Figure 1.

Primary Child Care Arrangements Used by Families

With Employed Mothers for Preschoolers: 1993

Others 1.0%

Mother 1 6.0%

Father 16.0%

Grandparents 17.0%

Other relatives 9.0%

Nonrelatives 21.0%

Organized facilities 30.0%

1 Includes mothers working at home or away from home.

U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration

Who’s Minding

Our Preschoolers?

By Lynne M. Casper

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

Population Reports

 P70-53

March 1996

Current Household Economic Studies

One of the greatest challenges

for employed parents is finding

good quality, low cost child care.

Reliable, quality care is especially

important for preschoolers because young children are

dependent on caregivers to fulfill

their basic needs and to keep

them from harm. Preschoolers

are also in the midst of forming

personalities, developing cognitively, and learning social skills,

and child care providers can and

do have a major impact on these

processes and their outcomes.

For these reasons, finding the

right provider is critical. In this 

report, we examine how working

parents arrange care for their 

preschoolers.

Almost half of preschoolers 

are cared for by relatives while

their mothers are at work

According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation,

in the fall of 1993 there were 

9.9 million children under age 5

Defining Child Care 

Arrangements

Relatives include mothers, fathers, siblings, grandparents, and other relatives.

Other relatives include

aunts, uncles, and cousins.

An organized child care 

facility is a day care center,

a nursery school, or a preschool. A family day care

provider is a nonrelative

who cares for one or more

unrelated children in her/his

home. In-home babysitters

are nonrelatives who provide

care within the child’s home.

Nonrelatives include inhome babysitters and family

day care providers.

who were in need of child care

while their mothers were working.

Almost half (48 percent) of these

preschool-age children were primarily cared for by relatives (figure

1). Seventeen percent of preschool children were cared for by

their grandparents during their

mothers’ working hours; about the

same proportion were cared for by

their fathers. The majority of preschoolers who were cared for by

relatives were, in fact, cared for by

either their grandparents or their

fathers, each accounting for a

third of the care provided by relatives. Other relatives such as

aunts, uncles, and cousins played

a smaller role in providing child

care services overall, amounting

to about 9 percent of all arrangements for preschoolers. Mothers

provided the remainder of the care

by relatives. About 6 percent of

preschoolers were cared for by

their mothers; most of these

moms worked at home.

A little more than half (52 percent) of preschool-age children

were cared for by someone other

than relatives while their mothers

were at work. In 1993, more 

preschoolers were cared for in organized child care facilities than in

any other single arrangement;

approximately 1 in 3 preschoolers

were cared for in organized child

care facilities. Nonrelatives, including in-home babysitters and

family day care providers, were

also important sources of child

care; about 1 in 5 preschool-age

children were cared for by nonrelatives.

Another important consideration in the choice of child care

arrangements is the environment

in which care is provided. In

1993, about a third of preschoolers were cared for in each of the

three major child care environments: the child’s home, the

provider’s home, and organized

child care facilities (table 1).
Figure 2.

Changes in Selected Child Care

Arrangements: 1988 to 1993

(Percent of preschoolers of working mothers in 

selected arrangements)

Care by fathers

Family day care

Organized facilities

15

20

16

24

18

17

26

23

30

1988

1991

1993

Type of

arrangement

2 P70-53

Table 1.

Primary Child Care Arrangements of Preschoolers by Mother’s Employment Status: Fall 1993

Type of arrangement Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All Preschoolers 9,937 100.0 6,426 100.0 3,512 100.0 6,083 100.0 3,855 100.0

