MEASURING THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION

 IN THE UNITED STATES WITH

THE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY: 1994-2002

by

A. Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson

 October 2003

 Population Division

 U.S. Bureau of the Census

 Washington DC 20233-8800

 United States of America

 POPULATION DIVISION WORKING PAPER NO. 73

Population

Division

 Working Paper Series
MEASURING THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES

WITH THE CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY: 1994-2002 

A. Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson

This paper reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by U.S. Census Bureau staff. It

has undergone a Census Bureau review more limited in scope than that given to official Census

Bureau publications. This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and

to encourage discussion of work in progress. 

The authors wish to thank Gregory Weyland in the Demographic Surveys Division, Harland

Shoemaker and John Finamore in the Demographic Statistical Methods Division, and Joseph

Costanzo, Campbell Gibson, Gregory Spencer, and David Word in the Population Division for

their helpful comments on this paper. 
Table of Contents

Introduction page

1.The Current Population Survey and the foreign-born population..............................................................................3

1.1. Purpose of the survey..............................................................................................................................................3

1.2. Selected aspects of the CPS sample design.............................................................................................................3

1.3. CPS sample universe...............................................................................................................................................4

1.4. CPS 2001 sample expansion ..................................................................................................................................5

1.5. CPS sample weighting ............................................................................................................................................5

1.6. Change in population controls ...............................................................................................................................6

2. Conceptualizing and measuring nativity characteristics...........................................................................................7

2.1. Identifying the foreign-born population .................................................................................................................7

2.2. Defining citizenship status......................................................................................................................................9

2.2.1. CPS citizenship questions ....................................................................................................................................9

2.2.2. Citizenship status and naturalization...................................................................................................................9

2.3. Year of entry..........................................................................................................................................................10

2.3.1. Length of residence of the foreign born .............................................................................................................10

2.3.2. Timing issues associated with ‘year of entry’ or length of residence, and citizenship.......................................12

2.4. The Naturalization Rate........................................................................................................................................13

2.5. Parental nativity, the foreign-stock population, and the second generation ........................................................14

2.6. Place of birth, race, and ethnicity .........................................................................................................................16

3. Data comparability issues .......................................................................................................................................16

3.1. Estimates of the foreign born and sample error....................................................................................................16

3.2. Estimates of the absolute difference and coefficients of variation........................................................................18

3.3. Non-sampling issues .............................................................................................................................................20

3.4. Consistency with 1990 Decennial Census Data....................................................................................................20

3.4.1. Known Differences in the CPS Foreign-Born Estimates with 1990 Census Data .............................................20

3.4.2. Consistency by Country of Origin and Period of Entry .....................................................................................20

3.5. Consistency with Census 2000 Data .....................................................................................................................21

3.5.1. Census 2000 nativity da .. ta ................................................................................................................................21

3.5.2 Census 2000 results and CPS 2000 results ........................................................................................................21

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................................22

Tables and Appendices:

Table A-1. Comparison of selected characteristics of the foreign born – Annual Social and Economic Supplement

 (ASEC): 2001 and 2002.

Table A-2. Foreign-born population by regions and selected countries of birth – Annual Social and Economic

 Supplement (ASEC): 2000, 2001, 2002.

Table A-3. Foreign-born population by regions and selected countries of birth – Annualized Averages: 2000, 2001,

 2002.

Table A-4. Foreign-born population by regions and selected countries of birth – Annual Social and Economic

 Supplement (ASEC) and 12-month Annualized Averages: 2000, 2001, 2002.

Table A-5. Illustration of effect of CPS nativity edits and adjustment for under-coverage in 1990 foreign-born

 numbers

Table A-6. 1990 decennial-based and 1997 estimates of the foreign born

Figure 1. Foreign born in the U.S., January 1994 to December 2002. 

Figure 2. Foreign born October 1999 to December 2002.

Appendix A: Nativity questions on the Current Population Survey

Appendix B: Titles in the working paper series
1

 This paper updates an earlier paper that evaluated Current Population Survey (CPS) foreign-born data from 1994 to 1997. See

Schmidley, A.D. and Robinson, J. G., How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United

States? Population Division Working Paper Series, No. 22. U.S. Census Bureau, 1998. Comparisons in this paper have undergone statistical

testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 

2

 Beginning in 2003, the March Annual Demographic Supplement was renamed the Annual Social and Economic Supplement or

ASEC. Sometimes referred to as the civilian noninstitutionalized population, and sometimes referred to as the household population, the

population universes of the ASEC and basic (monthly) surveys are discussed below. 

3

 Schmidley, A.D. The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2002. (P20-539). U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 

Schmidley , A. D. Section 1. “Trends in Immigration and the Foreign-Born Population.” Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United

States:2000 (P23-206). U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 

4

In 1996, the U.S. government enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. Both laws contain provisions for monitoring the welfare of the foreign

born and native and foreign-born children of foreign born parents. In 2001, the Census Bureau officially implemented a CPS sample expansion

of 28,000 households designed to improve the accuracy of state estimates of children’s health insurance coverage. The SCHIP expansion is 

discussed in Section 1.4 below.

5

 Schmidley , A. D. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:2000 (P23-206). U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 

Appendix A. “Foreign Born and Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts” pp.55-56. The foreign-born population includes both immigrants and

non-immigrants. The latter includes temporary workers with work permits, long-term visitors, diplomats, foreign students, unauthorized

migrants, etc. 

6

 The sample or long-form questionnaire is the source of census nativity data. The ACS questionnaire replicates the long form. 

Measuring the Foreign-Born Population in the United States

With the Current Population Survey 1994-20021

by A. Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson

Introduction

The estimated size of the foreign-born population of the United States in 2002 was 32.5 million

based on data collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS) - Annual Social and Economic

Supplement (ASEC).2 In absolute terms, this estimate represented an increase of 64.2 percent or

12.7 million over the estimated 19.8 million in the 1990 census, the largest foreign-born

population living in the United States since record-keeping began in 1850.3

The challenge of monitoring the welfare of this newly arrived and large foreign-born population

has created a demand for statistical information.4 Until 1994, when nativity items were added to

the CPS, the decennial census was the sole source of regularly collected information about this

group.5 While census data remain a primary source of information about the foreign born for

subnational governmental jurisdictions and other small areas, census data are collected only once

every ten years and quickly become outdated. In recent years, the American Community Survey

(ACS) has become a new source of information. ACS data are collected monthly and tabulated

annually, and have been designed to update and eventually replace decennial census sample

data.6 The relatively larger ACS sample yields more precise estimates than the CPS, for both

subnational geographic areas and foreign-born population subgroups. 

Over the past three years, the Census Bureau has been developing and testing a citizenship

question for inclusion in the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) core

questionnaire. The new question is designed to identify who is native and who is foreign born,
7

One of the effects of the legislation cited in Footnote 4 may have been increased acquisition of U.S. citizenship. 

8

 For more information, see Malone, Nolan J., Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity

Data, Population Division Working Paper Series, No. 66. U.S. Census Bureau, 2002.

9

 Studies involving the welfare of children of the foreign born are dependent on these data. 

10 For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks monthly unemployment rates using basic CPS data, and economists create 3-

month moving averages for econometric models. 

11 ACS annualized estimates lag CPS annualized estimates by about eight months. 

12 U. S. Census Bureau Population Division Working Paper No. 22, 1998. Although ASEC cases are interviewed in February,

March, and April, the ASEC has been traditionally linked with March because ASEC second stage weights are based on demographic estimates

of the civilian noninstitutionalized population as of March 1. See Section 1.5. “CPS Sample Weighting” for more information. 

13 See Footnote 1. 

-2-

and within the foreign-born-population, who claims U.S. citizenship. As SIPP is a longitudinal

survey, chronological timing can be established between factors such as the acquisition of

citizenship and participation in social programs.7 Compared with the CPS, ACS, or census, the

SIPP sample is relatively small, and subnational estimates or national estimates by detailed

demographic subgroups are not statistically precise. 

Several aspects of CPS data make it essential for research and evaluation:8

• CPS nativity items produce additional information about the foreign born compared

with censuses, ACS, or SIPP. For example the CPS includes questions on two key

nativity items--mother’s place of birth and father’s place of birth, known collectively as

the ‘parental nativity’ questions.9

• CPS data can be used to measure longitudinal change in individual cases and changes

over time in aggregate variables.10

• CPS monthly or basic data are available within 30 days of collection11

In this paper, we evaluate CPS nativity data collected between January 1994 and December 2002. 

Where feasible, we compare these data with data from other sources. We have incorporated a

limited amount of the information found in “How Well Does the Current Population Survey

Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United States?” which evaluated the March Annual

Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) nativity data 1994 to1997.12 The current paper

extends the period to 2002 and includes information about the monthly or basic survey.13 
14 U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Earnings, January 2002.

15 Throughout the 1980s and in 1991 the Census Bureau collected intercensal data on the foreign born by including supplements to

selected monthly CPS surveys fielded in April 1983, June 1986, June 1988, November 1989, and November 1991. For additional information

about the 1980s supplements (1991 excluded), see Guide to International Statistics: The Sources, Collection, and Processing of Foreign-Born

Population Data at the U.S. Census Bureau, J. M. Costanzo, et al., Population Division Working Paper Series, No. 68. U.S. Census Bureau,

2002.

16 See‘Design of the Current Population Survey Sample’, pp. 3-1 to 3-17 in Design and Methodology, Current Population Survey

Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, March 2002.

-3-

1. The Current Population Survey and the foreign-born population.

1.1. Purpose of the survey.

For over sixty years, the Federal Government has collected information about the population of

the United States using the Current Population Survey. The Census Bureau assumed

responsibility for the CPS in 1942. In 1959, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of

Labor assumed responsibility for analysis and publication of labor force and employment data

from the monthly CPS.14 The basic or monthly survey captures information about age, race, sex, 

and, beginning in 1994, nativity status. Supplemental questions have been added to the core

questionnaire on both a random and periodic basis. For example, special supplements containing

immigration-related questions were added to the basic CPS in selected months in the 1980s and

in 1991.15 On the other hand, the ASEC has never included questions beyond the core items. 

1.2. Selected aspects of the CPS sample design. 

The CPS sample design is fully described elsewhere.16 However, it is important to note a few

aspects of the design that affect estimates of the foreign-born population derived from CPS data

(discussed in more detail below): 

• The CPS is a multistage probability sample of housing units in the U.S. The Annual

Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) includes additional sample to increase the

precision of estimates associated with selected groups. Neither the basic (monthly) or

ASEC sample specifically target groups by nativity (native or foreign born). 

• CPS sample data are weighted to universe levels through a multistage process. The

initial stage is based on the inverse proportion of the sampling probabilities. The last

stage involves a ratio adjustment process where survey estimates are controlled to

independent demographic estimates based on selected characteristics such as age, sex,

race and Hispanic origin. A demographic estimate of the foreign born is not applied

during weighting. (See Section 1.5 below) 

• The CPS sample frame and stratification levels are based on geography and

socioeconomic data from the latest census. Groups such as the foreign born who are not

represented in the sample strata and non-randomly distributed across the United States

may be over or under represented from month to month depending on the location of the

housing units selected for inclusion in the sample. 
17 Census 2000 definitions of household and group quarters populations can be found in ‘Appendix B. Definitions’, Census 2000

Summary File 1 United States, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, 2000. See Design and Methodology, Current Population Survey

Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, March 2000, pages 3-7 for CPS definitions. 

