Issued August 2003

Census 2000 found that

63.9 percent of the 

217.2 million people aged

16 and over in the United

States were in the labor

force.1 Of the 138.8 million people in the labor

force, 129.7 million were

employed, 7.9 million

were unemployed, and

1.2 million were in the

Armed Forces. The civilian unemployment rate

was 5.8 percent.2

Note that, in general,

the estimates in this

report will differ from

the official labor force

data collected in the

Current Population

Survey and released by

the Bureau of Labor

Statistics. For further

information on these

differences, see the text

box on page 3.

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

C2KBR-18

Employment Status: 2000

Census 2000 Brief

By 

Sandra Luckett Clark

and

Mai Weismantle

LAST WEEK, did this person do ANY work for

either pay or profit? Mark the "Yes" box even if the

person worked only 1 hour, or helped without pay in a

family business or farm for 15 hours or more, or was on

active duty in the Armed Forces.

Yes

No Skip to 25a

x

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Questions on 

Employment Status From Census 2000 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 questionnaire.

Yes Skip to 25c

No

a. LAST WEEK, was this person on layoff from

a job?

Yes, on vacation, temporary illness, labor

dispute, etc. Skip to 26

No Skip to 25d

b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY

absent from a job or business?

Yes Skip to 25e

No

c. Has this person been informed that he or she

will be recalled to work within the next 6 months

OR been given a date to return to work?

Yes

No Skip to 26

d. Has this person been looking for work during

the last 4 weeks?

Yes, could have gone to work

e. LAST WEEK, could this person have started a

job if offered one, or returned to work if recalled?

No, because of own temporary illness

No, because of all other reasons (in school, etc.)

21

25

1 The labor force includes all

people classified in the civilian

labor force (employed or unemployed) plus members of the U.S.

Armed Forces. Employed people

include civilians 16 and over who

were either “at work” or were

“with a job but not at work.”

Unemployed civilians are those

who did not have a job during

the reference period, were actively looking for work, or waiting to

be called back to a job from

which they had been laid off, and

were available to go to work. 2 This rate is defined as the

number of unemployed people

divided by the sum of employed

plus unemployed people.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Employment Status of the Population 16 and Over for the United States, Regions, and

States, and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

1990 2000

Population

16 and over

Percent

in labor

force*

Civilian labor force Civilian

unemployment

rate

Population

16 and over

Percent

in labor

force*

Civilian labor force Civilian

unem- ployment

Employed rate

Unemployed EmployedUnemployed

United States .... 191,829,271 65.3 115,681,202 7,792,248 6.3 217,168,077 63.9 129,721,512 7,947,286 5.8

Region

Northeast ........... 40,187,730 64.9 24,311,910 1,644,612 6.3 41,985,417 63.2 24,904,791 1,566,751 5.9

Midwest ............ 45,692,769 65.7 27,985,184 1,854,073 6.2 49,639,541 66.4 31,185,231 1,676,002 5.1

South .............. 67,133,912 64.1 39,536,681 2,634,638 6.2 77,518,144 62.7 45,226,189 2,743,409 5.7

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,127,166 66.8 24,596,907 1,693,875 6.4 48,024,975 63.9 28,405,301 1,961,124 6.5

State

Alabama ............ 3,103,529 61.1 1,741,794 128,587 6.9 3,450,542 59.7 1,920,189 126,911 6.2

Alaska.............. 393,394 74.7 245,379 23,587 8.8 458,054 71.3 281,532 27,953 9.0

Arizona ............. 2,785,730 62.9 1,603,896 123,902 7.2 3,907,229 61.1 2,233,004 133,368 5.6

Arkansas ........... 1,800,056 59.8 994,289 72,079 6.8 2,072,068 60.6 1,173,399 76,147 6.1

California ........... 22,786,281 67.0 13,996,309 996,502 6.6 25,596,144 62.4 14,718,928 1,110,274 7.0

Colorado............ 2,518,482 70.3 1,633,281 99,438 5.7 3,325,197 70.1 2,205,194 99,260 4.3

Connecticut.......... 2,616,747 69.0 1,692,874 95,819 5.4 2,652,316 66.6 1,664,440 92,668 5.3

Delaware ........... 518,946 68.3 335,147 13,945 4.0 610,289 65.7 376,811 20,549 5.2

District of Columbia . . . 503,173 66.3 303,994 23,442 7.2 469,041 63.6 263,108 31,844 10.8

Florida ............. 10,377,252 60.4 5,810,467 356,769 5.8 12,744,825 58.6 6,995,047 412,411 5.6