Care in child’s home 3,054 30.7 1,656 25.8 1,398 39.8 1,465 24.1 1,589 41.2

By father 1,585 15.9 719 11.2 866 24.7 657 10.8 928 24.1

By grandparent 649 6.5 384 6.0 264 7.5 361 5.9 287 7.4

By other relative 328 3.3 227 3.5 101 2.9 166 2.7 162 4.2

By nonrelative 492 5.0 325 5.1 167 4.8 281 4.6 211 5.5

Care in provider’s home 3,184 32.0 2,239 34.9 945 26.9 2,095 34.4 1,089 28.3

By grandparent 996 10.0 684 10.6 312 8.9 593 9.7 403 10.5

By other relative 543 5.5 384 6.0 159 4.5 360 5.9 183 4.8

By nonrelative 1,645 16.6 1,171 18.2 474 13.5 1,143 18.8 503 13.0

Organized child care 

facilities 2,972 29.9 2,166 33.7 806 22.9 2,146 35.3 826 21.4

Day/group care center 1,823 18.3 1,398 21.8 425 12.1 1,369 22.5 453 11.8

Nursery/preschool 1,149 11.6 768 11.9 381 10.9 776 12.8 373 9.7

Mother cares for child 

at work 2 616 6.2 280 4.4 336 9.6 296 4.9 321 8.3

Other 3 111 1.2 84 1.3 26 0.8 81 1.3 30 0.8

1 Calculations based on mother’s principal job only. 2 Includes women working at home or away from home.

3 Includes preschoolers in kindergarten and school–based activities.

Employment status 1

All

preschoolers Full time Part time Day shift Non-day shift

Employment schedule Shift work status

Preschoolers’ child care 

arrangements have changed

dramatically over the past 

few years

Noteworthy changes have recently occurred in the types of

child care arrangements parents

use for their preschoolers. Between 1988 and 1991, the

proportion of preschoolers who

were cared for in organized child

care facilities declined from 26

percent to 23 percent (figure 2).

However, between 1991 and

1993, this trend reversed itself and

the proportion of preschoolers

who were cared for in organized

facilities jumped from 23 percent

to 30 percent, representing a 

30 percent increase over the 

2-year period.

During the same time periods

these shifts were occurring, there

were offsetting changes in the proportions of preschoolers being

cared for by fathers and family

day care providers. Care by 

fathers, while remaining at about

the 15 percent level between 1977

and 1988, sharply increased to 

20 percent by 1991. However,

between 1991 and 1993, the 

proportion of preschoolers being

cared for by their fathers dropped

back down to 16 percent.

Family day care had also been

a consistent source of child care

arrangements, providing 23 percent of all arrangements for

preschoolers in 1977 and 1988.

However, the proportion of children cared for by family day care

providers sharply fell from 24 percent in 1988 to 18 percent in 1991

and remained at this historically

low level in 1993.

Between 1988 and 1991, the

decreases in the use of organized

child care facilities and family day

care providers, and the increase in

care by fathers, may have been

rational responses to the economic recession which occurred during

the same time period. Increases
Figure 3.

Child Care Arrangements for Preschoolers by

Employment Status of Mother: 1993

Day shift Non–day shift Full time Part time

Organized

facilities1

Shift work status Employment schedule

1 Includes day care centers, nursery schools, preschools, and about 

1 percent of children in kindergarten or school based activities.

2 Includes mothers, siblings, grandparents, and other relatives.

11%

29%

23%

37%

24%

35%

19%

22%

11%

31%

23%

35%

25%

33%

18%

24%

Father

Other 

relatives2

Nonrelatives

Others

Relatives

P70-53 3

in the proportion of fathers who

were unemployed and working at

part-time jobs meant that more 

fathers were available to serve 

as potential child care providers.

These shifts also may have reflected the desire of parents to 

cut down on child care costs by

switching to more parental supervision of their children whenever

possible. Between 1991 and

1993, the fact that the decline in

care by fathers and the increase

in the use of organized facilities

occurred at the same time as the

recession was ending also supports this notion. Note also that

not only did father care decline

during this period, but mother care

declined as well from 9 percent in

1991 to 6 percent in 1993.

It could be then, that the increase in care by fathers between

1988 and 1991 which many

thought was part of a growing 

social trend for fathers to become

more involved in the rearing of

their children, actually was driven

more by the economy and the attendant economic circumstances

of families with young children.

The continued comparative unpopularity of family day care may

in part reflect a growing uneasiness of parents to use a minimally

regulated arrangement where

there is a single provider, as opposed to a heavily regulated

arrangement — an organized

child care facility — where there

are a number of providers. Recent media reports of child neglect

and abuse at the hands of babysitters and family day care

providers may also be a factor in

the decline in the use of family

day care providers.

Mothers working evening or

night shifts have an easier time

arranging for relative and 

in-home care

The type of shift that a mother

works makes a big difference in

the kind of primary care arrangements she uses. When compared

to children whose mothers work

day shifts, children whose mothers

work non-day shifts are less likely

to be cared for by someone other

than a relative.1 For example,

among preschoolers whose mothers worked a day shift at their

principal job, 60 percent were

cared for by someone who was

not related to them compared with

only 41 percent of children whose

mothers worked a non-day shift

(figure 3).2

Use of organized child care facilities was also more prevalent for

children of women working day

shifts, accounting for 37 percent of

all child care arrangements (figure

3). Because organized child care

facilities often may not be available during evenings or on

weekends, children of women

working non-day shifts used these

facilities less frequently, amounting

to 22 percent of all child care arrangements.