18 Occasionally a sample housing unit is discovered to be a group quarters after the field representative (FR) begins interviewing. 

Nevertheless, the FR collects information about each person living in the unit and that information is included in the CPS‘person’ file. These

cases are identified as “in group quarters” on the person file and omitted from the household file. College students in dorm rooms whose usual

place of residence is a parental home are classified as part of the CPS household population even though they could be considered members of

the GQ population. See Figure 7-5 “Summary table for determining who is to be included as a member of the household” page 7-6 , in Design

and Methodology, Current Population Survey Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, March 2000. 

-4-

• Each monthly CPS sample contains eight rotation panels, and every household in the

survey is assigned to a specific panel. Each panel is rotated in for 4 consecutive months,

out for 8 months, and back in for 4 months over a 16 month period, and then replaced. In

any given month, one of the household panels is interviewed for the first time, one for the

second time, and so on, up to eight. The CPS design includes a 75 percent overlap in the

sample addresses from month to month and a 50 percent overlap from year to year for the

same month, a feature that reduces sample error for month-to-month and year-to-year

comparisons. 

1.3. CPS sample universe. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the primary sponsor of the CPS and refers to it as the

‘Household Survey’ in publications such as Employment and Earnings. In published reports, the

Census Bureau states that the CPS universe is the civilian noninstitutionalized population. 

Although it is probably easier for the lay person to think of the CPS as a household survey as

opposed to a survey of the civilian noninstitutionalized population, there are a few caveats

associated with either classification. 

All residents of the U.S. live in either households or group quarters (GQ).17 The GQ population

can be categorized as institutionalized or noninstitutionalized and civilian or military. People

living in relatively homogeneous group quarters circumstances, such as soldiers in military

barracks, patients in nursing homes, and incarcerated prisoners, are relatively easy to exclude

from the civilian noninstitutionalized population. However, other population groups such as

households with military members, college students in dorm rooms whose usual place of

residence is a parental home, or the staff of prisons and hospitals who live in census defined

special places are more difficult to classify.

The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) universe is

relatively equivalent to the household population because it: 1) includes households with

military members who live off post or on post with their families as long as one civilian adult

lives in the housing unit; and 2) excludes most GQ units.18 The CPS basic universe is more or

less equivalent with the civilian noninstitutionalized population because it excludes the military

completely. The basic or monthly survey also excludes most group quarters units. The weighted

difference between the basic and ASEC samples is about 700-800,000 people, all military. 
19 The total resident foreign-born population in April 1, 2000 was 31,107,889 which included 373,863 foreign born persons living

in group quarters, or about 1.2 percent of the foreign born. In contrast, the foreign-born group quarters population enumerated in the 1990

Census was about 0.5 million people. See “Appendix C. Comparison of Population Universes” in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in

the United States, 2000. Washington DC, 2001. 

20 The number of eligible households was increased from 50,000 to 60,000. Of the eligible basic households, approximately 56,000

were actually interviewed monthly.

21 See “Appendix B. Sample Expansion and Introduction of Census 2000-Based Population Controls” page 32, in Poverty in the

United States: 2001 (P60-219). U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, October 2002.

22 For more information see “Appendix D. Derivation of Independent Population Controls”, Current Population Survey: Design and

Methodology, Technical Paper No. 63RV. Washington DC, March 2002. 

-5-

The sample differences described above also pertain to the foreign-born population. For

example, the March 2002 basic or monthly weighted estimate of the foreign born (excluding all

military) was 32.4 million. In contrast, the 2002 ASEC weighted estimate of the foreign born

(including some military and controlled to March 1) was 32.5 million--a difference of about

100,000 people. Owing to the exclusion of most of the GQ population and military in

households, in any given month, the basic estimate probably understates the foreign-born

population by about 500,000.19 In contrast, the ASEC estimate excludes only about 400,000

people because some military personnel are present in the sample cases.

1.4. CPS 2001 sample expansion. 

Following Census 2000, the Census Bureau began testing an expanded CPS monthly or basic

sample. In July 2001, the BLS officially included the expanded sample in its labor force

statistics.

20 The Census Bureau also increased the ASEC sample for minorities and households

with children and a white householder. The expanded ASEC sample in 2001 consisted of 78,000

interviewed households. The primary goal of the ASEC expansion is the production of more

precise as well as reliable state estimates of low-income children without health insurance (State

Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP). Although the SCHIP sample expansion was

specifically designed to improve state-based estimates of children’s health insurance status, other

estimates have been improved as a result of the additional sample. (See section 1.6 below.) 21

1.5. CPS sample weighting. 

The CPS is a “controlled” survey through which the Census Bureau transforms sample counts

into national population totals in several stages.22 The initial stage of weighting is done at the

household level when base-weights are assigned to sample cases (a weight equal to the inverse of

the case's probability of selection). The next major step in weighting the sample data is to inflate

the base-weights by an average of about 6 to 7 percent to account for non-interview households

(units eligible for interview but not actually interviewed). 

The second stage of weighting involves individual person cases. This step is designed to

compensate for deficiencies resulting from survey under-coverage of the sample frame by

controlling the first-stage weighted sample data to demographic estimates derived from

combining census data and administrative records data. Second-stage weights are based on three
23 The Census 2000 count of 281.4 million is 0.34 million lower than the revised Demographic Analysis (DA) estimate of 281.8

million. Relative to DA, the difference implies a net undercount of 0.12 percent. This net coverage is dramatically different from that in the

1990 or any other previous census. In 1990, the revised net undercount estimated by DA was 4.2 million or 1.65 percent. See U.S. Bureau of

the Census. 2001b. “ESCAP II: Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Demographic Analysis results,” by J. Gregory Robinson. Executive Steering

Committee For A.C.E. Policy II, Report No.1, October 13. 

24 Beginning in January 2003, the CPS will include a new race question that will undoubtedly lead to additional changes. For more

information about the development of the 1990 MARS file, see ‘Modification of the census race and age distributions,’ page D-14 in “Appendix

D. Derivation of Independent Population Controls”, Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical Paper No. 63RV.

Washington DC, March 2002. 

25 A 1990 type file was obviated by changes in the Census 2000 age question. However, a modified race file was created. See

Modified Race Data Summary File, 2000 Census of Population and Housing Technical Documentation. Issued September 2002 by the U.S.

Census Bureau, Washington DC. 

26 Official CPS data released through December 2001 reflect the 1990 benchmark. 

27 Monthly estimates before 1994 were benchmarked to the 1980 Census. The marked increase between December 1995 and January

1996 is owing to a sample cut in the ten largest states. Apparently, the cut disproportionately affected the native and foreign-born populations. 

-6-

distributions derived independently of the survey:

• State of residence; 

• Age, sex, and Hispanic origin; and 

• Age, sex and race.

The independent values from the demographic estimates used to weight the survey are

benchmarked to the previous census. CPS estimates benchmarked to 1990 differ from the 1990

census universe by the inclusion of a statistical adjustment for net under-enumeration in the 1990

census. No adjustment for under-enumeration resulted following Census 2000.23 Demographic 

estimates used to develop second-stage weights benchmarked to1990 were derived from a

modified census base, sometimes called MARS for the “Modified Age-Race-Sex-Hispanic

origin” distribution, where the category ‘Other’ race has been proportionally distributed to four

major race groups.24 There was no immediate requirement for a fully developed MARS file for

Census 2000.25 Demographic estimates benchmarked to 2000 reflect change since the census for

five race groups: White; Black; American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; and Hawaiian and

Pacific Islander. Prior to 2000, the Asian and Pacific Islander groups were combined.

1.6. Change in population controls.

In 2001, the Census Bureau introduced a new set of demographic estimates benchmarked to

Census 2000. These new estimates currently form the basis of the CPS controls or second stage

weights described in Section 1.5. For evaluative purposes, the Census Bureau retrofitted the

April 2000 census-based weights to basic survey data from October 1999 forward.26 Monthly or

basic CPS data weighted to population controls benchmarked to the 1990 census and Census

2000 are shown in Figure 1.

27 The 2000 controls increased the basic March 2000 foreign-born

population from 27.9 million (weights based on estimates benchmarked to 1990) to 29.5 million
28 The foreign-born population estimate (29,480,000) reflected in Figure 1. “Foreign born in the U.S. Jan 1994 - Dec. 2002", differs

from the estimate shown in Table 5 (30,081,000) of Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity Data,

Population Division Working Paper No. 66 by Nolan Malone. Figure 1 reflects CPS basic or monthly results controlled to final Census 2000

results, whereas the Malone report reflects the 2000 ASEC estimate weighted with preliminary Census 2000 results. The 2000 ASEC estimate

reweighted with final Census 2000 results is 29,985,000. 

29 In 2000, the weighted difference between the basic and ASEC foreign-born samples controlled to March 1, 2000 was 29,985,000

- 29,480,000 or 505,000 members of the military living in households. In 2001, this difference was 31,811,000 - 31,435,000 or 376,000. 

30 These differences result from a change in the population control. While there is sampling error associated with these differences,

the amount of sampling error is trivial. Therefore, no significance testing was performed on these differences. 

31 Estimates not shown in this table may have been affected by the expanded sample. 

32 Currently, the wording in census and ACS questionnaires asks about birth abroad to an “American” parent. The CPS backs into

the question by determining the birth place of the respondent and each parent. Those born abroad with both parents born abroad are asked about

citizenship status, but never asked if they were born abroad to an American parent. 

-7-

(weights based on estimates benchmarked to 2000), for a difference of about 1.6 million.28 

The introduction of the 2000 controls resulted in an increase of 1.9 million foreign born in the 

2001 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, as shown in Table A-1, column 3.29 The new

controls added 109,000 more children and 56,000 more people 65 years and over. The labor force

participation rate increased by 0.7 percentage points; unemployment rate by (0.1 percentage

points); educational attainment (0.1 percentage points); child poverty (0.1 percentage points); and

the poverty of those age 65 and older (0.2 percentage points).30 The inclusion of the expanded

sample discussed in Section 1.4 produced no statistical differences for the estimates in Table A-1.

(column 4).31

2. Conceptualizing and measuring nativity characteristics.

2.1. Identifying the foreign-born population.

Decennial census and ACS data identify the native population by their responses to the

citizenship question: (1) Born in the U.S.; (2) Born in a U.S. Island Area e.g. Puerto Rico; or (3)

Born abroad of at least one U.S. citizen parent.

32 The foreign born are those who reported they

are (4) Naturalized citizens or (5) Not U. S. citizens. The CPS classifies native or

foreign born based on responses to both birthplace and citizenship questions.

The foreign-born population includes people currently living in the U.S. who:

• Entered the U.S. with immigrant visas issued by the U.S. State Department;

• Entered the U.S. in a refugee, asylum seeker status;

• Entered with student, business, or other extended visas;

• Entered without documents, or violated the terms of their documents while in the U.S. 

Although the terms ‘foreign born’ and ‘immigrant’ are sometimes used interchangeably in

reference to CPS, ACS, and census data, the Census Bureau does not ask questions about
33 Exceptions occur in special supplements. See Guide to International Statistics: The Sources, Collection, and Processing of

Foreign-Born Population Data at the U.S. Census Bureau, J. M. Costanzo, et al., Population Division Working Paper Series, No. 68. U.S.

Census Bureau, 2002..

