Population
 

Division
 

Analysis of General Hispanic Responses
 

in Census 2000
 

by 

Arthur R. Cresce and Roberto R. Ramirez 

Working Paper No. 72 

This paper reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by 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. 
Acknowledgements 

Jorge del Pinal, Population Division, provided overall guidance for this paper. Robert Nuniziata, 

Population Division provided programming support to produce the data files showing simulated totals for 

Hispanic groups. Phil Gbur, Decennial Statistical Studies Division, performed the sampling statistical 

review. Editorial assistance was provided by Marjorie Hanson, Population Division. Alex Varson, 

Population Division, produced the web version of this report. The report was reviewed by Nancy 

Gordon, Campbell Gibson, Kevin Deardorff, Teresa Angueira and other Census Bureau staff. Any errors 

that remain are solely the responsibility of the authors. 
 i 

Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 2000
 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ...........................................................


Introduction .................................................................. 1
 

Background 

Simulation of Responses Using Place of Birth and Ancestry Data from the 


.................................................................. 2
 

Potential Reasons for Differences in Response Between 1990 and 2000 ................... 2
 

Historical Context ............................................................. 5
 

Census 2000 Long Form .................................................. 6
 

Results and Key Findings ....................................................... 9
 

Figure 1 .................................................................... 12
 

Figure 2 .................................................................... 13
 

Figure 3 .................................................................... 13
 

References .................................................................. 14
 

Accuracy of the Estimates ...................................................... 15
 

Appendix A - Table 7 ......................................................... 16
 

Appendix B - Comparison of Results from This Simulation with Results from 


Suro’s and Logan’s Analyses .............................................. 18
 
Executive Summary 

This paper explores the concern that the wording and format of the Census 2000 question on Hispanic 

origin may have influenced respondents to provide general responses (such as “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” 

and “Latino”) instead of specific national-origin responses (such as “Mexican,” “Salvadoran,” and 

“Dominican”). We begin with evidence of the differences in reporting between the 1990 census and 

Census 2000 and present the results of several studies that address this issue. We then discuss some of 

the possible reasons. Finally, we examine the responses to the place of birth and ancestry questions from 

people who provided a general response to the question on Hispanic origin. In this simulation analysis, 

the Hispanic national-origin groups implied by the place of birth and ancestry questions are examined 

because they may represent the specific responses individuals who gave general ones might have given 

had they chosen to do so. This section of the report presents the results of this simulation at the national 

level. A separate data product (available at www2.census.gov/census_2000/Sim_Hispanic_Totals) will 

show both the official Census 2000 responses and the simulation totals down to the census tract level, as 

requested by many data users. 

The simulation described in this paper indicates that a substantial proportion of people who provided a 

general Hispanic response such as “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” or “Latino” also provided information in the 

place of birth or ancestry questions about their national origin that was more specific than the 

information they provided in the question on Hispanic origin. A number of factors have been proposed 

to explain the increased reporting of general Hispanic terms. Future research and testing will address 

these factors more fully. 

The following are some key findings: 

•	 Although the number of most specific Hispanic groups increased from 1990 to 2000, the percent of 

the total Hispanic population for these groups decreased 

•	 Proposed reasons for the increased reporting of general Hispanic terms include changes in question 

wording and the deletion of examples of “Other Hispanic” groups, but there are other possible 

reasons for these differences 

•	 Of the estimated 5.7 million people with a general Hispanic response, the simulation identified a 

specific Hispanic response for an estimated 3.1 million people 

•	 Of the estimated 3.1 million “general” Hispanic people who indicated a specific origin, about 1.4 

million indicated Mexican origin in the place of birth or ancestry questions 

•	 Salvadorans experienced a large increase from the simulation (302,000), representing a relative 

increase of 42.6 percent 

•	 Dominicans also experienced a large numeric increase (200,000) to reach a simulated total of about 

1 million 

NOTE: The simulated totals presented in this report are illustrative and do not replace the official 

Census 2000 totals for these groups. The totals from Census 2000 are based on sample estimates from 

the Spanish/Hispanic/Latino question on the long form and are the official figures. The simulated totals 

provided in this paper do not solely reflect self-identification. Instead, they include: (1) the responses of 

those who self-identified into a specific group and (2) the responses of those who reported a general term 

and were tabulated into a specific group using responses to the place of birth or ancestry questions. In 

other words, respondents who provided a more general Hispanic response might, or might not, have 

provided a more specific response if the question wording or format had been different. 

i 
 

Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 2000 

Introduction 

This paper explores the concern that the wording and format of the Census 2000 question on Hispanic 

origin may have influenced respondents to provide general responses (such as “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” 

and “Latino”) instead of specific national-origin responses (such as “Mexican,” “Salvadoran,” and 

“Dominican”). We begin with evidence of the differences in reporting between the 1990 census and 

Census 2000 and present the results of several studies that address this issue. We then discuss some of 

the possible reasons. Finally, we examine the responses to the place of birth and ancestry questions from 

people who provided a general response to the question on Hispanic origin. In this simulation analysis, 

the Hispanic national-origin groups implied by the place of birth and ancestry questions are examined 

because they may represent the specific responses individuals who gave general ones might have given 

had they chosen to do so. This section of the report presents the results of this simulation at the national 

level. A separate data product (available at www2.census.gov/census_2000/Sim_Hispanic_Totals) will 

show both the official Census 2000 responses and the simulation totals down to the census tract level, as 

requested by many data users. 

The simulation results (using data from the Census 2000 long form) presented in this working paper 

indicate that a substantial proportion of people who provided a general Hispanic response such as 

“Spanish,” “Hispanic,” or “Latino” to the question on Hispanic origin also provided more specific 

information in the place of birth or ancestry questions about their national origin. A number of factors 

have been proposed to explain the increased reporting of general Hispanic terms. Future research and 

testing will address these factors more fully. 