1 Day shift in this report is defined as

a work schedule where at least one-half

of the hours worked daily were between

8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. All other schedules in which the majority of hours are

worked outside of this period or which

have irregular or rotating hours are classified as non-day work shifts.

2 The 37 percent of preschoolers

who are cared for in organized facilities

includes about 1 percent of children who

are in kindergarten or school based activities.

Working non-day rather than

day shifts may offer more opportunities for women with preschoolers

to secure care for their children by

relatives, especially by the children’s fathers. Overall, 59 percent

of the preschool-age children of

women working non-day shifts

were cared for by relatives

compared with only 40 percent of

the children of women working

day shifts. In addition, preschoolers whose mothers worked

non-day shifts were two and 

one-half times as likely as preschoolers whose mothers worked

day-shifts to have their fathers as

primary care providers (24 percent

vs. 11 percent).

Children whose mothers

worked day shifts were also more

likely to be cared for in another

home than children whose mothers worked non-day shifts (table

1). Among preschoolers whose

mothers worked a day shift, 

34 percent were cared for in

another home compared with 

28 percent of children whose

mothers worked a non-day shift.

In contrast, only 24 percent of the

preschool-age children of women

working day shifts were cared for

in their own home compared with
4 P70-53

41 percent of the children of

women working non-day shifts.

Mothers working part time also

have an easier time arranging

for relative and in-home care

Child care patterns by the

number of hours worked are similar — preschool children of

mothers employed full time were

less likely to be cared for by relatives (42 percent) than were

children of mothers employed part

time (58 percent). On the other

hand, full-time working mothers

relied more heavily on child care

by nonrelatives (23 percent) and

organized child care facilities (35

percent) than did part-time working mothers.

Preschool-age children of parttime working mothers were twice

as likely to be cared for by their

mothers while at work (10 percent), than were children of

mothers who worked full time 

(4 percent, table 1). In addition,

child care provided by the father

was also more frequent when the

mother worked part time (25 percent) than full time (11 percent).

Families may have chosen a parttime work schedule for mothers in

order to reduce work schedule

conflicts between spouses, thus

providing these families with a

greater opportunity for one parent

to care for their children while the

other parent is at work.

In 1993, children whose mothers were employed full time were

less likely to be cared for in the

child’s home (26 percent) than

were children whose mothers

were employed part time (40 percent). However, no differences at

all were found in the proportion of

grandparents and other relatives

(10 percent) or nonrelatives (5

percent) caring for preschoolers in

the child’s home among children

whose mothers were employed

part time versus full time. In contrast, full-time working mothers

relied more heavily on child care

in someone else’s home (35 percent) than did part-time working

mothers (27 percent).

Black and Hispanic mothers

rely more heavily on their 

relatives to provide child care

assistance while they are 

working than do White mothers

In 1993, at least half of the

care received by Black and Hispanic preschoolers was provided

by their relatives compared to only

about 45 percent of the care received by White children (table 2).

About 4 in 10 Black and Hispanic

children were cared for by grandparents or other relatives

compared to only about 2 in 10

White children. Care by grandparents was especially important to

Black and Hispanic families, accounting for one-fifth of all

arrangements used for preschoolers. Care by fathers was less

common among Black children

than among either White or Hispanic children.

In contrast, White preschoolers

were more likely to be cared for

by nonrelatives or in organized

child care facilities than either

Black or Hispanic preschoolers

(54 percent compared with 48 percent and 41 percent respectively).

But, Black and White children

were more likely to use organized

child care facilities (about 32 percent each), than were Hispanic

children (21 percent).

Children who live with only 

one parent are much more 

likely to be cared for by their

grandparents and other 

relatives than are children 

who live with married-couple

parents

Because children who live with

married couple parents are more

likely to live with their fathers than

are children who live with only one

parent, preschoolers with married

parents are more likely to be

cared for by their fathers. In 1993,

preschoolers in married-couple

families were fourteen times more

likely to be cared for by their fathers than preschoolers whose

parents were divorced, widowed,

or separated, and 4 times more

likely to be cared for by their 

fathers than children who lived

with a never-married parent.

