Population Division Working Paper No. 65

Evaluating Components of International Migration: Quality of

Foreign-Born and Hispanic Population Data

Arthur Cresce

Roberto Ramirez

Gregory Spencer

December 2001
ii

Synopsis

On March 1, 2001, the U.S. Census Bureau issued the recommendation of the Executive Steering

Committee for A.C.E. Policy (ESCAP) that the Census 2000 Redistricting Data not be adjusted

based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). By mid-October 2001, the Census

Bureau had to recommend whether Census 2000 data should be adjusted for future uses, such as

the census long form data products, post-censal population estimates, and demographic survey

controls. In order to inform that decision, the ESCAP requested that further research be

conducted.

Between March and September 2001, the Demographic Analysis-Population Estimates (DAPE)

research project addressed the discrepancy between the demographic analysis data and the

A.C.E. adjusted estimates of the population. Specifically, the research examined the historical

levels of the components of population change to address the possibility that the 1990

Demographic Analysis understated the national population and assessed whether demographic

analysis had not captured the full population growth between 1990 and 2000. Assumptions

regarding the components of international migration (specifically, emigration, temporary

migration, legal migration, and unauthorized migration) contain the largest uncertainty in the

demographic analysis estimates. Therefore, evaluating the components of international

migration was a critical activity in the DAPE project.

This report addressed the question: “How do edit and imputation procedures affect the

consistency of foreign-born and Hispanic populations?” Comparisons were made between the

edit and imputation specifications for the 1990 census and Census 2000 for the questions on

place of birth and Hispanic origin to determine what impact, if any, such differences might have

had on comparisons of numbers between the censuses. There were few significant differences in

the specifications for the question on place of birth. The most significant difference - “hot deck”

imputation of specific countries of birth in Census 2000 but not in 1990 - did not affect the

overall total of foreign-born people. Regarding the specifications for the Hispanic question,

several important differences were noted, the most important of which was the use of surnameassisted “hot decks” in assigning an origin. Overall, the Census 2000 edit and imputation

procedures seemed to be more accurate than the 1990 procedures in assigning an origin. The

improvement in assigning an origin was assisted by a substantial decline between 1990 and 2000

in the level of nonresponse to the question on Hispanic origin.
1

Table of Contents

Page

I. Introduction..................................................................... 2

II. Executive Summary............................................................ 2

III. Philosophy of Edit and Imputation Procedures........................... 4

IV. Comparison of Edit and Imputation Procedures for Place of Birth...... 5

A. Changes to the Hot Deck................................................ 5

B. Separate Procedures for Group Quarters (GQ)....................... 6

C. Availability of Information for Adopted Children................... 6

V. Comparison of Edit and Imputation Procedures for Hispanic Origin.... 9

A. Summary of Differences................................................. 9

B. Context for Comparing Edit and Imputation Procedures............ 11

C. Impact of Editing on Hispanic Origin Population in 1990.......... 15

D. Impact of Editing on Hispanic Origin Population in 2000.......... 21

VI. Conclusion....................................................................... 23

VII. Bibliography..................................................................... 24

VIII. Table A and Detailed Tables................................................... 26
2

Consistency of Edit and Imputation Procedures for the Place of Birth and Hispanic

Origin Questions: 1990 and 2000

I. Introduction

 The purpose of the Task 11 Team as to answer the following question: “How do edit and

imputation procedures affect the consistency of foreign-born and Hispanic populations’

data?” We analyzed the edit and imputation procedures from the 1990 census and Census

2000 to answer this question.

II. Executive Summary

A. Foreign-Born Population – A comparison of the key differences between the 1990 census

and Census 2000 edit specifications for the place of birth question reveals one significant

difference. (See Table A.) In 1990, 808,158 people who were imputed as foreign born

were not assigned a specific country of birth. Instead, these people were assigned the

generic code for “Country of birth not reported.” By contrast, people imputed as foreign

born in Census 2000 will be assigned a specific country of birth. While this difference

does not have an impact on the total foreign-born population, it has a significant

impact on comparisons of country of birth totals between 1990 and 2000.

Task Team 5 is investigating how people in the “country of birth not reported category”

in 1990 were allocated after the fact to a specific country of birth for the purpose of

developing population estimates. Other differences in the edit and imputation procedures

do not appear to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant further quantitative analysis.

B. Hispanic Population – Comparison of the 100-percent edit and imputation procedures for

the 1990 Census and Census 2000 reveals differences between the two procedures. (See
3

Table A.) In general, the 1990 procedures were not as rigorous as the Census 2000

procedures in assigning an origin. One significant difference between the two procedures

specifications is the use of surname-assisted hot decks in Census 2000.

An extremely important context for understanding the impact of these differences is the

fact that the number of allocations for the origin question dropped by 34 percent between

1990 and 2000. This translated into a drop from 25.5 million allocations in 1990 to 16.8

million allocations in 2000. In addition to the drop in overall allocations, there was a

fundamental shift in the type of allocation made. In 1990, 75.6 percent of allocations

occurred through the “hot deck” (nearest neighbor) method. By contrast, only 41.2

percent of allocations required hot deck allocation in Census 2000. This is an important

point, because of the techniques used (imputation based on other information provided by

the respondent, allocation from other household members, and hot deck allocation), hot

deck allocation is the least reliable. We can attribute this improvement, in large part, to

moving the question on origin before the question on race.

There is strong evidence that the less restrictive 1990 edit and imputation procedures and

greater reliance on hot deck allocation, combined with a much higher level of

nonresponse to the Hispanic origin question in 1990, may have resulted in “over-editing”

at least 161,000 people as Hispanic. Although we did not attempt to run the Census 2000

edit and imputation program on 1990 data, we believe the Census 2000 would have

imputed fewer people as Hispanic than did the 1990 program.
4

III. Philosophy of Edit and Imputation Procedures1

 In any imputation scheme, imputed values may differ (sometimes significantly) from what

would have been obtained had the information been reported by the respondent. Edit and

imputation techniques are designed to make the best possible estimate of the probable

response given the best information available. For example, if the respondent did not provide

an origin, the procedure first checked to determine if the person indicated that he (or she) was

Hispanic in the question on race (close to half of Hispanics provided an Hispanic ethnicity in

the race question). If an origin could not be obtained from race, then the procedures

attempted to allocate an origin from other people in the household (according to a hierarchy

of household relationship) under the assumption that people living in the same household

would tend to have the same origin. If an origin could not be obtained from within the

household, as a last resort, an origin was assigned by hot deck allocation under the

assumption that people of the same origin tend to live in close proximity to each other. To

the extent that these assumptions do not hold for a given person or household, allocated

values might differ from what would have been obtained had the information been obtained

directly from the respondent.

 Edit and imputation procedures attempt to rely as much as possible on sources of information

about which there is the most confidence (other information provided by the respondent or

responses of other household members) and to rely less on last resort procedures such as hot

 

1

 In this report, “edit” refers to revising or imputing a response based on information provided by the respondent

himself or herself. “Imputation,” also used interchangeably with the term “allocation,” refers to imputing a response

based on the response of other people in the same household or the response of people in neighboring households.
5

deck allocation. Even with hot decks, efforts are made to improve the accuracy of allocation

by matching donors and donees according to one or more key characteristics. For example,

in the 1990 census, origin hot decks used race as a matching variable for donors and donees.

In contrast, Census 2000 used not only race, but also age and whether the surname was

Spanish or not Spanish, as matching variables. We believe these additional variables

improved the accuracy of origin allocation from the hot deck.

IV. Comparison of Edit and Imputation Procedures for Place of Birth

 Table A provides a summary of the differences between the 1990 and the Census 2000 edit

and imputation procedures for the question on place of birth. An analysis of the differences

noted indicates that none of the changes should have significantly affected comparisons in

the overall number of native and foreign-born people between 1990 and 2000. The following

changes were deemed to have had only a minor impact (if any) on the totals:

A. Changes to the hot deck

The age/race/Hispanic controls for the hot deck were revised for the two main hot decks

by combining race and Hispanic categories (Hispanic; non-Hispanic White; non-Hispanic

Black; non-Hispanic Asian; non-Hispanic Other) rather than a cross tabulation of race

and Hispanic origin (Hispanic White; Hispanic Black; Hispanic Other; non-Hispanic

White; non-Hispanic Black; non-Hispanic Other). In addition, more hot decks with

limited universes (e.g. Puerto Rico and outlying areas only) were used.
6

B. Separate procedures for group quarters (GQ)

The 1990 edit and imputation procedures included the GQ population within the same

edit and imputation procedures as those used for the household population. First, the

portion of the procedures that attempted to assign a state or country of birth from other

information provided by the respondent was imbedded within the procedures used for the

household population. Furthermore, people in GQ’s needing a state or country of birth

from the hot deck obtained one from the same hot deck as that used by the rest of the

population. By contrast in Census 2000, the portion of the procedures that attempted to

assign a state or country of birth was entirely separate from that for the household

population. Furthermore, the Census 2000 procedures use separate hot decks for the GQ

population controlled by age and 6 GQ types (correctional institutions, nursing homes,

college quarters, military quarters, other institutions, and all other GQ’s).

C. Availability of information for adopted children

The 1990 edit and imputation procedures distinguished between “natural born or adopted

sons or daughters” and “stepsons/stepdaughters” in assigning a state or country of birth.

The Census 2000 procedures combined these categories into one category “son/daughter”

in attempting to assign a state or country of birth.
7

While these changes reflect an attempt to provide a more precise allocation of state or

country of birth, they do not appear to be of sufficient importance to affect adversely

comparisons of levels of foreign born compared with natives between the two censuses. It is

unclear, however, how differences between the edit and imputation procedures may have

affected comparisons between specific states or countries of birth for the two censuses. We

will need to evaluate these issues when we obtain the long form data in Spring 2002.

The use of a native or foreign-born check box in the question may have had some impact for

prompting people to report a place of birth. However, because the question relies primarily

on a write-in entry for appropriate classification as native or foreign born (in fact, the write-in

entry takes precedence over the check box), it is not clear that we would have obtained

different results because of the check box categories. The check box categories played a role

in the edit and imputation procedures when no write-in response was provided, but this role

was a rather limited one. When there was no write-in response, a citizenship response, in

some instances, was actually given higher weight in assigning a place of birth than the check

box response.

The most important difference between the 1990 and 2000 edit and imputation procedures

was in the assignment of a specific country of birth for people not reporting a place of birth

who were assigned as foreign born. In 1990, people who were assigned as foreign born were

not assigned a specific country of birth. Instead, these people were classified as “Area not

reported.” By contrast, the edit and imputation procedures for Census 2000 will assign a

specific country of birth. While this difference does not affect comparisons of the total
8

foreign born between the two censuses, it does affect any comparison by country of birth. In

fact, we had to distribute the “Area not reported” population among countries of birth for

intercensal estimates that required detailed country of birth data. Another DAPE task team is

analyzing how these distributions were made and will not be discussed further in this report.2

The allocation rate for the place of birth question in 1990 was 5.4 percent. By contrast, the

rate for Census 2000 was 9.0 percent.3

 The difference in the level of nonresponse between

the two censuses can be explained partially by the fact that the 1990 census had a content edit

follow-up operation that attempted to obtain answers from census forms that had more than a

pre-specified threshold of questions with no answers. Census 2000 did not implement a

content edit follow-up operation. The increased level of nonresponse, however, does not

necessarily imply that comparisons of data on specific countries of birth between 1990 and

2000 would be adversely affected, especially given the improvements in Census 2000 edit

and imputation procedures and the fact that specific country of birth was not assigned in the

1990 census procedures.

 

2

 This issue is one of the topics being analyzed by Task Team 5. 3

 This percent is based on a file containing the results of automated coding (excluding any manual coding) of place

of birth responses and using modified editing and weighting procedures to obtain a preliminary estimate of the

native and foreign born populations. Official sample data will be available in Spring 2002.
9

V. Comparison of Edit and Imputation Procedures for Hispanic Origin

A. Summary of Differences

Table A summarizes the key differences between the edit and imputation procedures for

the Hispanic origin question in 1990 and 2000. First, while multiple responses were not

allowed in either census, Census 2000 allowed for the data capture of more than one

response and the edit and imputation procedures assigned one origin. In the case of

multiple non-Hispanic or multiple Hispanic responses, a respondent remained nonHispanic or Hispanic, respectively. However, in the case of a conflicting Hispanic/nonHispanic response, an attempt was made to resolve this conflict by using other

information provided by the respondent (for example, an Hispanic response in the race

question), responses of other people in the household, or people living near by who are of

the same race.

Census 2000 edit and imputation procedures also differed from the 1990 procedures in

how origin could be assigned from other people in the household. In 1990, anyone in the

household could donate an origin regardless of their race. By contrast, Census 2000 rules

only allowed other household members to “donate” an origin if the person needing an

origin and the donor had the same race.
10

One of the most important differences between the two procedures was how “hot deck”

allocation was implemented.4

 In 1990, hot deck values were stored and assigned by the

race of the “donor” and “donee.” In Census 2000, the hot decks also were controlled by

the race of the donor. However, Census 2000 hot decks also were controlled by four

broad age groups.

More importantly, Census 2000 origin hot decks were further differentiated by whether

the donor (and donee) had a Spanish or non-Spanish surname. Use of surname in storing

and assigning an origin was one of the most important innovations implemented in

Census 2000 in that it allowed a much more precise method for assigning an origin from

a hot deck. This innovation was cited in a recent evaluation of having a “profound”

impact on the assignment of origin.5

Finally, if both race and Hispanic origin were not reported, the edit attempted to assign

both a race and an origin from another donor (both within household imputation and hot

deck allocation). The 1990 procedures assigned race and origin independently of each

other, thus increasing the possibility of creating race/origin combinations that were not

that common in the population.

 

4

 “Hot deck” allocation involves the assignment of values from a set of stored values that are constantly updated as

each person’s data record is processed. A hot deck is usually the procedure of last resort when a value cannot be

assigned either from information provided by the person or from other people in the household. In the case of race

and origin , hot deck imputation is used most often when there no one in the household has provided a response to a

particular question.