The simulated totals presented in this report are illustrative and do not replace the official Census 2000 

totals for these groups. The totals from Census 2000 are based on sample estimates from the 

Spanish/Hispanic/Latino question on the long form and are the official figures. The simulated totals 

provided in this paper do not fully reflect self-identification. Instead, they include: (1) the responses of 

those who self-identified into a specific group and (2) the responses of those who reported a general term 

and were tabulated into a specific group using responses to the place of birth or ancestry questions. In 

other words, respondents who provided a more general Hispanic response might, or might not, have 

provided a more specific response if the question wording or format had been different. It is impossible 

to predict with certainty how they would have responded to the Hispanic origin question had it been 

phrased differently. Given the increasingly frequent use of the more general terms “Hispanic” and 

“Latino” in the media, it would not be surprising if increasing numbers of people, especially those whose 

ancestors had come from Spanish-speaking countries two or more generations ago, identified with these 

terms rather than specific national origins. See the “Limitations” section below for further discussion of 

these issues. 

The Census Bureau has attempted since the 1970 census to develop a self-identification question that 

would provide the most accurate and complete count of the entire Hispanic population in the United 

States. This effort has been complicated by the fact that no one term is universally recognized as 

encompassing all of this population. Terms such as “Hispanic,” “Latino,” and “Spanish” have been 

offered as alternatives. To address the challenge of obtaining a more accurate overall total, the Census 

Bureau has: (1) used response categories for some national-origin groups such as “Mexican,” “Puerto 

Rican,” and “Cuban,” as well as the category “Other Hispanic” to provide a cue to respondents, and (2) 

used more than one overall term in the question’s wording. 

1 
The combination of these two approaches has improved the enumeration of the Hispanic population and 

meets the basic legislative requirement of providing an accurate count of the total Hispanic population, 

while also identifying the specific Hispanic groups that compose the Hispanic population. It is important 

to note that the basic law mandating the collection of data on the Hispanic population in censuses and 

surveys (Public Law 94-311) does not mandate that data be collected separately for specific Hispanic 

groups. Nevertheless, the Census Bureau has begun a research program to refine the question on 

Hispanic origin for the American Community Survey and for the 2010 Census and to address the issues 

raised in this paper. 

Background 

Table 1 shows the reported totals of Hispanic groups from the Census 2000 long form and the 1990 

census sample (long) form.1 

All Hispanic groups increased between 1990 and 2000 except Nicaraguans, Uruguayans, and Spaniards. 

Spaniards, in particular, declined significantly. The largest proportionate increases occurred in the 

reporting of “Hispanic,” “Latino,” “Other Central American,” and “Other South American.” The latter 

two categories include specific write-in responses of “Central American” and “South American.” 

A different pattern emerges, however, when we look at the percent distribution of the Hispanic 

population by group between 1990 and 2000. The percentages of general Hispanic groups were generally 

higher in 2000 than in 1990, but the percentages of specific origin groups were generally either at the 

same percentage or lower in 2000 than in 1990. For example, the proportion of the Hispanic population 

providing a specific origin was 83.9 percent in Census 2000 and 93.6 percent in the 1990 census. The 

Mexican origin population declined from 61.2 percent in 1990 to 59.3 percent in 2000; Puerto Rican 

origin declined from 12.1 percent to 9.7 percent; Cuban origin declined from 4.8 percent to 3.5 percent. 

The most dramatic decline was for reports of Spaniard, which fell from 2.4 percent to 0.3 percent. 

Contrasting increases in the percentages of the general groups mirrored the declines in specific groups. 

For example, the percent “Latino” increased from less than 0.1 percent to 1.2 percent, “Hispanic” 

increased from 1.8 percent to 6.6 percent, “Spanish” increased slightly from 2.0 percent to 2.2 percent, 

and “Other Hispanic” increased from 2.6 percent to 5.8 percent. “Other Hispanic” includes: (1) people 

who provided responses such as “Latin American” and “Spanish American”; (2) people of mixed 

Hispanic ethnicities (only collected in Census 2000); and (3) people who checked the “Other” box but 

did not a provide a write-in entry. Thus, it is clear that the differences in the percentage distribution by 

Hispanic group reflect a shift in the reported composition of the Hispanic population. 

Potential Reasons for Differences Between 1990 and 2000 

Empirical evidence of question-design effects is documented in the results of the Census 2000 

Alternative Questionnaire Experiment, which consisted of two mail-out, mail-back sample surveys 

conducted during Census 2000 (Martin 2002). One panel received the 1990-style Hispanic origin 

question and a control panel received the Census 2000-style Hispanic origin question. Taken as a group, 

the origins in the “Other” category that were named as examples in the 1990 question (Argentinian, 

Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, and Spaniard) received a lower percentage of responses 

1 The numbers of people of Hispanic origin by type of Hispanic origin differ between the 100-percent count 

and the sample estimate. For example, the number of “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” people, excluding 

Dominicans, Spaniards, and people of Central or South American (Hispanic) origin, was 6.1 million for the 100­

percent count and 5.7 million in the sample estimate. Reasons for these differences include sampling error and the 

possible influence of place of birth and ancestry questions that appear only on the long form. 