Georgia............. 6,250,687 66.1 3,839,756 223,052 5.5 6,250,687 66.1 3,839,756 223,052 5.5

Hawaii.............. 855,518 70.4 529,059 19,288 3.5 950,055 64.5 537,909 35,886 6.3

Idaho .............. 729,819 65.5 443,703 29,070 6.1 969,872 66.1 599,453 36,784 5.8

Illinois .............. 8,796,610 66.4 5,417,967 385,040 6.6 9,530,946 65.4 5,833,185 375,412 6.0

Indiana ............. 4,248,923 65.9 2,628,695 160,143 5.7 4,683,717 66.6 2,965,174 152,723 4.9

Iowa ............... 2,131,703 66.0 1,340,242 63,641 4.5 2,281,274 68.2 1,489,816 64,906 4.2

Kansas ............. 1,880,434 66.8 1,172,214 57,772 4.7 2,059,160 67.5 1,316,283 58,415 4.2

Kentucky............ 2,838,709 60.5 1,563,960 124,354 7.4 3,161,542 60.9 1,798,264 109,350 5.7

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 3,119,293 59.3 1,641,614 175,303 9.6 3,394,546 59.4 1,851,777 146,218 7.3

Maine .............. 952,644 65.6 571,842 40,722 6.6 1,010,318 65.3 624,011 31,165 4.8

Maryland............ 3,736,830 70.6 2,481,342 111,536 4.3 4,085,942 67.8 2,608,457 128,902 4.7

Massachusetts ....... 4,809,772 67.8 3,027,950 218,000 6.7 5,010,241 66.2 3,161,087 150,952 4.6

Michigan ............ 7,102,020 64.1 4,166,196 374,341 8.2 7,630,645 64.6 4,637,461 284,992 5.8

Minnesota........... 3,321,415 69.7 2,192,417 118,919 5.1 3,781,756 71.2 2,580,046 109,069 4.1

Mississippi .......... 1,909,851 59.7 1,028,773 94,712 8.4 2,158,941 59.4 1,173,314 93,778 7.4

Missouri ............ 3,939,284 64.5 2,367,395 155,388 6.2 4,331,369 65.2 2,657,924 148,794 5.3

Montana ............ 599,765 63.7 350,723 26,217 7.0 701,168 65.4 425,977 28,710 6.3

Nebraska ........... 1,192,803 68.3 772,813 29,326 3.7 1,315,715 69.7 877,237 32,287 3.5

Nevada............. 936,050 70.3 607,437 40,083 6.2 1,538,516 65.2 933,280 61,920 6.2

New Hampshire ...... 858,615 71.9 574,237 38,108 6.2 960,498 70.5 650,871 25,500 3.8

New Jersey.......... 6,129,923 67.4 3,868,698 235,975 5.7 6,546,155 64.2 3,950,029 243,116 5.8

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 1,113,046 62.8 629,272 54,888 8.0 1,369,176 61.0 763,116 60,324 7.3

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 14,191,044 63.6 8,370,718 618,903 6.9 14,805,912 61.1 8,382,988 640,108 7.1

North Carolina ....... 5,203,230 67.6 3,238,414 163,081 4.8 6,290,618 65.7 3,824,741 214,991 5.3

North Dakota ........ 480,464 65.3 287,558 16,083 5.3 502,306 67.5 316,632 15,257 4.6

Ohio ............... 8,349,183 63.5 4,931,357 348,638 6.6 8,788,494 64.8 5,402,175 282,615 5.0

Oklahoma ........... 2,398,899 62.5 1,369,138 100,931 6.9 2,666,724 62.1 1,545,296 86,832 5.3

Oregon ............. 2,191,764 64.4 1,319,960 87,183 6.2 2,673,782 65.2 1,627,769 112,529 6.5

Pennsylvania ........ 9,392,816 61.7 5,434,532 344,795 6.0 9,693,040 61.9 5,653,500 339,386 5.7

Rhode Island ........ 801,625 66.1 487,913 34,690 6.6 827,797 64.6 500,731 29,859 5.6

South Carolina ....... 2,669,383 66.0 1,603,425 94,673 5.6 3,114,016 63.4 1,824,700 113,495 5.9

South Dakota ........ 517,032 66.2 321,891 13,983 4.2 577,129 68.4 374,373 17,221 4.4

Tennessee .......... 3,799,725 64.0 2,250,842 154,235 6.4 4,445,909 63.5 2,651,638 153,596 5.5