34 See Footnote No. 2 in Section 1. “Trends in Immigration and the Foreign-Born Population” Schmidley, A. D. T he Foreign-Born

Population in the United States, March 2002 (P20-539). U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 

35 Although several of these questions are referred to as “screeners”, they produce responses that can be examined by Census Bureau

analysts. See Table A1 “Citizenship: ‘flagged’ foreign born cases from the March 1997 CPS” in How Well Does the Current Population Survey

Measure the Foreign Born Population in the United States? Population Division Working Paper Series No. 22. U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington DC. April 1998. 

36 Information about a new respondent is added when his household joins the survey, or when she joins a household already in the

survey. 

37 All states receive the same code in the CPS. In the decennial censuses and ACS each state has a unique code.

38 The field representative asks all persons born outside the 50 states and DC, ‘When did [...] come to the United States to live?’ 

-8-

immigration status in censuses or standard surveys.33 Although a foreign-born person may

acquire U.S. citizenship through naturalization, not all foreign-born persons are immigrants and

thus eligible for citizenship (and not all eligible immigrants acquire U.S. citizenship).34 

Unlike the census and ACS, each with one question about place of birth and one about

citizenship, the CPS questionnaire includes three birthplace questions (self, mother, father) as

well as three citizenship status questions (See 2.2.1 below).35 The responses to these questions

allow one to deduce the native and foreign-born populations. During an interview, a CPS field

representative (FR) asks about the birthplace of every member of the household, as well as the

place of birth of each household member’s mother and father:36

• If the respondent for a given household indicates a household member was born in one

of the fifty states or Washington DC, the FR enters the ‘U.S.’ code for that case, asks the

parental nativity questions, and skips the citizenship and year of entry questions.

37

• If the subject was born in Puerto Rico or another U.S. Island Area, the FR enters the

appropriate code, asks the parental nativity questions, skips the citizenship questions, and

asks the ‘year of entry’ question. 

• If the subject was born outside the U.S. or U.S. Island Areas, the FR skips the

citizenship questions only if responses to the parental nativity questions indicate one or

both of the subject’s parents was born in the U.S. or a U.S. Island Area. All are asked the

‘year of entry’ question. 

• If the subject was born outside the U.S. or U.S. Island Areas, and responses to the

parental nativity questions indicate that neither of the subject’s parents was born in the

U.S. or a U.S. Island Area, the FR asks the citizenship and year of entry questions.

38

 
39 See Appendix A for a topical version of the citizenship questions. 

40 In 2003 the Immigration and Naturalization Services was absorbed by the new Department of Homeland Security. Naturalization

functions are administered by the OIS. 

41 Non-responses are followed up with a telephone interview. 

-9-

2.2. Defining citizenship status.

2.2.1. CPS citizenship questions.

After the place of birth questions identify who is foreign born, the CPS asks one or more of the

following questions about foreign-born household members:

• Are you a citizen of the United States?

• Were you born a citizen of the United States? 

• Did you become a citizen of the United States through naturalization?39

2.2.2. Citizenship status and naturalization.

The methods used to identify citizenship status and/or naturalization are not strictly comparable

across the CPS, ACS, Census 2000, and administratively collected naturalization records: 

• Information about citizenship status is self-reported in censuses, the ACS, and CPS. In

contrast, naturalization information is recorded by the Office of Immigration Statistics

(OIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of an administrative

process.

40

 

• CPS, ACS, and census data provide a snapshot of an individual’s citizenship status

reported on a particular survey date. CPS citizenship information is collected at the time

a person enters the survey and carried forward each month the person remains in the

survey. With the exception of a few cases where information not collected in the initial

interview is obtained at a later date, and actual responses replace imputed values in the

data file, citizenship information is never updated. ACS responses are collected once

from each person in the sample and the results assembled for an annual composite

measure. Census data are collected once every ten years. The OIS compiles information

about naturalization events as they occur.

• Information collection processes differ. The initial CPS interview usually takes place in

the respondent’s home with a field representative and a computer assisted interviewing

Instrument. Subsequent interviews are usually conducted by phone. In contrast, ACS

and census questionnaires are initially mailed to households, filled out by a household

member, and mailed back.41 Naturalization events are recorded as they occur, and pertain

specifically to the person undergoing naturalization. 

• Questions about nativity differ. CPS questions about citizenship are driven by place of
42 The residual of 12.7 million divided by 32.5 million = 39.1 percent. 

43 Schmidley, A. D. T he Foreign-Born Population in the United States, March 2002 (P20-539). U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. 

-10-

birth items. Citizenship information is solicited for only about 10 percent of the CPS

household members – after an interviewer determines the person in question was not a

U.S. citizen at birth. In contrast, both the ACS and census forms contain a single

question about citizenship status – asked for every member of a household. OIS

naturalization information is only collected for naturalized citizens. 

2.3. Year of entry.

2.3.1. Length of residence of the foreign born. 

Two processes affect the size of the foreign-born population–death and net migration. Generally,

net international migration of the foreign born is the result of movement to and from the U.S. by

the foreign born during some specified period. In the first paragraph of the introduction to this

paper, we stated the ASEC estimate of the foreign-born population in 2002 was 32.5 million. The

difference between this figure and the 19.8 million recorded in 1990 implies an increase of 64.2

percent or 12.7 million people since 1990. This increase is the result of net migration and

mortality during the period. These figures also suggest that of the 32.5 million foreign born

living in the U.S. in 2002, at least 39.1 percent had lived in the country a dozen years or less

(Table 1).42 In contrast, estimates based on answers to the CPS ‘year of entry’ question suggest

48.6 percent of the foreign born had lived in the U.S. for 12 or fewer years.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1. Two illustrative estimates of the foreign born in 2002 who came to the U.S. in 1990 or later.

 Difference Percent (90% C. I.)

2002 CPS minus

 1990 census 12.7 million 39.1 (37.4 - 40.8)

2002 CPS ‘year

 of entry’ question 15.8 million 48.6 (47.3 - 50.0)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 12.7 million difference in Table 1 is the result of subtracting the 1990 Census estimate of the

foreign born from the 2002 ASEC estimate. This residual estimate excludes the foreign born

who entered or re-entered the U.S. in 1990 or later and were not represented in the 1990 Census

and who emigrated or died before 2002 and were not represented in the 2002 ASEC. This

residual estimate also fails to address issues associated with differential coverage between the

1990 Census and the 2002 ASEC. The 15.8 million difference shown in Table 1 is the weighted

estimate of the foreign born who entered the U.S. between 1990 and 2002 and who responded to

the ASEC ‘year of entry’ question.43 Because only people who lived in the U.S. in 2002 are

represented in the ASEC, the ‘year of entry’ estimate also excludes the foreign born who entered

or reentered the U.S. and died or emigrated before 2002. 
44 The choice of estimates used to calculate these proportions – 19,767,000 versus 19.8 million in 1990; and 32.5 million versus

32,457,000 in 2002; produce results that appear different (owing to rounding error) but are not statistically significant.

45 Non-overlapping confidence intervals mean that the two estimates can be considered to be statistically different, but if the

intervals overlap, the two estimates may or may not be statistically different.

46 See above “Section 1.3. CPS Sample Universe” for an explanation concerning the source of the excluded 400,000 foreign born. 

47 Wellens, Tracy. Report on the Cognitive Evaluation of the Nativity Questions for the Current Population Survey. Center for

Survey Methods Research. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. 1993.

-11-

Sample error might explain some of the discrepancy between the residual proportion (39.1

percent) and ‘year of entry’ proportion (48.6 percent). However the two amounts are statistically

different. A 90-percent confidence interval for the ‘year of entry’ estimate yields a range of 47.3

percent - 50.0 percent. A similar statistic can be calculated for the 2002 ASEC - 1990 Census

residual of 39.1 percent. Sample error would create an approximate range of 31.9 million - 33.0

million for the ASEC 2002 estimate of 32.5 million; a difference range of 12.2 million - 13.2

million between the 2002 and 1990 census figure; and a proportionate range of 37.4 percent to

40.8 percent.44 Because the two 90-percent confidence intervals exclude each other they are

statistically different.45

The CPS excludes most of the population living in group quarters, so it is possible the residual

difference is somewhat understated. However, even if all the excluded foreign born were

included in the 2002 ASEC estimate, the residual would be increased by only about 400,000

people raising the difference to 13.1 million.46 Using the exercise above, the residual difference

range would increase to 12.6 million - 13.6 million and the corresponding proportionate range

would be 38.1 percent - 41.5 percent. This modified range is still outside that calculated for the

‘year of entry’ proportion (47.3 - 50.0 percent). 

Another possible cause of the discrepancy between the proportion based on the ASEC-census

residual (39.1 percent) and the proportion based on the ‘year of entry’ estimate (48.6 percent) is

misreporting. The residual estimate is essentially an indirect estimate because the second stage

weights for the ASEC 2002 estimate are based on population estimates benchmarked to Census

2000. In contrast, information from the ‘year of entry’ item rests entirely on the accurate

reporting of past events. Evidence suggests foreign-born respondents are not always clear about

when they entered the U.S. “to live” because many came as students, workers, or refugees and

then sought immigrant status after their actual physical arrival.47 In addition, even if an

individual understands his situation, the respondent providing information may lack the requisite

knowledge. 

Another source of discrepancy between the results of the residual method and results based on

the ‘year of entry’ question shown in Table 1 arises because of timing. Some of the CPS

individuals providing a ‘year of entry’ of 1990 were actually enumerated in the census because

the census date occurred after one-fourth of 1990 had elapsed. In contrast, the residual results
48 Annualized estimates are based on adding 12 months together and dividing by 12. 

49 Because the ASEC sample draws on cases retired in preceding months, some of those interviewed have been in the survey for up

to twenty months. These respondents are not re-asked core questions such as sex, race, marital status, place of birth, or citizenship status. 

-12-

shown in Table 1 exclude the foreign born enumerated in the census who became residents

between January 1 and April 1, 1990. Because the CPS does not ask for month and year of entry,

there is no way to refine this comparison. 

2.3.2. Timing issues associated with ‘year of entry’ or length of residence, and citizenship. 

Because a major qualification for naturalized citizenship status is a length of residence in the

United States of five years or longer, analysts sometimes cross-reference ‘year of entry’ or length

of residence information with citizenship status for the purpose of examining the internal

consistency of reported data or for analyzing the acquisition of citizenship by various groups. A

number of caveats are associated with this practice: 

• Some individuals who have resided in the U.S. for less than five years have acquired

citizenship. For example, adopted foreign-born children, foreign-born spouses, and

children born abroad of foreign-born naturalized U.S. citizens may qualify for expedited

citizenship status (less than five year wait). If the survey contains these cases,

inconsistencies will appear in a cross-reference match. 

• In March, when most ASEC interviews take place, only three months of the year have

elapsed. Thus a terminal length of residence of “five years or less” for 2002 would

include 4 years (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) and three months (2002). While somewhat

imprecise, ASEC year-to-year comparisons finesse this issue and provide reliable

measures of change or lack thereof. Annualized averages from the basic files (January -

December) provide relatively precise measures of the status quo as well as year-over-year

change.48 

• The issue of validity is associated with month-in-sample (MIS). Generally, the nativity

questions ( including ‘year of entry’ and citizenship) are asked once at the beginning of

the 16-month rotation period. Citizenship status can change over the interview period

while ‘year of entry’ remains stable, but neither question is asked again unless the

respondent failed to provide an answer the first time. Even if respondents answer the

question and answer it accurately, citizenship is affected by MIS.49

• Cross-referencing ‘year of entry’ and citizenship data from the CPS can produce

inconsistencies for foreign born who left the U.S. and returned at a later date. For

example, a respondent naturalized in 1989, who left the United States in 1997 to visit

abroad and returned in1999, might answer’ “yes” to the naturalized citizenship question

in the March 2002 survey and provide a ‘year of entry’ of 1999, i.e. less than five years. 
50 Schmidley, A. D. “What is a Naturalization Rate?” Applied Demography Winter 2000. 