2 
 

Table 1. Hispanic Origin Population by Detailed Group: 2000 and 1990 

Hispanic Population by

 Origin Response 

1990 Census 2/ Census 2000 2/ 

Number Percent Number Percent

 Total 

General Hispanic 

 Hispanic

 Latino

 Spanish

 Other Hispanic response 1/ 

Mexican 

Puerto Rican 

Cuban 

Dominican 

Central American 

Costa Rican 

Guatemalan 

Honduran 

Nicaraguan 

Panamanian 

Salvadoran 

 Other Central American 

South American 

 Argentinian 

 Bolivian

 Chilean 

Colombian 

Ecuadorian 

Paraguayan

 Peruvian 

Uruguayan

 Venezuelan 

 Other South American 

Spaniard

21,900,089 100.0 

 1,403,150 6.4 

390,945 1.8 

 1,577 0.0 

444,896 2.0 

565,732 2.6 

13,393,208 61.2 

2,651,815 12.1 

1,053,197 4.8 

520,151 2.4 

1,323,830 6.0 

57,223 0.3 

268,779 1.2 

131,066 0.6 

202,658 0.9 

92,013 0.4 

565,081 2.6 

7,010 0.0 

1,035,602 4.7 

100,921 0.5 

38,073 0.2 

68,799 0.3 

378,726 1.7 

191,198 0.9 

 6,662 0.0 

175,035 0.8 

21,996 0.1 

47,997 0.2 

6,195 0.0 

519,136 2.4 

35,238,481 100.0 

5,540,627 15.7

2,316,515 6.6

411,559 1.2

765,879 2.2

2,046,674 5.8 

20,900,102 59.3 

3,403,510 9.7 

1,249,820 3.5 

799,768 2.3 

1,811,676 5.1

72,175 0.2

407,127 1.2

237,431 0.7

194,493 0.6

98,475 0.3

708,741 2.0

93,234 0.3 

1,419,979 4.0

107,275 0.3

45,188 0.1

73,951 0.2

496,748 1.4

273,013 0.8

8,929 0.0

247,601 0.7

20,242 0.1

96,091 0.3

50,941 0.1 

112,999 0.3 

1/ Includes: (1) people who wrote responses such as “Latin American” and “Spanish American,” (2) people of mixed 

Hispanic ethnicities (only collected in Census 2000), and (3) people who checked the “Other” box but did not 

provide a write-in entry. 

2/ These Census 2000 and 1990 census numbers are based on sample data representing the total population. 

3 
 

 

in the 2000-style panel than in the 1990-style panel and the difference was statistically significant. 

Groups that were not shown as examples in the 1990 census question had a lower percentage in the 

Census 2000-style panel than in the 1990-style panel: 4.2 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively, and the 

difference was statistically significant. 

In contrast, the percentage of the population reporting the general terms “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” and 

“Latino” was 1.9 percent in the 1990-style panel and 11.9 percent in the Census 2000-style panel. The 

percentage marking the “Other” category with no write-in or an uncodable write-in also was higher: 5.0 

percent in the 1990-style panel and 7.2 percent in the Census 2000-style panel. The differences between 

both of these sets of percentages were statistically significant. 

Logan (2002) commended the Census Bureau for doing an “excellent job” counting Hispanics overall, 

but faulted the Census Bureau for questionnaire design changes that appeared to lead to a 

disproportionate increase in the number of people reporting general rather than specific Hispanic origins. 

He argued that the lack of examples of specific groups in the “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” write-in 

category on the Census 2000 questionnaire led to reporting general terms instead of specific Hispanic 

national-origin groups and resulted in lower than expected growth for certain Hispanic groups such as 

Dominicans and Salvadorans. Logan provided an alternative set of estimated totals for Hispanic 

national-origin groups by applying percentages of these groups from the pooled March 1998 and March 

2000 Current Population Surveys to the Hispanic total from Census 2000.2 

Suro (2002) applied percent distributions by detailed type of Hispanic origin from the Census 2000 

Supplemental Survey (C2SS) to the Census 2000 Hispanic total population to derive alternative estimates 

of these groups. He noted that, unlike the CPS, the C2SS was based on a much larger sample and was 

conducted independently of the decennial census. Although both the Suro and Logan studies provide 

interesting information about the shift in distributions among different data collection systems, neither 

study provides direct evidence (using interview-reinterview or cognitive interview techniques) to support 

or reject the hypothesis that changes in question wording or structure directly affected a shift in reporting 

of Hispanic ethnicity. 

A comparison of the results from the simulation presented in this working paper with the results of 

Logan’s and Suro’s research is provided in Appendix B. 

Lavrakas et al. (2002) argued that dropping the term “origin” from the question was a major reason for 

the shift from national-origin terms to more general Hispanic terms. He hypothesized that the Census 

2000 version connoted an “identity” question that was more subjective in its identification than the 

previous “origin” questions asked in the 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses. Lavrakas stated that the earlier 

origin questions would have been interpreted as asking for a more “objective, factual characteristic” 

(Lavrakas, 2002:2). He used the results of a random-digit-dialing sample survey to conclude that not 

using the term “origin” resulted in a significant underestimate of the total number of Hispanics in the 

United States. His methodology, however, did not make his results comparable with anything produced 

by the Census Bureau. Instead of using the 1990-type question with the term “origin” or using the 

Census 2000 version with “origin” appended, Lavrakas used a series of questions, one of which was “Are 

any of your ancestors of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin?” Using this expansive criterion, one would 

2 When comparing Hispanic origin data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) with comparable data 

from the decennial census, it is important to note that: 1) the CPS question differs significantly from the decennial 

census question, 2) data from the CPS are obtained solely through experienced field representatives while the 

majority of responses from the decennial census are obtained from self-reporting based on the mail-out, mail-back 

questionnaire, and 3) the population universe for the CPS is the civilian non-institutional population.. 

4 
expect a larger number of people to answer “yes,” including some who do not consider themselves to be 

Hispanic. The Census Bureau, after trying multiple identifiers of Hispanic ethnicity in the 1970 census, 

determined that the best method of identifying the Hispanic population was self-identification. This 

method allows respondents to identify their own origin groups and avoids the situation of having to 

employ a set of “objective” criteria or rules that themselves would be subject to disagreement and 

criticism because a universally agreed upon definition of who is Hispanic is lacking. 

Siegel and Passel (1979) addressed the issue of defining Hispanic ethnicity in assessing the coverage of 

the Hispanic population in the 1970 census, when the Census Bureau first attempted to provide a 

comprehensive total for the Hispanic population. Data on Hispanic ethnicity in the 1970 census were 

collected and published using a variety of identifiers: Spanish mother tongue, Spanish language, Spanish 

surname, Spanish heritage, and Spanish origin or descent. Depending on the identifier, the count of the 

Hispanic population ranged from 9.1 million (using an ”origin or descent” self-identification question 

similar to the one implemented in Census 2000) to 10.1 million (using the “Spanish language or 

surname” identifier based on supposedly more objective criteria3

). The identifier selected for use by the 

Census Bureau, therefore, had a significant impact on the estimate of the Hispanic population. However, 

none of the Hispanic population totals could be replicated using standard demographic methods to 

estimate coverage. Siegel and Passel concluded that the Hispanic population is a socially defined group 

of people whose self-identification with the Hispanic population, and particularly with a given Hispanic 

group, may vary over time, even without variation in the question. 