Texas .............. 12,656,267 66.0 7,634,279 584,749 7.1 15,617,373 63.6 9,234,372 596,187 6.1

Utah ............... 1,154,039 68.0 736,059 41,389 5.3 1,600,279 69.0 1,044,362 54,561 5.0

Vermont ............ 434,544 69.4 283,146 17,600 5.9 479,140 69.3 317,134 13,997 4.2

Virginia ............. 4,843,182 68.9 3,028,362 142,048 4.5 5,529,980 66.8 3,412,647 151,125 4.2

Washington.......... 3,730,985 66.7 2,293,961 139,216 5.7 4,553,591 66.5 2,793,722 186,102 6.2

West Virginia ........ 1,404,900 53.0 671,085 71,142 9.6 1,455,101 54.5 732,673 58,021 7.3

Wisconsin ........... 3,732,898 67.6 2,386,439 130,799 5.2 4,157,030 69.1 2,734,925 134,311 4.7

Wyoming ........... 332,293 67.7 207,868 13,112 5.9 381,912 67.5 241,055 13,453 5.3

Puerto Rico.......... 2,497,078 47.3 934,736 239,940 20.4 2,842,876 40.7 930,865 220,998 19.2

*Includes members of the armed forces

Note: The armed forces population is equal to the population 16 years old and over multiplied by the percent in the labor force minus the civilian labor force.

The population not in the labor force is equal to 100 minus the percent in the labor force (or the percent not in the labor force) multiplied by the population 16

years and over.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 census and Census 2000 Summary File 3.
Decennial censuses have included

questions on employment status

since 1930. Census 2000 collected information on employment status from people aged 15 and over;

however, all published tabulations

of employment-status data are

restricted to the population aged

16 and over. Questions 21 and 25

on the Census 2000 forms asked

people about their connection to

the paid workforce in the week

before they filled out the questionnaire (see Figure 1). Answers to

these questions were used to

measure labor force participation,

the unemployment rate, and other

indicators of the economic activity

of the population.3

The battery of Census 2000 questions that collected employment

status information differed slightly

from the 1990 census questions.

The new questions were developed

in cooperation with the Bureau of

Labor Statistics (BLS) of the Department of Labor. Highlights of the

changes include the addition of the

words “for either pay or profit” to

the “work last week” item (question 21); the removal of the 1990

question “How many hours did you

work last week?”; the division and

expansion of the “temporary

absence from a job or layoff” item

into three separate questions (25a,

25b, and 25c); and the revision of

the definition of “available” in the

“availability to work” item (question 25e) from being able to “take

a job” to being able to “start a job

if offered one, or return to work 

if recalled.”

This report is part of a series that

presents population and housing

data collected by Census 2000.

The report provides data on the

employment status of people 16

and over and how employment

status varies among regions,

states, counties, and places with

populations of 100,000 or more.4

The U.S. labor force 

increased over the decade.

Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people in the U.S. labor

force increased by 13.5 million, or

10.8 percent (see Table 1).5 The

population 16 and over increased

by 25.3 million (13.2 percent),

while the population not in the

labor force grew 17.8 percent.

U.S. Census Bureau 3

3 While both questions are used to determine a person’s employment status, they are

not discussed individually within this report.

4 The text of this report discusses data

for the United States, including the 50 states

and the District of Columbia. Data for the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are shown in

Table 1 and Figure 3. 5 The estimates in this report are based

on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may

vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements made in this report have undergone

statistical testing and are significant at the

90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

Employment and unemployment estimates from

Census 2000 will, in general, differ from the official

labor force data collected in the Current Population

Survey (CPS) and released by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, because the design and collection methodology of the census and the CPS meet different 

purposes.

Census 2000 was designed to collect general information about the labor force for very small geographic areas on a one-time basis. It was primarily a

mail-out/mail-back data collection that asked fewer

and less precise questions than the CPS on employment and unemployment.

The CPS is specifically designed to produce the official estimates of employment and unemployment for

the United States each month. Data collection consists of personal interviews of respondents by field

representatives who ask numerous detailed questions on labor force participation. For example, the

CPS asks a more detailed and extensive series of

questions about whether a person is "actively looking for work" than can be asked in the census.

Specifically, at the national level, Census 2000 estimates of employment were considerably below, and

estimates of unemployment above, the corresponding

CPS estimates. Subnational estimates from the two

sources may exhibit even wider relative differences. 

