexico 79.96 

51 District of Columbia 28.22 District of Columbia 29.70 Utah 2315.78 Rhode Island 108.71 

Births Deaths Domestic Migration International Migration 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 30, 2002