Thus, while issues raised by Martin, Suro and Logan concerning the impact of question wording or 

format appear to be valid, variability in the reporting of ethnicity based on self-identification also occurs 

because of social change, environmental factors, the “Census effect,”4

 and other factors unrelated to 

wording and format. Lavrakis mainly demonstrated that the size of an ethnic group can be increased if 

membership is defined as beginning with historical ancestry. 

Historical Context 

Prior to 1970, Hispanic origin was determined only indirectly. For example, the 1950 and 1960 censuses 

collected and published data for “persons of Spanish surname” in Arizona, California, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Texas, whereas the 1940 census identified people who reported Spanish as their “mother 

tongue.” Mexican was included as a category within the race question only in the 1930 census. 

Although the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses all allowed self identification of Hispanic ethnicity, 

the actual question wording differed from one census to the next (see Figure 1). The 1970 question was 

embedded within a question on place of birth on the 5-percent sample form5

 and was worded: “Is this 

person’s origin or descent - (fill one circle).” The 1970 census was the first to include a separate 

question specifically on Hispanic origin that was included on the 5-percent sample questionnaire. A 

similar question was first asked of everyone in 1980. Like the 1980 census, the 1970 census question 

allowed identification as “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” “Cuban,” and “Other Spanish” categories, but the 

3 The “Spanish language or surname” population in 1970 comprised: 1) people of Spanish mother tongue, 

2) all people in families in which the householder or spouse reported Spanish mother tongue, and 3) people of 

Spanish surname in the five Southwestern States (Arizona, California, Colorado, New M exico and Texas). 

4 The environment of a census, with its intense and pervasive advertising, may have its own unique effect 

on reporting of race and ethnicity. 

5 The 1970 census used matrix sampling with three different sample forms: 1) a five-percent sample form, 

2) a fifteen percent sample form, and 3) a combined 5 and 15 percent sample form resulting in a 20 percent sample. 

5 
 

1970 census included an additional category for “Central or South American” that did not appear in the 

1980 question.6 

The 1980 question, asked on a 100-percent basis, was more direct in asking people to identify as 

Hispanic or not Hispanic and was worded, “Is this person of Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent?” The 

1980 census provided response choices of “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” “Cuban,” or “Other 

Spanish/Hispanic” origin but did not allow further identification of Hispanic ethnicity. 

The 1990 census question (“Is ... of Spanish/Hispanic origin”) was the same as the 1980 question except 

for the deletion of the words “or descent.” The 1990 census was the only one to include examples of 

“other” Hispanic groups. In addition, this census was the first in which the groups that composed the 

“other Spanish/Hispanic” origin groups were coded and tabulated, although only for the portion of the 

population returning long forms. 

The Census 2000 question was similar to the1990 question except that the term “Latino” was added and 

the word “origin” was dropped (“Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?”). In Census 2000, people of 

Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin could identify themselves as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other 

Spanish/Hispanic/Latino by marking a check box. People who marked “other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” 

had additional space to write Hispanic origins, such as Salvadoran or Dominican, a practice started in the 

1990 census. Unlike the 1990 census question, the Census 2000 question did not include examples of 

groups in the “other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” category, but write-in responses were coded from all 

forms. 

It is clear from this brief review that both question wording and format have changed with each census 

from 1970 to 2000. What is not clear is the impact these changes might have on the comparability of 

results among the censuses. 

Simulation of Responses Using Place of Birth and Ancestry Data from the Census 2000 Long Form 

The simulation results presented in this working paper consisted of using the information from the place 

of birth and ancestry questions on the Census 2000 long (sample) form to examine possible specific 

Hispanic origins for people who reported a general response to the Hispanic origin question. 

The process for attempting to obtain a more specific national origin consisted of four steps: 

1.	 We selected the people who identified themselves in general Hispanic terms: Spanish, 

Hispanic, Latino, and so on - see Table 6 for terms included as general responses. 

2.	 We examined their place of birth (see Figure 2 for facsimile of question) responses to see if 

they reported a census-defined Hispanic country (see Table 3 below). If so, the nationalorigin code for that country was used. For example, if respondents reported they were 

“Latino” in the question on Hispanic origin and their place of birth was El Salvador, then 

Salvadoran was used in this simulation. 

3.	 If the country of birth was not a census-defined Hispanic country, we examined the first 

ancestry reported (if any) - see Figure 3 for facsimile of question. If the first ancestry 

reported was an Hispanic national origin (see Table 4 below), then that specific origin was 

used in this simulation. 

6 The response category “Central or South American” was dropped from the 1970 version of the question 

because of strong evidence of misreporting into this category by non-Hispanic people in the Central and Southern 

states in the United States. 

6 
 

4.	 If the first ancestry was not Hispanic, we examined the second ancestry reported (if any). If 

the second ancestry reported was Hispanic, then that specific origin was used. If the second 

ancestry was not an Hispanic national origin or was not reported, then the original general 

Hispanic response remained.7 

Limitations 

Several limitations to this simulation apply. First, it assumes that the specific Hispanic origin groups can 

only grow larger while the Hispanic total is left unchanged. However, 2.6 million people indicated a 

general Hispanic response in the question on origin but did not provide an Hispanic national origin in the 

place of birth or ancestry questions. In these cases, we did not assume for the purpose of the simulation 

analysis that they were not Hispanic. Second, the simulation made no adjustment when individuals 

reported an Hispanic national-origin group in the question on origin but provided no other evidence of 

Hispanic ethnicity in the place of birth or ancestry questions. Third, the simulation made no adjustment 

when individuals indicated they were not Hispanic in the question on origin but did provide evidence of 

Hispanic ethnicity in the place of birth or ancestry questions. Fourth, people reporting mixed Hispanic 

ethnicities (for example, Mexican-Puerto Rican, Cuban-Salvadoran, and so on) had the same unique code 

(291) and were tabulated in the “Other Spanish/Hispanic/ Latino” category. The original response was 

not available in the file used to conduct this simulation, therefore, we could not choose one of the two 

Hispanic origins reported and tabulate their response in the appropriate Hispanic group. 