5

 Summary provided by Yves Thibbaudeau, Statistical Research Division, March 31, 1999 concerning evaluation of

editing of origin in the 1998 Census Dress Rehearsal.
11

B. Context for Comparing Edit and Imputation Procedures

Before assessing the impact of these differences on the Hispanic origin population, it is

important to understand the differing contexts within which each edit operated. One of

the hallmarks of the Hispanic origin question in 1990 was the relatively high level of

nonresponse. Table 1 compares the allocation rates6 for Census 2000 and the 1990

census. It is clear from this table that the allocation rate for this question was almost

twice as high in 1990 as it was in 2000 (10.4 percent versus 5.6 percent). What is

striking is that the range of allocation rates by region narrowed considerably from 1990 to

2000. In 1990, the rates ranged from 7.2 percent in the West to 11.8 percent in the

Northeast – a difference of 4.6 percentage points. Among states and the District of

Columbia, the range was even wider with Idaho having the lowest percent (4.2 percent)

and the District of Columbia having the highest (18.3 percent) – a difference of

14.1 percentage points. In Census 2000, by contrast, the range by region was much

narrower, with the Midwest having the lowest rate (4.7 percent) and the South having the

highest rate (6.0 percent) – a difference of only 1.3 percentage points. By state,

Minnesota had the lowest rate in Census 2000 (4.0 percent), while the District of

Columbia had the highest rate (11.0 percent) – a difference of 7.0 percentage points. It is

clear that the biggest improvement in these rates occurred for states that had high

allocation rates in 1990. This dramatic improvement in response can be attributed in

large part to the placement of the Hispanic question before the question on race in

Census 2000.

 

6

 Allocation rates represent the rate at which responses were imputed based on responses of others within the

household or from people living nearby (also called “hot deck” imputation).
12

Tables 2-7 show the impact of the higher level of nonresponse to the origin question in

the 1990 census.7 Table 2 shows that at the national level, hot deck allocation was the

largest source of origin response after “reported origin.” This means that for a significant

proportion of the population (8.5 percent), no one in the household answered the

Hispanic origin question. This relationship held for all states.

Table 3 shows that for the 1990 Hispanic population alone, there was about equal

reliance on “within household” and “hot deck” allocation, with some regions and states

having a higher proportion of within-household allocation. This is not surprising since

the question is primarily oriented to the Hispanic population. Table 4, by contrast, shows

that for non-Hispanics, the proportion of responses coming from hot deck allocation was

much higher than that from within household allocation. Tables 5-7 show the

distribution of allocated responses by source of allocation and support the same

conclusions but from a slightly different perspective.

One of the most important changes made to the Hispanic origin question in Census 2000

to address the problem of nonresponse was to shift the order of the Hispanic origin and

race questions. In the 1990 census, the race question appeared first and the Hispanic

origin question appeared several questions later. It seems clear that after answering the

question on race, many people felt that the Hispanic origin question did not apply and

simply skipped the question. Shifting the order of the questions in tests conducted before

 

7

 The universe for these tables is the population in housing units and excludes the population in group quarters.
13

Census 2000 seemed to improve overall response to the Hispanic origin question with

some increased nonresponse to the question on race.

Table 1 and Tables 8-13 show very clearly that not only the level of nonresponse was

reduced but also that the relative contribution of within household and hot deck allocation

was much more balanced for non-Hispanics in Census 2000 than in the 1990 census.

More importantly, allocation from surname-assisted hot decks overall was greater than

allocation from non-surname-assisted hot decks (Tables 8-10). Table 10, in particular,

shows that for non-Hispanics, allocation from surname-assisted hot decks was about three

times the level of allocation from non-surname assisted hot decks (2.0 percent compared

to 0.6 percent).

The impact of surname-assisted programs is clearly more dramatic when observing the

source of allocations in Tables 11-13. Overall, surname-assisted hot decks represented

31.4 percent of all allocations, while non-surname assisted hot decks accounted for only

9.6 percent of all allocations. For Hispanic allocations, surname-assisted hot decks

overall represented 8.1 percent of all allocations while non-surname assisted hot decks

represented about 4.0 percent. For non-Hispanics, surname assisted hot decks provided

36.9 percent of all allocations, while non-surname assisted hot decks provided only 10.9

percent of all allocations (Table 13). In some states where the proportion of Hispanics is

very low (such as Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and

West Virginia), the proportion of people receiving an origin from a surname-assisted hot
14

deck is five times the proportion receiving an origin from a non-surname assisted hot

deck.

It is clear from Tables 2-13 that there was a significant increase in Census 2000 in the

level of substitution, from 0.7 percent of the population in households in 1990 to 1.2

percent of the total population in Census 2000 (Tables 2 and 8). Substitution occurs

when there are no data for anyone in the housing unit, and we use data from a

neighboring household of similar size, using the hot deck method, to allocate

characteristics for the people in that housing unit. Given that the same basic method was

used in both censuses, there is no reason to believe that the procedure itself created any

upward or downward bias in assigning origin in 1990 and 2000.

Tables 9 and 10 show that the percent substituted is slightly higher for the Hispanic

population (1.6 percent) than for the non-Hispanic population (1.2 percent). There was a

similar pattern in 1990, however, but at a lower level. Tables 3 and 4 show that in 1990

the percent substituted for the Hispanic population (0.9 percent) was again slightly higher

than that for the non-Hispanic population (0.6 percent). In addition, it is also clear that

substitution played a much larger role in the source of allocation of origin in 2000, with

substitution constituting about 20 percent of allocations overall. Interestingly, as shown

in Tables 12 and 13, the share of substitution was higher for the non-Hispanic population

(21.1 percent) than for the Hispanic population (17.5 percent). By contrast, Tables 6 and

7 show that in1990 the share of substitution in total allocations was much higher for
15

Hispanics (11.0 percent) than for non-Hispanics (5.9 percent). The reasons for the

increase in substitution will be part of the Census Bureau’s evaluation of Census 2000.

Finally, to put all these results in a broader perspective by including the results from the

Census 2000 Supplemental Survey (C2SS), Tables 14-16 show that the trend toward

improved response to the origin question is continuing. Editing procedures were

basically the same for Census 2000 and the C2SS, except that there was no substitution in

the C2SS. Table 14, in particular, shows that allocation rates are lower for the total

population and for the Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations in the C2SS than in

Census 2000 and in 1990. Table 15 shows an even greater reliance on surname assisted

hot decks in the C2SS, with Table 16 showing a much greater reliance on surname

assisted hot decks for the non-Hispanic population than for the Hispanic population. It

should be noted, however, that the level of response in C2SS was improved through the

use of field follow-up procedures for people who did not fully answer the questions on

the questionnaire, a procedure that was not used in Census 2000.

C. Impact of Editing on Hispanic Origin Population in 1990

In the 1990 census, there was an unusually high level of dependence on hot deck

allocation because many of the people needing an imputed origin had no reported origin

for anyone in the household. This greater reliance on hot deck allocation, combined with

a relatively high level of nonresponse, meant that most allocations came from the hot

deck, especially for the non-Hispanic population. For example, 75.6 percent of non-
16

Hispanic allocations came from a hot deck, excluding substitutions. By contrast, only

29.9 percent of Hispanic allocations came from a hot deck (Tables 5 and 6), again

excluding substitutions. This reflects the fact that the 1990 census hot decks matched

donors and donees by their race, but did not match by age and by whether the donee had

a Spanish or non-Spanish surname as did Census 2000 origin hot decks.

Concerns about the impact of 1990 edit and imputation procedures emerged when the

results of the sample data processing, including a separate edit and imputation for sample

questionnaires, became available. The Hispanic origin question on the sample form was

edited in sample processing independent of the 100-percent edit and imputation program.

Although the basic structure of the two procedures were the same, the edit and imputation

procedures for the Hispanic origin question during sample processing differed in a very

important way from those used in 100-percent processing. Unlike the 100-percent

procedures, sample procedures made use of the rich source of ethnic-related questions

from the sample form (ancestry, place of birth, language spoken at home) that could

assist in imputing for nonresponse. The use of ethnic-related information, combined with

a higher response rate for the Hispanic origin question on the sample form, meant a much

lower dependence on hot deck allocation.

The estimate of the Hispanic origin population that resulted from sample processing was

about 454,000 below the total of Hispanics obtained from 100-percent processing with

the 100-percent total exceeding the sample estimate for most states. This difference
17

existed despite the fact that sample estimates were controlled to 100-percent totals,

including race and Hispanic origin.8

Thompson (1991) addressed this difference and the difference between 100-percent totals

and sample estimates for the American Indian population. He noted that the difference

for the Hispanic population could be attributed to three factors: 1) weighting procedures;

2) a form of allocation bias; and 3) sample processing. Thompson attributed the

difference between 100-percent totals and sample estimates primarily to undersampling

of Hispanics and to a form of allocation bias. He also attributed part of the difference to

different data processing procedures.9

 His analysis, however, did not quantify how much

each factor contributed to this difference.

The “allocation bias” to which Thompson’s analysis refers is directly related to the focus

of this analysis. Thompson noted that the nonresponse for the Hispanic question on the

short form was 10 percent while the nonresponse rate for the same question on the

sample form was only 4 percent. This difference was due partly to the fact that during

data collection all sample forms were subject to content edit follow-up (field follow-up of

 

8 Although efforts are made to control the weighting by race and Hispanic origin in each weighting area, there is no

guarantee that these weighting control totals can be maintained in each area because each control total in the

weighting matrix had to meet a certain minimum threshold. Those totals not meeting the threshold were merged

with other totals according to a pre-determined collapsing sequence.

9

 In 1990 processing for the Hispanic origin question, only optical marks, but no write-in responses were captured.

Thus, people who provided a write-in response but did not fill the “Other Hispanic” circle were treated as a

nonresponse in the 100-percent edit and could have been assigned either as Hispanic or not Hispanic. People who

provided a write-in response and marked the “Other Spanish/Hispanic” circle would have been identified as “Other

Spanish/Hispanic” in the 100-percent edit and then either as Hispanic or not Hispanic in the sample edit depending

on whether the write-in response was Hispanic or not Hispanic in sample coding operations.
18

cases where the number of non-reported items exceeded a certain threshold). By

contrast, only 10 percent of short forms were subject to content edit follow-up.

Thompson reasoned that Hispanics were more likely to answer the Hispanic origin

question than were non-Hispanics, making the donor pool more heavily Hispanic than it

would have been had both Hispanics and non-Hispanics reported. If the nonresponse rate

for the Hispanic question was high, there was an increased risk that an Hispanic origin

would be disproportionately assigned. Evidence of this comes from Del Pinal (1994)

who noted that the 1990 edit and imputation procedures tended to increase the overlap

between various racial groups and the Hispanic population. For example, although there

were very few Black Mexican origin persons, about 62 percent of Black Mexicans were

created by the edit and imputation procedures.10 Not surprisingly, the Black population

had a much higher nonresponse rate (18.4 percent) in the Hispanic origin question than

did the White population (9.6 percent). (See Table 17.) The corresponding nonresponse

rates for American Indians and Alaska Natives and Asians and Pacific Islanders were

10.2 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively. All these rates were still much higher than the

nonresponse rates for other 100-percent questions such as race, age, gender and

household relationship – all of which had nonresponse rates below 3 percent – and

increased the possibility of a misallocation of respondents as Hispanic. To give a sense

of the potential impact on the data, a net misallocation of only 0.1 percent of

 

10 The percentages and rates in this paragraph were derived from special 1990 files containing only household

records and excludes records from the group quarters population (such as college dorms, prisons, military bases, and

nursing homes).
19

nonresponses as Hispanic out of a total of 24 million needing an origin would result in a

net increase of 240,000 Hispanics.

To attempt to quantify at some minimal level the impact of the potential misallocation of

responses as Hispanic, we obtained records from the sample edited detailed file (SEDF)

for 1990. On these records, we had not only the origin value from sample processing

(along with its allocation flag to indicate whether the value was reported or imputed) but

also the origin value from 100-percent processing along with its corresponding allocation

flag. In particular, we were interested in determining how people who received an

allocated origin in the 100-percent edit had their origin allocated in the sample edit. For

the purposes of this analysis, the results of the sample edit are considered the standard for

accuracy because sample editing procedures made use of data from additional ethnicrelated questions (ancestry, place of birth, and language spoken at home) not available on

the short form.

Table 18 shows that, overall, the 100-percent edit produced a net of about 181,000 more

Hispanics than did the sample edit when origin was allocated both in 100-percent and

sample editing procedures. This net difference in edit outcomes represented only

2.1 percent of the 8.6 million people for whom origin was allocated in both

100-percent and sample processing.
20

If we take into consideration also the situations in which we imputed a value in the

100-percent procedures but did not impute a value in the sample procedures, the

100-percent edit produced a net overall of about 161,000 more Hispanics than did the

sample procedures.11 Assuming that the sample edit and imputation process is more

accurate, the 100-percent edit appears to have imputed as Hispanic a net total of 161,000

people who were probably not Hispanic. However, this number represents only 1.8

percent of all people whose origin was imputed. It is also important to keep in mind that

both edit procedures agreed on the edit outcome 96 percent of the time.

It is clear from this table that the impact of this potential misallocation is different by

race. The apparent degree of over-editing of Hispanics (as measured by taking the ratio of

“Hispanic-100%; Not Hispanic – Sample” to “Not Hispanic – 100%; Hispanic –

Sample”) appeared to be much greater for Blacks (10.0) and Asian and Pacific Islanders

(13.1) than for Whites (4.4). Analysis of the unweighted data shows the same pattern,

but slightly lower ratios for each group. This finding is consistent with Del Pinal’s

finding that certain race/Hispanic combinations were more significantly affected by the

editing procedures.

 

11 This was possible because we only captured optical marks in the 100-percent data processing and a person could

have written in a response without marking any circles. Although the write-in entry could have been either an

Hispanic or a non-Hispanic entry, most of the time the entry was Hispanic.
21

It is important to keep in mind that the estimate of 161,000 is probably a lower bound

because these data were obtained from sample forms that had a lower nonresponse rate and

had much more ethnic-related information than did short form questionnaires. It is possible

that the level of misallocation would be higher among the population that received only the

short form, which experienced a higher nonresponse rate for origin than did the sample

form. However, it is unlikely that the upper bound would be as high as the difference

between the 100-percent and sample totals (454,000) because: 1) sample processing

changed about 262,000 responses from “Other Spanish/Hispanic” to not Hispanic12 and 2)

to an unknown degree there was undersampling of Hispanics for which the sample

weighting procedures did not compensate.

It is also very important to keep in mind that the impact on the overall total Hispanic

population was very small. Overall, this net difference (161,000) represented only

0.7 percent of the total Hispanic population.

D. Impact of Edit and Imputation Procedures on Hispanic Origin Population in Census 2000

There are no comparable data available at this time from Census 2000 to perform the

same type of analysis that was conducted on the 1990 census edit and imputation

procedures. However, it is very clear that the Census 2000 procedures operated in an

environment that was profoundly different from that in which the 1990 procedures

operated. Significantly reduced nonresponse to the question, combined with more

restrictions on the conditions under which origin could be assigned to an individual,

 

12 Based on the fact that the respondent provided a non-Hispanic response in the write-in space.
22

probably has led to much lower level of erroneous imputations as Hispanic (or nonHispanic).13 At the same time, innovations, such as the surname-assisted hot deck, has

improved the accuracy and, therefore, the quality of data from the Hispanic origin

question.

