Population
 

Division
 

Identification of Hispanic Ethnicity in
 

Census 2000: Analysis of Data Quality
 

for the Question on Hispanic Origin
 

by 

Arthur R. Cresce, Audrey Dianne Schmidley 

and Roberto R. Ramirez 

Working Paper No. 75 

This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage 

discussion of work in progress. The views expressed on operational issues are those of the 

authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 
Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to thank Rosemary Byrne in the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, 

and Jorge del Pinal and Campbell Gibson in the Population Division for their review of 

the paper. 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction 

2. Planning for Census 2000 

2.1. Questionnaire changes between the 1990 census and Census 2000. 

2.2. Revisions to Statistical Policy Directive 15. 

2.3. Evaluation and review of the 1990 census results. 

2.4. Preparing for Census 2000. 

2.4.1. National Content Survey (NCS). 

2.4.2. Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). 

3. Results from Census 2000 

4. What do we know about data quality for the Hispanic question from Census 2000? 

4.1 Is the change in the Hispanic population reasonable? 

4.2. Improved response rates 

4.3. Improved imputation methodology 

4.4. Good overall response consistency as measured by reinterview and by comparison with 

the 1990 version of the Hispanic question 

4.5. Weaknesses in the Census 2000 Hispanic data 

4.6. Less than expected growth for specific Hispanic groups; Substantial growth in 

reporting of “generic” Hispanic terms; Evidence that question wording and format led 

respondents to report more general responses instead of more specific responses 

4.7. Evidence of slight decline in response consistency as measured by reinterview 

4.8. What is our overall assessment of data quality for the Census 2000 Hispanic question? 

5. How are we addressing data quality issues for Census 2010 and how does this affect the 

American Community Survey? 

References
 

Figure 1: Evolution of the Hispanic Question from the 1970 Census to the 2000 Census
 

Figure 2. Census 2000 Question on Place of Birth
 

Figure 3. Census 2000 Question on Ancestry
 

Figure 4. RAETT Question(s) 


‘Panel E. Combined Race, Hispanic Origin, and Ancestry Question; Multiracial Category’
 

‘Panel F: Combined Race, Hispanic Origin, and Ancestry Question With Mark One or
 

More Boxes.’
 
 

Identification of Hispanic Ethnicity in Census 2000:
 

Analysis of Data Quality for the Question on Hispanic Origin
 

1. Introduction 

Following a custom observed since the Census Bureau first began collecting Hispanic 

data in the 1970 census, this paper will report on the quality of information collected in 

Census 2000.1

 As did the authors of previous papers, we will look at the quality of 

Hispanic data from a variety of viewpoints, and draw some overall conclusions and 

implications for future research.2 

We will begin by reviewing: selected studies that evaluated the quality of 1990 census 

data; findings and conclusions agency analysts derived from special surveys that tested 

census data collection methods; and subsequent efforts by the agency to address issues 

uncovered during the review process and in preparation for Census 2000. Next, we will 

summarize the results of Census 2000 evaluative studies and discuss what we know about 

Hispanic data quality based on this recent research. Finally, we will provide an overall 

assessment of Hispanic question results and describe how we are addressing data quality 

issues for Census 2010 and the American Community Survey. 

2. Planning for Census 2000 

Public Law 94-3113

 directs the U.S. Census Bureau to collect information about 

individuals of Spanish origin and descent. A major source of race and ethnic data is the 

decennial census. Census data are used for policy purposes, and to organize, monitor, and 

evaluate various federal programs mandated by law such as the Voting Rights Act. State 

and local governments as well as businesses also use race and ethnic data for 

administrative and marketing purposes. 

While the majority of tasks associated with census data development such as collecting, 

processing, disseminating, and evaluating data are carried out by the Census Bureau, the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Accounting Office (GAO), 

have oversight responsibilities that involve establishing data policy standards and/or 

1 The Census Bureau collected ethnic data before 1970 for selected groups. See Gibson and Jung (2002). 

2

 See McKenney et al. (1985); Fernandez and Cresce (1986); McKenney et al. (1988); McKenney and Cresce 

(1992); Cresce et al. (1992); Cresce (2002); and del Pinal (2003). 

3 See also 29 U.S. Code Section 8. 

Page -1­
 

evaluating census data outcomes. The Census Bureau also receives planning advice and 

dissemination support from external analysts in academic and federal, state, and local 

government settings. 

Following each decennial census, the Census Bureau has evaluated the quality of the 

information collected in the previous census. This evaluation is important in its own right, 

but it also serves as a first step in planning for the next census. During the period 

following the 1990 census, analysts reviewed and evaluated data results, and fielded 

surveys designed to address shortcomings uncovered in the post-census evaluation. 

In this section, we focus on the evaluation and review of 1990 Hispanic data and steps 

taken in preparation for Census 2000. We begin our discussion by noting the “final” 

changes implemented in the Census 2000 process. Next, we summarize actions taken by 

OMB in the 1990s based on the results of Census Bureau research and public feedback. 

We conclude the section with an overview of the individual evaluation and research steps 

undertaken between 1990 and 2000. 

2.1. Questionnaire changes between the 1990 census and Census 2000. 

In 1970, the Census Bureau began collecting decennial census information about the 

Hispanic population. Following experimentation with various questions, the agency 

concluded that a single self-identification question would produce the most accurate and 

reliable results.4 Since 1980, the Census Bureau has used a single core question on the 

decennial form, but for a variety of reasons, over the past three censuses (1980, 1990, and 

2000) the agency has modified the Hispanic question as well as the census questionnaire. 

(See Appendix A for examples of 1980, 1990, and 2000 questions). 

Following the 1990 census, the Census Bureau ascertained that a) Hispanic item nonresponse; b) misreporting of ‘Mexican-American’ by non-Hispanics; and c) the collection 

of reliable Hispanic group detail continued to present a challenge. After research and 

consultation, the agency completed the design of the Census 2000 questionnaire. The 

final Census 2000 instrument differed from that used in the 1990 census in the following 

ways: 

• In 1990, the census questionnaire used a matrix format with people in the 

columns and questions on the rows. In contrast, the Census 2000 form used 

individual person blocks of space. 

4 The Hispanic population has also been identified as Spanish and Latino by its constituents. See del Pinal (1994). 

Page -2­
• In 1990, the race question preceded the Hispanic question. In 2000, the Hispanic 

question came first. 

• The Hispanic question instruction wording changed. The 2000 question added 

the term “Latino”, dropped the word “origin” from “Hispanic origin”, and changed 

the general instruction to “Mark the ‘No’ box if not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” 

• In 1990, the residual (write-in) response category, “Other Spanish/Hispanic” 

response category was accompanied by examples. This was not so in Census 2000. 