The second and third limitations, which involve apparent inconsistencies, reflect the complexity 

underlying the reporting of ethnicity and highlight the problem of trying to simulate or “second guess” 

the self-identification of respondents using other indicators of ethnicity. Trying to develop a composite 

measure of Hispanic ethnicity using a combination of responses from the Hispanic origin, place of birth, 

and ancestry questions undermines the principle of self-identification and can lead to endless discussion 

about who is “Hispanic” and what is the size of the Hispanic population. In fact, the experience of using 

multiple indicators of Hispanic ethnicity in the 1970 census led the Census Bureau to decide that selfidentification using a single question on Hispanic origin was the best method for counting this population 

group. 

To illustrate the second limitation discussed above, a similar tabulation, using the same simulation logic, 

was run for individuals who marked the Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban checkbox categories to 

demonstrate the complexities of using place of birth and ancestry to “supplement” responses based on 

self-identification and to determine the extent to which the reported country of birth or ancestry was 

consistent with the specific checkbox. Table 2 below shows the results of this analysis. 

Table 2. Percent of People Marking the Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban Checkboxes by Their 

Responses to the Place of Birth and Ancestry Questions 

Place of Birth 1/ First Ancestry 1/ Second Ancestry 1/ 

Mexican 41.2% 84.0% 85.0% 

Puerto Rican 38.4% 76.2% 78.7% 

Cuban 68.7% 87.9% 89.2% 

1/ Place of birth or ancestry responses were consistent with the appropriate checkbox category. 

7 This simulation also was run using responses from the ancestry question first and then using responses 

from the place of birth question and the results were about the same. 

7 
This table shows that 41 percent of people who marked the “Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano” 

checkbox for the question on origin were born in Mexico. This percentage increased dramatically to 84 

percent when the first ancestry response was included. Including the second reported ancestry increased 

the percentage to 85 percent. About 15 percent of people who marked the “Mexican” checkbox in the 

question on origin did not indicate that they were born in Mexico or were of Mexican ancestry. 

This last result does not imply that these people were not of Mexican origin. It merely indicates that 

self-identification encompasses many factors that would be practically impossible to obtain using just the 

place of birth and ancestry questions. (Similar results were obtained for people who marked the Puerto 

Rican and Cuban checkboxes.) In short, the analysis suggests that the simulated results for the general 

Hispanic terms are merely informative and should not be used to model future demographic trends except 

to support the hypothesis that the reporting of generic responses will continue to increase. 

Definition of General Hispanic Responses 

For the purposes of this paper, a general response to the Hispanic origin question is one that does not 

stipulate an Hispanic national-origin group (e.g., Mexican, Salvadoran, Cuban, and so on). Responses 

considered “general” included people who marked the “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” checkbox in the 

question on origin and did not write in a response and people whose write-in response was coded as: 

“Spanish (282),” “Hispanic (281),” “Latino (250),” “Other Central American,”8

 “Other South 

American,”9

 or “Other Hispanic.”10 

Place of Birth 

In this simulation, we first examined the place of birth response to determine if people who provided a 

general response were born in any of the Hispanic countries listed in Table 3. 

Table 3. Hispanic Places of Birth and Place of Birth Codes 

Argentina (360) Honduras (314) 

Bolivia (361) Mexico (303) 

Central America (317) Nicaragua (315) 

Chile (363) Panama (316) 

Colombia (364) Paraguay (369) 

Costa Rica (311) Peru (370) 

Cuba (327) Puerto Rico (072) 

Dominican Republic (329) South America (374) 

Ecuador (365) Spain (134) 

El Salvador (312) Uruguay (372) 

Guatemala (313) Venezuela (373) 

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2000. 

8 This category is composed of the following two codes: Central American (227) and Central American 

Indian (228). 9

 This category is composed of the following three codes: South American Indian (240), Criollo (241), and 

South American (242). 

10 This category is composed of the following codes: “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” check box only 

(280), Californio (283), Tejano (284), Nuevo Mexicano (285), Spanish American (286), Spanish American Indian 

(287), Meso American Indian (288), Mestizo (289), Caribbean (290), Multiple Hispanic origin (291), Other 

Spanish/Hispanic, n.e.c. (299). 

8 
_________________________________________________________________________ 

Ancestry 

If place of birth information failed to provide a specific Hispanic country of origin, we examined 

responses to the ancestry question to determine if people named a specific Hispanic origin in either the 

first or second ancestry report. The following ancestries were recognized as specific Hispanic origins for 

the purposes of this simulation: 

Table 4. Hispanic Ancestries and Ancestry Codes 

Argentinean (231) Mexican (210-220) 

Bolivian (232) Nicaraguan (224) 

Central American* (227-230) Panamanian (225) 

Chilean (233) Paraguayan (236) 

Colombian (234) Puerto Rican (261-270) 

Costa Rican (221) Salvadoran (226) 

Cuban (271-274) South American* (249) 

Dominican (275) Spaniard (200-209) 

Ecuadorian (235) Uruguayan (238) 

Guatemalan (222) Venezuelan (239) 

Honduran (223) 

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2000. 

* Responses of “Central American” and “South American” ancestry were assumed to be “specific” for 

the purpose of this simulation. 

Results and Key Findings 

An estimated 5.7 million people chose a general Hispanic term to define their ethnicity in Census 2000 ­

see Table 5. Of these, about 3.1 million people (54 percent) also provided more information about 

specific Hispanic origins in their responses to the place of birth or ancestry questions, leaving about 2.6 

million people who reported no additional specific information. Specific Hispanic groups were inferred 

from the declared place of birth for about 1.6 million people and from the declared ancestry of the 

remaining 1.4 million. This simulation, by definition, increases the size of specific Hispanic origin 

groups and reduces the general Hispanic population, leaving the total Hispanic population unchanged. 