In contrast, children in one-parent families were much more likely

to be cared for by grandparents

and other relatives than those in

married-couple families. Only 14

percent of children living with married-couple parents were cared for

by their grandparents compared

with 21 percent of preschoolers

whose parents were divorced,

widowed, or separated and 28

percent of preschoolers whose

parents never married. Compared

with preschoolers whose parents

were married, preschoolers whose

parents were not married were

twice as likely to be cared for by

other relatives (7 percent vs. 

16 percent).3

Relatives provide a great deal

of child care for preschoolers 

in poor families

For many families child care

can be a costly expense. However, asking relatives to serve as

child care providers may be one

way to avoid having to pay for

child care. Child care costs

constitute an especially large portion of the poor family’s budget, so

it comes as no surprise that poor

families rely more heavily on relatives to help them out with child

care than non-poor families do.4

In 1993, 60 percent of all child

care for preschoolers in poor families was provided by relatives,

compared to only 46 percent for

non-poor families (figure 4).

Grandparents and other relatives play an especially large part

in the child care of poor preschoolers. Preschoolers in poor

families were 50 percent more

likely to be cared for by their

grandparents and other relatives

than were preschoolers in nonpoor families (36 percent vs. 

3 The proportion of preschoolers of

widowed, separated, or divorced mothers

who were cared for by grandparents (21

percent) is not significantly different from

the proportion who were cared for by other relatives (16 percent).

4 For more information about child

care costs see Casper, Lynne M. 1995.

What Does It Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers? U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington DC.
Poor Non–poor

Figure 4.

Child Care Arrangements for Preschoolers

by Poverty Status: 1993

Poor Non–poor

Care by relatives Care by others

1 Includes day care centers, nursery schools, preschools, and about 

1 percent of children in kindergarten or school based activities.

Father 16%

Grandparents

20%

Other relatives

16%

Mother 8%

Father 16%

Grandparents

16%

Other relatives

8%

Mother 6%

Babysitters 7%

Family day

care 12%

Organized

facilities

21%1

40%

Babysitters 5%

Family day

care 17%

Organized

facilities

32%1

54%

60%

46%

P70-53 5

24 percent). In contrast, fathers

and mothers were no more likely

to provide child care in poor than

non-poor families.

Poor families are less likely to

use organized child care facilities

than non-poor families because

child care in an organized facility

is one of the most expensive of all

types of child care arrangements.

In 1993, children in poor families

were two-thirds less likely than

children in non-poor families to be

cared for in organized child care

facilities while their mothers were

at work (21 percent vs. 32 percent).

Children in families receiving

welfare benefits are more 

dependent on relatives to 

provide child care

In the fall of 1993, approximately 1.5 million preschoolers

lived in families who received 

either General Assistance, AFDC

(Aid to Families with Dependent

Children), Food Stamps, or WIC

(Special Supplemental Food Program for Women Infants and

Children). A significant proportion

of preschoolers lived in families

who participated in more than one

program at the same time (43 percent).

Like children in poor families,

those receiving either General Assistance, AFDC, Food Stamps, or

WIC benefits were more likely to

be cared for by relatives than

were those not receiving these

benefits (57 percent vs. 46 percent). Children whose families

received at least one type of assistance were also less likely to be

cared for in organized day care facilities than were those not

receiving these benefits (23 percent vs. 31 percent).

When we examine the usage

of child care arrangements by recipients in specific programs, we

see this pattern does not necessarily hold. Children in families

enrolled in the WIC program were

20 percent more likely to be cared

for by relatives than were children

not enrolled in the program. Similarly, children in families receiving

Food Stamps were also 20 percent more likely to be cared for by

relatives than were children not receiving Food Stamps. However,

children in families receiving

AFDC were no more likely to be

cared for by relatives than were

those not receiving AFDC. The

principal reason for this difference

is because a smaller proportion of

preschoolers are cared for by their

fathers in AFDC families (5 percent) than in WIC (14 percent)

and Food Stamp families (11 percent).5

Similar to children in poor families, children in families receiving

WIC benefits are much less likely

to be cared for in organized child

care facilities when compared with

those not receiving WIC benefits

(19 percent vs. 31 percent). In

contrast, AFDC and Food Stamp

recipients are about equally as

likely as non-recipients to use organized child care facilities. Why

would WIC recipients be less likely

to use organized child care facilities than non-recipients? One

reason may be because mothers

in families receiving WIC benefits

are younger and have younger

children than mothers in families

receiving other types of benefits

and some organized facilities have

regulations restricting enrollment

to older children. In 1993 for example, only 19 percent of infants

under 1 year of age were cared

for in organized facilities while

their mothers were at work

compared with 42 percent of

4-year-olds. Note also that in

families with mothers aged 15 to

24, one-fifth of preschoolers were

cared for in organized facilities

compared with one-third of those

in families with mothers who are

35 years of age or more.