51 Schmidley , A. D. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:2000 (P23-206). U.S. Census Bureau. 2001.

Section 7. “Citizenship Status.” 

-13-

2.4. The Naturalization Rate.50

Calibrating a rate involves identifying and measuring not only what constitutes the events in the

numerator, but who is in the “at risk” universe in the denominator. For example, naturalization

rates involve events administered on a recurring basis by the U.S. government to a foreign-born

population at risk of being naturalized. Only the foreign-born in an immigrant status who have

met the requirements for naturalization are truly eligible or “at risk” of being naturalized.

Furthermore, the eligible foreign born meet the criteria for naturalization, die, emigrate, and

become citizens every day. Thus the “at risk” population is in a constant state of flux. 

Calculating a naturalization rate not only involves determining who is eligible for citizenship, but

determining who is eligible as of a specific date since only one number can appear in a

denominator. However, should the date of eligibility be at the beginning, middle, end, or some

other time during the period when the events in the numerator occur? Table 2 shows a

hypothetical comparison of percentages calculated using the same number in the numerator along

with denominators from the beginning, middle, and end of a calendar year. Assuming the data in 

Table 2 are based on administrative records, and depending on how the figures were calculated,

the derived percentages could be expressed as rates. Statistical significance is not an issue with

non-sampled administrative data, so the observed differences would be significant. However,

because the numerator is a constant, differences are only owing to changes in the denominator.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2. Hypothetical Citizenship Percentages of the Foreign Born for Year X

 

Foreign Born Naturalized Citizens Percent 

----------------- ----------------------- ----------

January 1 32.0 million 11.9 million 37.1 

July 1 32.5 million 11.9 million 36.6 

December 31 33.0 million 11.9 million 36.0 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPS, ACS, and census data should not be used to calculate naturalization rates because the

denominator in percentages derived from these data do not accurately reflect the population at

risk. Rather, these survey sources should be used to calculate ‘citizenship status’ or the

proportion or percentage of the foreign-born population who reported they were citizens on the

survey date or another date indicated in the survey. If the hypothetical percentages in Table 2

had been taken from the CPS they would probably not be statistically different from each other. 

On the other hand, citizenship proportions derived from CPS data frequently are statistically

significant.51
52

 Schmidley , A. D. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:2000 (P23-206). U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 

Section 8. “Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock.” The foreign-stock population consists of the foreign born + those with a foreign-born

mother and native father + those with a native mother and foreign-born father + those with two foreign-born parents. Intermarriage rates

between natives and the foreign born affect group measures. The question on nativity or birthplace of parents, which was included in censuses

from 1890 to 1970, was replaced in 1980 with a question on ancestry that was based on self-identification, with no restriction on how many

generations removed from their ancestors’ country or countries of origin. 

53 Gibson, C. J. and Emily Lennon, Table 12. “Nativity and Parentage of the Population: 1890 to 1930, 1960, 1970” in Historical

Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 1990, Population Division Working Paper No. 29. U.S. Census

Bureau. 1999; Schmidley, A.D. and C.J. Gibson., Table 4-1A. “Nativity and Parentage of the Population for Regions, Divisions, and States:

1997.” in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States,1997, Detailed Tables (PPL-115), U.S. Census Bureau. 2001;

Schmidley, A.D., Table 4-1A. “Nativity and Parentage of the Population for Regions, Divisions, and States: 2000,” Profile of the Foreign-Born

Population in the United States, 2000, Detailed Tables (PPL-145), U.S. Census Bureau, 2002

54 See Section 19. “Poverty Status” in P23-206.

-14-

Analysts may argue about whether or not measures based on data from the CPS, ACS, or census

understate or overstate the “true” proportion of the foreign born who have become naturalized

citizens, however, over time these measures are reliable–they illuminate underlying change in

whatever is being measured.

2.5. Parental nativity, the foreign-stock population, and the second generation.

Earlier in this paper, we indicated the foreign-born population has been increasing in recent

years. Coinciding with this increase has been a large increase in the size of the children-of-theforeign-born population. In 1970, the last year information about parental nativity was collected

in a decennial census, the foreign stock population (foreign born and their children) was 33.6

million, or 16.5 percent of the U.S. population (Table 3).52 By 2002, the foreign-stock population

had increased to 62.1 million or 22.0 percent of the population. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. Foreign Stock Population: 1890, 1930, 1970, 200253

(Numbers in thousands; numbers in parentheses are percent of total)

 Total Foreign Foreign or Mixed Foreign

 Year Population Stock Parentage Born 

1890 62.6 20.8 (33.2) 11.5 (18.4) 9.2 (14.7)

1930 122.8 40.3 (32.8) 26.1 (21.3) 14.2 (11.6)

1970 203.2 33.6 (16.5) 24.0 (11.8) 9.6 (4.7)

2002* 282.2 62.1 (22.0) 29.6 (10.5) 32.5 (11.5)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* CPS annualized average; other data from decennial censuses. 

Policy makers and analysts have long recognized that parental nativity and child welfare are

linked. For example, in 1999 24.0 percent of related children under age 18 living in families with

a foreign-born householder were in poverty, compared with 14.9 percent of children residing

with a native householder.54 However, because the majority of the children of the foreign born
55 See Section 13. “Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders” in P23-206

56 Citizenship status of the parents is not determined.

57 Schmidley , A. D. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2000. Detailed Tables. (PPL-145). U.S. Census

Bureau, 2001. Table 5-2A. “Nativity and Parentage of the Population for Large Metropolitan Areas: 2000.” 

-15-

are native, child nativity and parental nativity are not equivalent.

55 Programs designed to address

the needs of the children of the foreign born, for example English as a Second Language

programs, must be linked to information about both parents. 

Parental nativity can be deduced indirectly from ACS and census data using birthplace and

citizenship information–as long as the person in question resides with both parents. However,

most adults and a significant number of children do not reside with both parents. Because

parental nativity information is not collected in the ACS and no longer collected in censuses,

owing to the replacement of the question with the ancestry question beginning in 1980, the

parental nativity of many people cannot be determined from these sources. 

In addition to a question about each household member’s place of birth, the CPS asks for

mother’s place of birth and father’s place of birth.56 CPS ASEC data are useful for national level

comparisons and reasonably precise annualized estimates of parental nativity can be calibrated

for larger states using the basic or monthly data. Subnational detailed parental nativity by

characteristics such as age is relatively imprecise compared with data from censuses, however.

When they are available, subnational foreign-stock measures can be used to assess need, develop

programs, and allocate program funding. For example, an official seeking assistance might argue

his school district is deserving of federal help for both child and adult programs because it

includes a large foreign-stock population. Legislators seeking an equitable method for disbursing

limited funds to assist communities with “immigrant” populations might use foreign-stock

measures to rank communities on a needs basis.57

Foreign-stock measures are also useful for business firms. Race, ethnic (Hispanic), and ancestry

data are necessary, but not always sufficient for target marketing. For example, foreign and U.S.

airline companies, desirous of selling country-specific flights will use a variety of means to

identify and locate customers with relatively strong links to that particular country because the

foreign born and their children have been shown to be more attached to countries of origin than

later generations. 

Some analysts prefer the phrase second generation when discussing children of the foreign born.

A perusal of articles, books, policy papers, governmental reports, news articles, etc. suggests

many ways of operationally defining and measuring concepts such as “first and second

generation” or “second generation.” Characteristics such as: age; age at the time of entry into the

U.S. (if foreign born); nativity; nativity of siblings; parental nativity; presence of siblings; and
58 Foreign-born people have foreign-born parents. 

59 CPS race and ethnic classifications are scheduled to become consistent with Census 2000 definitions in 2003. However, reports

based on CPS data do not show as much detail as census-based reports owing to sample size. Census Bureau foreign-born reports issued through

2003 and based on CPS survey data from 2002 or earlier do not include information about American Indians or Alaska Natives. For an

explanation, see Footnote 1 in Section 9. “Hispanic Origin and Race” in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2000.

(P23-206). U.S. Census Bureau. Washington DC. 2001. 

60 For example, the CPS reported 15.3 percent of the foreign born were from Europe. However, 67.9 percent of the foreign born

were White in 2000, and more than half of the White foreign born were Hispanic and from Spain, Latin America, and other parts of the world. 

See Table 9-1A. “Race and Hispanic Origin of the Population by Nativity and Parentage: 2000.” in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in

the United States, 2000. Detailed Tables. (PPL-145). U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 

-16-

household status (some persons under age 18 are householders and/or spouses); etc. can be

combined to produce the following not exhaustive list of possibilities:

• All people (native and foreign born), regardless of age, with one or more foreign-born

parents (foreign-stock population as defined by the Census Bureau).58

• All people (native and foreign born), regardless of age, with two foreign-born parents 

(sometimes referred to as the first and second generation). 

• Foreign-born children, regardless of age, with two foreign-born parents. 

• Native children, regardless of age with one or more foreign-born parents.

• Native children, regardless of age, with two foreign-born parents (sometimes referred to

as the first generation and sometimes referred to as the second generation). 

• All children 17 or younger with one or more foreign-born parents, etc.

• All children 17 or younger who are not householders and/or spouses with one or more

foreign-born parents, etc. 

• All children 12 or younger with one or more foreign-born parents, etc.

2.6. Place of birth, race, and ethnicity.

The racial categories drawn from CPS data for the years 1994 to 2002 include: White; Black;

American Indian or Alaska Native; and Asian and Pacific Islander. The ethnic categories include

Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin. The population in a race category may be Hispanic or

not Hispanic, and the population of Hispanic origin may be of any race. The Census Bureau CPS

based publications issued between 1994 and 2003 have included four race or ethnic groups for

discussion: Blacks; Asians and Pacific Islanders; Hispanics, and White non-Hispanics.59

Categories of race and ethnicity are not interchangeable with the world geographic regions

reported in CPS, census, and ACS reports.

60

 

3. Data comparability issues.

3.1. Estimates of the foreign born and sample error.

Estimates based on CPS data are subject to sampling error (non-sampling error is discussed
61 A rolling average consists of a string of consecutive 12-month average estimates. Each 12-month estimate is created by dropping

the oldest month and adding the newest month. Thus the average for July in year x would be based on data from January to December of year x,

and the average for August of year x would be based data from February of year x through January of year x+1.

-17-

below). For example, the 2002 ASEC estimate of the foreign-born population is 32.5 million,

and the standard error is 315,000. A calculation of 1.645 x 315,000 produces a 90 percent

confidence interval of 31.9 million to 32.9 million. In other words, we are 90 percent confident

the true value for the 2002 ASEC estimate lies somewhere between 31.9 million and 33.0

million. 

Table A-2 shows estimates of the foreign born by region and country of birth for 2000, 2001, and

2002, based on data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) controlled to

March 1 second stage weights. Countries represented by a foreign-born population of 400,000 or

more in 2002 have been included. Note that the March 1, 2000 estimate for the foreign-born

population from Russia is 364,000. A 90 percent confidence interval for this estimate is 364,000

± (48,000 x 1.645) produces a range of 285,000 to 443,000. This means we are 90 percent

confident this interval contains the true value for the foreign-born population from Russia. 