2.2. Revisions to Statistical Policy Directive 15. 

In July 1993, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which oversees the 

development of federal forms used to collect information from individuals and 

organizations in the United States, initiated the process of considering revisions to 

Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 – the federal government’s written policy for 

classifying racial and ethnic groups.5 Key census-related issues OMB addressed during 

the 1990 period included re-sequencing the race and Hispanic questions on the decennial 

census form and the use of the term ‘Latino’ in the Hispanic question. 

In the fall of 1997, referring to research conducted by the Census Bureau following the 

1990 Census (see below) as well as comments from stakeholders responding to a Federal 

Register Notice, OMB updated Directive No. 15. The revised directive required the 

Census Bureau to place the Hispanic question before the race question on the Census 

2000 form, and to change the term “Hispanic” to “Hispanic or Latino” in the Hispanic 

question. 

2.3. Evaluation and review of the 1990 census results. 

Evaluative research conducted by the Census Bureau following the 1990 census detected 

several areas of concern with regard to the Hispanic question results: a) higher than 

expected allocation rates; b) misreporting in the “Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano” and 

“Other Spanish/Hispanic” categories; and c) evidence of response problems with the 

“Yes, Other Spanish/Hispanic” category. Analysts uncovered these issues by comparing: 

a) 1980 and 1990 race and ethnic distributions; b) 1980 and 1990 imputation results; and 

c) 1990 results with results from the Content Reinterview Survey.6 

5 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html 

6

 See McKenney et al (1993) and Cresce et al (1992). 

Page -3­
 

 

Comparing the 1980 and 1990 census results demonstrated that the 1990 short form 

produced a relatively higher computer allocation rate for the Hispanic item (10.0 percent) 

compared with the 1980 Hispanic short form (4.2 percent). On the other hand, the 1990 

long form rate was 3.5 percent, much closer to that of 1980 long form rate (2.3 percent) 

even though both the long and short forms used the same question. The Census Bureau 

determined that field follow-up was the major factor in lowering the allocation rate in 

these instances. 

Although an overall reduction in misreporting in the Mexican category occurred between 

the 1980 and 1990 censuses, Census Bureau analysts noted that an inordinate increase in 

misreporting had occurred in several states. One study observed that the 1990 edit and 

imputation procedures had increased the overlap between various racial groups and the 

Hispanic population which probably led to these unexpected results.7 Specifically, this 

analysis suggested about 62 percent of the Black Mexicans reflected in the census results 

were created by the edit and imputation procedures. 

Analysts also indicated that the “Other Spanish/Hispanic” population increased 

significantly between 1980 and 1990.8

 Although some of the change could be explained 

by population growth due to natural increase, the history of inconsistent reporting through 

content reinterview surveys in this category suggested further evaluation was necessary. 

2.4. Preparing for Census 2000. 

2.4.1 National Content Survey (NCS). 

Following the decision to eliminate content-edit followup in Census 2000, the Census 

Bureau began to search for new ways to reduce non-response and improve the edit and 

imputation procedures used to assign missing information. During the 1990s, the agency 

fielded a number of test surveys designed to meet these goals. The results from the 

surveys provided a basis for evaluating the effects of various questions and questionnaire 

formats, as well as field operations procedures disclosed when the Census 2000 

Operational Plan was unveiled in 1996.9 

In April 1996, the Census Bureau conducted the National Content Survey (NCS) in 

7 Del Pinal (1994) 

8 Cresce (1992) 

9 The Operational Plan included a simplified questionnaire that eliminated and/or shortened instructions and/or 

 removed examples including those used in the 1990 H ispanic question. 

Page -4­
preparation for Census 2000. The primary purpose of the 1996 NCS was to test the 

feasibility of having respondents report more than one race - either by the use of a single 

“multiracial” category or a “mark all that apply” approach. Another major objective of 

the NCS was to test the effects of sequencing the Hispanic question before the race 

question. 

Two versions of the Hispanic question were used in the survey questionnaire. One 

version was based on the 1990-style Hispanic question (“Is this person of 

Spanish/Hispanic origin?”) with examples for “Other Spanish/Hispanic”. The alternative 

“Census 2000” version (“Is this person Spanish/Hispanic/Latino”) excluded these 

examples. 

Evidence from the NCS supported the notion that the position of the Hispanic question on 

the Census 2000 questionnaire would be a major factor in narrowing the Hispanic item 

nonresponse rate. NCS results also supported the notion that the term ‘Latino’ was 

salient within the Hispanic population. 

2.4.2.Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). 

In June 1996, the Census Bureau conducted the Race and Ethnic Targeted Test (RAETT). 

RAETT was designed to: a) evaluate further methods for allowing respondents to report 

more than one race, b) evaluate further the effect of alternative sequencing of race and 

Hispanic questions, and c) examine the feasibility of using a combined race and Hispanic 

question. RAETT obtained responses from the members of relatively small racial groups 

that might not have sufficient representation in a standard national probability sample 

(such as the 1996 NCS). 

The NCS results, published by the Census Bureau in December of 1996, had indicated 

that the placement of the Hispanic question before the race question reduced nonresponse 

to the Hispanic question and did not increase nonresponse to the race question. However, 

the percent Hispanic based on the Census 2000-style question results appeared to differ 

from the results based on the 1990-style question, regardless of whether or not the 

Hispanic question appeared before or after the race question. 

Although there were no other statistical differences owing to sample size, the proportion 

of the ‘Other Hispanic” sample in the Census 2000-style panels was larger regardless of 

whether or not the Hispanic question appeared before or after the race question. The 

reason for the apparent discrepancy was not clear (i.e., did adding “Latino,” dropping 

“origin,” or eliminating examples have an effect). Agency analysts peer reviewing the 

results recommended further investigation using multivariate analysis to see if the 

interaction between using a multiracial category and sequencing of the questions might 

Page -5­
 

explain the observed effects, but no further research was conducted because the effects 

could not be decomposed using the available sample. 

Regarding the testing of a combined race/ethnic question, the purpose of the RAETT was 

to determine the effects of collecting information about race, Hispanic origin, and 

ancestry in a combined two-part question. The RAETT tested two versions of a combined 

question (Figure 4). Both provided response boxes that conformed to the extant OMB 

race groups and for “Some other race.” Both also included a write-in line for American 

Indian or Alaska Native tribe affiliation. One version (Panel E) included a “multiracial” 

category and requested that only one checkbox be marked, while the other (Panel F) did 

not include a “multiracial” category but included an instruction to “mark one or more” 

checkboxes. Both were followed by Part B of the question, which asked respondents to 

report their “ancestry or ethnic group” on write-in lines provided for this purpose. One 

objective of the ancestry write-in was to determine how detailed Asian or Pacific Islander 

and Hispanic groups would be reported. 