Table 5. General Hispanic Population by Simulation Status 

Number Percent 

Total General Hispanic Responses...................................... 5,685,000 100.0
 

Specific Hispanic Origin Reported in Place of Birth.... 1,635,000 28.8 

Specific Hispanic Origin not Reported in Place of 

 Birth but Reported in Ancestry.............................. 1,435,000 25.2
 

No Specific Hispanic Origin Reported in 

 Place of Birth or Ancestry ...................................... 2,615,000 46.0
 

Source: Table 6 

Combining the Census 2000 totals of specific Hispanic origin groups with those for people who provided 

a general response to the origin question and a specific Hispanic origin in the place of birth or ancestry 

questions resulted in some interesting findings. 

9 
 

The simulated Mexican origin total was 1.4 million larger than the Census 2000 total of 20.9 million 

(Table 6). This difference represents nearly half (47 percent) of all people reporting general Hispanic 

ethnicity when the simulation found a specific Hispanic origin in place of birth or ancestry and suggests 

that an “example effect” does not explain the lower percentage of people reporting Mexican origin in the 

2000-style question (without examples) than in the 1990-style question (with examples). Both questions 

included Mexican as a checkbox category. 

Proportionally, Spaniards experienced the highest percentage increase (69 percent) of the specific 

Hispanic origin groups, going from a total of 112,999 in Census 2000 to a combined total of 190,656 in 

the simulation (see Table 6). All the specific Hispanic origin groups experienced an increase of at least 

24 percent, except for Mexicans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans, who had the lowest percentage increases (7 

percent, 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively).11 

Among the general Hispanic responses, “Hispanic” and “Other Hispanic” experienced the largest 

numeric decreases (-1,248,733 and -1,157,266 respectively). These two groups combined accounted for 

about three-fourths (76 percent) of the decrease in the general Hispanic population. In fact, all 

the general Hispanic groups experienced significant reductions, with “Other South American” 

experiencing the smallest numerical decrease (-34,230). The percent decrease for each of the general 

Hispanic groups based on this simulation is shown in Table 6. The “Latino” and “Other Central 

American” groups had the largest percentage decreases (-77 percent and -74 percent, respectively), while 

the “Spanish” group had the smallest percentage decrease (-32 percent). Table 7 (shown in Appendix A) 

provides more detailed information from this simulation. 

11 Argentinean is not significantly different from 24 percent. 

10 
Table 6. Census 2000 Hispanic Origin Groups and Results of Simulation Showing Place of Birth and Ancestry

 Responses for People Reporting a General Hispanic Origin 

Hispanic Population by 

Origin Response 

Census 2000 

Hispanic Origin 

(1) 

Combined Total: 

Census 2000 Hispanic 

Origin + Specific 

Hispanic Origins 

Based on Responses 

to Place of Birth or 

Ancestry Question 

(2) 

Number Difference: 

Combined Total for 

Hispanic Origin ­

Census 2000

Hispanic Origin 

(3) = (2) - (1) 

Percent Difference: 

Combined Total for 

Hispanic Origin ­

 Census 2000 

Hispanic Origin 

(4) = (3)/(1) * 100

 Total 35,238,481 35,238,481 0 (X) 

General Hispanic 5,540,627 2,574,296 -2,966,331 -53.5

 Hispanic 2,316,515 1,067,782 -1,248,733 -53.9

 Latino 411,559 93,783 -317,776 -77.2

 Spanish 765,879 523,323 -242,556 -31.7

 Other general response1/ 2,046,674 889,408 -1,157,266 -56.5 

Mexican 20,900,102 22,338,311 1,438,209 6.9 

Puerto Rican 3,403,510 3,539,988 136,478 4.0 

Cuban 1,249,820 1,312,127 62,307 5.0 

Dominican 799,768 999,561 199,793 25.0 

Central American 1,811,676 2,435,731 624,055 34.4

 Costa Rican 72,175 93,583 21,408 29.7

 Guatemalan 407,127 574,785 167,658 41.2

 Honduran 237,431 333,636 96,205 40.5

 Nicaraguan 194,493 272,655 78,162 40.2

 Panamanian 98,475 126,500 28,025 28.5

 Salvadoran 708,741 1,010,740 301,999 42.6

 Other Central American 93,234 23,832 -69,402 -74.4 

South American 1,419,979 1,847,811 427,832 30.1

 Argentinian 107,275 132,864 25,589 23.9

 Bolivian 45,188 65,220 20,032 44.3

 Chilean 73,951 98,057 24,106 32.6

 Colombian 496,748 653,029 156,281 31.5

 Ecuadorian 273,013 380,428 107,415 39.3

 Paraguayan 8,929 12,806 3,877 43.4

 Peruvian 247,601 339,027 91,426 36.9

 Uruguayan 20,242 27,401 7,159 35.4

 Venezuelan 96,091 122,268 26,177 27.2

 Other South American 50,941 16,711 -34,230 -67.2 

Spaniard 112,999 190,656 77,657 68.7 

Note: The population universe for this simulation analysis comprises: General Hispanic (5,540,627) plus Other 

Central American (excluding 109 persons who reported “Canal Zone” - 93,125) plus Other South American 

(50,941), resulting in a total of 5,684,693. People who reported a specific Hispanic origin in the place of birth or 

ancestry questions were subtracted from the general Hispanic universe and tabulated in the specific Hispanic group 

corresponding to the place of birth or ancestry response in column 2 of this table. Subtractions from each general 

response group are shown in bold. 

1/ Includes: 1) people who provided responses such as “Latin American” and “Spanish American,” 2) people of 

mixed Hispanic ethnicities, and 3) people who checked the “Other” box but did not provide a write-in entry. 

Source: Census 2000 and results of simulation. 

11 
NOTE: 	 Figure reproduced from General Accounting Office Report GAO-03-228, “Methods for 

Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup Data Need Refinement,” published February 

2003. 

12 
Figure 2. Census 2000 Question on Place of Birth 

Figure 3. Census 2000 Question on Ancestry 

13 
References
 

del Pinal, Jorge, Elizabeth Martin, Claudette Bennett, and Arthur Cresce. (2002) “Overview of Results 

of New Race and Hispanic Origin Questions in Census 2000.” Paper presented at the annual 

meetings of the American Statistical Association, August 11-15, 2002. New York. 