A known problem in Census 2000 increased the

number of unemployed people for some places with

relatively large numbers of people living in civilian

noninstitutional group quarters, such as college dormitories, worker dormitories, and group homes, and

may have affected comparisons of labor force data

for higher levels of geography. For more information

on this specific problem, see Data Note 4 in Chapter

9 of the technical documentation for Census 2000

Summary File 3 at www.census.gov/prod/cen2000

/doc/sf3.pdf.

Differences between Census 2000 and Current Population Survey (official) 

estimates of the labor force
Labor force participation by

women increased between

1990 and 2000, but at a slower

pace than in previous decades.

In 1960, about 36 of every 100

women participated in the labor

force, a figure that hit 57 in 1990,

but then increased slightly to 58 in

2000 (see Figure 2). The labor

force participation of men declined

from 80 percent in 1960 to 71 percent in 2000.6

The labor force is

demographically diverse.

To highlight how the economy and

various groups in the population

influence each other, this section

concentrates on the prime workingage population, 20 to 64 year olds.7

Of the 166.3 million people aged

20 to 64 in 2000, 118.9 million

were employed, 1.0 million were in

the Armed Forces, 6.2 million were

unemployed, and 40.1 million were

not in the labor force (see Table 2). 

In 2000, women were more likely

than men to be outside the labor

force (30.0 percent of women, 

18.1 percent of men). The gap

between unemployed men and

women was narrower in 2000 than

in 1990 (4.0 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively, in 2000, compared with 4.9 percent and 3.9 percent, respectively, in 1990).8

The age categories with the largest

percentage employed were those

45 to 54 years old (76.3 percent)

followed by those 35 to 44 years

old (76.2 percent). People 20 to 21

were most likely to be unemployed

(9.2 percent). The likelihood of

being unemployed declined with

increasing age. People 62 to 64

were most likely not to be in the

labor force (59.6 percent).

People aged 20 to 64 with incomes

in 1999 at or above the poverty

level were almost twice as likely to

be employed during the reference

week as those with incomes below

the poverty level (76.8 percent and

38.9 percent, respectively).9 More

than half (51.4 percent) of those

with incomes below the poverty

level were not in the labor force.

Unemployed people were nearly

five times as likely to be in poverty

as employed people (27.9 percent

versus 5.8 percent).

Employment rates varied among

the race and ethnic groups.

Census 2000 allowed respondents

to choose more than one race. With

the exception of the Two or more

races group, all race groups

discussed in this report refer to

people who indicated only one

racial identity among the six major

categories: White, Black or African

American, American Indian and

Alaska Native, Asian, Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,

and Some other race.10 The use of

the single-race population in this

report does not imply that it is the

preferred method of presenting or

4 U.S. Census Bureau

6 The labor force participation rate is

defined as those people in the labor force

divided by the total population aged 16 and

over.7 The data for people in this group are

less likely to reflect the influence of noneconomic factors, such as education and retirement, which cloud the data for younger and

older people. 8 These rates are the unemployed population divided by the total population; they differ from the civilian unemployment rate,

which is the unemployed population divided

by the total civilian labor force.

9 Employment status and poverty have

different reference periods. Employment status relates to calendar weeks in 2000.

Poverty status is determined based on a

family’s income during the previous calendar

year, 1999. For more information on poverty status, see Poverty: 1999 (C2KBR-19) by

Alemayehu Bishaw and John Iceland.

10 For further information on each of the

six major race groups and the Two or more

races population, see reports from the

Census 2000 Brief series (C2KBR/01), available on the Census 2000 Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000

/briefs.html.

Figure 2.

Percentage in the Labor Force by Sex for 

People 16 and Over: 1960-2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 Census data.

50.5

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, 

nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, see 

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Total

Men

Women

57 58

80

36

58

77

41

62

75

50

65

74

57

64

71
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Selected Characteristics of the Population 20 to 64 by Employment Status: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Characteristics

Total

In labor force

Not in labor force

Number

Percent

of total

Civilian labor force

Employed Unemployed

Number

Percent

of total Number

Percent

of total Number

Percent

of total

All people ................... 166,258,647 126,149,256 75.9 118,897,175 71.5 6,202,557 3.7 40,109,391 24.1

Sex

Men . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,401,295 67,485,877 81.9 63,300,673 76.8 3,280,583 4.0 14,915,418 18.1

Women ......................... 83,857,352 58,663,379 70.0 55,596,502 66.3 2,921,974 3.5 25,193,973 30.0