 

13 Another example of this is how we handled situations in which a respondent indicated that he or she was Hispanic

and non-Hispanic. This situation occurred about 700,000 times nationally. Instead of simply assuming that all such

people should be Hispanic, we looked at information provided by the respondent (such as the reporting of an

Hispanic origin in race), information provided by others in the household, and ultimately by the hot deck, to

adjudicate these situations. As it turned out, about half of the people were assigned as Hispanic and half were

assigned as not Hispanic.
23

VI. Conclusion

From the information provided above we have come to the following conclusions:

1. There is no evidence based on a comparison of edit and imputation procedures from

Census 2000 and the 1990 census for the place of birth question to conclude that

differences in the procedures would have explained differences in the overall total of the

foreign born population in 2000 and in 1990. There were some changes in the edit and

imputation procedures between the two censuses, but none of these would have had any

significant impact on the overall total of the foreign born.

2. There were some significant differences in the edit and imputation procedures between

the two censuses for the Hispanic origin question. The most important of these was the

use of surname-assisted hot decks in Census 2000. These hot decks allowed for much

greater precision in assigning an origin from neighboring housing units when no one in

the household answered the question. Furthermore, there was a dramatic improvement in

response to the Hispanic question in Census 2000, thus reducing the need (relative to

1990) for providing a response through edit and imputation procedures. In fact, there is

evidence from 1990 that the combination of higher nonresponse, greater use of hot deck

procedures, and lack of the benefit of surname-assisted hot deck procedures (surname

capture was not done in 1990 for all census forms) led to some over-editing of people as

Hispanic.

We will continue our analysis of the quality of Census 2000 origin data as sample data

and data from other evaluation studies become available.
24

VI. Bibliography

Sources cited in report:

Del Pinal, Jorge. “Social Science Principles: Forming Race-Ethnic Categories for Policy

Analysis.” Paper presented at the “Workshop on Race and Ethnicity Classification: An

Assessment of the Federal Standard for Race and Ethnicity Classification,” National

Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education,

Committee on National Statistics, February 18, 1994.

Thompson, John H. “Difference Between Complete Count Figures and Sample Estimates by

Race/Origin.” Memorandum from John H. Thompson, Chief, Statistical Support Division

to Charles D. Jones, Associate Director, Decennial Census, December 19, 1991.

Demographic Analysis–Population Estimates (DAPE) Research Project Reports Related to

Evaluating Components of International Migration (in order of Working Paper Series

Number):

Deardorff, K. and L. Blumerman. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration:

Estimates of the Foreign-Born Population by Migrant Status: 2000. (Population Division

Working Paper #58) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Perry, M., B. Van der Vate, L. Auman, and K. Morris. 2001. Evaluating Components of

International Migration: Legal Migrants. (Population Division Working Paper #59)

(December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Cassidy, R. and L. Pearson. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration:

Temporary (Legal) Migrants. (Population Division Working Paper #60) (December

2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Costanzo, J., C. Davis, C. Irazi, D. Goodkind, R. Ramirez. 2001. Evaluating Components of

International Migration: The Residual Foreign Born. (Population Division Working

Paper #61) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Mulder, T., B. Guzmán, and A. Brittingham. 2001. Evaluating Components of International

Migration: Foreign-Born Emigrants. (Population Division Working Paper #62)

(December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Gibbs, J., G. Harper, M. Rubin, H. Shin. 2001. Evaluating Components of International

Migration: Native Emigrants. (Population Division Working Paper #63) (December

2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Christenson, M. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: Migration Between

Puerto Rico and the United States. (Population Division Working Paper #64) (December

2001) U.S. Census Bureau.
25

Cresce, A., R. Ramirez, and G. Spencer. 2001. Evaluating Components of International

Migration: Quality of Foreign-Born and Hispanic Population Data. (Population Division

Working Paper #65) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau.

Malone, N. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000

Nativity Data. (Population Division Working Paper #66) (December 2001) U.S. Census

Bureau.
26

VIII. Table A and Detailed Tables
Table 1. Total Allocation Rates for the Hispanic Question for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990 and 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Census Census

State 1990 2000

Geographic by

area region Total Hispanic 1/ Non-Hispanic Total Hispanic Non-Hispanic

 United States 2,3,4,5/ 10.4 6.1 10.8 5.6 6.3 5.5

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 11.6 7.1 11.7 5.8 7.3 5.7

 Midwest................................. (MW) 10.6 9.9 10.8 4.7 5.9 4.6

 South.................................... (S) 11.5 5.5 12.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

 West..................................... (W) 7.2 4.8 7.8 5.8 6.2 5.7

 State

 Alabama................................. S 12.3 11.4 12.3 6.9 8.1 6.9

 Alaska................................... W 4.6 5.4 4.5 5.5 4.7 5.5

 Airzona.................................. W 7.0 4.3 7.6 6.3 6.3 6.2

 Arkanasas.............................. S 6.6 6.9 6.6 5.5 5.9 5.5

 California................................ W 7.2 4.7 8.0 6.1 6.2 6.0

 Colorado................................. W 7.4 5.6 7.7 5.2 6.1 5.1

 Connecticut............................. NE 12.2 10.1 12.3 4.8 5.6 4.8

 Delware.................................. S 9.7 9.0 9.7 7.0 8.2 6.9

 District of Columbia................... S 18.3 11.7 18.6 11.0 8.1 11.2

 Florida.................................... S 10.7 8.2 11.0 5.7 6.0 5.7

 Georgia.................................. S 13.7 9.6 13.8 6.9 7.5 6.9

 Hawaii................................... W 8.2 8.4 8.2 7.7 6.2 7.8

 Idaho..................................... W 4.2 3.2 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.2

 Illinois..................................... MW 11.9 6.5 12.3 5.8 6.4 5.7

 Indiana................................... MW 11.1 8.0 11.2 5.2 6.5 5.1

 Iowa...................................... MW 10.1 8.5 10.1 3.5 4.8 3.4

 Kansas.................................. MW 8.0 6.0 8.1 4.1 4.6 4.0

 Kentucky................................ S 13.7 12.2 13.7 4.9 6.5 4.9

 Lousiana................................ S 14.4 13.6 14.4 6.4 7.3 6.4

 Maine..................................... NE 7.4 9.0 7.4 4.1 6.5 4.0

 Maryland................................ S 12.2 9.4 12.3 6.6 7.4 6.5

 Massachusetts........................ NE 11.8 9.9 11.9 5.2 6.5 5.1

 Michigan................................. MW 11.2 8.4 11.3 4.9 5.3 4.9

 Minnesota................................. MW 9.0 8.4 9.0 4.0 5.8 4.0

 Mississippi.............................. S 15.2 14.6 15.2 7.0 8.7 7.0

 Missouri................................... MW 11.5 8.9 11.5 4.4 5.5 4.4

 Montana................................. W 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.9 4.6

 Nebraska................................ MW 8.1 6.7 8.1 3.5 4.5 3.4

 Nevada.................................. W 9.0 6.7 9.3 6.5 6.3 6.5

 New Hampshire....................... NE 8.6 8.8 8.6 4.8 7.1 4.8

 New Jersey............................ NE 11.6 10.3 11.7 5.6 6.5 5.4

 New Mexico............................ W 6.0 4.7 6.9 6.4 6.3 6.4

 New York............................... NE 11.4 9.9 11.7 7.1 8.1 6.9

 North Carolina.......................... S 13.9 10.0 13.9 5.7 6.1 5.6

 North Dakota............................ MW 6.1 5.5 6.1 3.6 5.3 3.6

 Ohio...................................... MW 10.9 8.6 10.9 4.3 5.1 4.3

 Oklahoma............................... S 9.5 6.6 9.6 4.8 4.3 4.8

 Oregon................................... W 8.2 5.7 8.3 4.5 5.3 4.5

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 12.3 8.2 12.4 4.9 5.7 4.9

 Rhode Island........................... NE 14.7 14.6 14.7 6.2 8.9 5.9

 South Carolina......................... S 13.7 11.6 13.8 6.6 7.3 6.6

 South Dakota........................... MW 7.4 7.4 7.4 4.1 5.6 4.1

 Tennessee.............................. S 12.3 11.2 12.3 5.4 6.5 5.4

 Texas.................................... S 7.9 3.6 9.4 5.9 5.8 6.0

 Utah....................................... W 7.3 6.2 7.4 4.2 5.5 4.1

 Vermont................................. NE 4.3 5.6 4.3 4.9 7.2 4.8

 Virginia................................... S 12.0 8.2 12.1 5.5 6.1 5.5

 Washington............................. W 7.8 5.5 7.9 5.4 6.0 5.4

 West Virginia........................... S 12.4 14.5 12.4 4.6 7.6 4.6

 Wisconsin............................... MW 9.7 6.7 9.7 4.6 5.8 4.5

 Wyoming............................... W 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census; 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Hispanics may be of any race.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ For Census 2000, housing unit population and group quarters population are included. 

4/ For Census 1990, housing unit population only. 

5/ Total Allocation rates do not include pre-edit procedures such as obtaining Hispanic origin

 from multiple ethnic origin or from the race question.
Table 2. Total Household Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation Flag for the 

 United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total

Geographic by household Reported From Within

area region population Total origin race household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 242,012,129 100.0 89.5 0.2 1.8 8.0 0.7

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 49,299,141 100.0 88.2 0.3 2.0 8.8 0.8

 Midwest................................. (MW) 58,070,012 100.0 89.3 0.0 1.6 8.5 0.5

 South.................................... (S) 83,151,510 100.0 88.5 0.1 1.7 9.1 0.7

 West..................................... (W) 51,491,466 100.0 92.5 0.3 1.7 4.8 0.7

 State

 Alabama................................. S 3,948,185 100.0 87.7 0.0 1.6 10.1 0.7

 Alaska................................... W 529,342 100.0 95.4 0.0 1.2 2.9 0.5

 Airzona.................................. W 3,584,545 100.0 92.8 0.2 1.5 4.4 1.0

 Arkanasas.............................. S 2,292,393 100.0 93.4 0.0 1.0 5.2 0.4

 California................................ W 29,008,161 100.0 92.4 0.4 1.9 4.6 0.7

 Colorado................................. W 3,214,922 100.0 92.4 0.2 1.5 5.1 0.9

 Connecticut............................. NE 3,185,949 100.0 87.7 0.2 2.2 8.7 1.2

 Delware.................................. S 646,097 100.0 90.3 0.0 1.7 6.8 1.2

 District of Columbia................... S 565,183 100.0 81.3 0.4 2.3 13.5 2.4

 Florida.................................... S 12,630,465 100.0 89.2 0.1 1.9 7.9 0.9

 Georgia.................................. S 6,304,583 100.0 86.2 0.0 1.8 11.3 0.6

 Hawaii................................... W 1,070,597 100.0 91.7 0.1 2.0 5.3 1.0

 Idaho..................................... W 985,259 100.0 95.8 0.0 1.0 2.8 0.4

 Illinois..................................... MW 11,143,646 100.0 88.0 0.1 1.7 9.3 0.9

 Indiana................................... MW 5,382,167 100.0 88.9 0.0 1.6 9.1 0.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 2,677,235 100.0 89.9 0.0 1.5 8.3 0.3

 Kansas.................................. MW 2,394,809 100.0 91.9 0.0 1.3 6.2 0.5

 Kentucky................................ S 3,584,120 100.0 86.3 0.0 1.5 11.8 0.4

 Lousiana................................ S 4,107,395 100.0 85.6 0.0 1.9 11.8 0.7

 Maine..................................... NE 1,190,759 100.0 92.6 0.0 1.2 5.7 0.5

 Maryland................................ S 4,667,612 100.0 87.7 0.1 2.0 9.4 0.8

 Massachusetts........................ NE 5,802,118 100.0 88.1 0.1 2.1 8.8 0.9

 Michigan................................. MW 9,083,605 100.0 88.8 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.4

 Minnesota................................. MW 4,257,478 100.0 91.0 0.0 1.6 7.1 0.4

 Mississippi.............................. S 2,503,499 100.0 84.8 0.0 1.7 12.9 0.5

 Missouri................................... MW 4,971,676 100.0 88.5 0.0 1.5 9.6 0.3

 Montana................................. W 775,318 100.0 95.2 0.0 1.0 3.4 0.4

 Nebraska................................ MW 1,530,832 100.0 91.9 0.0 1.4 6.5 0.3

 Nevada.................................. W 1,177,633 100.0 90.8 0.1 1.8 6.8 0.5

 New Hampshire....................... NE 1,077,101 100.0 91.4 0.0 1.4 6.5 0.7

 New Jersey............................ NE 7,558,820 100.0 88.1 0.3 2.2 8.4 1.0

 New Mexico............................ W 1,486,262 100.0 93.4 0.6 1.6 3.4 1.1

 New York............................... NE 17,445,190 100.0 88.1 0.5 2.2 8.5 0.8

 North Carolina.......................... S 6,404,167 100.0 86.1 0.0 1.5 11.9 0.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 614,566 100.0 93.9 0.0 1.0 4.9 0.3

 Ohio...................................... MW 10,585,664 100.0 89.1 0.0 1.7 8.9 0.4

 Oklahoma............................... S 3,051,908 100.0 90.5 0.0 1.6 7.4 0.6

 Oregon................................... W 2,776,116 100.0 91.8 0.0 1.5 6.3 0.3

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 11,533,219 100.0 87.6 0.0 1.7 10.1 0.5

 Rhode Island........................... NE 964,869 100.0 85.1 0.3 2.2 10.7 1.8

 South Carolina......................... S 3,370,160 100.0 86.3 0.0 1.6 11.3 0.8

 South Dakota........................... MW 670,163 100.0 92.6 0.0 1.3 5.5 0.5

 Tennessee.............................. S 4,748,056 100.0 87.7 0.0 1.5 10.4 0.4

 Texas.................................... S 16,593,063 100.0 91.8 0.3 1.6 5.6 0.7

 Utah....................................... W 1,693,802 100.0 92.7 0.1 1.8 5.1 0.4

 Vermont................................. NE 541,116 100.0 95.7 0.0 1.0 2.7 0.5

 Virginia................................... S 5,978,058 100.0 87.9 0.1 1.7 9.9 0.5

 Washington............................. W 4,746,161 100.0 92.1 0.0 1.6 5.8 0.5

 West Virginia........................... S 1,756,566 100.0 87.6 0.0 1.4 10.6 0.5

 Wisconsin............................... MW 4,758,171 100.0 90.3 0.0 1.6 7.8 0.3

 Wyoming............................... W 443,348 100.0 94.9 0.0 1.2 3.1 0.7

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census. 