Lavrakas, Paul J., Matthew W. Courser, Lillian Diaz-Castillo. (2002) “Differences Between Hispanic 

‘Origin’and Hispanic ‘Identity’ and Their Implications.” Paper presented at the 2002 Annual 

Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, May 16-19, 2002, St. Pete’s, 

Florida. 

Logan, John R. “Hispanic Populations and Their Residential Patterns in the Metropolis.” (2002) Report 

prepared at the Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, 

University at Albany, May 8, 2002. (mumford1.dyndns.org/census2000/report.html) 

Martin, Elizabeth. (2002) “The Effects of Questionnaire Design on Reporting of Detailed Hispanic 

Origin in Census 2000 Mail Questionnaires,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4): 582-593. 

Siegel, Jacob S and Jeffrey S. Passel. (1979) “Coverage of the Hispanic Population of the United States 

in the 1970 Census: A Methodological Analysis.” Current Population Reports, Special Studies 

P-23, No.82. U.S. Census Bureau. 

14 
Accuracy of the Estimates
 

The data contained in this report are based on the sample of households who responded to the Census 2000 long 

form. Nationally, approximately one out of every six housing units was included in this sample. As a result, the 

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the100-percent figures that would have been obtained if all housing 

units, people within those housing units, and people living in group quarters had been enumerated using the 

same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample estimates also differ from the values 

that would have been obtained from different samples of housing units, people within those housing units, and 

people living in group quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of all possible samples is 

called the sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100-percent data are 

subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error may be introduced during any of the various complex 

operations used to collect and process data. Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or 

every person in the population, failing to obtain all required information from the respondents, obtaining 

incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information incorrectly. In addition, errors can occur during 

the field review of the enumerators’ work, during clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or during the 

electronic processing of the questionnaires. 

Nonsampling error may affect the data in two ways: (1) errors that are introduced randomly will increase the 

variability of the data and, therefore, should be reflected in the standard errors; and (2) errors that tend to be 

consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 100-percent data in that direction. For example, if 

respondents consistently tend to underreport their incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or 

families by income category will tend to be understated for the higher income categories and overstated for the 

lower income categories. Such biases are not reflected in the standard errors. 

While it is impossible to eliminate completely error from an operation as large and complex as the decennial 

census, the Census Bureau attempts to control the sources of such error during the data collection and 

processing operations. The primary sources of error and the programs instituted to control error in Census 2000 

are described in detail in Summary File 3 Technical Documentation under Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,” 

located at www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 

All statements in this Census 2000 Brief have undergone statistical testing and all comparisons are significant at 

the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. Further information on the accuracy of the data is 

located at www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For further information on the computation and use of 

standard errors, contact the Decennial Statistical Studies Division at 301-763-4242. 

15 
Appendix A - Table 7 


16 
g

(lead dots indicate sub-parts)

.....................Footnotes:

Table 7. Census 2000 Hispanic Origin Groups and Results of Simulation Showing Place of Birth and Ancestry Responses for People Reporting a GeneSource: U.S. Census Bureau Internet Release date: September 16, 2003 Hispanic Population by Origin Response Census 2000 

Hispanic Origin 

(1) 

Combined Total: 

Census 2000 Hispanic 

Origin + Specific 

Hispanic Origins Based 

on Responses to the 

Place of Birth Question 

Only 

(2) 

Percent difference: 

Combined Total (Place 

of Birth Only) - Census 

2000 Hispanic Origin

 (3) = (2) - (1)/(1) * 100 

Combined Total: 

Census 2000 Hispanic 

Origin + Specific 

Hispanic Origins Based 

on Responses to Place 

of Birth and Ancestry 

Questions 

(4)

Percent difference: 

Combined Total 

(Place of Birth and 

and Ancestry) -

Combined Total 

(Place of Birth Only) 

(5) = (4)-(2)/(2) * 100 

Simulated Total

Number differ

Combined Total 

of Birth and Anc

Census 2000 H

Origin 

(6) = (4) - (

Total 35,238,481 35,238,481 NA 35,238,481 NA 

General Hispanic 5,540,627 4,002,025 -27.8 2,574,296 -35.7 -2,

Hispanic 2,316,515 1,757,068 -24.2 1,067,782 -39.2 -1,Latino 411,559 163,183 -60.4 93,783 -42.5 -

Spanish 765,879 599,086 -21.8 523,323 -12.6 -

Other general response 1/ 2,046,674 1,482,688 -27.6 889,408 -40.0 -1,

Mexican 20,900,102 21,417,695 2.5 22,338,311 4.3 1,Puerto Rican 3,403,510 3,442,815 1.2 3,539,988 2.8 Cuban 1,249,820 1,267,012 1.4 1,312,127 3.6 Dominican 799,768 924,934 15.7 999,561 8.1 

Central American 1,811,676 2,295,350 26.7 2,435,731 6.1 

Costa Rican 72,175 88,337 22.4 93,583 5.9 

Guatemalan 407,127 540,149 32.7 574,785 6.4 

Honduran 237,431 316,701 33.4 333,636 5.3 Nicaraguan 194,493 255,388 31.3 272,655 6.8 Panamanian 98,475 119,891 21.7 126,500 5.5 

Salvadoran 708,741 947,260 33.7 1,010,740 6.7 

Other Central American 93,234 27,624 -70.4 23,832 -13.7 

South American 1,419,979 1,739,791 22.5 1,847,811 6.2 

Argentinian 107,275 127,067 18.4 132,864 4.6 Bolivian 45,188 61,328 35.7 65,220 6.3 Chilean 73,951 92,465 25.0 98,057 6.0 Colombian 496,748 610,987 23.0 653,029 6.9 Ecuadorian 273,013 353,604 29.5 380,428 7.6 Paraguayan 8,929 12,202 36.7 12,806 5.0 * 

Peruvian 247,601 318,358 28.6 339,027 6.5 Uruguayan 20,242 26,090 28.9 27,401 5.0 * 

Venezuelan 96,091 117,573 22.4 122,268 4.0 Other South American 50,941 20,117 -60.5 16,711 -16.9 