Furthermore, similarly formed intervals will contain the true population value about 90 percent

of the time in repeated sampling. Comparable estimates and ranges for the foreign born from

Russia for the other two years shown in Table A-2 are: 2001 = 465,000 with a standard error of

39,000 and a range of 401,000 to 529,000; and 2002 = 508,000 with a standard error of 40,000

and a range of 442,000 to 574,000. 

Table A-3 shows estimates of the foreign born by region and country of birth based on

annualized averages of CPS monthly or basic survey data. Owing to the larger sample size of the

annualized file (compared with the ASEC file), countries represented by a foreign-born

population of 100,000+ in 2002 can be included. The estimates for 2000, 2001, and 2002 shown

in this table are calibrated from 12 months of data collected between January and December and

the mid-point of these annualized averages is July 1. Figure 2 illustrates the rolling averages line

that includes the three July data points in Table A-3.61 

The July 1, 2000 annualized average for the foreign-born from Russia is 431,000. The standard

error of this estimate (28,000) appears to be smaller than the comparable standard error for the

March 1, 2000 ASEC estimate (48,000). Standard error size is related to estimate size, however,

and bigger estimates generally produce bigger standard errors. Because the ASEC estimate is

relatively smaller with a larger standard error, we suspect the annualized averages estimate is

more precise. A useful tool for demonstrating this is the coefficient of variation (standard error

divided by its estimate) which allows one to normalize the relationship between estimates and

standard errors. The ASEC coefficient of variation is 48,000/364,000 or 13.1 percent. The

annualized averages CV is 28,000/431,000 or 6.5 percent, half the size of the ASEC CV. The

smaller coefficient of variation indicates the annualized averages estimate is more precise.

A 90 percent confidence interval for the annualized averages estimate produces 431,000 +
62 The CPS sample is designed to produce the effect of sampling with replacement where each monthly sample independently

represents the U.S. population. Thus CPS annualized averages are obtained by adding 12 independent samples together and dividing by 12. 

63 The ‘coefficient of variation’ is the ratio of the standard error over the estimate and thus the inverse of the test statistic.

-18-

(28,000 x 1.645) or a range of 385,000 to 477,000. Recall that the March 1, 2000 ASEC

estimate (364,000) produced a range of 285,000 to 443,000. The two ranges overlap and a

statistical test indicates they are not statistically different. Comparable estimates and ranges for

the other annualized estimates for Russia shown in Table A-3 are: 2001 = 480,000 with a

standard error of 21,000 and a range 445,000 to 515,000; and 2002 = 523,000 with a standard

error of 22,000 and a confidence interval of 487,000 to 559,000.

The relatively smaller CV of annualized estimates compared with those of ASEC estimates

indicates the former are statistically more precise. For example, the 2002 ASEC foreign-born

estimate discussed above is 32.5 million. The standard error for this estimate (Table A-2.) is

315,000 with a confidence interval of 31.9 million to 32.9 million. In contrast, the July 1, 2002

annualized average in Table A-3 is also 32.5 million with a standard error of 170,000 and a

confidence interval of 32.2 million to 32.8 million. The two estimates are not statistically

different, although the annualized averages estimate is more precise as indicated by a smaller CV

and a narrower confidence interval. 

Table A-4 is a summary table showing information from Table A-2 and Table A-3. As we noted

above, the ASEC data were collected over three months in the early part of the year and weighted

to March 1. The monthly data reflected in the annualized averages were collected from January

to December each year, and as the midpoint of the year is July 1, the annualized averages can be

interpreted as estimates for that date.62 Figure 3 shows the approximate source months for the

12-month annualized averages compared with the March ASEC sample. Note that some of the

cases are identical (from the same source month). However, annualized averages have many

more cases to draw on and thus can produce more precise results. 

3.2. Estimates of the absolute difference, coefficients of variation, and test statistics.

Table A-2 includes the standard errors of the ASEC estimates discussed in the preceding

paragraphs, as well as the standard errors of the differences between those estimates. For

example, between 2000 and 2001, the ASEC suggests the foreign-born population from Russia

increased by 101,000 people. The standard error of the difference between these two dates is

56,000. The ratio of the absolute difference (101,000) over the standard error (56,000) is 1.81, a 

test statistic well above the 1.645 needed for significance at the 90-percent level of confidence.63

However, the apparent difference for 2001-2002 (43,000) is not statistically significant because

the test statistic is 0.92. On the other hand, the overall difference for the years 2002-2000

(144,000) is statistically significant (2.29). The confidence interval for the estimate of the

absolute difference 2002-2000 is 40,000 to 248,000. 

Table A-3 includes standard errors for estimates of the difference between annualized averages

estimates. Neither the 2001-2000 estimate of the difference of the number of foreign born from
-19-

Russia (49,000), or the 2002-2001 estimate of the difference (43,000) are statistically significant. 

However, the change between 2000 and 2002 (92,000) is statistically different. The confidence

interval for this difference is 92,000 + (6000 x 1.645) or a range of 82,000 to 102,000 and much

narrower than the CI calibrated using the ASEC data (40,000 to 248,000).

The test statistic for the estimate of the difference for Russia 2002-2000 (92,000) is 15.21, well

in excess of the 1.645 needed for statistical significance, and the CV is 6.5 percent. Comparable

figures for the ASEC estimate shown in Table A-2 (144,000) are 2.29 and 43.8 percent. Even

though the annualized averages CV is much smaller and the confidence interval much narrower,

the annualized averages difference of 92,000 is not statistically significantly different from the

ASEC estimate of 144,000. The annualized averages estimate is more precise, however. 

Whether or not an estimate of the absolute difference is statistically significant depends on a

combination of factors including: the size of the underlying universe, sample size, the amount of

change, and the confidence level: 

Size of the underlying universe: The size of the underlying universe comes into play

more often when one is dealing with smaller universes. In those cases, the finite

population correction (FPC) becomes a factor. The FPC is used to adjust the sampling

error to account for the fact that we are sampling from a population of finite size instead

of from an infinite population as assumed in the usual theory. 

Sample size: In Table A-3, where sample size has been augmented via the aggregation of

12 months of data, the CV for the 2002 estimate of the foreign-born population (32.5

million) is .52 percent compared with .97 percent for the comparable ADS estimate (32.5

million) shown in Table A-2. As a result of the increased sample, estimates of the

difference for the foreign-born population from many countries including Romania

(86,000 in 2000) are statistically significant. 

 

Amount of change: In Table A-2, the 2000 populations of the Philippines (1.4 million)

and Haiti (395,000) differ in size and CV (8.8 percent and 16.7 percent, respectively), but

the change in the size of Haitian foreign-born population between 2000 and 2002

(174,000) is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, whereas the

apparent change for the Phillippines for the same period (90,000) is not. 

Confidence level: Confidence levels affect statistical significance. It is more difficult to

detect statistical change using a confidence level of 99 percent than using a confidence

level of 90 percent. However, using a lower confidence level increases the possibility

that you decide a statistical change has occurred when it has not.

In general, larger sample sizes produce greater precision and less sample error, but larger samples

can have larger non-sample errors which reduce the overall accuracy of estimates. No matter how

large the sample size, year-to-year change may not be statistically significant if the difference is
64 See Schmidley, A.D. and Robinson, J. G., How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population

in the United States? Population Division Working Paper Series, No. 22. U.S. Census Bureau, 1998. 

-20-

small. If the sample is maximized as in a census (i.e., sample size=population size), all

differences are significant. 

3.3. Non-sampling Issues.

Non-sampling issues can affect the reliability of CPS estimates of the foreign born. For example,

in New York City and Los Angeles, the CPS primary sampling units (PSUs) generally cover

several contiguous neighborhoods and many apartment buildings. The last step of the CPS

sample selection process within a PSU is the ‘cluster’ stage where several housing units in the

same block or building are selected for interview. Year-after-year as the survey rotates through

the selected PSUs, different neighborhoods and buildings will be included. Characteristically,

many newly arrived immigrants live in ethnic clusters in neighborhoods where ‘like’ ethnic

enclaves exist side-by-side. In New York City for instance, Jamaicans, Dominicans and other

migrants from the Caribbean live in close proximity. In successive years, as the CPS sample falls

in different neighborhoods and buildings in the PSU, the size of the sample of different small

groups fluctuates. This underlying process may explain some of the “differences” or lack of

them in Table A-3. 

3.4. Consistency with 1990 decennial census data.

3.4.1. Known differences in the CPS foreign-born estimates with 1990 census data.

During CPS processing, country of birth values are assigned for missing values. The edits

introduce an inconsistency with 1990 census results, because country was not allocated for about

4 percent of the foreign-born population reported in the census. Table A-5 illustrates the

numerical effect on country groupings if--to be consistent with the CPS editing--unknown

country is assigned in 1990. As an example, the number of Mexican-born would increase by

about five percent from 4.3 million to 4.5 million. The percent increase by country grouping

does not vary much. 

3.4.2. Consistency by country of origin and period of entry.

In Table A-6, March 1997 CPS estimates of the foreign-born for country groupings are compared

to the 1990 census estimates for the same country groupings.64 Column 1 to column 3 contrast

the 1997 CPS totals with 1990 data to make rough inferences about consistency and growth since

1990. The 27 percent increase in the foreign born population from 20.4 million in 1990 to 25.8

million in 1997 (column 7) is consistent with growth trends, where sustained international

migration has more than offset mortality and emigration. As Table A-6 shows, this change varies

by region. For example, the increase of the Mexican-born population entered since 1990 (2.3

million or 47 percent), contrasts markedly with the 15 percent decline in the European-born

population. The growth of the Mexican-born reflects high migration levels and the low mortality

of a younger group, while the reverse is true for the European born.

The "pre-1990" CPS estimates in column 4 to column 6 narrow the consistency comparison in
65 The nativity questions: place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry, are all sample items in censuses. 

66 See Population Division Working Papers No. 58 to 66 , especially Malone, Nolan. Evaluating Components of International

Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity Data, Population Division Working Paper No. 66. U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 

67 See Modified Race Data Summary File, 2000 Census of Population and Housing Technical Documentation. Issued September

2002 by the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. 

68 Lollock, Lisa. “The Foreign-Born Population in the United States” (P20-534), U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Schmidley , A. D.

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States:2000 (P23-206), U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 

69 Paper product listing (PPL-162), released in February 2003.

-21-

terms of effects such as mortality and emigration. In the absence of coverage differences or

reporting errors, the 1997 CPS estimates for the pre-1990 entry cohorts should be lower than the

corresponding 1990 census counts--because only deaths and emigration can affect the size of the

cohort. The relative larger decline in the European-born population that entered before 1990 (-28

percent) can be attributed to the combined forces of mortality and emigration, especially

mortality. The anomalous increase in the Mexican-born population represents some residual

inconsistencies in the data (such as misreporting of period of entry, different coverage levels in

the CPS and Census, or other sources).

3.5. Consistency with Census 2000 data.

3.5.1. Census 2000 nativity data.

In 2000, a number of changes occurred which led to greater consistency between the census and

CPS data series. First, Census 2000 nativity items were fully allocated for missing values. In

other words, cases with place of birth item non-response were assigned imputed values using a

procedure similar to that employed in the CPS.65 Secondly, Census 2000 data were not adjusted

for a net undercount and therefore the census-based estimates that drive the second stage weights

have not been adjusted.66 Third, the rewording of the Census 2000 age question and other

improvements limited the need to modify the census based file used to create population

estimates to only the race item.67

3.5.2. Census 2000 and CPS 2000. 

Census 2000 indicates 31,107,889 foreign born people were living in the U.S. on April 1, 2000. 