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported their origin; "From race" means that an origin

was obtained from a write-in response to the question on race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from 

someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring 

household using the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for

everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Not allocated Allocated

Percent distribution by flag type 1/
Table 3. Total Hispanic Household Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation Flag

 for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Total

State Hispanic 1/

Geographic by houshold Reported From Within

area region population Total origin race household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 3,4/ 21,836,827 100.0 92.2 1.7 2.9 2.3 0.9

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 3,637,380 100.0 86.7 3.4 4.3 4.4 1.3

 Midwest................................. (MW) 1,688,349 100.0 91.6 1.3 3.2 3.0 1.0

 South.................................... (S) 6,629,262 100.0 93.4 1.1 2.6 2.2 0.7

 West..................................... (W) 9,881,836 100.0 93.6 1.6 2.5 1.5 0.8

 State

 Alabama................................. S 23,065 100.0 88.2 0.4 5.1 5.7 0.5

 Alaska................................... W 16,388 100.0 94.0 0.6 3.1 1.7 0.6

 Airzona.................................. W 674,314 100.0 94.8 1.0 2.0 1.4 0.9

 Arkanasas.............................. S 19,049 100.0 92.6 0.5 4.1 2.5 0.4

 California................................ W 7,520,200 100.0 93.6 1.7 2.5 1.4 0.8

 Colorado................................. W 414,887 100.0 93.2 1.2 2.4 2.3 1.0

 Connecticut............................. NE 206,017 100.0 87.4 2.5 3.9 3.7 2.5

 Delware.................................. S 15,375 100.0 89.6 1.4 3.7 3.4 1.9

 District of Columbia................... S 31,120 100.0 81.2 7.0 4.0 4.1 3.6

 Florida.................................... S 1,542,290 100.0 90.9 0.9 4.2 3.3 0.7

 Georgia.................................. S 100,695 100.0 89.1 1.3 4.5 4.3 0.8

 Hawaii................................... W 78,524 100.0 91.0 0.7 4.1 3.2 1.0

 Idaho..................................... W 51,175 100.0 96.4 0.4 1.7 1.1 0.4

 Illinois..................................... MW 890,189 100.0 91.8 1.7 2.5 2.6 1.4

 Indiana................................... MW 95,887 100.0 91.0 1.0 4.0 3.6 0.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 31,527 100.0 90.9 0.5 4.3 3.9 0.4

 Kansas.................................. MW 90,547 100.0 93.2 0.8 2.8 2.0 1.1

 Kentucky................................ S 19,372 100.0 87.3 0.5 5.3 6.5 0.5

 Lousiana................................ S 89,220 100.0 84.6 1.8 5.3 7.2 1.0

 Maine..................................... NE 6,382 100.0 90.6 0.4 4.7 3.7 0.5

 Maryland................................ S 121,976 100.0 87.6 2.9 4.9 3.7 0.8

 Massachusetts........................ NE 276,236 100.0 87.3 2.8 3.9 4.1 1.9

 Michigan................................. MW 196,383 100.0 90.8 0.8 4.3 3.7 0.4

 Minnesota................................. MW 51,993 100.0 90.9 0.7 4.2 3.4 0.8

 Mississippi.............................. S 15,029 100.0 85.1 0.4 5.3 8.8 0.4

 Missouri................................... MW 59,405 100.0 90.5 0.6 4.1 4.2 0.6

 Montana................................. W 11,723 100.0 94.8 0.5 2.6 1.8 0.2

 Nebraska................................ MW 36,071 100.0 92.6 0.7 3.3 3.2 0.3

 Nevada.................................. W 122,501 100.0 92.0 1.3 3.4 2.9 0.4

 New Hampshire....................... NE 10,816 100.0 90.6 0.6 4.6 3.4 0.7

 New Jersey............................ NE 724,081 100.0 86.8 2.9 4.6 4.4 1.3

 New Mexico............................ W 570,491 100.0 93.9 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.0

 New York............................... NE 2,145,357 100.0 86.2 3.9 4.2 4.5 1.1

 North Carolina.......................... S 69,840 100.0 89.3 0.8 4.9 4.6 0.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 4,414 100.0 94.2 0.3 2.8 2.4 0.4

 Ohio...................................... MW 136,316 100.0 90.6 0.8 4.2 4.0 0.4

 Oklahoma............................... S 83,322 100.0 92.2 1.2 3.7 2.4 0.5

 Oregon................................... W 107,273 100.0 93.5 0.8 3.1 2.1 0.5

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 220,763 100.0 90.4 1.4 3.6 3.9 0.8

 Rhode Island........................... NE 44,459 100.0 79.7 5.7 5.2 6.4 3.0

 South Carolina......................... S 27,697 100.0 87.7 0.7 5.4 5.4 0.9

 South Dakota........................... MW 5,006 100.0 92.3 0.3 3.8 3.1 0.5

 Tennessee.............................. S 30,318 100.0 88.2 0.6 5.1 5.7 0.4

 Texas.................................... S 4,278,707 100.0 95.3 1.1 1.7 1.3 0.6

 Utah....................................... W 82,151 100.0 92.7 1.1 3.3 2.3 0.5

 Vermont................................. NE 3,269 100.0 93.9 0.5 3.2 2.3 0.2

 Virginia................................... S 154,196 100.0 89.0 2.8 4.4 3.2 0.6

 Washington............................. W 206,978 100.0 93.4 1.0 3.0 1.9 0.6

 West Virginia........................... S 7,991 100.0 85.1 0.4 5.3 8.6 0.6

 Wisconsin............................... MW 90,611 100.0 92.5 0.8 3.4 2.8 0.5

 Wyoming............................... W 25,231 100.0 94.2 0.9 2.5 1.7 0.7

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Hispanics may be of any race.

2/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported their origin; "From race" means that an origin

was obtained from a write-in response to the question on race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from 

someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring 

household using the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for

everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

3/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

4/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Not allocated Allocated

Percent distribution by flag type 2/
Table 4. Total Non-Hispanic Household Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation

 Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Total

State Non-Hispanic Not Allocated

Geographic by household Reported Within

area region population Total origin household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 220,175,302 100.0 89.2 1.6 8.5 0.6

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 45,661,761 100.0 88.3 1.9 9.1 0.8

 Midwest................................. (MW) 56,381,663 100.0 89.2 1.6 8.7 0.5

 South.................................... (S) 76,522,248 100.0 88.0 1.6 9.7 0.7

 West..................................... (W) 41,609,630 100.0 92.2 1.6 5.5 0.7

 State

 Alabama................................. S 3,925,120 100.0 87.7 1.6 10.1 0.7

 Alaska................................... W 512,954 100.0 95.5 1.1 2.9 0.5

 Airzona.................................. W 2,910,231 100.0 92.4 1.4 5.1 1.1

 Arkanasas.............................. S 2,273,344 100.0 93.4 1.0 5.2 0.4

 California................................ W 21,487,961 100.0 92.0 1.7 5.6 0.7

 Colorado................................. W 2,800,035 100.0 92.3 1.3 5.5 0.9

 Connecticut............................. NE 2,979,932 100.0 87.7 2.1 9.1 1.1

 Delware.................................. S 630,722 100.0 90.3 1.7 6.9 1.1

 District of Columbia................... S 534,063 100.0 81.4 2.2 14.0 2.4

 Florida.................................... S 11,088,175 100.0 89.0 1.6 8.5 0.9

 Georgia.................................. S 6,203,888 100.0 86.2 1.8 11.4 0.6

 Hawaii................................... W 992,073 100.0 91.8 1.8 5.4 1.0

 Idaho..................................... W 934,084 100.0 95.7 1.0 2.9 0.4

 Illinois..................................... MW 10,253,457 100.0 87.7 1.7 9.8 0.8

 Indiana................................... MW 5,286,280 100.0 88.8 1.5 9.2 0.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 2,645,708 100.0 89.9 1.5 8.4 0.3

 Kansas.................................. MW 2,304,262 100.0 91.9 1.2 6.4 0.5

 Kentucky................................ S 3,564,748 100.0 86.3 1.5 11.8 0.4

 Lousiana................................ S 4,018,175 100.0 85.6 1.8 11.9 0.7

 Maine..................................... NE 1,184,377 100.0 92.6 1.2 5.7 0.5

 Maryland................................ S 4,545,636 100.0 87.7 1.9 9.5 0.8

 Massachusetts........................ NE 5,525,882 100.0 88.1 2.0 9.0 0.9

 Michigan................................. MW 8,887,222 100.0 88.7 1.8 9.0 0.4

 Minnesota................................. MW 4,205,485 100.0 91.0 1.5 7.1 0.4

 Mississippi.............................. S 2,488,470 100.0 84.8 1.7 13.0 0.5

 Missouri................................... MW 4,912,271 100.0 88.5 1.5 9.6 0.3

 Montana................................. W 763,595 100.0 95.2 1.0 3.4 0.4

 Nebraska................................ MW 1,494,761 100.0 91.9 1.3 6.5 0.3

 Nevada.................................. W 1,055,132 100.0 90.7 1.6 7.2 0.5

 New Hampshire....................... NE 1,066,285 100.0 91.4 1.4 6.5 0.7

 New Jersey............................ NE 6,834,739 100.0 88.3 2.0 8.8 1.0

 New Mexico............................ W 915,771 100.0 93.1 1.4 4.4 1.1

 New York............................... NE 15,299,833 100.0 88.3 1.9 9.0 0.7

 North Carolina.......................... S 6,334,327 100.0 86.1 1.5 11.9 0.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 610,152 100.0 93.9 1.0 4.9 0.3

 Ohio...................................... MW 10,449,348 100.0 89.1 1.6 8.9 0.4

 Oklahoma............................... S 2,968,586 100.0 90.4 1.5 7.5 0.6

 Oregon................................... W 2,668,843 100.0 91.7 1.4 6.5 0.3

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 11,312,456 100.0 87.6 1.7 10.2 0.5

 Rhode Island........................... NE 920,410 100.0 85.3 2.0 10.9 1.7

 South Carolina......................... S 3,342,463 100.0 86.2 1.6 11.3 0.8

 South Dakota........................... MW 665,157 100.0 92.6 1.3 5.6 0.5

 Tennessee.............................. S 4,717,738 100.0 87.7 1.5 10.4 0.4

 Texas.................................... S 12,314,356 100.0 90.6 1.5 7.1 0.8

 Utah....................................... W 1,611,651 100.0 92.6 1.7 5.3 0.4

 Vermont................................. NE 537,847 100.0 95.7 1.0 2.7 0.5

 Virginia................................... S 5,823,862 100.0 87.9 1.6 10.1 0.5

 Washington............................. W 4,539,183 100.0 92.1 1.5 6.0 0.5

 West Virginia........................... S 1,748,575 100.0 87.6 1.3 10.6 0.5

 Wisconsin............................... MW 4,667,560 100.0 90.3 1.5 7.9 0.3

 Wyoming............................... W 418,117 100.0 95.0 1.2 3.2 0.6

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported their origin; "Within household" means

that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained

from another neighboring household using the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other

characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Allocated
Table 5. Total Allocation counts for the Hispanic Origin Question by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Not allocated

Geographic by Total From Within

area region Allocations Total race household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 25,498,385 100.0 1.5 16.6 75.6 6.3

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 5,837,034 100.0 2.1 17.1 74.0 6.8

 Midwest................................. (MW) 6,203,124 100.0 0.3 15.4 79.8 4.5

 South.................................... (S) 9,597,980 100.0 0.8 14.5 78.9 5.9

 West..................................... (W) 3,860,247 100.0 4.0 23.2 63.5 9.4

 State

 Alabama................................. S 487,463 100.0 0.0 12.8 81.7 5.5

 Alaska................................... W 24,256 100.0 0.4 25.2 62.3 12.0

 Airzona.................................. W 257,539 100.0 2.6 21.0 61.9 14.5

 Arkanasas.............................. S 150,724 100.0 0.1 15.9 78.7 5.3

 California................................ W 2,211,988 100.0 5.7 25.0 59.7 9.6

 Colorado................................. W 243,634 100.0 2.0 19.5 66.9 11.6

 Connecticut............................. NE 393,364 100.0 1.3 18.2 70.7 9.9

 Delware.................................. S 62,625 100.0 0.3 17.7 70.0 12.0

 District of Columbia................... S 105,411 100.0 2.1 12.6 72.3 13.1

 Florida.................................... S 1,363,170 100.0 1.0 17.5 73.0 8.5

 Georgia.................................. S 867,151 100.0 0.2 13.4 81.9 4.6

 Hawaii................................... W 88,764 100.0 0.6 23.6 63.7 12.2

 Idaho..................................... W 41,865 100.0 0.5 23.8 66.3 9.5

 Illinois..................................... MW 1,338,904 100.0 1.1 14.5 77.0 7.4

 Indiana................................... MW 599,692 100.0 0.2 14.1 81.2 4.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 271,115 100.0 0.1 14.8 82.4 2.7

 Kansas.................................. MW 192,866 100.0 0.4 15.8 77.4 6.5

 Kentucky................................ S 489,924 100.0 0.0 10.9 86.2 2.8

 Lousiana................................ S 592,776 100.0 0.3 13.0 81.7 5.1

 Maine..................................... NE 88,357 100.0 0.0 16.1 77.1 6.8

 Maryland................................ S 573,510 100.0 0.6 16.5 76.4 6.5

 Massachusetts........................ NE 693,164 100.0 1.1 17.4 73.8 7.8

 Michigan................................. MW 1,020,622 100.0 0.2 16.9 79.3 3.6

 Minnesota................................. MW 384,478 100.0 0.1 17.3 78.1 4.5

 Mississippi.............................. S 380,968 100.0 0.0 11.5 85.0 3.6

 Missouri................................... MW 569,891 100.0 0.1 13.5 83.4 3.0

 Montana................................. W 37,415 100.0 0.1 21.5 70.8 7.6

 Nebraska................................ MW 123,987 100.0 0.2 16.7 79.8 3.3

 Nevada.................................. W 108,086 100.0 1.5 19.6 73.8 5.1

 New Hampshire....................... NE 92,267 100.0 0.1 16.8 75.6 7.6

 New Jersey............................ NE 896,649 100.0 2.3 18.6 70.6 8.5

 New Mexico............................ W 97,897 100.0 8.5 23.6 51.7 16.2

 New York............................... NE 2,079,040 100.0 4.0 18.6 70.9 6.4

 North Carolina.......................... S 888,629 100.0 0.1 11.0 85.4 3.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 37,759 100.0 0.0 15.9 79.9 4.2

 Ohio...................................... MW 1,153,333 100.0 0.1 15.4 81.3 3.2

 Oklahoma............................... S 291,364 100.0 0.3 16.7 77.1 5.9

 Oregon................................... W 227,704 100.0 0.4 18.2 77.1 4.3

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 1,427,137 100.0 0.2 13.7 81.6 4.4