Nonresponse to each combined question was significantly lower than nonresponse to 

corresponding separate Hispanic origin and race questions (included in the RAETT for 

comparison) in the other test panels. Furthermore, both of the combined questions 

elicited high levels of multiple response in the Hispanic targeted sample (i.e. both race 

and Hispanic origin were provided). And, in comparison with the separate questions, 

when all the ‘Hispanic’ responses to the combined questions (either alone or in 

combination with any other response (race or ethnic) were added together (which is the 

proper comparison) there was no statistical difference in the percent reporting Hispanic 

origin.10 

In about 11-13 percent of the responses to the RAETT combined questions, the 

respondent selected ‘Hispanic’ but did not include a response in the ancestry component 

of the question. Because of this relatively high rate of nonresponse to the ancestry 

component, the percent amounts of specific Hispanic origin groups obtained from the 

combined questions were consistently lower than those obtained from the separate 

Hispanic origin questions.11 

In summary, RAETT determined that a combined race and Hispanic origin question 

produced lower nonresponse rates than did separate questions. Reporting rates in the 

10 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Working Paper No. 18. “Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 

Targeted Test” pages I-18 to I-19. 

11 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division Working Paper No. 18. “Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 

Targeted Test” pages I-21. 

Page -6­
‘alone’ categories of Hispanic origin for the combined question appeared to be lower than 

comparable results from the separate questions. However, when Hispanic responses in 

combination with the race responses were included, the percent Hispanic for the 

combined panels was not statistically different from the percent using a separate question. 

Finally, information about detailed Hispanic groups appears to have been reduced by the 

combined question approach. 

In May 1997, the Census Bureau published the 1996 RAETT results. Using the Census 

2000-style Hispanic question, RAETT showed that asking the Hispanic question before 

the race question reduced item non-response. The combined race and Hispanic question 

produced conflicting results, leading to a decision by the agency not to pursue this 

approach for Census 2000. On one hand, nonresponse was lower in the combined 

question than for the separate race and Hispanic questions. In addition, the mixed 

question generated results for the major race groups and the total Hispanic population that 

were comparable to those derived from separate race and Hispanic questions.12 On the 

other hand, the combined question could not produce totals for detailed Hispanic groups 

that were comparable to those from a separate Hispanic question. 

Following the decision by OMB to revise Directive 15, in April 1998 the Census Bureau 

submitted the list of specific questions to be included in Census 2000. The Hispanic 

question was to be placed before the race question and be the essentially the same as that 

used in the 1996 RAETT (with no examples for “Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino” and the 

Hispanic question would include the term “Latino” but exclude the term “origin”). 

3. Results from Census 2000 

Census 2000 results show the Hispanic population grew from 22.4 million to 35.3 million 

between 1990 and 2000, or 57.9 percent (Table 1). This change outpaced that observed 

between 1980 and 1990 when the Hispanic population increased by 53.4 percent on a 

smaller base.13 

Census 2000 data also reveal that during the 1990s, the Hispanic population dispersed 

beyond traditional population centers. Although States with generally large Hispanic 

populations, such as California and Texas experienced substantial growth (42.6 percent 

and 53.7 percent, respectively), other States such as North Carolina and Virginia also 

experienced significant growth (393.9 percent and 105.6 percent, respectively). 

 OMB classification. See Directive No. 15. 

13 Hobbs and Stoops (2002). 

Page -7­

12
 

Because Census 2000 represented the first time that write-in responses for detailed 

Hispanic groups were coded on a 100-percent basis (write-in responses had been coded 

on a sample basis in 1990), information for detailed Hispanic groups such as Dominican 

and Salvadoran were available at the block level. Sample data from both censuses, 

indicate that the population of most Hispanic groups grew between 1990 and 2000 (Table 

2.). However, the extraordinary increase among certain groups such as “Hispanic” and 

“Latino” and the relative proportional decrease of certain groups such as “Nicaraguan” 

and “Spaniard” raises questions about the quality of the Hispanic data. This issue is 

pursued in more detail in the next section. 

4. What do we know about data quality for the Hispanic question from Census 

2000? 

4.1 Is the change in the Hispanic population reasonable? 

While Census 2000 data revealed that the Hispanic population had increased substantially 

between 1990 and 2000 (57.9 percent), the total population grew by only 13.2 percent.14 

This dramatic growth plus the disparity between the Census 2000 figure (35.3 million) 

and the demographic estimate for July 1, 2000 (32.2 million) prompted the Census 

Bureau to reexamine assumptions about international migration used in the development 

of population estimates.15 

Shortly after the Census was completed, new international migration (legal and 

unauthorized) assumptions were developed for the Hispanic population based on a series 

of demographic research reports.16 Although the number of Hispanics counted in Census 

2000 was higher than expected, the growth of the Hispanic population was deemed 

reasonable after the results of the demographic review showed that the Census Bureau 

had originally underestimated Hispanic international migration during 1990s. Hispanic 

population adjustments were made to reflect these new findings (e.g., 35.6 million = July 

1, 2000 estimate).17 

4.2. Improved response rates 

14 Guzman (2001) 

15 Robinson (2001) 

16 Cresce, et al (2001). This paper is part of the Demographic Analysis of Population Estimates or DAPE series. 

17 Consistent with 2000 estimates base. See Table NA-EST2002-ASRO-02, “National Population Estimates ­

Characteristics,” Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, D.C. 20233 

Page -8­
 

Sequencing of the Hispanic question before the race question may have finally resolved 

the problem of how to improve the response level of the Hispanic question without the 

use of a field content-edit followup.18 Compared with results from the 1990 census, the 

Census 2000 total allocation rate fell from10.4 percent to 5.6 percent (Table 3). In 

addition, the Hispanic allocation rates declined in every state except Alaska, New 

Mexico, Vermont, and Wyoming. The total number of imputations for the Hispanic 

Origin question also dropped during the period from 25.5 million in 1990 to 16.8 million 

in 2000. 

4.3. Improved imputation methodology 

During Census 2000, in addition to improving the response rate and thereby reducing the 

number of required imputations, the Census Bureau improved the imputation process by: 

• Reducing the proportion of imputed “hot deck” cases. In 1990, 75.6 percent of 

census data allocations were processed using the “hot deck ”method. In Census 

2000, only 41.2 percent of the imputations were processed in this manner.19 

• Introducing the use of Spanish and non-Spanish surnames into the hot deck 

procedure. When the hot deck procedure was used, donors with Spanish surnames 

were used to impute values to Spanish surnamed cases with missing values (and 

vice versa for non-Hispanic cases). Approximately 31.4 percent of all imputations 

and 8.1 percent of all Hispanic imputation cases were affected by this 

enhancement of the hot deck procedure. 