On the other hand, several CPS ASEC-based reports suggest the foreign-born population in

March 2000 was 28.4 million.68 More recently, products issued by the Census Bureau, such as

the Foreign Born Population of the United States, Current Population Survey – March 2000

Detailed Tables (Revised), show the 2000 foreign-born number as 29,985,000.69 

Universe coverage explains some of the observed difference between census and CPS figures. As

we noted above, census data include every resident of the United States, whereas the CPS (ASEC

or basic) covers a subset of the total population – most of the household population plus

relatively few individuals living in group quarters. In 2000, the census enumerated 373,863
70 Malone, Nolan. Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000 Nativity Data, Population Division

Working Paper No. 66. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC. November 2001. 

-22-

foreign born people living in group quarters, or about 1.2 percent of the foreign born population.

Most of these individuals are not included in the CPS. Second stage weights explain the

remainder of the difference (Section 1.5 and Figure 1).

Data users interested in which source to use, Census 2000, ACS or CPS, should consider options

relative to needs. Census data provide more precise estimates for every level of geography but

become outdated for some purposes. The ACS is designed to replace the census long form and

provide annual subnational estimates. Both the ACS and CPS are “controlled” with demographic

estimates benchmarked to the last census so national and state totals from these two sources

should be very similar.70 

Flexibility and timeliness are great strengths of the CPS. CPS national level estimates, and

beginning with 2001 state level estimates, are available on a monthly (basic) and annual (ASEC)

basis and can be used to build a time series. Table 4 shows derived estimates from the ASEC -

based products for the years 1999 to 2002. Included are the median ages, proportions age 65 and

older, and poverty rates for the total, native and foreign-born populations. Although the 2000

estimates appear to be dissimilar, the observed differences are owing to changes in underlying

population controls. While there is sampling error associated with these differences, the amount

of sampling error is trivial. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4. Median Age, Percent Age 65 and Older, and Poverty Rates for the Foreign Born, 1999-2002

 Foreign Total Native Foreign born 

 Census Born Median Age Poverty Median Age Poverty Median Age Poverty

 Year Base (000) Age 65+ Rate Age 65+ Rate Age 65+ Rate

1. 1999 - (1990) 26,448 34.9 11.9 12.7 34.2 12.0 12.1 38.1 11.4 18.0

2. 2000 - (1990) 28,379 35.1 11.9 11.8 34.5 12.0 11.2 38.1 11.0 16.8

3. 2000 - (2000) 29,985 35.2 12.1 11.9 34.7 12.2 11.3 37.5 10.5 16.8

4. 2001 - (2000) 31,811 35.4 12.0 11.3 34.9 12.2 10.8 37.5 10.2 15.4

5. 2002 - (2000) 32,543 35.6 12.0 11.7 35.1 12.2 11.1 37.5 10.2 16.1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1999 to 2002.

Conclusions.

This paper addresses the question posed in our earlier paper, “How Well Does the Current

Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United States?” The answer is –

pretty well. The analyst must determine when the data effectively measure a condition, and when

the range of error is so great as to make assessment impossible. The CPS nativity data provide a

reliable basis for tracking the total foreign-born population at the national level and with the

introduction of the SCHIP sample offer interesting possibilities for tracking states where the
-23-

foreign born population is concentrated. Furthermore, annualized averages of CPS data may

prove to be useful for some research purposes such as identifying country-specific trends. 

The nativity data series is being used to monitor everything from child welfare to compositional

shifts. The potential for tracking key social and economic indicators associated with the foreignborn population in the United States increases as the series expands. The accumulating data

series allows analysts to derive two-year and three-year moving averages for tracking educational

attainment, income, poverty, program usage, and other measures of well-being using the Annual

Social and Economic Supplement. Changes in moving averages can be assessed with time series

analysis techniques that mitigate some of the limitations of year-to-year data comparisons.

Another methodological approach that can overcome some of the data limitations involves the

use of annual averages, based on 12 calendar months of data and comparable to the annual

averages found in Employment and Earnings.

The new Current Population Survey nativity questions provide a rich and useful body of

information about an important segment of the population of the United States of America. 

With the data from the CPS, policy makers will have access to information that can be used to

track the process by which the foreign born become integrated into the U.S. economy and

society. 
.

.

.

.

( gTable A-1. Comparison of Selected Characteristics of the Foreign Born: Current Population Survey -- Annual SocEconomic Supplement (ASEC): 2001 and 2002

(Numbers in thousands. Data are for civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post are included if there is at least one cthe household. )

Characteristic

Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2001

Original sample 

with 1990 

population 

controls

(1)

Original sample 

with 2000 

population 

controls

(2)

Difference owing

to changes in 

population 

controls 1/

(2) - (1) = (3)

Expanded 

sample with 

2000-based 

controls 2/

(4)

Difference due to

expanded 

sample 3/

(4) - (2) = (5)

ASEC 2002 

expanded 

sample with 

2000-based 

controls

(6)

Total............................................ 29,912 31,804 1,892 31,811 7 32,453 

.Under age 18.......................................... 2,955 3,064 109 3,065 1 3,038 .Age 65 and over..................................... 3,244 3,300 56 3,257 -43 3,309 

Education universe 5/ ........................ 23,774 25,217 1,443 25,152 -65 25,790 

.High school graduate or more (%).......... 67.7 67.8 0.1 67.7 -0.1 67.2 .Bachelor's degree or more (%)............... 27.0 27.1 0.1 27.2 0.1 26.5 

Labor force universe 6/ ..................... 27,500 29,314 1,814 29,331 17 29,991 

.Labor force participation (%)................... 67.4 68.1 0.7 68.2 0.1 67.8 

..Employed (% of labor force)........... 95.1 95.0 0.1 94.8 -0.2 93.1 

..Unemployed (% of labor force)....... 4.9 5.0 0.1 5.2 0.2 6.9 

Poverty universe 7/ ............................. 29,883 31,774 1,891 31,782 8 32,422 

..Below poverty level (%).................. 15.7 15.8 0.1 15.4 -0.4 16.1 

.Under 18................................................. 2,926 3,034 108 3,036 2 3,008 

..Below poverty level (%).................. 28.2 28.3 0.1 26.0 -2.3 26.9 

.Age 65 and older.................................... 3,244 3,300 56 3,257 -43 3,309 

..Below poverty level (%).................. 13.7 13.9 0.2 13.8 -0.1 14.7 

1/ These differences result from a change in the population control. While there is sampling error associated with these differences, the amount of sampling error is trivial. Therefore, no significance testing this column. 2/ Expanded sample includes under age 18 cases eligible for participation in State Children's Health Insurance Programs.3/ Asterisk (if any) indicates that difference is significant at the 90-percent confidence level. 4/ Asterisk (if any) indicates that difference is significant at the 90-percent confidence level. 5/ Population age 25 and over.6/ Population age 16 and over.7/ Most of those under age 18 with one or more foreign-born parents are native. See Section 13, "Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders" in Profile of the Foreign Born Population: 2000 (P23-20Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 2001 and 2002. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
Table A2. Foreign-Born Population by Regions and Selected Countries of Birth - Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASE

(leading dots indicate sub parts)

(Numbers in thousands. Data are for civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post are included if there is at least one civilian adult living in the 

REGION AND 

COUNTRY+ OF 

BIRTH

ASEC 2000+ ASEC 2001+ ASEC 2002+ Difference 2001-2000 Difference 2002-2001 

Number

(1)

Standard 

error

(2)

Number

(3)

Standard 

error

(4)

Number

(5)

Standard 

error

(6)

Difference

(3) - (1) = (7)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(8)

Absolute 

difference / 

SE Absolute 

difference*

(7) / (8) = (9)

Difference

(5) - (3) = 

(10)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(11)

Absolute 

difference 

SE Absolu

differenc

(10) / (11

(12)

TOTAL 29,985 425 31,811 312 32,452 315 1,826 477 3.83 * 641 371 1.73 

Europe 4,382 165 4,476 119 4,548 120 94 185 0.51 72 142 0.51 .Germany 660 65 661 46 638 45 1 72 0.01 -23 54 0.42 

.Russia 364 48 465 39 508 40 101 56 1.81 * 43 47 0.92 

.Poland 444 53 415 37 472 39 -29 58 0.50 57 45 1.27 

.England 515 57 466 39 464 39 -49 63 0.78 -2 46 0.04 

.Italy 458 54 404 36 405 36 -54 59 0.92 1 43 0.02 

.Other Europe 1,941 110 2,066 81 2,061 81 125 124 1.01 -5 96 0.05 Asia 7,916 286 8,509 208 8,281 206 593 317 1.87 * -228 245 0.93 

.Phillipines 1,339 118 1,495 88 1,429 87 156 133 1.17 -66 104 0.64 .India 1,117 108 1,284 82 1,304 83 167 122 1.37 20 97 0.21 .China** 1,543 126 1,657 93 1,449 87 114 142 0.80 -208 107 1.95 

.Vietnam 953 99 786 64 819 66 -167 107 1.55 33 77 0.43 

.South Korea 782 90 907 69 756 63 125 102 1.22 -151 78 1.93 

.Japan 305 56 356 43 439 48 51 64 0.80 83 54 1.53 .Other Asia 1,875 139 2,022 103 2,084 104 147 156 0.94 62 123 0.51 Other 2,364 156 2,839 122 2,680 118 475 178 2.66 * -159 142 1.12 

.Africa 709 86 780 64 789 64 71 97 0.73 9 76 0.12 

.Canada 682 84 703 61 714 61 21 94 0.22 11 72 0.15 

.Other 973 100 1,355 84 1,178 79 382 118 3.24 * -177 96 1.83 

Latin America 15,323 405 15,987 291 16,943 300 664 448 1.48 956 352 2.72 .Mexico 8,352 301 8,855 220 9,659 229 503 336 1.50 804 266 3.02 .Cuba 985 104 877 70 919 72 -108 114 0.95 42 84 0.50 

.El Salvador 833 96 846 69 868 70 13 107 0.12 22 82 0.27 

.Dom. Rep 732 90 646 60 652 60 -86 98 0.88 6 71 0.08 

.Haiti 395 66 495 53 569 57 100 76 1.31 74 65 1.14 

.Colombia 458 71 529 54 540 55 71 81 0.88 11 65 0.17 

.Jamaica 420 68 501 53 532 55 81 78 1.04 31 64 0.49 

.Guatemala 348 62 366 45 407 48 18 69 0.26 41 55 0.74 

.Other LA 2,800 175 2,873 126 2,796 125 73 196 0.37 -77 149 0.52 + Population in the U.S. 400,000 or more in 2002* Asterisk (if any) indicates that difference is significant at the 90-percent confidence level (1.645+). **China includes Taiwan and Hong KongSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Annual Social and Economic Supplement 2000, 2001, and 2002. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
Table A-3. Foreign-Born Population by Regions and Selected Countries of Birth - Annualized Averages: 2000, 2001, 2002 /53 ( g p)

(Numbers in thousands. Data are for civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post are included if there is at least one civilian adult living in the ho

Number

(1)

Standard 

error

(2)

Number

(3)

Standard 

error

(4)

Number

(5)

Standard 

error

(6)

Difference

(3) - (1) = (7)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(8)

Difference

(5) - (3) = 

(10)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(11)