Organized child care facilities

are more popular in the South

and in the suburbs

In 1993, families in the South

were more likely to choose organized child care facilities and less

likely to choose relatives as primary care providers for their

preschoolers than families in any

other region of the country. In

contrast, families residing in the

Northeast were the most likely to

call on relatives to provide care for

their preschoolers. The greater

use of relatives in the Northeast

5 Proportions of children cared for by

their fathers in WIC (14 percent) and

Food Stamps (11 percent) families were

not significantly different from each other.
Table 2.

Primary Child Care Arrangements Used for Preschoolers by Families

With Employed Mothers: Fall 1993

Characteristics

Number

of

children

Type of primary care arrangement

Care in child’s home by Care in another home by

Organized

facilities

Mother

cares

for

child1 Other2 Father

GrandparentOther

relative

NonrelativeGrandparentOther

relative

Nonrelative

Daycare

center

Nursery/

preschool

All Preschoolers.............. 9,937 1,585 649 328 492 996 543 1,645 1,823 1,149 616 111

Race and Hispanic Origin:

White, not Hispanic ......... 7,295 1,252 389 141 370 699 299 1,294 1,461 807 529 54

Black, not Hispanic ......... 1,161 101 123 82 17 106 135 164 188 191 33 22

Hispanic origin ............. 1,078 161 86 85 76 158 88 136 110 119 34 26

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403 71 50 21 30 33 21 51 64 31 21 9

Age of Child:

Less than 1 year ........... 1,631 285 123 45 98 183 108 364 284 29 113 -

1 year.................... 2,122 392 186 88 84 229 136 449 408 56 92 3

2 years................... 1,969 304 117 55 139 247 113 327 392 140 132 3

3 years................... 2,161 300 128 76 87 172 111 322 424 386 152 3

4 years................... 2,055 304 95 65 85 166 74 184 314 539 127 102

Marital Status:

Married, husband present .... 7,841 1,514 378 183 394 750 360 1,282 1,429 924 543 84

Widowed, separated, divorced . 1,012 14 113 70 60 101 90 176 192 137 48 12

Never married ............. 1,084 57 158 75 39 144 94 188 201 88 25 14

Age of Mother:

15 to 24 years ............. 1,566 225 184 69 61 226 118 279 256 77 60 10

25 to 34 years ............. 5,984 1,040 340 150 263 615 334 982 1,113 713 363 71

35 years and over .......... 2,387 320 124 108 168 155 91 385 454 359 192 30

Educational Attainment:

Less than high school ....... 1,051 180 109 98 50 90 85 155 116 96 64 8

High school, 4 years ........ 3,549 611 258 115 118 447 253 564 600 346 201 38

College, 1 to 3 years ........ 2,772 447 155 69 123 267 139 437 542 347 210 35

College, 4 or more years ..... 2,566 347 127 46 203 192 66 489 564 360 141 30

Enrollment in School:

Enrolled in school. . . . . . . . . . . 742 89 69 27 24 58 30 124 166 101 48 8

Not enrolled in school ....... 9,196 1,496 579 301 468 938 513 1,522 1,657 1,048 569 104

Monthly Family Income3

:

Less than $1,200 ........... 1,070 170 70 52 61 143 100 161 143 73 83 13

$1,200 to $2,999 ........... 3,268 648 177 116 96 370 235 490 516 324 262 35

$3,000 to $4,499 ........... 2,578 454 189 70 114 266 86 488 476 275 136 26

$4,500 and over............ 2,981 313 204 90 219 210 123 498 685 475 127 38

Poverty Level3

:

Below poverty ............. 1,068 173 88 65 70 126 104 131 128 83 87 13

Above poverty ............. 8,829 1,412 552 263 419 862 439 1,506 1,692 1,064 521 98

Program Participation:

All recipients4 .............. 1,537 198 141 91 62 193 157 229 247 111 98 11

Non-recipient5 ............. 8,401 1,387 507 237 431 803 386 1,416 1,576 1,038 519 101