• Combining the race and Hispanic imputation procedures. In 1990, the race and 

Hispanic origin edit and imputation procedures were executed independently. This 

approach apparently contributed to the propagation of relatively rare race Hispanic 

combinations (for example, Black Mexicans), although in some part these esoteric 

combinations may also have been the result of misreporting. In Census 2000, the 

race and Hispanic origin edit specifications were integrated and the rules for 

‘within household’ and ‘hot deck procedures’ restricted so that Hispanic donors 

and donees were matched before race was assigned. 

18 Cresce and Ramirez (2001) 

19 Census Bureau analysts consider the hot deck method the least reliable imputation method. Other methods 

impute values based on additional information about the individual in question (i.e. birthplace might be used to infer 

Hispanic Origin) or a member of his household (i.e. Hispanic origin of the household head might be used to assign 

Hispanic status to dependent children). Hot deck allocation involves the assignment of values from a set of stored values 

collected from other households. The phrase “hot deck” is used to describe this source because the deck is constantly 

refreshed by newly processed cases. 

Page -9­
 

 

4.4. Good overall response consistency as measured by reinterview and by 

comparison with the 1990 version of the Hispanic question 

Since 2000, the Census Bureau has conducted several studies evaluating the quality of 

Census 2000 data including the Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey (CRS) and the 

Alternate Questionnaire Experiment (AQE).20 Major findings from these studies are 

discussed below.21 

Shortly after the last decennial census, the Census Bureau randomly selected a sample of 

30,000 households that had received the long form in 2000. One person from each 

household in this sample was telephone interviewed by an experienced field 

representative. The primary goal of the survey was to evaluate the quality of the census 

data by comparing responses provided through a phone interview with those reported in 

the census questionnaire. Using data from this Content Reinterview Survey, analysts 

developed an index of inconsistency in reporting. 

Results from the CRS indicate edited data for the Hispanic origin question displayed 

mixed results. The consistency of “Not Hispanic,” “Mexican,” “Puerto Rican,” and 

“Cuban” responses fell in the good range (less than 20). “Other Hispanic” scored in the 

moderate range (20 to 50). “Multiple non-Hispanic,” “Multiple Hispanic,” and “Mixed 

Origin” scored in the poor range (over 50) (Table 4).22 

The Alternate Questionnaire Experiment was designed to measure the total effect of the 

changes in the Census mail questionnaire from 1990 to 2000 by comparing two 

independent random samples of households. About 10,500 households received the1990­

style short form while about 25,000 households received the census 2000 short form. The 

1990-style form retained the same 1990 question wording, categories, order and format, 

but incorporated some recognizable elements of the Census 2000 design. Because this 

experiment was conducted by mail, the results of the study were generalizable only to the 

Census 2000 mailout-mailback universe. 

According to the results of the AQE, changes to the Census 2000 questionnaire led to 

improved reporting of Hispanic origin as measured by item nonresponse. For example, 

the overall item nonresponse to the question of Hispanic origin was 3.3 percent in the 

Census 2000-style questionnaire, compared with 14.5 percent in the 1990-style 

20 Singer and Ennis (2002); Martin (2002) 

21 Del Pinal (2003) provides a more in-depth summary. 

22 Del Pinal (2003). Table 3.2. “Response Variance Measures for Hispanic Origin (Edited Data).” 

Page -10­
questionnaire. Nonresponse to the race question by Hispanics was also reduced by nearly 

10 percentage points, from 30.5 percent in the 1990-style questionnaire to 20.8 percent in 

the 2000-style questionnaire. 

4.5. Weaknesses in the Census 2000 Hispanic data 

4.6. Less than expected growth for specific Hispanic groups; Substantial growth in 

reporting of “generic” Hispanic terms; Evidence that question wording and format 

led respondents to report more general responses instead of more specific responses 

Despite many positive findings, the Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (discussed 

above) revealed the census mail questionnaire probably produced a few unwanted results. 

There was no difference between the two groups (those receiving the 1990-style 

questionnaire and those receiving the 2000-style questionnaire) in the percent of people 

reporting Hispanic (about 11.1 percent of each group surveyed). However, members of 

the group receiving the 2000-style questionnaires were less likely to report a specific 

Hispanic group (e.g., Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican) and more likely to report a general 

Hispanic term (e.g., Hispanic, Latino, Spanish) compared with the sample that received 

the 1990-style questionnaires. Specifically, the AQE found that 92 percent of the 

Hispanics who responded to the 1990-style form provided a specific Hispanic group 

identity compared with 80 percent of those who responded to a 2000-style form. Thus, 

the 2000-style forms produced about 10 percent more general responses than the 1990­

style forms. AQE results suggest this difference is probably due to the combined effects 

of changes in the question wording (e.g., removal of the word “origin” which appeared on 

the 1990 form, and addition of the term “Latino” to the 2000 form) and/or the elimination 

of specific Hispanic origin examples from the Census 2000 questionnaire. 

Findings from Census 2000 compared with those from the 1990 census show a similar 

pattern (Table 2). In Census 2000, the proportion of the Hispanic population providing a 

specific origin was 83.9 percent compared with 93.6 percent in the 1990 census.23 In 

addition, the proportions of persons responding differed across groups. The Mexican 

origin population declined from 61.2 percent in 1990 to 59.3 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. On the other hand, general responses all experienced dramatic increases. 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 

23 N.B. These results differ from those in the preceding paragraph because they are actual 1990 and 2000 census 

results, whereas those in the preceding paragraph reflect the results from the Alternate Question Experiment. 

Page -11­
2.0 percent to 2.2 percent and finally “Other Hispanic” increased from 2.6 percent to 5.8 

percent. 

Two independent external studies by Roberto Suro of the Pew Hispanic Center and John 

Logan of the Lewis Mumford Center raised additional concerns about the accuracy of the 

detailed Hispanic group data.24 Although both analysts praised the Census Bureau for 

producing a good total count of Hispanics, Suro and Logan both provide additional 

evidence that the Census 2000 Hispanic question may have significantly underestimated 

the size of some Hispanic groups in the United States. 