 Rhode Island........................... NE 143,990 100.0 1.7 14.5 71.7 12.0

 South Carolina......................... S 463,173 100.0 0.0 12.0 82.0 6.0

 South Dakota........................... MW 49,535 100.0 0.0 17.9 74.9 7.2

 Tennessee.............................. S 584,098 100.0 0.0 12.0 84.5 3.5

 Texas.................................... S 1,355,168 100.0 3.4 19.2 68.4 9.0

 Utah....................................... W 124,430 100.0 0.7 23.8 69.9 5.6

 Vermont................................. NE 23,066 100.0 0.1 23.8 63.4 12.7

 Virginia................................... S 723,635 100.0 0.6 13.9 81.7 3.8

 Washington............................. W 374,238 100.0 0.6 19.8 73.7 6.0

 West Virginia........................... S 218,191 100.0 0.0 11.0 85.0 4.0

 Wisconsin............................... MW 460,942 100.0 0.2 16.1 80.5 3.2

 Wyoming............................... W 22,431 100.0 1.0 24.6 61.6 12.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "From race" means that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the question on

race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; 

 "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using the hot deck procedure;

 and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained

 from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Allocated
Table 6. Total Allocation counts for Hispanics by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total Not allocated

Geographic by Hispanic 1/ From Within

area region Allocations Total race household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 2,4/ 1,693,165 100.0 22.0 37.1 29.9 11.0

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 483,920 100.0 25.6 31.9 33.0 9.4

 Midwest................................. (MW) 141,803 100.0 14.9 37.8 35.5 11.7

 South.................................... (S) 436,582 100.0 17.2 39.6 32.8 10.4

 West..................................... (W) 630,860 100.0 24.3 39.1 24.2 12.4

 State

 Alabama................................. S 2,721 100.0 3.7 43.4 48.7 4.1

 Alaska................................... W 985 100.0 10.6 52.2 27.8 9.4

 Airzona.................................. W 35,394 100.0 18.6 37.5 27.0 16.9

 Arkanasas.............................. S 1,404 100.0 6.3 55.1 33.9 4.8

 California................................ W 483,766 100.0 26.2 39.5 22.2 12.1

 Colorado................................. W 28,349 100.0 17.4 34.8 33.3 14.5

 Connecticut............................. NE 25,891 100.0 19.8 31.2 29.1 19.9

 Delware.................................. S 1,593 100.0 13.2 35.9 32.4 18.5

 District of Columbia................... S 5,840 100.0 37.6 21.4 21.9 19.2

 Florida.................................... S 140,488 100.0 9.9 45.6 36.3 8.2

 Georgia.................................. S 10,992 100.0 12.2 41.1 39.6 7.2

 Hawaii................................... W 7,105 100.0 7.6 45.8 35.5 11.1

 Idaho..................................... W 1,865 100.0 11.8 45.8 30.4 12.0

 Illinois..................................... MW 72,822 100.0 20.4 31.1 31.6 17.0

 Indiana................................... MW 8,612 100.0 10.8 44.1 39.6 5.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 2,857 100.0 6.0 47.0 42.5 4.5

 Kansas.................................. MW 6,179 100.0 11.7 41.8 30.0 16.6

 Kentucky................................ S 2,465 100.0 3.8 41.3 51.2 3.7

 Lousiana................................ S 13,724 100.0 11.4 34.7 47.0 6.8

 Maine..................................... NE 597 100.0 3.9 50.8 39.9 5.5

 Maryland................................ S 15,079 100.0 23.8 39.3 30.1 6.8

 Massachusetts........................ NE 35,094 100.0 22.0 30.7 32.6 14.6

 Michigan................................. MW 18,065 100.0 9.2 46.8 40.0 4.0

 Minnesota................................. MW 4,712 100.0 7.5 46.1 37.5 9.0

 Mississippi.............................. S 2,246 100.0 2.6 35.6 58.9 2.9

 Missouri................................... MW 5,668 100.0 6.8 42.8 44.1 6.4

 Montana................................. W 604 100.0 8.9 51.2 35.1 4.8

 Nebraska................................ MW 2,681 100.0 10.0 43.9 42.4 3.8

 Nevada.................................. W 9,802 100.0 16.5 42.6 36.1 4.9

 New Hampshire....................... NE 1,013 100.0 6.5 49.5 36.6 7.4

 New Jersey............................ NE 95,303 100.0 22.1 35.1 33.1 9.6

 New Mexico............................ W 34,974 100.0 23.8 29.8 30.4 16.0

 New York............................... NE 295,646 100.0 28.4 30.8 32.9 7.8

 North Carolina.......................... S 7,497 100.0 7.2 45.8 42.5 4.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 257 100.0 5.1 47.5 40.5 7.0

 Ohio...................................... MW 12,773 100.0 8.6 44.6 42.9 3.9

 Oklahoma............................... S 6,463 100.0 14.9 47.9 30.4 6.9

 Oregon................................... W 6,988 100.0 11.9 48.0 32.9 7.1

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 21,150 100.0 14.8 37.1 40.3 7.8

 Rhode Island........................... NE 9,027 100.0 27.9 25.7 31.7 14.7

 South Carolina......................... S 3,401 100.0 5.5 43.9 43.6 6.9

 South Dakota........................... MW 386 100.0 4.4 48.7 39.9 7.0

 Tennessee.............................. S 3,583 100.0 4.9 43.1 48.3 3.8

 Texas.................................... S 200,990 100.0 22.7 35.6 28.1 13.7

 Utah....................................... W 5,968 100.0 15.3 45.8 32.1 6.8

 Vermont................................. NE 199 100.0 7.5 52.3 37.2 3.0

 Virginia................................... S 16,904 100.0 25.4 40.0 29.3 5.3

 Washington............................. W 13,594 100.0 15.7 45.4 29.5 9.4

 West Virginia........................... S 1,192 100.0 2.6 35.4 57.9 4.1

 Wisconsin............................... MW 6,791 100.0 10.7 45.0 37.9 6.4

 Wyoming............................... W 1,466 100.0 14.8 43.2 30.1 11.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Hispanics may be of any race.

2/ Flag type definitions: "From race" means that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the question on

race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; 

 "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using the hot deck procedure;

 and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained

 from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

3/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

4/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Percent distribution by flag type 2/

Allocated
Table 7. Total Allocation counts for Non-Hispanics by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 1990.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total

Geographic by Non-Hispanic Within

area region Allocations Total household Hot deck Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 23,805,220 100.0 15.2 78.9 5.9

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 5,353,114 100.0 15.7 77.7 6.6

 Midwest................................. (MW) 6,061,321 100.0 14.8 80.8 4.3

 South.................................... (S) 9,161,398 100.0 13.3 81.1 5.6

 West..................................... (W) 3,229,387 100.0 20.0 71.2 8.8

 State

 Alabama................................. S 484,742 100.0 12.6 81.9 5.5

 Alaska................................... W 23,271 100.0 24.1 63.8 12.1

 Airzona.................................. W 222,145 100.0 18.4 67.4 14.2

 Arkanasas.............................. S 149,320 100.0 15.6 79.1 5.3

 California................................ W 1,728,222 100.0 20.9 70.2 8.9

 Colorado................................. W 215,285 100.0 17.5 71.3 11.2

 Connecticut............................. NE 367,473 100.0 17.2 73.6 9.2

 Delware.................................. S 61,032 100.0 17.2 71.0 11.8

 District of Columbia................... S 99,571 100.0 12.0 75.2 12.7

 Florida.................................... S 1,222,682 100.0 14.3 77.2 8.6

 Georgia.................................. S 856,159 100.0 13.0 82.4 4.6

 Hawaii................................... W 81,659 100.0 21.6 66.1 12.2

 Idaho..................................... W 40,000 100.0 22.7 67.9 9.3

 Illinois..................................... MW 1,266,082 100.0 13.6 79.6 6.8

 Indiana................................... MW 591,080 100.0 13.7 81.8 4.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 268,258 100.0 14.5 82.8 2.7

 Kansas.................................. MW 186,687 100.0 14.9 79.0 6.1

 Kentucky................................ S 487,459 100.0 10.8 86.4 2.8

 Lousiana................................ S 579,052 100.0 12.5 82.5 5.0

 Maine..................................... NE 87,760 100.0 15.8 77.4 6.8

 Maryland................................ S 558,431 100.0 15.9 77.7 6.5

 Massachusetts........................ NE 658,070 100.0 16.6 76.0 7.4

 Michigan................................. MW 1,002,557 100.0 16.3 80.1 3.6

 Minnesota................................. MW 379,766 100.0 16.9 78.6 4.5

 Mississippi.............................. S 378,722 100.0 11.3 85.1 3.6

 Missouri................................... MW 564,223 100.0 13.2 83.8 3.0

 Montana................................. W 36,811 100.0 21.0 71.3 7.7

 Nebraska................................ MW 121,306 100.0 16.1 80.6 3.2

 Nevada.................................. W 98,284 100.0 17.3 77.5 5.2

 New Hampshire....................... NE 91,254 100.0 16.4 76.0 7.6

 New Jersey............................ NE 801,346 100.0 16.6 75.0 8.4

 New Mexico............................ W 62,923 100.0 20.2 63.6 16.3

 New York............................... NE 1,783,394 100.0 16.6 77.2 6.2

 North Carolina.......................... S 881,132 100.0 10.8 85.8 3.4

 North Dakota............................ MW 37,502 100.0 15.7 80.2 4.2

 Ohio...................................... MW 1,140,560 100.0 15.1 81.7 3.2

 Oklahoma............................... S 284,901 100.0 15.9 78.2 5.9

 Oregon................................... W 220,716 100.0 17.3 78.5 4.2

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 1,405,987 100.0 13.4 82.2 4.4

 Rhode Island........................... NE 134,963 100.0 13.8 74.4 11.8

 South Carolina......................... S 459,772 100.0 11.7 82.3 6.0

 South Dakota........................... MW 49,149 100.0 17.7 75.1 7.2

 Tennessee.............................. S 580,515 100.0 11.8 84.7 3.5

 Texas.................................... S 1,154,178 100.0 16.4 75.5 8.1

 Utah....................................... W 118,462 100.0 22.7 71.8 5.5

 Vermont................................. NE 22,867 100.0 23.5 63.7 12.8

 Virginia................................... S 706,731 100.0 13.3 82.9 3.8

 Washington............................. W 360,644 100.0 18.8 75.3 5.9

 West Virginia........................... S 216,999 100.0 10.8 85.1 4.0

 Wisconsin............................... MW 454,151 100.0 15.7 81.1 3.2

 Wyoming............................... W 20,965 100.0 23.3 63.8 12.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the 

household of the respondent; "Hot deck" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring

household using the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other 

characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using 

substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population only. 

Allocated

Percent distribution by flag type 1/
Table 8. Total Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation Flag for the 

 United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State

Geographic by Total Reported Multiple From Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region population Total origin origin race household surname no surname Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 281,421,906 100.0 94.0 0.2 0.2 1.9 1.9 0.6 1.2

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 53,594,378 100.0 93.8 0.3 0.1 1.9 1.8 0.6 1.5

 Midwest................................. (MW) 64,392,776 100.0 95.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.7 0.5 0.9

 South.................................... (S) 100,236,820 100.0 93.7 0.2 0.1 1.9 2.3 0.6 1.3

 West..................................... (W) 63,197,932 100.0 93.5 0.4 0.3 2.5 1.4 0.7 1.2

 State

 Alabama................................. S 4,447,100 100.0 93.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.0 0.6 1.6

 Alaska................................... W 626,932 100.0 94.4 0.1 0.1 2.4 1.2 0.9 0.9

 Airzona.................................. W 5,130,632 100.0 93.2 0.3 0.3 2.0 1.6 0.6 2.1

 Arkanasas.............................. S 2,673,400 100.0 94.4 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.5 0.6 0.8

 California................................ W 33,871,648 100.0 92.9 0.5 0.5 3.0 1.4 0.7 1.1

 Colorado................................. W 4,301,261 100.0 94.3 0.2 0.2 1.8 1.6 0.6 1.3

 Connecticut............................. NE 3,405,565 100.0 94.8 0.2 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.7 0.9

 Delware.................................. S 783,600 100.0 92.9 0.1 0.1 1.7 2.0 1.1 2.1

 District of Columbia................... S 572,059 100.0 88.7 0.1 0.2 2.9 3.2 2.6 2.2

 Florida.................................... S 15,982,378 100.0 93.8 0.4 0.1 1.9 1.9 0.5 1.4

 Georgia.................................. S 8,186,453 100.0 92.9 0.1 0.1 2.1 2.9 0.5 1.4

 Hawaii................................... W 1,211,537 100.0 91.6 0.6 0.1 3.4 1.7 1.2 1.4

 Idaho..................................... W 1,293,953 100.0 95.5 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.5 1.1

 Illinois..................................... MW 12,419,293 100.0 93.9 0.3 0.1 2.0 1.8 0.5 1.5

 Indiana................................... MW 6,080,485 100.0 94.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.8 0.4 1.6

 Iowa...................................... MW 2,926,324 100.0 96.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.3 0.4 0.5

 Kansas.................................. MW 2,688,418 100.0 95.7 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.7

 Kentucky................................ S 4,041,769 100.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.4 0.5 0.7

 Lousiana................................ S 4,468,976 100.0 93.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.7 0.6 1.2

 Maine..................................... NE 1,274,923 100.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.5 0.8

 Maryland................................ S 5,296,486 100.0 93.3 0.1 0.1 2.0 2.3 0.6 1.7

 Massachusetts........................ NE 6,349,097 100.0 94.5 0.2 0.1 1.6 1.9 0.7 1.0

 Michigan................................. MW 9,938,444 100.0 95.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.7

 Minnesota................................. MW 4,919,479 100.0 95.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.5 0.7

 Mississippi.............................. S 2,844,658 100.0 92.9 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.2 0.7 0.8

 Missouri................................... MW 5,595,211 100.0 95.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.8 0.5 0.7

 Montana................................. W 902,195 100.0 95.3 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.0

 Nebraska................................ MW 1,711,263 100.0 96.4 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.5

 Nevada.................................. W 1,998,257 100.0 93.0 0.3 0.2 2.2 1.3 0.8 2.2

 New Hampshire....................... NE 1,235,786 100.0 95.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.4

 New Jersey............................ NE 8,414,350 100.0 93.9 0.3 0.2 2.1 1.6 0.6 1.2

 New Mexico............................ W 1,819,046 100.0 92.6 0.4 0.6 2.0 1.4 0.9 2.1

 New York............................... NE 18,976,457 100.0 92.3 0.4 0.2 2.3 2.0 0.6 2.2