Age

20 to 21 years ................... 7,892,819 5,672,742 71.9 4,784,870 60.6 727,264 9.2 2,220,077 28.1

22 to 24 years ................... 11,133,161 8,576,078 77.0 7,649,427 68.7 739,624 6.6 2,557,083 23.0

25 to 29 years ................... 19,212,244 15,219,226 79.2 14,147,042 73.6 863,772 4.5 3,993,018 20.8

30 to 34 years ................... 20,365,113 16,101,522 79.1 15,169,436 74.5 760,117 3.7 4,263,591 20.9

35 to 44 years ................... 45,905,471 36,776,494 80.1 34,961,987 76.2 1,552,338 3.4 9,128,977 19.9

45 to 54 years ................... 37,578,609 29,801,024 79.3 28,671,720 76.3 1,074,811 2.9 7,777,585 20.7

55 to 59 years ................... 13,383,251 8,972,311 67.0 8,662,391 64.7 305,528 2.3 4,410,940 33.0

60 to 61 years ................... 4,515,448 2,497,033 55.3 2,407,126 53.3 89,469 2.0 2,018,415 44.7

62 to 64 years ................... 6,272,531 2,532,826 40.4 2,443,176 39.0 89,634 1.4 3,739,705 59.6

Race

White alone ..................... 125,817,324 98,071,328 77.9 93,527,883 74.3 3,800,088 3.0 27,745,996 22.1

Black or African American alone...... 19,645,401 13,584,629 69.1 12,042,857 61.3 1,355,114 6.9 6,060,772 30.9

American Indian and Alaska Native

alone.......................... 1,409,145 961,304 68.2 844,951 60.0 106,581 7.6 447,841 31.8

Asian alone...................... 6,646,456 4,764,861 71.7 4,523,302 68.1 211,899 3.2 1,881,595 28.3

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander alone................... 224,136 164,098 73.2 145,344 64.8 14,948 6.7 60,038 26.8

Some other race alone ............. 8,832,789 5,977,201 67.7 5,408,955 61.2 521,358 5.9 2,855,588 32.3

Two or more races ................ 3,683,396 2,625,835 71.3 2,403,883 65.3 192,569 5.2 1,057,561 28.7

Hispanic or Latino Origin

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) ...... 19,949,575 13,448,890 67.4 12,242,310 61.4 1,105,861 5.5 6,500,685 32.6

Not Hispanic or Latino ............. 146,309,072 112,700,366 77.0 106,654,865 72.9 5,096,696 3.5 33,608,706 23.0

White alone, not Hispanic or

Latino ....................... 116,216,507 91,590,295 78.8 87,573,488 75.4 3,314,303 2.9 24,626,212 21.2

Poverty*

Income in 1999 at or above the

poverty level .................... 145,295,481 116,714,795 80.3 111,628,422 76.8 4,315,496 3.0 28,580,686 19.7

Income in 1999 below the poverty

level .......................... 17,514,796 8,506,928 48.6 6,817,882 38.9 1,668,160 9.5 9,007,868 51.4

*Poverty status was determined for all people except institutionalized people, people in military group quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated

individuals under 15 years old. These groups also were excluded from the numerator and denominator when calculating poverty rates.

Note: The total and in labor force estimates include those in the armed forces.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.
6 U.S. Census Bureau 

Labor Force Participation: 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.gov provides census data and mapping tools. 

U.S. p

U.S. p

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) Figure 3. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 

0 100 Miles 
analyzing data. The Census Bureau

uses a variety of approaches.11

Among the race and Hispanic or

Latino origin categories in Table 2,

non-Hispanic Whites (single race)

were most likely to be employed

(75.4 percent) and least likely to be

unemployed (2.9 percent). Of the

Asian population who reported only

one race, 68.1 percent were

employed and 3.2 percent were

unemployed. The percent of people

unemployed was highest for those

in the American Indian and Alaska

Native category, 7.6 percent. 

The percentage of people of

Hispanic or Latino origin between

20 and 64 years who were

employed, 61.4 percent, was

considerably below the corresponding 72.9 percent for those who

were not Hispanic.12 Non-Hispanic

Whites accounted for 79.4 percent

of the non-Hispanic population in

this age group. The 5.5 percent of

Hispanics who were unemployed

was nearly double the 2.9 percent

of non-Hispanic Whites who were

unemployed.

GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION OF LABOR

FORCE PARTICIPATION

More than one-third of the labor

force lived in the South.13

Census 2000 data showed that 

35.0 percent of the nation’s labor

force lived in the South, and 

23.8 percent lived in the Midwest,

percentages that closely follow the

distribution of the population aged

16 and over (see Table 1). The

labor force participation rate was

highest in the Midwest, at 

66.4 percent. The region with the

lowest labor force participation was

the South, at 62.7 percent. The

only region where the labor force

participation rate increased from

1990 to 2000 was the Midwest

(65.7 percent to 66.4 percent).

Alaska and Minnesota led 

the states in labor force

participation.

Labor force participation rates

were highest in Alaska and

Minnesota, at 71.3 percent and

71.2 percent, respectively (see

Table 1).14 The state map located

at the top of Figure 3 also shows a

cluster of states in the Midwest

with high labor force participation

rates. The state with the lowest

rate was West Virginia, 54.5 percent, followed by Florida, at 

58.6 percent. Labor force participation was also low in many other

southern states.

The state with the highest civilian

unemployment rate was Alaska

(9.0 percent), but the District of

Columbia’s rate was even higher

(10.8 percent). Nebraska’s unemployment rate was the lowest

among the states (3.5 percent). 

From 1990 to 2000, Iowa was the

only state with an increase in its

labor force participation rate that

was greater than 2 percentage

points (see Table 1).15 Hawaii was

the only state who’s rate decreased

more than 5 percentage points

from 1990 to 2000.16 Texas experienced the largest state-level

increase in the number of

employed people from 1990 to

2000 (1.6 million). 

Labor force participation rates

were high in some counties 

in the Northeast and upper

Midwest and low in parts 

of Appalachia.

Counties in the upper interior

Midwest from Chicago to

Minneapolis-St. Paul displayed high

labor force participation rates, as

did a band of counties stretching

from southern Maine to northern

Virginia (see Figure 3). Labor force

participation rates were also high

in several metropolitan areas in the

South, such as Atlanta, Nashville,

Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin. In

Census 2000, low labor force

participation was found in many

Appalachian counties and in scattered nonmetropolitan counties

throughout the South.

U.S. Census Bureau 7

11 This report draws heavily on Summary

File 3, a Census 2000 product that can be

accessed through American FactFinder, available from the Census Bureau’s Web site,

www.census.gov. Information on people who

reported more than one race, such as “White

and American Indian and Alaska Native” or

“Asian and Black or African American,” is

forthcoming in Summary File 4, which will

also be available through American

FactFinder in 2003. About 2.6 percent of

people reported more than one race. 12 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap with

data for racial groups. Based on Census 2000

sample data, the proportion Hispanic was 

8.0 percent for the White alone population,

1.9 percent for the Black alone population,

14.6 percent for the American Indian and

Alaska Native alone population, 1.0 percent

for the Asian alone population, 9.5 percent for

the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

alone population, 97.1 percent for the Some

other race alone population, and 31.1 percent

for the Two or more races population.

13 The Northeast region includes the states

of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The

Midwest region includes the states of Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,

South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South

region includes the states of Alabama,

Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and

the District of Columbia, a state equivalent.

The West region includes the states of Alaska,

Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,

Washington, and Wyoming. 14 These rates are not statistically different from each other.

15 South Dakota and North Dakota also

had labor force participation rates greater

than two percentage points, however they

were not statistically greater than two percentage points. 16 Nevada’s labor force rate also

decreased more than five percentage points,

however the decrease was not statistically

more than five percentage points.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

Most places with the highest

and lowest labor force

participation rates were in the

South and the West.17

For places of 100,000 or more

population, the labor force participation rates were highest in

Westminster, Colorado; Carrollton,

Texas; and Gilbert, Arizona (see

Table 3).18 Among the ten places

with the highest labor force participation rates, two other places were

in Texas, another in Arizona, and a

total of two in Virginia. Rounding

out the top ten were Sioux Falls,

South Dakota, and Anchorage,

Alaska. The Northeast was not

represented in the top ten. 

Among the ten places with the

lowest labor force participation

rates, the top three were Miami

and Hialeah, Florida, along with

East Los Angeles, California (see

Table 4).19 The other seven were

scattered among older industrialera cities (Newark and Paterson,

New Jersey; and Gary, Indiana) and

a variety of other locations that

included Brownsville and Laredo,

Table 3.