In 2002, Government Accounting Office auditors met with Census Bureau staff to discuss 

the decision that led to the selection of the version of the Hispanic question used in 

Census 2000 as well as the results from Census 2000. The GAO noted “the Bureau’s lack 

of agency wide guidelines for its decisions on the level of quality needed to release data 

to the public” when the agency realized that question wording and format may have 

adversely affected reporting of detailed Hispanic groups.25 

At the request of members of Congress and the Latino community, the Census Bureau 

further analyzed the Census 2000 Hispanic data in an effort to ascertain what kinds of 

detailed responses individuals might have provided in lieu of the more general responses 

they did provide. Using a ‘what if’ scenario, Census Bureau staff devised a simulation 

model that generated detailed Hispanic values based on information derived from 

responses to other census questions such as nativity and ancestry.26 For example, if a 

respondent reported “Latino” in the Hispanic origin question and indicated he was born in 

Mexico, he was coded “Mexican” (a detailed response) in the simulation model. 

When the criteria for refining the Hispanic detail were applied the numbers and 

proportions for many of the detailed groups increased. For example, the category 

Spaniard increased by about 69 percent (Census 2000 results = 112,999; Simulation 

model results = 190,656). In fact, all the detailed Hispanic group proportions increased at 

least 24 percent except Mexican (7 percent), Puerto Rican (4 percent), and Cuban (5 

percent). The biggest numerical gainer was the Mexican category (Census 2000 results = 

20.9 million; Simulation results = 22.3 million, or a 1.4 million gain). The Mexican cases 

accounted for nearly half (47 percent) of all the sample reassigned from a general to a 

specific response (1.4 million out of 3.1 million) in the simulation model. 

24 Suro (2002) compared Census 2000 results with Census 2000 Special Survey results. Logan (2002) compared 

Census 2000 results with information from the 1998-2000 Current Population Survey. 

25 GAO (2003) 

26 Cresce and Ramirez (2003). 

Page -12­
Because long form information derived from the place of birth and ancestry question are 

only available for long form census cases, the simulation study findings may be of limited 

use in refining decennial census data.27 However, this methodology opens up interesting 

possibilities with regard to the American Community Survey conducted annually. 

Another group of Census Bureau analysts compared the Census 2000 Hispanic data 

results with data reported in the Census 2000 Supplemental Survey (C2SS).28 These 

researchers found that both data sources provided similar totals for the Hispanic 

population. On the other hand, they noted Census 2000 produced lower detailed Hispanic 

group rates and higher general group rates. The report suggests: 

“the observed differences are due to the use of examples in the C2SS during 

telephone and personal visit interviewing. These aids were not provided during 

Census 2000 operations, although one could argue that the presence of the 

Hispanic origin checkbox groups act as examples. This reasoning does not explain 

why the Mexican percentage is also lower in Census 2000.”29 

Although the universe for these two data collection systems are somewhat different 

(Census 2000 represent the total population, i.e. the population in both households and 

group quarters; C2SS represents the household population alone), the results of this 

comparison add to the evidence that the Census 2000 question may have influenced 

respondents to report general Hispanic answers. 

4.7. Evidence of slight decline in response consistency as measured by reinterview 

Finally, even though response consistency was in the good range for the Hispanic 

question, response consistency declined between 1990 to 2000 not only for the Hispanic 

question overall, but also for the Mexican and Puerto Rican origin categories (Table 4.). 

These differences can be partly explained by: a) the Census 2000 CRS questionnaire used 

a somewhat different Hispanic question than that which appeared in the mail form, 

whereas the 1990 CRS used the same question as that used in the mail form, and b) the 

Census 2000 CRS used more Hispanic categories to derive the index of inconsistency 

than did the 1990 CRS. Thomas, et al note: 

27 While an estimated 5.7 million individuals provided a general Hispanic response in Census 2000, only 54 

percent (3.1 million) of these people provided information in the long form nativity and ancestry questions. 

28 Bennett and Griffin (2002). C2SS is the 2000 variant of the American Community Survey. 

29 del Pinal (2003). 

Page -13­
 

 “the level of index is sensitive to the number and detail of categories in a classification 

system as well as to the distribution of the population over these categories.” 30 

Nevertheless, these data add one more piece of evidence concerning the affect of the 

changes in the Census 2000 questionnaire with regard to reporting detailed and general 

Hispanic responses. 

4.8. What is our overall assessment of data quality for the Census 2000 Hispanic 

question? 

When viewed from the perspective that emerged following our evaluation of the 1990 

census results, Census 2000 Hispanic data appear to be of a very high quality. Reversing 

the order of the race and Hispanic questions addressed the problem of nonresponse as 

shown by the relatively low allocation rates in 2000 (compared with 1990), as well as 

results from the Alternative Question Experiment. Refinements to the data editing 

process, particularly the new rule for imputing origin from people of the same race and 

imputing race from people with the same origin, dramatically reduced the artificial 

creation of relatively rare race/Hispanic origin combinations. 

Despite the almost universal approval of the Hispanic population totals, it is clear that 

some of the changes introduced in Census 2000, such as the omission of the examples in 

the Hispanic question, probably encouraged respondents to provide general rather than 

detailed responses. This result casts a shadow on the quality of detailed Hispanic data. In 

the next section of this paper, will discuss efforts to address this problem as it relates to 

Census 2010 and the American Community Survey. 

Given that the prime legislative mandate for Hispanic data is to provide an accurate count 

of the Hispanic population, and given the improvements the Census Bureau introduced in 

Census 2000 that largely addressed this directive, our overall assessment is that the 

Hispanic data quality is quite good.31 

5. How are we addressing data quality issues for Census 2010 and how does this 

affect the American Community Survey? 

When the Census Bureau conducted the National Content Survey (NCS) in 2003, the 

results of the evaluation studies discussed above played an important role in determining 

the issues the survey explored. The purpose of the NCS was to investigate and assess 

30 Thomas, Dingbaum, and Woltman (1993) 

31 This conclusion is supported in Schneider (2003) and del Pinal (2003). 

Page -14­
proposed question changes, including those associated with race and ethnicity (Hispanic 

origin). The NCS contained experimental panels with differing versions of the Hispanic 

question. The various questions were composed of combinations of: a) examples for the 

“Other Spanish, Hispanic or Latino” category; b) the word “origin”; c) commas instead 

of slashes separating the words “Spanish,” “Hispanic,” and “Latino” in the question 

wording. 

Preliminary results from the NCS indicate that both the inclusion of the word “origin” in 

the question wording and the inclusion of examples for the “Other Spanish, Hispanic, or 

Latino origin” category lead to a statistically higher percentage reporting a specific 

Hispanic group compared with the Census 2000 version of the question (the control 

panel) which had neither of these features. These test results raise the probability that the 

Census 2010 and ACS forms will include these key features with some minor 

modifications possible from future test results. 