AFDC recipient. . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 20 44 32 24 43 49 68 81 48 32 2

Non-recipient .............. 9,495 1,565 605 296 468 953 494 1,577 1,742 1,101 584 109

WIC recipient .............. 1,019 139 89 70 28 118 126 178 139 58 67 6

Non-recipient .............. 8,919 1,446 559 258 465 878 417 1,467 1,683 1,091 549 105

Food Stamps recipient . . . . . . . 873 93 81 48 38 113 107 93 155 82 52 11

Non-recipient .............. 9,064 1,492 568 280 454 883 436 1,552 1,668 1,067 564 101

Region:

Northeast ................. 1,748 440 112 78 89 185 93 189 290 152 104 16

Midwest .................. 2,773 453 200 78 92 272 120 609 479 237 211 21

South .................... 3,319 348 203 93 184 337 237 506 695 531 134 50

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,097 344 133 80 126 202 93 341 359 229 166 23

Metropolitan Residence:

Metropolitan ............... 7,746 1,246 507 256 433 761 391 1,234 1,402 960 467 88

In central cities ........... 2,844 495 218 108 147 296 143 471 465 316 150 34

Suburbs ................ 4,902 751 290 148 286 465 247 763 937 644 317 55

Nonmetropolitan............ 2,191 339 141 72 59 235 152 412 420 189 149 23

- Rounds to or represents zero. 1Includes mothers working at home or away from home. 2Includes preschoolers in kindergarten and

school-based activities. 3

Omits preschoolers whose families did not report income. 4Family receiving either AFDC, Food Stamps or WIC, or any

combination of the three programs. Also includes a small number of preschoolers (18,000) whose families are on General Assistance. 5

Family not

receiving either General Assistance, AFDC, Food Stamps or WIC.

6 P70-53
P70-53 7

can be attributed to the greater

use of fathers in the region, where

1 in 4 preschoolers were cared for

by their fathers, compared to 1 in

6 in the Midwest and West, and

only 1 in 10 in the South.

Families in the suburbs were

more likely to use organized child

care facilities to care for their preschoolers (32 percent) than were

families in central cities or nonmetropolitan areas (28 percent each).

On the other hand, preschoolers

residing in central cities and nonmetropolitan areas (50 percent

each) were more likely than preschoolers residing in the suburbs

(45 percent) to be cared for 

by relatives.

Upcoming reports

Sharp changes in the distribution of preschoolers’ child care

arrangements have been observed between 1988 and 1993.

For example, between 1988 and

1991 care by fathers rose substantially for the first time since

1977. However, between 1991

and 1993 there was a decline in

the use of fathers as principle care

providers back down to the level it

had been before 1991. In our

next report, we explore the reasons for this shift and the other

shifts in child care arrangements

that occurred over this period.

More information

A detailed table package

showing the costs of child care

and the child care arrangements

of preschool and gradeschool children is available on floppy disk for

$20 (PE-33) or on paper for $10

(PPL-34) from the Population Division’s Statistical Information Office

(301-457-2422). The table package is also available on the

INTERNET (http://www.census.gov); look for child care data

from the Population Division. Information about child care costs is

available in the report What Does

It Cost to Mind Our Preschoolers?

(P70-52). To order a copy of this

report, contact the Statistical Information Office.

Contacts:

Child care issues—

Lynne Casper

301-457-2416

lcasper@census.gov

Accuracy of the data

All statistics are subject to

sampling error, as well as nonsampling error such as survey

design flaws, respondent classification and reporting errors, data

processing mistakes, and undercoverage. The Census Bureau

has taken steps to minimize errors

in the form of quality control and

edit procedures to reduce errors

made by respondents, coders and

interviewers. Ratio estimation to

independent age-race-sex population controls partially corrects for

bias due to survey undercoverage.

However, biases exist in the estimates when missed persons have

characteristics different from those

of interviewed persons in the

same age-race-sex group.

Analytical statements in this report have been tested and meet

statistical standards. However,

because of methodological differences, use caution when

comparing these data with data

from other sources. Contact 

Jennifer Guarino, Demographic

Statistical Methods Division, at

301-457-4228 or on the INTERNET at jguarino@census.gov for

information on (1) the source of

data, (2) the accuracy of estimates, (3) the use of standard

errors, and (4) the computation of

standard errors for estimates in

this publication.