 North Carolina.......................... S 8,049,313 100.0 94.2 0.1 0.1 1.7 2.5 0.5 1.0

 North Dakota............................ MW 642,200 100.0 96.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.5

 Ohio...................................... MW 11,353,140 100.0 95.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.4 0.6

 Oklahoma............................... S 3,450,654 100.0 95.1 0.1 0.1 1.6 2.0 0.5 0.7

 Oregon................................... W 3,421,399 100.0 95.2 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.4 0.5 1.0

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 12,281,054 100.0 95.0 0.1 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.5 1.0

 Rhode Island........................... NE 1,048,319 100.0 93.4 0.2 0.1 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.7

 South Carolina......................... S 4,012,012 100.0 93.3 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.7 0.6 1.5

 South Dakota........................... MW 754,844 100.0 95.8 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.8

 Tennessee.............................. S 5,689,283 100.0 94.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.4 0.5 1.0

 Texas.................................... S 20,851,820 100.0 93.4 0.4 0.3 2.1 1.7 0.6 1.6

 Utah....................................... W 2,233,169 100.0 95.5 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.1 0.4 0.7

 Vermont................................. NE 608,827 100.0 95.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.6

 Virginia................................... S 7,078,515 100.0 94.3 0.1 0.1 1.7 2.3 0.5 1.0

 Washington............................. W 5,894,121 100.0 94.4 0.1 0.1 1.7 1.9 0.7 1.1

 West Virginia........................... S 1,808,344 100.0 95.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.3 0.6 0.5

 Wisconsin............................... MW 5,363,675 100.0 95.3 0.1 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.5 1.0

 Wyoming............................... W 493,782 100.0 94.6 0.1 0.1 1.6 1.1 0.8 1.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported his/her origin; "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two 

or more origin responses, but only one response was allowed; "From race" means that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the 

question on race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck surname" 

means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last name (Spanish or 

non-Spanish) determined the hot deck from which an origin could be assigned; "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin 

from a hot deck containing reported origins of people who either did not provide a name or their name could not be determined to be Spanish or not 

Spanish; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring 

households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Not Allocated Allocated
Table 9. Total Hispanic Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation Flag for the 

 United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total

Geographic by Hispanic 1/ Reported Multiple From Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region population Total origin origin race household surname no surname Substitution

 United States 3,4/ 35,305,818 100.0 90.8 1.7 1.2 3.6 0.7 0.4 1.6

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 5,254,087 100.0 88.9 2.5 1.4 3.6 0.8 0.5 2.4

 Midwest................................. (MW) 3,124,532 100.0 91.2 1.9 1.1 3.2 0.6 0.4 1.7

 South.................................... (S) 11,586,696 100.0 91.5 1.4 1.0 3.1 0.9 0.4 1.7

 West..................................... (W) 15,340,503 100.0 90.9 1.5 1.4 4.0 0.7 0.3 1.3

 State

 Alabama................................. S 75,830 100.0 89.5 1.2 1.1 4.7 0.6 0.9 1.9

 Alaska................................... W 25,852 100.0 91.8 2.1 1.4 2.3 0.4 1.2 0.8

 Airzona.................................. W 1,295,617 100.0 91.4 1.2 1.2 3.0 0.9 0.2 2.1

 Arkanasas.............................. S 86,866 100.0 91.6 1.3 1.2 3.7 0.5 0.6 1.1

 California................................ W 10,966,556 100.0 90.8 1.6 1.4 4.4 0.6 0.3 1.0

 Colorado................................. W 735,601 100.0 91.2 1.3 1.3 3.0 1.2 0.3 1.7

 Connecticut............................. NE 320,323 100.0 91.2 2.2 1.0 2.8 0.7 0.5 1.6

 Delware.................................. S 37,277 100.0 88.7 2.0 1.1 3.4 0.6 1.0 3.1

 District of Columbia................... S 44,953 100.0 88.0 1.6 2.3 4.8 0.7 1.1 1.5

 Florida.................................... S 2,682,715 100.0 91.1 2.3 0.6 3.2 0.8 0.4 1.6

 Georgia.................................. S 435,227 100.0 90.0 1.3 1.2 4.5 0.6 0.5 1.9

 Hawaii................................... W 87,699 100.0 86.1 5.9 1.9 3.4 0.3 0.6 1.9

 Idaho..................................... W 101,690 100.0 92.5 1.1 1.5 2.7 0.4 0.4 1.5

 Illinois..................................... MW 1,530,262 100.0 90.8 2.0 0.8 3.4 0.5 0.2 2.2

 Indiana................................... MW 214,536 100.0 90.4 1.9 1.2 2.9 0.7 0.4 2.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 82,473 100.0 92.7 1.2 1.3 2.8 0.4 0.5 1.0

 Kansas.................................. MW 188,252 100.0 92.7 1.3 1.5 2.6 0.6 0.3 1.1

 Kentucky................................ S 59,939 100.0 91.0 1.3 1.2 3.6 0.8 0.9 1.2

 Lousiana................................ S 107,738 100.0 89.9 1.6 1.2 3.7 0.8 1.5 1.4

 Maine..................................... NE 9,360 100.0 90.6 1.6 1.3 3.8 0.8 1.1 0.8

 Maryland................................ S 227,916 100.0 88.7 2.1 1.8 4.3 0.6 0.7 1.8

 Massachusetts........................ NE 428,729 100.0 89.5 2.4 1.5 3.2 1.1 0.9 1.5

 Michigan................................. MW 323,877 100.0 91.4 1.9 1.4 3.1 0.7 0.6 0.9

 Minnesota................................. MW 143,382 100.0 91.4 1.4 1.3 3.3 0.6 0.7 1.2

 Mississippi.............................. S 39,569 100.0 89.1 1.2 1.0 5.7 0.9 1.0 1.2

 Missouri................................... MW 118,592 100.0 92.0 1.3 1.3 3.0 0.5 0.8 1.2

 Montana................................. W 18,081 100.0 91.6 1.1 1.4 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.4

 Nebraska................................ MW 94,425 100.0 92.9 1.2 1.5 2.9 0.5 0.3 0.8

 Nevada.................................. W 393,970 100.0 91.0 1.6 1.1 3.6 0.4 0.4 1.9

 New Hampshire....................... NE 20,489 100.0 89.5 2.2 1.2 3.1 0.5 1.5 2.1

 New Jersey............................ NE 1,117,191 100.0 89.7 2.5 1.3 3.7 0.8 0.4 1.5

 New Mexico............................ W 765,386 100.0 91.4 1.0 1.4 2.1 1.5 0.4 2.4

 New York............................... NE 2,867,583 100.0 88.0 2.4 1.4 3.8 0.8 0.4 3.0

 North Carolina.......................... S 378,963 100.0 91.4 1.3 1.3 3.6 0.5 0.4 1.5

 North Dakota............................ MW 7,786 100.0 92.0 1.7 1.0 3.3 0.4 1.1 0.6

 Ohio...................................... MW 217,123 100.0 91.6 2.0 1.3 3.0 0.7 0.6 0.8

 Oklahoma............................... S 179,304 100.0 93.3 1.3 1.2 2.6 0.5 0.5 0.7

 Oregon................................... W 275,314 100.0 92.0 1.5 1.3 3.3 0.4 0.4 1.2

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 394,088 100.0 90.7 2.5 1.2 2.9 0.7 0.6 1.5

 Rhode Island........................... NE 90,820 100.0 87.2 2.2 1.7 3.3 0.8 0.8 4.0

 South Carolina......................... S 95,076 100.0 90.2 1.2 1.3 3.8 0.6 0.7 2.1

 South Dakota........................... MW 10,903 100.0 91.6 1.6 1.3 3.5 0.3 1.0 0.8

 Tennessee.............................. S 123,838 100.0 90.8 1.2 1.4 3.7 0.5 0.7 1.6

 Texas.................................... S 6,669,666 100.0 92.0 1.1 1.0 2.8 1.0 0.3 1.7

 Utah....................................... W 201,559 100.0 91.6 1.3 1.6 3.5 0.5 0.4 1.1

 Vermont................................. NE 5,504 100.0 90.0 1.6 1.2 3.5 0.7 1.5 1.5

 Virginia................................... S 329,540 100.0 90.5 1.7 1.7 3.8 0.6 0.6 1.1

 Washington............................. W 441,509 100.0 91.2 1.5 1.4 3.3 0.5 0.5 1.6

 West Virginia........................... S 12,279 100.0 90.2 1.2 0.9 5.1 1.0 1.0 0.5

 Wisconsin............................... MW 192,921 100.0 90.9 2.2 1.1 2.9 0.7 0.5 1.7

 Wyoming............................... W 31,669 100.0 92.2 1.1 1.4 2.4 0.7 0.5 1.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Hispanics may be of any race.

2/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported his/her origin; "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two or more origin

 responses, but only one response was allowed; "From race" means that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the question on race; "Within household" 

means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck surname" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring

household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last name (Spanish or non-Spanish) determined the hot deck from which an origin could be assigned;

 "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin from a hot deck containing reported origins of people who either did not provide a name or their 

name could not be determined to be Spanish or not Spanish; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were 

obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

3/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

4/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 2/

Not Allocated Allocated
Table 10. Total Non-Hispanic Population for the Hispanic Origin Question by Allocation Status and Type of Allocation Flag 

 for the United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total

Geographic by Non-Hispanic Reported Multiple Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region population Total origin origin household surname no surname Subsitution

 United States 2,3/ 246,116,088 100.0 94.5 0.0 1.7 2.0 0.6 1.2

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 48,340,291 100.0 94.3 0.0 1.7 2.0 0.6 1.4

 Midwest................................. (MW) 61,268,244 100.0 95.4 0.0 1.5 1.8 0.5 0.9

 South.................................... (S) 88,650,124 100.0 94.0 0.0 1.7 2.4 0.6 1.2

 West..................................... (W) 47,857,429 100.0 94.3 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.8 1.2

 State

 Alabama................................. S 4,371,270 100.0 93.1 0.0 1.7 3.0 0.6 1.6

 Alaska................................... W 601,080 100.0 94.5 0.0 2.4 1.3 0.9 0.9

 Airzona.................................. W 3,835,015 100.0 93.8 0.0 1.7 1.8 0.7 2.0

 Arkanasas.............................. S 2,586,534 100.0 94.5 0.0 1.6 2.6 0.6 0.8

 California................................ W 22,905,092 100.0 94.0 0.0 2.3 1.7 0.8 1.1

 Colorado................................. W 3,565,660 100.0 94.9 0.0 1.5 1.7 0.6 1.2

 Connecticut............................. NE 3,085,242 100.0 95.2 0.0 1.5 1.6 0.8 0.9

 Delware.................................. S 746,323 100.0 93.1 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.1 2.1

 District of Columbia................... S 527,106 100.0 88.8 0.0 2.8 3.4 2.7 2.3

 Florida.................................... S 13,299,663 100.0 94.3 0.0 1.7 2.1 0.6 1.3

 Georgia.................................. S 7,751,226 100.0 93.1 0.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.4

 Hawaii................................... W 1,123,838 100.0 92.0 0.2 3.4 1.8 1.2 1.4

 Idaho..................................... W 1,192,263 100.0 95.8 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.5 1.1

 Illinois..................................... MW 10,889,031 100.0 94.3 0.0 1.8 2.0 0.5 1.4

 Indiana................................... MW 5,865,949 100.0 94.9 0.0 1.3 1.9 0.4 1.5

 Iowa...................................... MW 2,843,851 100.0 96.6 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.4 0.5

 Kansas.................................. MW 2,500,166 100.0 96.0 0.0 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.7

 Kentucky................................ S 3,981,830 100.0 95.1 0.0 1.3 2.4 0.5 0.7

 Lousiana................................ S 4,361,238 100.0 93.6 0.0 1.9 2.7 0.6 1.2

 Maine..................................... NE 1,265,563 100.0 96.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.5 0.8

 Maryland................................ S 5,068,570 100.0 93.5 0.0 1.9 2.4 0.6 1.7

 Massachusetts........................ NE 5,920,368 100.0 94.9 0.0 1.5 1.9 0.7 0.9

 Michigan................................. MW 9,614,567 100.0 95.1 0.0 1.7 2.0 0.5 0.7

 Minnesota................................. MW 4,776,097 100.0 96.0 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.5 0.6

 Mississippi.............................. S 2,805,089 100.0 93.0 0.0 2.2 3.3 0.7 0.8

 Missouri................................... MW 5,476,619 100.0 95.6 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.4 0.6

 Montana................................. W 884,114 100.0 95.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.0

 Nebraska................................ MW 1,616,838 100.0 96.6 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5

 Nevada.................................. W 1,604,287 100.0 93.5 0.0 1.9 1.6 0.9 2.3

 New Hampshire....................... NE 1,215,297 100.0 95.2 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.7 1.4

 New Jersey............................ NE 7,297,159 100.0 94.6 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.6 1.1

 New Mexico............................ W 1,053,660 100.0 93.5 0.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.8

 New York............................... NE 16,108,874 100.0 93.1 0.0 2.1 2.2 0.6 2.0

 North Carolina.......................... S 7,670,350 100.0 94.4 0.0 1.6 2.6 0.5 1.0

 North Dakota............................ MW 634,414 100.0 96.4 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.5

 Ohio...................................... MW 11,136,017 100.0 95.7 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.4 0.6

 Oklahoma............................... S 3,271,350 100.0 95.2 0.0 1.5 2.1 0.5 0.7

 Oregon................................... W 3,146,085 100.0 95.5 0.0 1.4 1.5 0.5 1.0

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 11,886,966 100.0 95.1 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.5 1.0

 Rhode Island........................... NE 957,499 100.0 94.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.4

 South Carolina......................... S 3,916,936 100.0 93.4 0.0 1.8 2.8 0.6 1.5

 South Dakota........................... MW 743,941 100.0 95.9 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.7 0.8

 Tennessee.............................. S 5,565,445 100.0 94.6 0.0 1.5 2.4 0.5 1.0

 Texas.................................... S 14,182,154 100.0 94.0 0.0 1.7 2.1 0.7 1.5

 Utah....................................... W 2,031,610 100.0 95.9 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.4 0.7

 Vermont................................. NE 603,323 100.0 95.2 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.7 1.6

 Virginia................................... S 6,748,975 100.0 94.5 0.0 1.6 2.4 0.5 1.0

 Washington............................. W 5,452,612 100.0 94.6 0.0 1.6 2.0 0.7 1.1

 West Virginia........................... S 1,796,065 100.0 95.4 0.0 1.3 2.3 0.6 0.5

 Wisconsin............................... MW 5,170,754 100.0 95.5 0.0 1.4 1.7 0.5 1.0