There are, however, a number of additional issues affecting the collection of data on the 

Hispanic population that will need to be addressed: 

•	 What examples should be included? Generally, examples help respondents 

understand the intent of a question. However, specific examples potentially bias 

answers as some respondents may identify with an example instead of reporting 

actual group membership. Thus, inclusion of examples of groups with relatively 

small population totals (for example “Uruguayan”) might result in a surge of 

reporting in this group. Testing panels to determine which examples and which 

order of presentation improve consistency and accuracy is difficult and time 

consuming and thus expensive. 

•	 What else can be done to increase the reporting of specific versus general 

Hispanic groups? In addition to changes in question wording and inclusion of 

examples for the Hispanic write-in category, it may be possible, as shown in the 

study conducted by Cresce and Ramirez (2003), to use additional information such 

as ancestry and place of birth in the edit procedures to provide more specific 

Hispanic groups when a general response is given. This approach is possible with 

the American Community Survey which relies on an equivalent of the decennial 

long form (and thus includes nativity and ancestry information), but it will not be 

possible with the 2010 decennial census which relies on the short-form (and thus 

excludes the requisite additional questions). If the ACS relies on processing 

specifications that differ from those of the census, a problem of inconsistency 

arises. 

•	 What happens if there is an increase in the number of Hispanics who prefer to 

Page -15­
identify with the more general terms? It is possible that the increase in the 

number of people reporting general instead of specific Hispanic responses may, in 

part, reflect a real trend toward identifying with more general terms. This is 

especially true for Hispanics who are one or more generations removed from an 

original immigrant ancestor, or whose ancestors lived in what became the 

territorial US after their ancestors had settled there (Spanish-Americans from New 

Mexico, for example). 

Efforts beyond question wording and use of examples to encourage reporting of more 

specific Hispanic groups, raise an important philosophical issue. The Census Bureau has 

based its approach on counting the Hispanic population on the principle of selfidentification. We do not fully understand all the reasons why people choose to respond 

the way they do. These responses 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 self-identification using a 

single question on Hispanic origin was the best method for counting this 

population.” 32 

On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern among Hispanic groups to identify their 

group as fully as possible. We know that the Hispanic population is composed of diverse 

groups whose social, cultural, and economic characteristics may be quite different and for 

whom programs or policies need to be individually tailored . 

These are difficult questions for which there are no easy solutions. Testing over the next 

two to three years will provide more information about changes in question wording and 

examples. Hopefully, the results of these tests, in combination with discussion of these 

results with key stakeholders, will help the Census Bureau develop an Hispanic question 

that will provide good data quality, not only for the total Hispanic population but also for 

the diverse groups that comprise the Hispanic population. 

32 Cresce and Ramirez (2003) 

Page -16­
 

 

 

 

 

References 

Bennett, C. and D. Griffin (2002). “Race and Hispanic Origin Data: A Comparison of 

Results from the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and Census.” 2002 Proceedings of 

the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods. American 

Statistical Association. Alexandria VA. 

Costanzo, J., C. Davis, C. Irazi, D. Goodkind, R. Ramirez (2001). Evaluating 

Components of International Migration: The Residual Foreign-Born. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Population Division Working Paper No. 61. Washington DC.* 

Cresce, A. (2002) “A Comparison of Editing Procedures for the Question on Hispanic 

Origin: 1990 Census and Census 2000.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Statistical Association, NYC.

 and R. Ramirez (2003). Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 

2000. U.S. Census Bureau: Population Division Working Paper No. 72. Washington 

DC.*

 R. Ramirez, and G. Spencer (2001). Evaluating Components of International 

Migration: Quality of Foreign-Born and Hispanic Population Data. U.S. Census Bureau: 

Population Division Working Paper No. 65. Washington DC.*

 S. Lapham, and S. Rolark. (1992). “Preliminary Evaluation of Data from the 

Race and Ethnic Origin Questions in the 1990 Census.” Paper presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the American Statistical Association. Boston MA. 

Deardorff, K. and L. Blumerman (2001). Evaluating Components of International 

Migration: Estimates of the Foreign-Born Population by Migrant Status: 2000. U.S. 

Census Bureau: Population Division Working Paper No. 58. Washington DC.* 

del Pinal, J. (2003). Race and Ethnicity in Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau: Census 

2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program. Topic Report Series, No. 9. 

Washington DC.*

 (1996) “Treatment and Counting of Latinos in the Census,” in Chabran Ed., 

The Latino Encyclopedia, 1996, Marshall Cavendish, NY. 

 (1994). “Social Science Principles: Forming Race-Ethnic Categories for 

Policy Analysis.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Race and Ethnic Classification: An 

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

Page -17­
 

 

 

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

Committee on National Statistics. 

 and Audrey Singer (1997). Generations of Diversity: Latinos in the United 

States Population Reference Bureau. [Bulletin 52:3]. 

Fernandez E. and A. Cresce (1986). “Who Are the Other Spanish?” Paper presented at 

the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, San Francisco, CA; 

Gibson, C. and K. Jung (2002). 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. U.S. Census Bureau: Population Division Working Paper 

No. 56. Washington DC.* 

Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population. U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Brief. 

Washington DC.* [C2KBR/01-3] 

Hobbs, F. and N. Stoops. Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. U.S. Census Bureau: 

Census 2000 Report. Washington DC.* [CENSR-4] 

Logan, J. (2002). Hispanic Populations and Their Residential Patterns in the Metropolis. 

Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University at 

Albany. [www.mumford1.dyndns.org]. 

Martin, E. (2002). Questionnaire Effects on Reporting of Race and Hispanic Origin: 

Results of a Replication of the 1990 Mail Short Form in Census 2000. U.S. Census 

Bureau: Alternative Questionnaire Experiment. Washington DC.* 

McKenney, N. et al (1985). “The Quality of Race and Spanish Origin Information 

Reported in the 1980 Census.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Statistical Association. 

 et al (1988). “Development of the Race and Ethnic Items for the 1990 

Census.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of 

America, New Orleans, Louisiana. 

 and A. Cresce (1992). “Measurement of Ethnicity in the United States: 

Experiences of the U.S. Census Bureau.” Paper presented at the Joint Canada-United 

States Conference on the Measurement of Ethnicity, Ottawa, Canada. 

Robinson, J. Gregory (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Demographic Analysis 

Page -18­
 

Results. U.S. Census Bureau: DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations 

Memorandum Series B-4. Washington DC.* 

Singer, P. and S. Ennis (2002). Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of 

Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview. 

U.S. Census Bureau: Census 2000 Evaluation B.5. Washington DC.* 

Schneider, Paula (2003). Content and Data Quality in Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau: 

Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, and Evaluation Program. Topic Series No. 12. 