Ten Places of 100,000 or More With the Highest

Percentage of People 16 and Over in the Labor

Force: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Place

In the labor force

Margin

Number Percent of error*

Westminster, CO ....................... 59,746 77.7 0.7

Carrollton, TX.......................... 63,424 77.6 0.6

Gilbert town, AZ........................ 58,180 76.9 0.7

Plano, TX ............................. 124,183 75.3 0.5

Arlington CDP, VA** .................... 120,803 74.9 0.5

Sioux Falls, SD ........................ 71,988 74.8 0.6

Chandler, AZ. .......................... 96,063 74.7 0.5

Alexandria, VA ......................... 80,949 74.4 0.6

Anchorage, AK......................... 143,350 74.4 0.4

Irving, TX.............................. 109,409 74.0 0.5

*When the margin of error is added to or substracted from the estimate, it produces a 90-percent

confidence interval.

**Arlington is a Census Designated Place and not an incorporated area.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

Table 4.

Ten Places of 100,000 or More With the Lowest

Percentage of People 16 and Over in the Labor

Force: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Place

In the labor force

Margin

Number Percent of error*

Miami, FL ............................. 147,356 50.3 0.4

Hialeah, FL ............................ 91,536 50.8 0.5

East Los Angeles CDP, CA** ............ 43,538 50.9 0.8

Brownsville, TX ........................ 50,622 52.4 0.7

Newark, NJ ............................ 108,275 52.7 0.5

Laredo, TX ............................ 64,387 53.5 0.6

Paterson, NJ........................... 60,507 55.4 0.7

Pueblo, CO............................ 44,417 55.7 0.8

San Bernardino, CA .................... 70,413 55.8 0.7

Gary, IN . . ............................. 42,206 55.9 0.8

*When the margin of error is added to or substracted from the estimate, it produces a 90-percent

confidence interval.

**East Los Angeles is a Census Designated Place and not an incorporated area.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

17 Census 2000 shows 245 places in the

United States with 100,000 or more population. They include 238 incorporated places

(including 4 city-county consolidations) and

7 census-designated places that are not

legally incorporated. For a list of these

places by state, see www.census.gov

/population/www/cen2000/phc-t6.html. 18 The participation rates for these three

places were not statistically different from

each other. 19 The labor force participation rates in

these three cities are not statistically different from each other. The labor force participation rate for East Los Angeles, California,

is not statistically different from that for

Brownsville, Texas.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Texas; Pueblo, Colorado; and San

Bernardino, California. Texas had

two places among the bottom ten,

giving it the distinction, with

Colorado, of making both the 

top-ten and bottom-ten lists. At

least one place from every region

was in the bottom ten. 

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

Where are people on active

duty in the U.S. Armed Forces

concentrated?20

As part of its measurement of the

labor force, Census 2000 counted

the number of people on active

duty in the U.S. Armed Forces

(United States Army, Air Force,

Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast

Guard), who resided in the United

States.21 Tables 5, 6, and 7 display

state data on the Armed Forces

population.

Hawaii was the state with the

largest percent of people in the

armed forces, followed by Alaska

(see Table 5). The Northeast was

the only region that did not have a

state represented in the top 

five states.

The states with the highest number of people in the armed forces

were coastal states located in the

South and the West (see Table 6).

The states in the top ten ranged

from California, with an estimated

148,677 people in the armed

forces, to Maryland, with an estimated 32,166 people. Vermont

and New Hampshire were the two

states with the lowest number of

Table 5.

Five States With the Highest Percentage of People 16 to 64

in the Armed Forces: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

State

In armed forces

Margin

Number Percent of error*

Hawaii ................................ 39,036 4.95 0.10

Alaska . ............................... 17,111 4.05 0.12

Virginia................................ 130,891 2.76 0.03

North Dakota .......................... 7,093 1.74 0.05

North Carolina . . ....................... 90,847 1.71 0.02

*When the margin of error is added to or substracted from the estimate, it produces a 90-percent

confidence interval.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

Table 6.

Ten States With the Highest Number of People 16 to 64 in

the Armed Forces: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

State Population 16

to 64 years

Number in

armed forces

Margin

of error*

California.............................. 22,009,350 148,677 1,840

Virginia................................ 4,739,413 130,891 1,538

Texas . . . .............................. 13,549,906 106,591 1,437

North Carolina . . ....................... 5,320,796 90,847 1,102

Georgia ............................... 5,462,781 66,858 1,137

Florida . . .............................. 9,938,688 64,519 1,119

Washington............................ 3,891,429 47,910 962

Hawaii ................................ 788,914 39,036 786

South Carolina ......................... 2,628,171 36,027 834

Maryland .............................. 3,487,938 32,166 789

*When the margin of error is added to or substracted from the estimate, it produces a 90-percent

confidence interval.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

20 This section refers to the population 16

to 64 years, because they are in the primary

age range for serving in the armed forces. 21 People in the military assigned to military installations outside the United States

and crews of military vessels with a homeport outside the United States are not included in Armed Forces figures cited in this

report. They are part of the U.S. overseas

population and are not counted as part of

the U.S. resident population.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

people in the armed forces (fewer

than an estimated 1,000 people,

see Table 7).22

ABOUT CENSUS 2000

Why Census 2000 asked 

about employment status.