Spaniard 112,999 148,859 31.7 190,656 28.1 

NA - Not Applicable Note: The population universe for this simulation analysis comprises: General Hispanic (5,540,627) plus Other Central American (excluding 109 persons who reported “Canal Zone” - 93,125) plus Other Sou5,684,693. People who reported a specific Hispanic origin in the place of birth question were subtracted from the general Hispanic universe and tabulated in the specific Hispanic group corresponding to the People who were not tabulated in a specific Hispanic group based on place of birth but who had a specifc Hispanic origin in ancestry were subtracted from the general Hispanic numbers in column 2 and discolumn 4. Subtractions from each general response group are shown in bold. 1/ Includes: (1) people who provided responses such as “Latin American” and “Spanish American," (2) people of mixed Hispanic ethnicities, and (3) people who checked the “Other” box, but did not provide * Estimate is not significantly different from zero at the 90-percent confidence level. 
Appendix B: Comparison of Results from This Simulation
 

with Results from Suro’s and Logan’s Analyses
 

18 
Comparison of Results from This Simulation with Results from Suro’s and Logan’s Analyses 

Totals for Hispanic national-origin groups resulting from this study as shown in Table 8 below differ somewhat 

from those derived from the studies conducted by Suro and Logan, tending to be higher than the Suro estimates, 

but lower than the Logan estimates. Part of the reason for these differences results from the different 

methodologies used in each set of estimates. Note, however, that appropriate standard errors were not available 

to test whether differences between the Census Bureau’s simulated totals in this working paper and the 

estimated totals produced by Suro and Logan were statistically significant. 

Logan essentially used the percentage “Other Hispanic” from the pooled March 1998 and March 2000 Current 

Population Survey (CPS) samples as his “target” or “real” percentage for the appropriate proportion of Other 

Hispanic. For all states and metropolitan areas with 400 or more Hispanic sample cases, he derived this target 

percentage and applied it to all tracts where the percentage of Other Hispanic in that tract was greater than the 

target. In tracts that exceeded the target percentage, the “excess” percentage was redistributed according to the 

distribution of the specific national origins reported in that tract. Given that Logan generated a target percentage 

of 3.3 percent from the CPS (in contrast to 16.1 percent in Census 2000, based on the long form estimate), it is 

not surprising that his estimates of Hispanic national-origin groups exceeded the totals from the simulation 

shown in this working paper. 

Suro, on the other hand, applied the percentage of national-origin Hispanics from the C2SS to the Census 2000 

totals to derive his estimate. He did not have access to information from public-use micro-data files that would 

have allowed more detailed assignment based on place of birth or ancestry responses. To the extent that the 

percent “Other Hispanic” in the C2SS was “overstated” (according to Logan’s definition) and without the 

benefit of additional information from place of birth and ancestry questions, it is not surprising that Suro’s 

estimates of Hispanic national-origin groups tended to be lower than both Logan’s estimates and the simulated 

totals from this study. 

19 
g

(leading dots indicate sub-parts)

....................

Footnotes:

Table 8. Comparison of Results from Suro, Logan, and Census Bureau Studies on General Hispanic Reporting 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Internet Release date: September 16, 2003 

Type of Hispanic Origin 

Census Bureau Simulation 

Result 

Suro 

Paper 1/ 

Difference: Suro - Census 

Simulation Results 

Logan 

Paper 1/ 

D

Number 1/ 

Standard error 

(90-percent 

confidence level) Number Percent 

Total 35,238,481 34,824 35,305,817 NA NA 35,305,818 Mexican 22,338,311 28,444 22,107,866 -230,445 -1.0 23,060,224 

Puerto Rican 3,539,988 11,727 3,558,755 18,767 0.5 3,640,460 

Cuban 1,312,127 7,168 1,262,894 -49,233 -3.8 1,315,346 

Dominican 999,561 6,260 938,316 -61,245 -6.1 1,121,257 

Central American 2,435,731 9,746 2,336,185 -99,546 -4.1 2,863,063 

Costa Rican 93,583 1,918 86,158 -7,425 -7.9 115,672 Guatemalan 574,785 4,750 534,951 -39,834 -6.9 627,329 Honduran 333,636 3,621 315,343 -18,293 -5.5 362,171 Nicaraguan 272,655 3,273 244,886 -27,769 -10.2 294,334 Panamanian 126,500 2,230 121,049 -5,451 -4.3 164,371 Salvadoran 1,010,740 6,294 958,487 -52,253 -5.2 1,117,959 Other Central American 23,832 968 75,311 51,479 216.0 181,228 

South American 1,847,811 8,498 1,710,385 -137,426 -7.4 2,169,669 

Argentinean 132,864 2,286 123,574 -9,290 -7.0 168,991 

Bolivian 65,220 1,602 80,623 15,403 23.6 70,545 Chilean 98,057 1,964 81,888 -16,169 -16.5 117,698 Colombian 653,029 5,063 588,215 -64,814 -9.9 742,406 Ecuadorian 380,428 3,866 347,301 -33,127 -8.7 396,400 Parguayan 12,806 710 9,451 -3,355 -26.2 14,492 Peruvian 339,027 3,650 279,384 -59,643 -17.6 381,850 Uruguayan 27,401 1,038 22,680 -4,721 -17.2 30,010 Venezuelan 122,268 2,193 114,700 -7,568 -6.2 149,309 Other South American 16,711 811 62,569 45,858 274.4 97,969 

Other Hispanic Latino 2,764,952 10,378 3,391,416 626,464 22.7 1,135,799 

Spaniard 190,656 2,738 303,439 112,783 59.2 NA 

Spanish 523,323 4,533 709,598 186,275 35.6 NA 

All Other Hispanic/Latino 2/ 2,050,973 8,950 2,378,379 327,406 16.0 NA 

NA - Not Applicable NOTE: Appropriate standard errors were not available to test whether differences between the Census Bureau's simulated totals and the estimated totals pr1/ Suro's and Logan's research used Hispanic data based on 100-percent totals. Simulated Census 2000 totals were based on sample data. 2/ Includes "Hispanic," "Latino," and "Other Hispanic" response from Table 7.