Washington DC.* 

Suro, R. (2002). “Counting the ‘Other Hispanics’: How Many Columbians, Domincans, 

Ecuadorians, Guatemalans and Salvadorans are there in the United States?” Pew 

Hispanic Center, Washington DC. [www.pewhispanic.org] 

Thomas, K., T. Dingbaum, and H. Woltman (1993). Content Reinterview Survey:
 

Accuracy of Data for Selected Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by
 

Reinterview. U.S. Census Bureau: 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Evaluation
 

and Research Reports. Washington, DC.* 


[CPH-E-1]. 


U.S. Bureau of the Census (1997). Findings on Questions on Race and Hispanic Origin 

Tested in the 1996 National Content Survey. Population Division Working Paper No. 16. 

Washington DC.*

 (1996). Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic Targeted Test. Population 

Division Working Paper No.18. Washington DC.* 

U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). Decennial Census: Methods for Collecting and 

Reporting Hispanic Subgroup Data Need Refinement. Washington DC. [GAO-03-228] 

* Items available on the Census Bureau website: www.census.gov 

Page -19­
NOTE: Figure 1 Reproduced from General Accounting Office Report GAO-03-228, “Methods for
 

Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup Data Need Refinement,” published February 992003.
 

Page -20­
Figure 2. Census 2000 Question on Place of Birth 

Figure 3. Census 2000 Question on Ancestry 

Page -21­
Figure 4. RAETT Questions on Ancestry 

Panel E. Combined Race, Hispanic Origin, and Ancestry Question With Mark One or More Boxes 

Panel F. Combined Race, Hispanic Origin, and Ancestry Question With Mark One Box. 

Page -22­
g

(leading dots indicate sub-parts)

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

Table 1. Hispanic Population by Percent Change 1990 to 2000 for the 

United States, Regions, Divisions, and States
 

Regions, Divisions, 

and States 

Hispanic Population Percent Change 

1990 Census Census 2000 1990 to 2000

Total 22,354,059 35,305,818 57.9 

Northeast 3,754,389 5,254,087 39.9 

New England 568,240 875,225 54.0 

Maine 6,829 9,360 37.1 

New Hampshire 11,333 20,489 80.8 

Vermont 3,661 5,504 50.3 

Massachusetts 287,549 428,729 49.1 

Rhode Island 45,752 90,820 98.5 

Connecticut 213,116 320,323 50.3 

Middle Atlantic 3,186,149 4,378,862 37.4 

New York 2,214,026 2,867,583 29.5 

New Jersey 739,861 1,117,191 51.0 

Pennsylvania 232,262 394,088 69.7 

Midwest 1,726,509 3,124,532 81.0 

East North Central 1,437,720 2,478,719 72.4 

Ohio 139,696 217,123 55.4 

Indiana 98,788 214,536 117.2 

Illinois 904,446 1,530,262 69.2 

Michigan 201,596 323,877 60.7 

Wisconsin 93,194 192,921 107.0 

West North Central 288,789 645,813 123.6 

Minnesota 53,884 143,382 166.1 

Iowa 32,647 82,473 152.6 

Missouri 61,702 118,592 92.2 

North Dakota 4,665 7,786 66.9 

South Dakota 5,252 10,903 107.6 

Nebraska 36,969 94,425 155.4 

Kansas 93,670 188,252 101.0 

South 6,767,021 11,586,696 71.2 

South Atlantic 2,132,751 4,243,946 99.0 

Delaware 15,820 37,277 135.6 

Maryland 125,102 227,916 82.2 

District of Columbia 32,710 44,953 37.4 

Virginia 160,288 329,540 105.6 

West Virginia 8,489 12,279 44.6 

North Carolina 76,726 378,963 393.9 

South Carolina 30,551 95,076 211.2 

Georgia 108,922 435,227 299.6 

Florida 1,574,143 2,682,715 70.4 

East South Central 95,285 299,176 214.0 

Kentucky 21,984 59,939 172.6 

Tennessee 32,741 123,838 278.2 

Alabama 24,629 75,830 207.9 
..

.

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.

..

..

..

..

..

..

Footnotes

Regions, Divisions, 

and States 

Hispanic Population Percent Change 

1990 Census Census 2000 1990 to 2000

Mississippi 15,931 39,569 148.4 

West South Central 4,538,985 7,043,574 55.2 

Arkansas 19,876 86,866 337.0 

Louisiana 93,044 107,738 15.8 

Oklahoma 86,160 179,304 108.1 

Texas 4,339,905 6,669,666 53.7 

West 10,106,140 15,340,503 51.8 

Mountain 1,991,732 3,543,573 77.9 

Montana 12,174 18,081 48.5 

Idaho 52,927 101,690 92.1 

Wyoming 25,751 31,669 23.0 

Colorado 424,302 735,601 73.4 

New Mexico 579,224 765,386 32.1 

Arizona 688,338 1,295,617 88.2 

Utah 84,597 201,559 138.3 

Nevada 124,419 393,970 216.6 

Pacific 8,114,408 11,796,930 45.4 

Washington 214,570 441,509 105.8 

Oregon 112,707 275,314 144.3 

California 7,687,938 10,966,556 42.6 

Alaska 17,803 25,852 45.2 

Hawaii 81,390 87,699 7.8 

Puerto Rico --- 3,808,610 n/a 

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Census 1990
 

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

For Census 1990, housing unit population only.
 

1990 totals do not include Puerto Rico because race and Hispanic Origin questions were first added to the PR 

census form in Census 2000.
 

Internet Release date: July 27, 2004
 
g

(leading dots indicate sub-parts)

/ /

.

.

.

..

..

..

..

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. /

Footnotes:

Table 2. Hispanic Origin Population by Detailed Group: 1990 and 2000 

Hispanic Population by 

Origin Response 

1990 Census 2/ Census 2000 2/ Change 1990 to 2000 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total 21,900,089 100.0 35,238,481 100.0 13,338,392 60.9 