 Wymoning............................... W 462,113 100.0 94.7 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.8 1.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Reported origin" means that the respondent reported his/her origin; "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two or more origin

 responses, but only one response was allowed; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck

 surname" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last name (Spanish or non-Spanish) 

determined the hot deck from which an origin could be assigned; "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin from a hot deck containing reported

origins of people who either did not provide a name or their name could not be determined to be Spanish or not Spanish; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin

and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Not Allocated Allocated
Table 11. Total Allocation counts for the Hispanic Origin Question by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State

Geographic by Total Multiple From Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region Allocations Total Origin race household surname no surname Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 16,840,641 100.0 3.6 2.6 32.4 31.4 9.6 20.4

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 3,323,125 100.0 4.0 2.2 30.6 29.7 10.1 23.4

 Midwest................................. (MW) 3,117,259 100.0 2.0 1.1 32.5 36.0 9.5 18.9

 South.................................... (S) 6,280,216 100.0 2.8 1.9 29.6 36.1 9.2 20.5

 West..................................... (W) 4,120,041 100.0 5.9 5.1 37.9 22.1 9.9 19.1

 State

 Alabama................................. S 309,088 100.0 0.4 0.3 25.1 43.2 8.4 22.6

 Alaska................................... W 35,154 100.0 1.8 1.0 43.2 22.1 16.3 15.6

 Airzona.................................. W 351,299 100.0 4.5 4.3 29.6 23.2 8.4 29.9

 Arkanasas.............................. S 150,530 100.0 0.8 0.7 29.8 44.3 10.3 13.9

 California................................ W 2,389,808 100.0 7.5 6.4 42.0 19.3 9.3 15.5

 Colorado................................. W 245,211 100.0 4.1 4.0 30.9 28.4 9.9 22.7

 Connecticut............................. NE 175,523 100.0 4.3 1.9 31.0 30.1 14.3 18.4

 Delware.................................. S 55,839 100.0 1.5 0.7 24.2 28.2 15.6 29.8

 District of Columbia................... S 64,453 100.0 1.2 1.6 26.0 28.3 23.2 19.7

 Florida.................................... S 994,630 100.0 6.3 1.7 30.8 30.1 8.7 22.3

 Georgia.................................. S 579,235 100.0 1.1 0.9 29.8 40.4 7.5 20.3

 Hawaii................................... W 101,949 100.0 6.7 1.6 40.5 20.4 13.8 17.0

 Idaho..................................... W 57,987 100.0 2.1 2.5 32.6 26.4 11.3 25.1

 Illinois..................................... MW 760,517 100.0 4.1 1.7 32.0 29.6 7.7 24.9

 Indiana................................... MW 322,199 100.0 1.4 0.8 26.5 34.5 7.5 29.4

 Iowa...................................... MW 104,017 100.0 1.0 1.1 33.1 37.7 12.4 14.7

 Kansas.................................. MW 114,726 100.0 2.2 2.4 32.5 35.5 11.1 16.2

 Kentucky................................ S 200,355 100.0 0.5 0.3 27.3 47.9 9.8 14.1

 Lousiana................................ S 290,626 100.0 0.7 0.5 30.2 41.3 9.5 17.8

 Maine..................................... NE 51,943 100.0 0.5 0.2 30.3 37.4 13.0 18.6

 Maryland................................ S 357,411 100.0 1.5 1.2 29.0 33.8 9.0 25.6

 Massachusetts........................ NE 349,345 100.0 3.4 1.9 30.0 34.2 13.2 17.4

 Michigan................................. MW 497,285 100.0 1.3 0.9 35.4 39.4 9.7 13.2

 Minnesota................................. MW 203,127 100.0 1.1 0.9 35.5 34.7 11.9 15.9

 Mississippi.............................. S 200,901 100.0 0.3 0.2 32.2 45.9 9.8 11.5

 Missouri................................... MW 249,840 100.0 0.8 0.6 32.7 41.2 10.2 14.6

 Montana................................. W 42,535 100.0 0.6 0.6 31.2 30.1 16.6 20.9

 Nebraska................................ MW 61,858 100.0 1.9 2.3 36.5 32.6 12.8 14.0

 Nevada.................................. W 140,183 100.0 4.7 3.1 31.3 19.0 10.8 31.0

 New Hampshire....................... NE 60,452 100.0 0.9 0.4 26.1 28.7 14.7 29.2

 New Jersey............................ NE 511,004 100.0 5.7 2.9 34.5 27.1 10.2 19.5

 New Mexico............................ W 133,865 100.0 5.6 7.9 27.1 18.9 12.3 28.1

 New York............................... NE 1,460,063 100.0 5.0 2.8 30.3 26.1 7.7 28.1

 North Carolina.......................... S 465,481 100.0 1.1 1.0 28.6 42.6 8.6 18.0

 North Dakota............................ MW 23,551 100.0 0.6 0.3 33.9 31.9 18.3 14.9

 Ohio...................................... MW 496,223 100.0 1.0 0.6 33.4 42.5 9.2 13.4

 Oklahoma............................... S 169,009 100.0 1.6 1.3 31.7 40.8 10.2 14.4

 Oregon................................... W 162,753 100.0 2.7 2.1 32.9 29.4 11.2 21.7

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 616,175 100.0 1.7 0.8 29.8 37.7 10.7 19.5

 Rhode Island........................... NE 68,841 100.0 3.3 2.2 24.2 27.0 17.9 25.4

 South Carolina......................... S 267,787 100.0 0.5 0.5 27.5 40.5 8.8 22.2

 South Dakota........................... MW 31,478 100.0 0.6 0.4 34.7 28.2 17.2 18.8

 Tennessee.............................. S 311,427 100.0 0.6 0.6 27.5 43.1 9.1 19.2

 Texas.................................... S 1,379,066 100.0 5.5 5.0 31.0 25.8 8.8 23.9

 Utah....................................... W 99,697 100.0 2.9 3.2 45.5 24.4 8.2 15.9

 Vermont................................. NE 29,779 100.0 0.4 0.2 27.3 25.6 14.7 31.7

 Virginia................................... S 400,304 100.0 1.5 1.4 29.7 40.5 9.7 17.2

 Washington............................. W 332,782 100.0 2.2 1.8 30.3 34.1 11.5 20.1

 West Virginia........................... S 84,074 100.0 0.3 0.1 28.7 48.4 12.5 10.0

 Wisconsin............................... MW 252,438 100.0 1.7 0.8 30.6 35.4 10.4 21.0

 Wyoming............................... W 26,818 100.0 1.4 1.6 29.0 20.9 14.0 33.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two or more origin responses, but only one response was allowed; "From race" means 

that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the question on race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household 

of the respondent; "Hot deck surname" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last 

(Spanish or non-Spanish) determined the hot deck from which an origin could be assigned; name "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin 

from a hot deck containing reported origins of people who either did not provide a name or their name could not be determined to be Spanish or not Spanish;

and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using

 substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Not Allocated Allocated
Table 12. Total Allocation counts for Hispanics by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total

Geographic by Hispanic 1/ Multiple From Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region Allocations Total origin race household surname no surname Substitution

 United States 3,4/ 3,234,225 100.0 18.1 13.4 38.9 8.1 4.0 17.5

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 584,386 100.0 22.0 12.3 32.5 7.3 4.3 21.6

 Midwest................................. (MW) 274,802 100.0 21.1 12.1 36.1 6.6 4.3 21.6

 South.................................... (S) 981,780 100.0 17.0 11.9 36.9 10.0 4.3 19.8

 West..................................... (W) 1,393,257 100.0 16.7 15.1 43.6 7.4 3.5 13.8

 State

 Alabama................................. S 7,943 100.0 11.6 10.9 44.7 6.0 8.4 18.4

 Alaska................................... W 2,107 100.0 25.9 16.9 27.8 4.6 15.0 9.8

 Airzona.................................. W 111,746 100.0 13.7 13.6 35.0 10.1 2.9 24.8

 Arkanasas.............................. S 7,310 100.0 15.2 14.7 44.1 5.7 7.5 12.7

 California................................ W 1,011,780 100.0 17.1 15.2 47.2 6.3 3.3 10.8

 Colorado................................. W 64,476 100.0 15.0 15.2 33.9 13.7 3.2 19.0

 Connecticut............................. NE 28,282 100.0 25.2 11.6 31.6 7.9 5.4 18.3

 Delware.................................. S 4,212 100.0 17.9 9.8 30.5 5.7 8.8 27.4

 District of Columbia................... S 5,376 100.0 13.1 19.0 39.7 6.2 9.0 12.9

 Florida.................................... S 237,985 100.0 25.4 7.3 35.8 8.8 4.3 18.6

 Georgia.................................. S 43,461 100.0 13.0 12.3 45.5 6.0 4.6 18.6

 Hawaii................................... W 12,210 100.0 42.1 13.4 24.1 2.0 4.6 13.9

 Idaho..................................... W 7,633 100.0 14.8 19.4 35.5 5.8 4.8 19.8

 Illinois..................................... MW 140,856 100.0 21.9 9.0 36.8 5.7 2.3 24.3

 Indiana................................... MW 20,611 100.0 20.1 12.3 30.5 7.2 4.0 26.0

 Iowa...................................... MW 6,002 100.0 16.1 18.3 38.9 6.0 7.3 13.3

 Kansas.................................. MW 13,788 100.0 17.3 20.1 35.6 8.3 3.9 14.7

 Kentucky................................ S 5,372 100.0 14.8 12.9 40.1 9.0 10.1 12.9

 Lousiana................................ S 10,935 100.0 15.9 12.1 36.6 7.4 14.3 13.7

 Maine..................................... NE 882 100.0 17.5 13.6 40.6 8.2 11.5 8.7

 Maryland................................ S 25,768 100.0 18.8 16.0 38.1 5.2 5.8 16.0

 Massachusetts........................ NE 45,128 100.0 23.2 14.6 30.1 10.1 8.1 13.9

 Michigan................................. MW 27,722 100.0 21.8 15.9 36.8 7.6 7.1 10.7

 Minnesota................................. MW 12,272 100.0 16.7 15.4 39.1 7.0 8.3 13.6

 Mississippi.............................. S 4,328 100.0 10.9 9.4 51.8 8.6 8.8 10.6

 Missouri................................... MW 9,534 100.0 15.8 15.9 36.9 6.6 10.4 14.3

 Montana................................. W 1,527 100.0 13.2 16.9 35.8 5.6 11.9 16.6

 Nebraska................................ MW 6,704 100.0 16.5 20.8 40.5 6.8 4.7 10.8

 Nevada.................................. W 35,338 100.0 17.6 12.2 40.3 4.9 4.0 20.9

 New Hampshire....................... NE 2,155 100.0 20.8 11.8 29.5 4.3 13.8 19.8

 New Jersey............................ NE 115,298 100.0 24.7 12.8 36.2 7.3 4.3 14.7

 New Mexico............................ W 65,849 100.0 11.2 16.1 23.9 16.9 4.3 27.6

 New York............................... NE 343,763 100.0 20.4 11.8 32.1 7.0 3.3 25.4

 North Carolina.......................... S 32,607 100.0 15.0 14.6 41.9 6.2 4.7 17.7

 North Dakota............................ MW 625 100.0 21.8 12.2 41.0 4.5 13.8 6.9

 Ohio...................................... MW 18,266 100.0 24.0 15.3 35.7 8.3 7.3 9.5

 Oklahoma............................... S 12,089 100.0 18.7 18.1 38.3 7.5 7.2 10.2

 Oregon................................... W 22,127 100.0 18.4 15.6 41.0 4.9 5.5 14.7

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 36,731 100.0 26.3 12.9 30.9 7.2 6.6 16.1

 Rhode Island........................... NE 11,597 100.0 17.1 13.2 26.1 5.9 6.0 31.7

 South Carolina......................... S 9,315 100.0 12.5 13.2 39.3 6.1 7.2 21.7

 South Dakota........................... MW 916 100.0 18.4 15.3 41.8 3.8 11.4 9.3

 Tennessee.............................. S 11,361 100.0 13.5 15.2 40.5 5.3 8.0 17.5

 Texas.................................... S 531,136 100.0 13.9 13.0 35.6 12.1 3.4 21.9

 Utah....................................... W 16,956 100.0 16.0 19.0 41.7 6.0 4.6 12.7

 Vermont................................. NE 550 100.0 16.2 11.8 34.7 7.1 15.3 14.9

 Virginia................................... S 31,382 100.0 18.2 17.4 39.7 6.7 6.5 11.5

 Washington............................. W 39,024 100.0 16.8 15.5 37.1 6.2 6.1 18.3

 West Virginia........................... S 1,200 100.0 12.6 9.6 52.0 10.3 10.7 4.9

 Wisconsin............................... MW 17,506 100.0 23.7 12.0 32.2 7.8 5.6 18.6

 Wyoming............................... W 2,484 100.0 13.8 17.3 31.1 8.3 6.3 23.2

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Hispanics may be of any race.

2/ Flag type definitions: "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two or more origin responses, but only one response was allowed; "From race" means 

that an origin was obtained from a write-in response to the question on race; "Within household" means that origin was obtained from someone within the household 

of the respondent; "Hot deck surname" means that origin was obtained from another neighboring household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last 

(Spanish or non-Spanish) determined the hot deck from which an origin could be assigned; name "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin 

from a hot deck containing reported origins of people who either did not provide a name or their name could not be determined to be Spanish or not Spanish;

and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyone in the household were obtained from neighboring households using

 substitution procedures.