The questions on labor force participation are key to understanding

work and unemployment patterns

and the availability of workers. The

Department of Labor identifies

service delivery areas and determines amounts to be allocated for

job training based on labor markets and unemployment levels.

The impact of immigration on the

economy and job markets is measured partially by labor force data,

which is included in required

reports to Congress. Under the Job

Training Partnership Act, labor

force data are used to allocate

funds and identify programs that

create new jobs in local areas with

substantial unemployment. Also,

areas with substantial unemployment are targeted for housing and

community development projects

under the Community

Development Block Grant Program.

Accuracy of the Estimates

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the

Census 2000 long form.

Nationally, approximately 1 out of

every 6 housing units was included

in this sample. As a result, the

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the100-percent figures

that would have been obtained if

all housing units, people within

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters had been

enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample

estimates also differ from the

values that would have been

obtained from different samples of

housing units, people within those

housing units, and people living in

group quarters. The deviation of a

sample estimate from the average

of all possible samples is called the

sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that

arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 

100-percent data are subject to

nonsampling error. Nonsampling

error may be introduced during any

of the various complex operations

used to collect and process data.

Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every

person in the population, failing to

obtain all required information from

the respondents, obtaining incorrect

or inconsistent information, and

recording information incorrectly.

In addition, errors can occur during

the field review of the enumerators’

work, during clerical handling of

the census questionnaires, or during the electronic processing of the

questionnaires.

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that are

introduced randomly will increase

the variability of the data and,

therefore, should be reflected in the

standard errors and (2) errors that

tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 

100-percent data in that direction.

For example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their

incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by

income category will tend to be

understated for the higher income

categories and overstated for the

lower income categories. Such

biases are not reflected in the standard errors.

While it is impossible to completely

eliminate error from an operation

as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau

attempts to control the sources of

such error during the data collection and processing operations.

The primary sources of error and

the programs instituted to control

error in Census 2000 are described

in detail in Summary File 3

Technical Documentation under

Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,”

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 

Table 7.

Ten States With the Lowest Number of People 16 to 64 in

the Armed Forces: 2000

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,

sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

State Population 16

to 64 years

Number in

armed forces

Margin

of error*

Vermont............................... 401,845 761 71

New Hampshire ........................ 812,459 819 95

West Virginia . ......................... 1,178,275 1,650 149

Iowa .................................. 1,844,897 1,859 159

Oregon................................ 2,235,895 2,340 178

Minnesota ............................. 3,188,341 2,594 187

Wisconsin ............................. 3,454,362 2,868 197

Indiana. . . ............................. 3,930,832 3,006 242

District of Columbia..................... 398,953 3,273 273

Wyoming . ............................. 324,445 3,300 211

*When the margin of error is added to or substracted from the estimate, it produces a 90-percent

confidence interval.

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from

one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.

22 These numbers are not statistically different from each other.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

All statements in this Census 2000

brief have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

may not be significantly different

from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For further

information on the computation

and use of standard errors, contact

the Decennial Statistical Studies

Division at 301-763-4242. 

For More Information

The Census 2000 Summary File 3

data are available from the

American Factfinder on the

Internet (factfinder.census.gov).

They were released on a state-bystate basis during 2002. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling

error, and definitions, also see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000

/doc/sf3.pdf or contact the

Customer Services Center at 

301-763-INFO (4636).

Information on population and

housing topics is presented in the

Census 2000 brief series, located

on the Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www

/cen2000/briefs.html. This series,

which will be completed in 2003,

presents information on race,

Hispanic origin, age, sex,

household type, housing tenure,

and social, economic, and housing

characteristics, such as ancestry,

income, and housing costs.

For additional information on

employment status, including

reports and survey data, visit the

Census Bureau’s Internet site

at www.census.gov/hhes/www

/laborfor.html. To find information

about the availability of data products, including reports, CD-ROMs,

and DVDs, call the Customer

Services Center at 301-763-INFO

(4636), or e-mail 

webmaster@census.gov. 
U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58