Mexican 13,393,208 61.2 20,900,102 59.3 7,506,894 56.1 

Puerto Rican 2,651,815 12.1 3,403,510 9.7 751,695 28.3 

Cuban 1,053,197 4.8 1,249,820 3.5 196,623 18.7 

Dominican 520,151 2.4 799,768 2.3 279,617 53.8 

Central American 1,323,830 6.0 1,811,676 5.1 487,846 36.9 

Costa Rican 57,223 0.3 72,175 0.2 14,952 26.1 

Guatemalan 268,779 1.2 407,127 1.2 138,348 51.5 

Honduran 131,066 0.6 237,431 0.7 106,365 81.2 

Nicaraguan 202,658 0.9 194,493 0.6 -8,165 -4.0 

Panamanian 92,013 0.4 98,475 0.3 6,462 7.0 

Salvadoran 565,081 2.6 708,741 2.0 143,660 25.4 

Other Central America 7,010 0.0 93,234 0.3 86,224 1230.0 

South American 1,035,602 4.7 1,419,979 4.0 384,377 37.1 

Argentinean 100,921 0.5 107,275 0.3 6,354 6.3 

Bolivian 38,073 0.2 45,188 0.1 7,115 18.7 

Chilean 68,799 0.3 73,951 0.2 5,152 7.5 

Colombian 378,726 1.7 496,748 1.4 118,022 31.2 

Ecuadorian 191,198 0.9 273,013 0.8 81,815 42.8 

Paraguayan 6,662 0.0 8,929 0.0 2,267 34.0 

Peruvian 175,035 0.8 247,601 0.7 72,566 41.5 

Uruguayan 21,996 0.1 20,242 0.1 -1,754 -8.0 

Venezuelan 47,997 0.2 96,091 0.3 48,094 100.2 

Other South American 6,195 0.0 50,941 0.1 44,746 722.3 

Spaniard 519,136 2.4 112,999 0.3 -406,137 -78.2 

General Hispanic 1,403,150 6.4 5,540,627 15.7 4,137,477 294.9 

Hispanic 390,945 1.8 2,316,515 6.6 1,925,570 492.5 

Latino 1,577 0.0 411,559 1.2 409,982 25997.6 

Spanish 444,896 2.0 765,879 2.2 320,983 72.1 

Other Hispanic response 1/ 565,732 2.6 2,046,674 5.8 1,480,942 261.8 

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 and Census 1990
 

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 Othe 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.
 

Internet Release date: July 27, 2004
 
(leading dots indicate sub-parts)

/ /

/

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Table 3. Allocation Rates for the Hispanic Question for the United States, Regions, and 

States: 1990 and 2000.1/ 

Geographic Area 1990 Census 3/ Census 2000 4/ 

Difference in Allocation 

Rates: 1990 and 2000 

United States 2/ 10.4 5.6 4.8 

Region 

Northeast 11.6 5.8 5.8 

Midwest 10.6 4.7 5.9 

South 11.5 6.0 5.5 

West 7.2 5.8 1.4 

State 

Alabama 12.3 6.9 5.4 

Alaska 4.6 5.5 -0.9 

Arizona 7.0 6.3 0.8 

Arkansas 6.6 5.5 1.0 

California 7.2 6.1 1.1 

Colorado 7.4 5.2 2.2 

Connecticut 12.2 4.8 7.3 

Delaware 9.7 7.0 2.7 

District of Columbia 18.3 11.0 7.3 

Florida 10.7 5.7 5.0 

Georgia 13.7 6.9 6.8 

Hawaii 8.2 7.7 0.5 

Idaho 4.2 4.3 0.0 

Illinois 11.9 5.8 6.1 

Indiana 11.1 5.2 5.9 

Iowa 10.1 3.5 6.6 

Kansas 8.0 4.1 4.0 

Kentucky 13.7 4.9 8.7 

Louisiana 14.4 6.4 8.0 

Maine 7.4 4.1 3.4 

Maryland 12.2 6.6 5.6 

Massachusetts 11.8 5.2 6.6 

Michigan 11.2 4.9 6.3 

Minnesota 9.0 4.0 5.0 

Mississippi 15.2 7.0 8.2 

Missouri 11.5 4.4 7.1 

Montana 4.8 4.7 0.2 

Nebraska 8.1 3.5 4.6 

Nevada 9.0 6.5 2.6 

New Hampshire 8.6 4.8 3.7 

New Jersey 11.6 5.6 6.0 

New Mexico 6.0 6.4 -0.3 

New York 11.4 7.1 4.3 

North Carolina 13.9 5.7 8.2 

North Dakota 6.1 3.6 2.5 

Ohio 10.9 4.3 6.6 

Oklahoma 9.5 4.8 4.8 

Oregon 8.2 4.5 3.6 

Pennsylvania 12.3 4.9 7.5 
(leading dots indicate sub-parts)

/ /

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Footnotes:

Geographic Area 1990 Census 3/ Census 2000 4/ 

Difference in Allocation 

Rates: 1990 and 2000 

Rhode Island 14.7 6.2 8.5 

South Carolina 13.7 6.6 7.1 

South Dakota 7.4 4.1 3.3 

Tennessee 12.3 5.4 6.9 

Texas 7.9 5.9 2.0 

Utah 7.3 4.2 3.1 

Vermont 4.3 4.9 -0.6 

Virginia 12.0 5.5 6.5 

Washington 7.8 5.4 2.4 

West Virginia 12.4 4.6 7.8 

Wisconsin 9.7 4.6 5.1 

Wyoming 5.0 5.3 -0.3 

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

1/ Total Allocation rates do not include pre-edit procedures such as obtaining Hispanic origin from muliple ethnic origin 

or from the race question. 

2/ Total does not include Puerto Rico. 

3/ For Census 1990, housing unit population only. 

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

Internet Release date: July 27, 2004 
g

/

Footnotes:

Table 4. Indexes of Inconsistency for the Hispanic Question and for Selected Origin Groups: Census 

Content Reinterview Survey Results, 1990 and 2000 1/ 

Hispanic Question 

1990 Content Reinterview Survey Index 2000 Content Reinterview Survey 

Estimate 

90-percent confidence 

Interval Estimate 

90-percent confidence 

Interval 

Total 

Not Hispanic 

Mexican 

Puerto Rican 

Cuban 

Other Hispanic 

12.2 

903 

8.5 

8.6 

13.6 

34.1 

11.2 to 13.2 

8.4 to 10.2 

7.5 to 9.7 

6.4 to 11.5 

9.4 to 19.5 

30.8 to 37.7 

17.2 

10.1 

13.4 

14.2 

13.7 

33.8 

16.1 to 18.4 

9.2 to 11.0 

12.2 to 14.8 

11.5 to 17.6 

9.3 to 20.1 

30.7 to 37.3 

Source: Singer, Phylis, and Sharon R. Ennis (2002). Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey: Accuracy of the Data for Selected 

Population and Housing Characteristics as Measured by Reinterview. Table 36. US Census Bureau: Census 2000 Evaluation B.5. 

Washington DC. 

1/ The Census 2000 Content Reinterview Survey (CRS) used a test-retest methodology in which a sample of households from Census 

2000 long form respondents were contacted a second time and re-asked most of the long form questions. The intent was to measure 

the simple response variance. The measure used to summarize this response variance is the index of inconsistency. The higher the 

index value, the more problematic is the interpretation of the data from the census item. Historically, an index value of less than 20 has 

been viewed as a low or a good level of response variance; an index between 20 and 50 as a moderate variance; and an index over 50 

as a high variance. 

Internet Release date: July 27, 2004