TOTAL............. 30,527 231 31,610 168 32,513 170 1,083 254 4.26 * 903 211 4.27 

Europe 4,474 90 4,513 65 4,514 65 39 99 0.39 1 81 0.01 

.Germany 605 33 633 24 618 24 28 37 0.76 -15 30 0.50 

.Russia 431 28 480 21 523 22 49 31 1.56 43 27 1.58 

.England 485 30 461 21 446 20 -24 32 0.74 -15 26 0.58 

.Poland 434 28 439 20 465 21 5 31 0.16 26 26 1.01 

.Italy 447 29 439 20 416 20 -8 31 0.26 -23 25 0.92 

.Ukraine 272 22 230 15 194 14 -42 24 1.75 * -36 18 2.04 

.Portugal 157 17 174 13 176 13 17 19 0.90 2 16 0.12 .Ireland 173 18 156 12 149 12 -17 19 0.88 -7 15 0.47 .Yugoslavia 129 15 133 11 151 12 4 17 0.24 18 14 1.25 .France 116 15 124 11 135 11 8 16 0.49 11 14 0.80 .Greece 114 15 109 10 113 10 -5 16 0.32 4 13 0.31 

.Romania 86 13 103 10 95 9 17 14 1.20 -8 12 0.66 

.Other Europe 1,026 44 1,031 31 1,034 31 5 48 0.11 3 39 0.08 

Asia 8,076 154 8,403 112 8,424 112 327 169 1.93 * 21 140 0.15 

.China** 1,640 70 1,613 50 1,542 49 -27 76 0.35 -71 61 1.16 

.Philippines 1,362 64 1,355 46 1,407 46 -7 70 0.10 52 57 0.91 .India 1,152 59 1,283 44 1,331 45 131 65 2.00 * 48 56 0.86 .South Korea 802 49 842 36 776 34 40 54 0.74 -66 44 1.50 

.Vietnam 871 51 815 35 845 36 -56 55 1.01 30 45 0.67 .Japan 342 32 382 24 384 24 40 36 1.12 2 30 0.07 .Pakistan 233 27 271 20 229 19 38 30 1.28 -42 24 1.72 

.Iran 265 28 267 20 301 21 2 31 0.06 34 26 1.30 

.Thailand 146 21 150 15 150 15 4 23 0.17 0 19 0.00 

.Cambodia 130 20 137 15 142 15 7 22 0.32 5 18 0.27 

.Laos 92 17 128 14 156 15 36 19 1.87 * 28 18 1.52 .Bangladesh 89 16 126 14 117 13 37 19 1.95 * -9 17 0.53 .Lebanon 100 17 121 14 120 14 21 20 1.07 -1 17 0.06 .Indonesia 97 17 103 13 101 12 6 19 0.32 -2 16 0.13 

.Israel 94 17 78 11 103 13 -16 18 0.89 25 15 1.70 

.Other Asia 659 45 734 34 720 33 75 50 1.51 -14 42 0.34 

Absolute 

difference 

SE Absolu

difference

(10) / (11) 

(12)

Absolute 

difference / 

SE Absolute 

difference*

(7) / (8) = (9)

REGION AND 

COUNTRY OF 

BIRTH

2000+ 2001+ 2002+ 2001-2000 2002-2001 

Page 1 of 2
Table A-3. Foreign-Born Population by Regions and Selected Countries of Birth - Annualized Averages: 2000, 2001, 2002 /53 ( g p)

(Numbers in thousands. Data are for civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post are included if there is at least one civilian adult living in the ho

Number

(1)

Standard 

error

(2)

Number

(3)

Standard 

error

(4)

Number

(5)

Standard 

error

(6)

Difference

(3) - (1) = (7)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(8)

Difference

(5) - (3) = 

(10)

Standard 

error of the 

absolute 

difference

(11)

Absolute 

difference 

SE Absolu

difference

(10) / (11) 

(12)

Absolute 

difference / 

SE Absolute 

difference*

(7) / (8) = (9)

REGION AND 

COUNTRY OF 

BIRTH

2000+ 2001+ 2002+ 2001-2000 2002-2001 

Latin America 15,351 216 16,002 157 16,891 161 651 238 2.74 * 889 199 4.47 

.Mexico 8,405 162 8,829 118 9,419 122 424 178 2.38 * 590 150 3.93 

 .Cuba 963 56 904 38 924 39 -59 60 0.98 20 48 0.41 

.El Salvador 847 52 857 37 891 38 10 57 0.18 34 47 0.72 .Dom Rep 695 47 603 31 672 33 -92 51 1.82 * 69 40 1.71 

.Haiti 466 39 554 30 499 29 88 44 2.02 * -55 37 1.50 

.Jamaica 490 40 547 30 580 31 57 44 1.29 33 38 0.87 .Colombia 513 41 517 29 548 30 4 44 0.09 31 37 0.84 .Guatemala 294 31 371 25 412 26 77 35 2.20 * 41 32 1.30 .Ecuador 256 29 320 23 339 24 64 33 1.97 * 19 29 0.65 .Honduras 277 30 280 21 306 22 3 33 0.09 26 27 0.95 .Peru 309 32 257 21 261 21 -52 34 1.55 4 26 0.16 .Guyana 219 27 240 20 244 20 21 29 0.71 4 25 0.16 .Nicaragua 269 29 222 19 205 18 -47 31 1.50 -17 23 0.73 .Brazil 177 24 210 19 224 19 33 27 1.23 14 24 0.59 .Trin & Tob 183 24 191 18 205 18 8 27 0.30 14 23 0.62 .Argentina 117 19 111 13 130 15 -6 21 0.28 19 18 1.08 .Venezuela 125 20 107 13 105 13 -18 21 0.84 -2 16 0.12 .Other LA 743 49 880 38 929 39 137 55 2.50 * 49 48 1.02 

Other 2,626 89 2,693 64 2,683 64 67 97 0.69 -10 80 0.13 

.Africa 702 46 708 33 822 35 6 50 0.12 114 43 2.67 

..Egypt 121 19 116 13 119 14 -5 21 0.24 3 17 0.18 

..Nigeria 104 18 93 12 146 15 -11 19 0.58 53 17 3.12 

..Other Africa 477 38 499 28 557 29 22 42 0.53 58 36 1.63 

.Canada 693 46 676 32 667 32 -17 50 0.34 -9 40 0.22 

.Other 1,231 61 1,308 45 1,193 43 77 67 1.15 -115 55 2.11 * Asterisk (if any) indicates difference is significant at the 90-percent confidence interval (1.645+). + Population in the U.S. 100,000 or more between 20** Population includes Hong Kong and TaiwanSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003

Page 2 of 2
( g

Table A-4. Foreign-Born Population by Regions and Selected Country of Birth - Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) anAverages: 2000, 2001, 2002

(Numbers in thousands. Data are for civilian noninstitutional population of the United States. Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post are included in the Annual Social and Economic Supplement data if one civilian adult living in the household. Basic or monthly survey data data contain no military personnel) 

NATIVITY, REGION AND COUNTRY

Annual Social and Economic Supplement** NATIVITY, 

REGION AND COUNTRY

12-Month Annualized Ave

March 1, 2000

March 1, 2001

March 1, 2002

Difference 

2001 - 2000

Difference 

2002 - 2001

Difference 

2002 - 2000

July 1, 

2000

July 1,

2001

 July 1,

2002

Difference 

2001 - 2000

TOTAL............ 29,985 31,811 32,452 1,826 * 641 * 2,467 * TOTAL............ 30,527 31,610 32,513 1,083 * 

Europe 4,382 4,476 4,548 94 72 166 Europe 4,474 4,513 4,514 39 

.Germany 660 661 638 1 -23 -22 .Germany 605 633 618 28 .Russia 364 465 508 101 * 43 144 * .Russia 431 480 523 49 

.England 515 466 464 -49 -2 -51 .England 485 461 446 -24 .Poland 444 415 472 -29 57 28 .Poland 434 439 465 5 .Italy 458 404 405 -54 1 -53 .Italy 447 439 416 -8 .Ukraine n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Ukraine 272 230 194 -42 * .Other Europe 1,941 2,066 2,061 125 -5 120 .Other Europe 1,026 1,031 1,034 5 

Asia 7,916 8,509 8,281 593 * -228 365 Asia 8,076 8,403 8,424 327 * 

.China*** 1,543 1,657 1,449 114 -208 * -94 .China*** 1,640 1,613 1,542 -27 .Philippines 1,339 1,495 1,429 156 -66 90 .Philippines 1,362 1,355 1,407 -7 .India 1,117 1,284 1,304 167 20 187 .India 1,152 1,283 1,331 131 * .South Korea 782 907 756 125 -151 * -26 .South Korea 802 842 776 40 .Vietnam 953 786 819 -167 33 -134 .Vietnam 871 815 845 -56 .Japan 305 356 439 51 83 134 * .Japan 342 382 384 40 .Pakistan n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Pakistan 233 271 229 38 

.Laos n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Laos 92 128 156 36 * 

.Bangladesh n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Bangladesh 89 126 117 37 * .Israel n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Israel 94 78 103 -16 .Other Asia 1,875 2,022 2,084 147 62 209 .Other Asia 753 812 720 59 

Latin America 15,323 15,987 16,943 664 956 * 1,620 * Latin America 15,351 16,002 16,891 651 * 

.Mexico 8,352 8,855 9,659 503 804 * 1,307 * .Mexico 8,405 8,829 9,419 424 * 

 .Cuba 985 877 919 -108 42 -66 .Cuba 963 904 924 -59 

.El Salvador 833 846 868 13 22 35 .El Salvador 847 857 891 10 .Dom Rep 732 646 652 -86 6 -80 .Dom Rep 695 603 672 -92 * 

.Haiti 395 495 569 100 74 174 * .Haiti 466 554 499 88 * 

.Jamaica 420 501 532 81 31 112 .Jamaica 490 547 580 57 .Colombia 458 529 540 71 11 82 .Colombia 513 517 548 4 .Guatemala 348 366 407 18 41 59 .Guatemala 294 371 412 77 * .Ecuador n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Ecuador 256 320 339 64 * .Nicaragua n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Nicaragua 269 222 205 -47 .Brazil n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a .Brazil 177 210 224 33 .Other LA 2,800 2,873 2,796 73 -77 -4 .Other LA 743 880 929 137 * 

Other 2,364 2,839 2,680 475 * -159 316 Other 2,626 2,693 2,683 67 .Africa 709 780 789 71 9 80 .Africa 702 708 822 6 

..Nigeria n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ..Nigeria 104 93 146 -11 ..Other Africa n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ..Other Africa 477 499 557 22 

.Canada 682 703 714 21 11 32 .Canada 693 676 667 -17 .Other 973 1,355 1,178 382 * -177 * 205 .Other 1,231 1,308 1,193 77 

* Asterisk (if any) indicates difference is significant at the 90-percent confidence interval (1.645+).** Annual Social and Economic Supplement data are controlled to March 1 of the year given and shown for populations 400,000+ in 2002. Annual averages are shown for selected countries.*** Population includes Hong Kong and TaiwanSource: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
TABLE A-5. ILLUSTRATION OF EFFECT OF CPS NATIVITY EDITS AND ADJUSTMENT F0R UNDER-COVERAGE IN 1990 

FOREIGN-BORN NUMBERS

(Numbers in thousands)

 Country of birth

Allocation of Country Not Reported

Foreign born:

Published 1990 

census

(1)

Allocated 

unknown 

country

(2)

 Revised (1) 

1990 Census

1+2 = (3)

Percent increase

(3-1) / 1 = (4)

Total Foreign born 19,767 0 19,767 0.0In specified countries by *region:Europe 3,722 136 3,859 3.7Asia 4,294 157 4,451 3.6Mexico 4,298 226 4,524 5.3Other North & South America 3,423 163 3,586 4.8In all Other countries 3,221 126 3,347 3.9Unknown country 808 -808 0 -100.0* Selected countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas from the 40 tracking countries; not equivalent to the regions in published reports.Col.2--Allocation based on proration of country not reported amount (808,158) specific to age, sex, period of entry, and origin (Hispanic, not Hispanic) categories.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
TABLE. A-6 1990 DECENNIAL-BASED AND 1997 CPS ESTIMATES OF THE FOREIGN BORN

(Numbers in thousands)

 Country of birth

Foreign born = Total Foreign Born = Entered before 4-1-90 Perce

1997 CPS

(1)

1990 Census

(2)

Change from 

Census

1-2 = (3)

1997 CPS

(4)

1990 Census

(5)

 Difference

4-5 = (6)

CPS '97 v

Census '9

3/2 = (7)

Total Foreign born 25,779 20,346 5,433 18,240 20,346 -2,106 26In specified countries by *region:Europe 3,293 3,866 -573 2,774 3,866 -1,091 -14

Asia 5,763 4,538 1,226 3,913 4,538 -624 27Mexico 7,017 4,766 2,251 4,781 4,766 15 47Other North & South America 5,116 3,760 1,356 3,853 3,760 94 36In all Other countries 4,589 3,416 1,172 2,917 3,416 -499 34Footnotes:* Selected countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas from the 40 tracking countries; not equivalent to the regions in published reports.