3/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

4/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 2/

Not allocated Allocated
Table 13. Total Allocation counts for Non-Hispanics by Type of Allocation Flag for the United States, Regions, and States: 2000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

State Total Not Allocated

Geographic by Non-Hispanic Multiple Within Hot deck Hot deck

area region Allocations Total origin household surname no surname Substitution

 United States 2,3/ 13,606,416 100.0 0.2 30.8 36.9 10.9 21.1

 Region

 Northeast............................... (NE) 2,738,739 100.0 0.2 30.2 34.5 11.3 23.8

 Midwest................................. (MW) 2,842,457 100.0 0.1 32.2 38.8 10.0 18.9

 South.................................... (S) 5,298,436 100.0 0.2 28.3 40.9 10.0 20.6

 West..................................... (W) 2,726,784 100.0 0.4 35.0 29.7 13.2 21.8

 State

 Alabama................................. S 301,145 100.0 0.1 24.6 44.2 8.4 22.7

 Alaska................................... W 33,047 100.0 0.3 44.1 23.3 16.3 16.0

 Airzona.................................. W 239,553 100.0 0.2 27.1 29.4 11.0 32.3

 Arkanasas.............................. S 143,220 100.0 0.1 29.1 46.3 10.5 14.0

 California................................ W 1,378,028 100.0 0.4 38.2 28.7 13.7 18.9

 Colorado................................. W 180,735 100.0 0.2 29.8 33.7 12.3 24.0

 Connecticut............................. NE 147,241 100.0 0.3 30.9 34.4 16.0 18.4

 Delware.................................. S 51,627 100.0 0.1 23.7 30.1 16.1 29.9

 District of Columbia................... S 59,077 100.0 0.1 24.8 30.3 24.4 20.4

 Florida.................................... S 756,645 100.0 0.4 29.3 36.8 10.1 23.5

 Georgia.................................. S 535,774 100.0 0.1 28.5 43.2 7.8 20.4

 Hawaii................................... W 89,739 100.0 1.9 42.7 22.9 15.1 17.4

 Idaho..................................... W 50,354 100.0 0.1 32.2 29.5 12.2 26.0

 Illinois..................................... MW 619,661 100.0 0.1 30.9 35.0 9.0 25.1

 Indiana................................... MW 301,588 100.0 0.1 26.2 36.4 7.7 29.6

 Iowa...................................... MW 98,015 100.0 0.1 32.7 39.7 12.7 14.8

 Kansas.................................. MW 100,938 100.0 0.2 32.1 39.2 12.1 16.4

 Kentucky................................ S 194,983 100.0 0.1 27.0 49.0 9.8 14.1

 Lousiana................................ S 279,691 100.0 0.1 30.0 42.6 9.3 18.0

 Maine..................................... NE 51,061 100.0 0.2 30.2 37.9 13.0 18.7

 Maryland................................ S 331,643 100.0 0.1 28.3 36.0 9.2 26.4

 Massachusetts........................ NE 304,217 100.0 0.4 30.0 37.7 13.9 17.9

 Michigan................................. MW 469,563 100.0 0.1 35.4 41.3 9.8 13.4

 Minnesota................................. MW 190,855 100.0 0.1 35.2 36.4 12.1 16.0

 Mississippi.............................. S 196,573 100.0 0.1 31.8 46.7 9.8 11.5

 Missouri................................... MW 240,306 100.0 0.2 32.5 42.6 10.1 14.6

 Montana................................. W 41,008 100.0 0.1 31.0 31.0 16.7 21.1

 Nebraska................................ MW 55,154 100.0 0.1 36.0 35.7 13.8 14.4

 Nevada.................................. W 104,845 100.0 0.3 28.3 23.8 13.1 34.4

 New Hampshire....................... NE 58,297 100.0 0.1 25.9 29.6 14.8 29.5

 New Jersey............................ NE 395,706 100.0 0.2 34.0 32.9 11.9 20.9

 New Mexico............................ W 68,016 100.0 0.2 30.2 20.8 20.2 28.6

 New York............................... NE 1,116,300 100.0 0.2 29.8 32.0 9.1 28.9

 North Carolina.......................... S 432,874 100.0 0.1 27.6 45.3 8.9 18.1

 North Dakota............................ MW 22,926 100.0 0.1 33.7 32.6 18.4 15.1

 Ohio...................................... MW 477,957 100.0 0.1 33.3 43.8 9.2 13.6

 Oklahoma............................... S 156,920 100.0 0.2 31.2 43.3 10.5 14.7

 Oregon................................... W 140,626 100.0 0.2 31.6 33.3 12.1 22.8

 Pennsylvaina........................... NE 579,444 100.0 0.1 29.7 39.6 10.9 19.7

 Rhode Island........................... NE 57,244 100.0 0.5 23.8 31.2 20.2 24.2

 South Carolina......................... S 258,472 100.0 0.1 27.1 41.8 8.9 22.2

 South Dakota........................... MW 30,562 100.0 0.1 34.5 29.0 17.3 19.1

 Tennessee.............................. S 300,066 100.0 0.1 27.0 44.6 9.2 19.2

 Texas.................................... S 847,930 100.0 0.2 28.1 34.4 12.3 25.0

 Utah....................................... W 82,741 100.0 0.1 46.2 28.2 9.0 16.5

 Vermont................................. NE 29,229 100.0 0.1 27.2 26.0 14.7 32.0

 Virginia................................... S 368,922 100.0 0.1 28.9 43.4 10.0 17.7

 Washington............................. W 293,758 100.0 0.2 29.4 37.8 12.2 20.4

 West Virginia........................... S 82,874 100.0 0.1 28.3 49.0 12.5 10.1

 Wisconsin............................... MW 234,932 100.0 0.1 30.5 37.5 10.8 21.2

 Wyoming............................... W 24,334 100.0 0.2 28.8 22.2 14.8 34.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census.

NOTES:

1/ Flag type definitions: "Multiple origin" means that the respondent provided two or more origin responses, but only one response was allowed; "Within househ

 means that origin was obtained from someone within the household of the respondent; "Hot deck surname" means that origin was obtained from another neighb

 household using a hot deck procedure in which the respondent's last name (Spanish or non-Spanish) determined the hot deck from which an origin could be

 assigned; "Hot deck no surname" means that the respondent obtained an origin from a hot deck containing reported origins of people who either did not provide

 a name or their name could not be determined to be Spanish or not Spanish; and lastly, "Substitution" means that origin and all other characteristics for everyon

 in the household were obtained from neighboring households using substitution procedures.

2/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

3/ Includes Housing Unit Population and Group Quarters Population. 

Percent distribution by flag type 1/

Allocated
Table 14. Allocation Rates by Type of Hispanic Origin for Census 2000, Census 1990

 and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, for the United States 1/

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Hispanic Origin Census Census C2SS

2000 1990 2000

Total Population 2/ 5.4 10.4 3.6

Hispanic 3/ 6.3 6.0 2.7

 Mexican 6.0 4.3 2.5

 Puerto Rican 6.3 8.2 2.4

 Cuban 6.6 9.2 3.3

 Other Hispanic 6.8 8.9 3.4

Not Hispanic 5.3 10.8 3.7

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census;

 1990 Census, Census 2000 Supplemental

 Survey.

NOTES:

1/ Puerto Rico is not included in this table.

2/ Housing Unit Population Only. 

3/ Hispanics may be of any race.

* na = not available.
Table 15. Total Edit and Allocation Counts by Type of Allocation Flag for Census 2000

 Census 1990 and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, for the United States 1/

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Subject Census Census C2SS

2000 1990 2000

Total Allocations 2,3/ 15,861,051 25,498,385 10,188,127

Percent distribution:

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Multiple origin 3.8 na 2.8

From race 2.6 1.5 1.3

Within household 34.4 16.6 32.8

Hot deck surname 28.7 na 62.3

Hot deck no surname 8.8 75.6 0.7

Substitution 21.7 6.3 na

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, 

 1990 Census, Census 2000 Supplemental Survey.

 

NOTES:

1/ Puerto Rico is not included in the table.

2/ Housing Unit Population Only. 

3/ Flag type definitions: 

"Multiple origin" means that ethnic origin was obtained from multiple ethnic origins reported from the respondent;

"From race" means that Hispanic origin was obtained from the race question; "Within household" means that ethinic origin

was obtained from within the household of the respondent; hot deck means that ethnic origin was obtained using

the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that ethnic origin was obtained using the substitution method.

* na = not available.
Table 16. Total Edit and Allocation Counts by Type of Hispanic Origin and by Type of Allocation Flag 

 for Census 2000, Census 1990 and Census 2000 Supplemental Survey, for the United States 1/

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

Subject Census 2000 Census 1990 C2SS 2000

Hispanic 2/ Non-Hispanic Hispanic 2/ Non-Hispanic Hispanic 2/ Non-Hispanic

Total Allocations 3,4/ 3,160,248 12,700,803 1,693,165 23,805,220 1,335,165 8,852,962

Percent distribution:

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mulitple origin 18.3 0.2 na na 20.1 0.2

From race 13.2 na 22.0 na 9.8 na

Within Household 39.8 33.0 37.1 15.2 47.9 30.6

Hot deck surname 7.4 33.9 na na 20.6 68.6

Hot deck no surname 3.3 10.2 29.9 78.9 1.6 0.6

Substitution 17.9 22.6 11.0 5.9 na na

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, 

 1990 Census, Census 2000 Supplemental Survey.

 

NOTES:

1/ Puerto Rico is not included in the table.

2/ Hispanics may be of any race.

3/ Housing Unit Population only. 

4/ Flag type definitions: 

"Multiple origin" means that ethnic origin was obtained from multiple ethnic origins reported from the respondent;

"From race" means that Hispanic origin was obtained from the race question; "Within household" means that ethinic origin

was obtained from within the household of the respondent; hot deck means that ethnic origin was obtained using

the hot deck procedure; and lastly, "Substitution" means that ethnic origin was obtained using the substitution method.

* na = not available.
Table 17. Allocation Rates for the Hispanic Origin Question 

 by Race for the United States: 1990 Census

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: July 1, 2002

(Includes only the population in housing units)

Race Percent Allocated

Total Population 10.5

White 9.6

Black 18.4

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 10.2

Asian and Pacific 9.7

Islander

Other Race - Hispanic Write-in 1.0

Other Race - Not Hispanic Write-in 2.4
Table 18. Allocation of Origin - 100% Edit Outcome vs Sample Edit Outcome for the United States: 1990 Census

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: July 1, 2002

(Based on Weighted Data from Sample Forms)Allocated on 100% Edit - Total 1/

 Edit Outcomes Agree Edit Outcomes Disagree

Hispanic-100% Not Hispanic-100% Net

Race Total Not Hispanic Hispanic Not Hispanic-Sample Hispanic-Sample Ratio Disagreement

A B C D E D/E * 100 (D-E)

Total 8,968,527 8,099,909 545,921 241,720 80,977 3.0 160,743White 6,622,624 6,129,349 256,847 168,943 67,485 2.5 101,458Black 1,756,863 1,662,836 40,409 44,076 9,542 4.6 34,534American Indian and  Alaska Native 93,299 81,168 3,850 6,713 1,568 4.3 5,145Asian and Pacific  Islander 244,400 220,833 5,625 15,950 1,992 8.0 13,958Other Race - Hispanic Write-in 204,592 0 201,989 2,603 0 (NA) 2,603Other Race - Not Hispanic Write-in 46,749 5,723 37,201 3,435 390 8.8 3,045

Allocated on 100% Edit - Allocated on Sample Edit 1/

 Edit Outcomes Agree Edit Outcomes Disagree

Hispanic-100% Not Hispanic-100% Net 

Race Total Not Hispanic Hispanic Not Hispanic-Sample Hispanic-Sample Ratio Disagreement

A B C D E D/E * 100 (D-E)

Total 8,642,037 7,996,905 378,164 224,074 42,894 5.2 181,180White 6,466,947 6,078,327 191,484 160,295 36,841 4.4 123,454Black 1,718,005 1,639,937 32,724 41,239 4,105 10.0 37,134American Indian and  Alaska Native 91,209 80,806 2,986 6,588 829 7.9 5,759Asian and Pacific  Islander 208,992 192,730 3,939 11,449 874 13.1 10,575Other Race - Hispanic Write-in 114,454 0 112,419 2,035 0 (NA) 2,035Other Race - Not Hispanic Write-in 42,430 5,105 34,612 2,468 245 10.1 2,223
Table 18. Allocation of Origin - 100% Edit Outcome vs Sample Edit Outcome for the United States: 1990 Census (Continued)

(Based on Weighted Data from Sample Forms)Allocated on 100% Edit - Not Allocated on Sample Edit 1/

 Edit Outcomes Agree Edit Outcomes Disagree

Hispanic-100% Not Hispanic-100% Net 

Race Total Not Hispanic Hispanic Not Hispanic-Sample Hispanic-Sample Ratio Disagreement

A B C D E D/E * 100 (D-E)

Total 326,490 103,004 167,757 17,646 38,083 0.5 -20,437White 155,677 51,022 65,363 8,648 30,644 0.3 -21,996Black 38,858 22,899 7,685 2,837 5,437 0.5 -2,600American Indian and  Alaska Native 2,090 362 864 125 739 0.2 -614Asian and Pacific  Islander 35,408 28,103 1,686 4,501 1,118 4.0 3,383Other Race - Hispanic Write-in 90,138 0 89,570 568 0 (NA) 568Other Race - Not Hispanic Write-in 4,319 618 2,589 967 145 6.7 8221/ During 100-percent processing for the Hispanic origin question in the 1990 census, only optical marks, but no write-in responses were captured. 

 Thus, people who provided a write-in response but did not fill the “Other Hispanic” circle were treated as a nonresponse in the 100-percent edit  and could have been assigned either as Hispanic or not Hispanic. In addition, those people who provided a write-in response and marked the  “Other Spanish/Hispanic” circle would have been identified as “Other Spanish/Hispanic” in the 100-percent edit and then either as Hispanic or not  Hispanic in the sample edit depending on whether the write-in response was Hispanic or not Hispanic in sample coding operations.(NA) Not Applicable
Table A. Differences Between Census 2000 and 1990 Census Edit and Imputation Procedures 

 for the Questions on Place of Birth and Hispanic Origin

Source: U.S. Census BureauInternet Release date: July 1, 2002

 Editing Procedure Census 2000 Procedure 1990 Procedure

Place of Birth

Allocation of detailed country of birth Imputed detailed country of birth and state of birth codes Only detailed state of birth was imUse of native or foreign born Included check boxes “In the United States” and There were no check boxes - onlcheck boxes in question format “Outside the United States” as well as write-in areas for 

specific state/country of birth. These check boxes are used in the edit procedures.

Control variables in hot deck matrix Asian was included as a control variable in hot deck White, Black and Other were the 

matrix. A combined race/Hispanic variable was used as was considered separately from control (Hispanic; White not Hispanic; Black not Hispanic; Asian not Hispanic; Other not Hispanic)

Relationship categories Son/daughter (natural and adopted) and stepson/daughter There was no adoped son/daugh

were considered jointly for assigning place of birth code Son/daughter and stepson/ daug

Group Quarters GQ and household population are edited separately. GQ and household population we

Hispanic Origin

Reporting of more than one origin Reporting more than one origin not allowed - Reporting more than one origin n

Resolution to one origin using a set of rules; capture and data processing retall responses retained for research purposes. origin.

Within-household imputation Assignment of origin based on another person Assignment of origin based on a

in household (according to a pre-defined priority order of household according to a pre-dehousehold relationship) with the same race . of household relationship. Race 

Surname-assisted hot decks Separate hot decks depending on whether the surname Separate hot decks not used.

is Spanish; not Spanish; not clearly Spanish or not Spanish or not reported.

Joint allocation of race and origin If both race and origin were not reported, an attempt was If both race and origin were not r

made to assign both race and origin from the same donor assigned independently of the otwithin the household. If hot deck assignment was not necessarily come from the sarequired, both race and origin always were assigned from a single donor