Note: To maximize comparability of the CPS and census, the 1990 census estimates include adjustments for under-coverage and allocation of country npercent change amounts in cols. 7 and 8 would differ if unadjusted 1990 census numbers (col.1) are used. For example, the 26.7 percent increase of thborn from 20,346 in 1990 (census) to 25,779 in 1997 (CPS) would be 30.4 percent if the published 1990 census figure (19,767) is used. The 1990-97 inBorn in Mexico population would be 63.3 percent (4,298 to 7,017) instead of 47.2 percent (4,766 to 7,017).

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. Population Division Working Paper No. 73.Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 29, 2003

Figure 1. Foreign Born in the United States: Cur

Population Survey January 1994 - June 2003

Monthly estimates shown with 1990 and 2000 weights (in thousands

18,00020,00022,00024,00026,00028,00030,00032,00034,000

Jan-93 Jun-94 Oct-95 Mar-97 Jul-98 Dec-99 Apr-01 

Month and Year

Estimates in thousands

1990 weights 2000 weights
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Internet Release date: October 29, 2003

Figure 2. Foreign Born in the United States: Current Population Surve

 October 1999 - April 2003 

Monthly estimates shown with 12-month moving average (2000 weights)

28,50030,00031,50033,00034,500

Feb-99 Aug-99 Mar-00 Oct-00 Apr-01 Nov-01 May-02 

Month and Year

Estimates in thousands

Monthly estimate 12-month moving average
g g p y y y

-

FIGURE 3. SCHEMATIC SHOWING APPROXIMATE SOURCE MONTHS OF SAMPLE CASES FOR 

12-MONTH ANNUALIZED AVERAGES AND ANNUAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SURVEY

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* 

*

12-MONTH AVERAGE 

MONTHLY/BASIC SURVEY+

ANNUAL SOCIAL AND 

ECONOMIC SURVEY++

* 

*

* *

* | | | March 2000 *

* | | | December 98 (8) *

* | | | January 99 (7) *

* V | | February 99 (6) *

* | | March 99 (5) *

* 2000 | | December 99 (4) *

* January V V January 00 (3) *

* February February 00 (2) *

* March ---------------------------> March 00 (1) *

* April *

* May | | *

* June | | *

* July | | March 2001 *

* August V | December 99 (8) *

* September | January 00 (7) *

* October | February 00 (6) *

* November | March 00 (5) *

* December 2001 | December 00 (4) *

* January | January 01 (3) *

* February V February 01 (2) *

* March -------------------> March 01 (1) *

* April *

* May | *

* June | *

* July | March 2002 *

* August V December 00 (8) *

* September January 01 (7) *

* October February 01 (6) *

* November March 01 (5) *

* December 2002 December 01 (4) *

* January January 02 (3) *

* February February 02 (2) *

* March --------> March 02 (1) *

* April *

* May *

* June *

* July *

* August *

* September *

* October *

* November *

* December *

* *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

+ Monthly or basic files include cases rom 8 rotation groups interviewed over a 16-month period. No military personnel are 

included in the basic survey. Months included in the March basic survey are indicated with an arrow.

++ The Annual Social and Economic Survey (ASEC) includes basic cases plus SCHIP and Minority oversample cases. The 

ASEC also includes selected members of the military. See the text for more explanation. Month in sample shown in 

parentheses.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey

Internet Release Date: October 29, 2003
APPENDIX A: NATIVITY QUESTIONS ON THE CURRENT POPULATION

SURVEY

* PR= Puerto Rico; OA= Outlying Area; DK= Don't Know; R= Refused.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,

Population Analysis & Evaluation Staff 

Authors: A. Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson

Last Revised: November 02, 2000 at 03:14:53 PM

The next few questions ask about each household member's country of birth.

(screens with country codes not shown)

NATVTY In what country (were/was)................. born? (Enter Code) ________

MNTVTY In what country was.................'s mother born? __________

FNTVTY In what country was.................'s father born? __________

______________________________________________________________________

AUTOMATED SKIP PATTERN:

If NATVTY = US (1) --> END sequence for this person

If NATVTY = PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR

If MNTVTY and FNTVTY = US (1), PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR

ALL OTHERS --> go to CITIZN

______________________________________________________________________

CITIZN (Are/Is) . . . a CITIZEN of the United States?

1.

2.

3.

4.

YES

NO

DK*

R*

--> go to CITTYPA

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to INUSYR

______________________________________________________________________

CITTYPA (Were/Was) . . . born a citizen of the United States?

1.

2.

3.

4.

YES

NO

DK*

R*

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to CITTYPB

--> go to CITTYPB

--> go to INUSYR

CITTYPB Did . . . become a citizen of the United States through naturalization?

1.

2.

3.

4.

YES

NO

DK*

R*

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to INUSYR

--> go to INUSYR

_____________________________________________________________________

INUSYR When did . . . come to live in the United States?

1.

2.

3.

4.

YEAR 19_____

_______ years --> programmed exact year verification

DK*

R*

______________________________________________________________________
Appendix B April 2003

POPULATION DIVISION WORKING PAPER SERIES

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

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

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

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

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

Research. Douglas K.Sater. April 1993.

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

August 1993.

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

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

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

March 1994.

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

D. Fitzsimmons. April 1993.

No. 7 - Geographic Coding of Administrative Records -- Current Research in

ZIP/Sector-to-County Coding Process. Douglas K. Sater. June 1994.

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

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

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

Ahmed and J. Gregory Robinson. December 1994.

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

Censuses and Selected Administrative Data: Circa 1980. Edward W. Fernandez. 

January 1995.

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

Hispanics. Edward Fernandez. May 1995.

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

Definition. Donald C. Dahmann and James D. Fitzsimmons. October 1995.
No. 13 - Building a Spanish Surname List for the 1990's--New Approach to An Old

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

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

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

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

Edward W. Fernandez. June 1996.

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

Content Survey. Prepared in the Population Division by the Racial Statistics

Branch and the Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch. December 1996.

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

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

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

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

During the 1990 Census. David L. Word. July 1997. 

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

Bachu. March 1998.

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

O’Connell. March 1998. 

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

Population in the United States Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson. 

April 1998 

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

Jason Fields and Kristin Smith. April 1998

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

Jason Fields. April 1998

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

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

Families. Lynne Casper and Ken Bryson. March 1998.

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

1790 to 1990. Campbell Gibson. June 1998
No. 28 - Are There Differences in Voting Behavior Between Naturalized and Native-born

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

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

1850-1990. Campbell J. Gibson. February 1999

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

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

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

the Cross-roads? Amy Symens. December 1998

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

the Literature. Kristen Smith and Amara Bachu. January 1999 

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

Census 2000 Dress Rehearsal Charles Clark and Jason Fields. April 1999.

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

Charles Clark and Jason Fields. April 1999.

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

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

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

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

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

1999.

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

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

January 1999.

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

J. Gregory Robinson. August 1999.

No. 40 - Canceled 

No. 41 - Canceled

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

Well-Being, Welfare, and Work. Kurt Bauman and Barbara Downs. May 2000
No. 43 - Have We Reached the Top? Educational Attainment Projections of the U.S.

Population. Jennifer Cheeseman Day and Kurt Bauman. May 2000.

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

Vote in November 1998. Avalaura L. Gaither and Eric C. Newburger. June

2000

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

1999. Amy Symens Smith, Bashir Ahmed, and Larry Sink. November 2000.

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

Households. Kurt Bauman. August 2000.

No. 47 - Canceled 

No. 48 - Canceled

No. 49 - Canceled

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

Respective Components of Change. Tammany Mulder. November 2002. 

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

States: 1990 to 2000. Tammany Mulder, Frederick Hollmann, Lisa Lollock,

Rachel Cassidy, Joseph Costanzo, and Josephine Baker. February 2002. 

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

Jamieson, and Gladys Martinez. June 2001.

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

Bauman. August 2001.

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

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

No. 55 - State Estimates of Child Care Establishments 1977-1997. 

Grace O’Neil and Martin O’Connell. August 2001.

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

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

States. Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung. September 2002.

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

Counts. Paul Campbell. July 2002.
No. 58 - Evaluating Components of International Migration: Estimates of the ForeignBorn Population by Migrant Status: 2000. Kevin Deardorff and Lisa

Blumerman. November 2002.

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

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

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

Migrants. Rachel Cassidy and Lucinda Pearson. November 2001

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

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

January 2002.

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

Tammany Mulder, Betsy Guzmán, and Angela Brittingham. June 2002.

No. 63 - Evaluating Components of Internation Migration: Native-Born Emigrants. Jim

C. Gibbs, Gregory S. Harper, Marc J. Rubin, and Hyon B. Shin. January 2003. 

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

Rico and the United States. Matt Christenson. January 2002.

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

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

July 2002.

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

Nativity Data. Nolan Malone. July 2002.

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

Wang. October 2002.

No. 68 - Guide To International Migration Statistics: The Sources, Collection, and

Processing of Foreign-Born Population Data at the U.S. Census Bureau. Joseph

M. Costanzo, Cynthia J. Davis, and Nolan Malone. August 2002.

No. 69 - Seasonality of Moves and Duration and Tenure of Residence: 1996. Jason

Schachter and Jeffrey Kuenzi. November 2002.

No. 70 - Evaluation of 2000 Subcounty Population Estimates. Greg Harper, Chuck

Coleman, and Jason Devine. Release Pending.
No. 71 - People Might Move Out but Housing Units Don’t: An Evaluation of the State

and County Housing Unit Estimates. Jason Devine and Charles Coleman. 

Release Pending.

No. 72 - Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 2000. Arthur R. Cresce and

Roberto R. Ramirez. Release Pending.

No. 73 - Measuring the Foreign-Born Population in the United States With the Current

Population Survey: 1994-2002. A. Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson. 

Release Pending.