1

Demographic Programs

U.S. Census Bureau

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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

P20-538

Geographical Mobility

Population Characteristics

March 1999

to

March 2000

Issued May 2001

Current

Population

Reports

By

Jason Schachter

Geographical mobility has long been an important aspect of American life. This report highlights some of the changes that

have occurred in recent years, including

differences in the extent of movement, in

the types of movement, in the characteristics of movers compared with nonmovers,

and in how the population is distributed.

These changes are important to federal,

state, and local governments as they plan

for needed services and facilities such as

schools and hospitals. Geographical mobility data are also used by private industry

as they expand and locate businesses and

other services.

All respondents in the March 2000 Current

Population Survey were asked whether they

lived at the same residence

1 year earlier. Nonmovers were

living in the same home at

both dates. Movers were

asked for the location of their

previous residence. When current and previous residences

are compared, movers can be

categorized by whether they

were living in the same or different county, state, region, or

were movers from abroad.

Though not true in all cases,

we treat these different types

of moves as if they form a distance continuum. In addition,

movers can be categorized by

whether they moved within or

between metropolitan areas,

central cities of metropolitan

areas, other parts of metropolitan areas, or nonmetropolitan

areas of the United States.

About 43 million Americans moved.

Between March 1999 and March 2000,

43.4 million Americans moved.1 Over half

(56 percent) of these moves were local

(within the same county), 20 percent were

between counties in the same state, and

19 percent were moves to a different state.

Only 4 percent of movers came from abroad.

1The estimates in this report are based on responses

from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may vary from the actual (population) values because of sampling variation, or other factors. All statements made in this report have undergone statistical

testing and meet U.S. Census Bureau standards for statistical accuracy.

Figure 1.

Percent Distribution of Movers by Type 

of Move: March 1999 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.

From a different 

county, same state

20.3

From abroad

4.0

Within the 

same county

56.2

From a 

different state

19.4
2 U.S. Census Bureau

The overall moving rate has

stayed constant, but people

moved longer distances.

Overall moving rates have not

changed substantially over the past

few years, and the 1999-2000 rate

is among the lowest rates found

during the past decade. However,

since 1998, there has been a decrease in the percentage of moves

made within the same county and a

corresponding increase in the percentage of moves between counties, particularly to counties in different states. In 1998, 64 percent

of all moves were within the same

county, compared with 56 percent

of all moves in 2000.2 Similarly, in

1998, 15 percent of all moves were

between states, compared with

19 percent of all moves in 2000.

CHARACTERISTICS OF

MOVERS

Moving rates differ by characteristics like age, race, Hispanic origin,

income, housing tenure, marital

2These proportions can be calculated from

Table A by dividing the percent moved for the

type of move (e.g. within the same county) by

the total percent moved.

status, and education. Table B little more than twice the moving

shows mobility rates by many of rate of all people 1 year and older

these characteristics. (16 percent). Among adults, as age

increased moving rates decreased,

20- to 29-year olds had the at least until very advanced ages:

highest moving rates. by ages 65 to 84, the rate was only

4 percent. Moving rates were About one-third of 20- to 29 year- higher for young adults because of olds moved in the previous year, a

Figure 2.

Moving Rates by Age: March 1999 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.

(In percent)

23.3

18.1

15.3

35.2

32.4

22.0

14.8

9.3

7.0

4.3 4.7

5-91-4 10-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-84 85+

Age

Table A.

Annual Moving Rates by Type of Move:

(Numbers in thousands)

1990 to 2000

Mobility period Total,

age 1

and older

Same

residence

(nonmovers)Total

movers

Percent moved

Total

Within

same

county

From different county

From

abroad

Same

state

Different

state

1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,219 226,831 43,388 16.1 9.0 3.3 3.1 0.6

1998-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267,933 225,297 42,636 15.9 9.4 3.1 2.8 0.5

1997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,209 222,702 42,507 16.0 10.2 3.0 2.4 0.5

1996-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262,976 219,585 43,391 16.5 10.5 3.0 2.4 0.5

1995-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260,406 217,868 42,537 16.3 10.3 3.1 2.5 0.5

1994-19951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,248 215,931 42,317 16.4 10.8 3.1 2.2 0.3

1993-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255,774 212,939 42,835 16.7 10.4 3.2 2.6 0.5

1992-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252,799 209,700 43,099 17.0 10.7 3.1 2.7 0.6

1991-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,380 204,580 42,800 17.3 10.7 3.2 2.9 0.5

1990-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244,884 203,345 41,539 17.0 10.3 3.2 2.9 0.6

1

The primary mobility question in the 1995 survey asked about residence 5 years earlier, not 1 year earlier as in the other survey years.

There was an additional question on residence 1 year earlier, but the resulting 1-year data for the 1994-95 period are not comparable with

the data for other years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, March 1991 to 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table B.

Geographical Mobility by Selected Characteristics:

(Numbers in thousands)

March 1999 to 2000

Selected characteristics

Total

Same

residence

(nonmovers)Total

movers

Percent moved

Total

Within

same

county

From different county

From

abroad

Same

state

Different

state

Total, age 1 and older. . . . . . . . .

Age

270,219 226,831 43,388 16.1 9.0 3.3 3.1 0.6

1 to 4 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,740 12,075 3,665 23.3 14.1 4.4 4.0 0.8

5 to 9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,379 16,685 3,694 18.1 11.0 3.2 3.3 0.7

10 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,430 34,226 6,204 15.3 8.6 3.0 3.1 0.7

20 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,441 11,942 6,499 35.2 20.4 7.1 6.2 1.6

25 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,268 12,358 5,910 32.4 18.0 7.1 6.0 1.3

30 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,518 15,216 4,302 22.0 12.4 4.6 4.0 1.1

35 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,805 38,178 6,627 14.8 8.3 3.0 3.0 0.6

45 to 54 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,631 33,211 3,420 9.3 4.9 2.1 1.9 0.4

55 to 64 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,387 21,744 1,643 7.0 3.4 1.5 1.9 0.2

65 to 84 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,482 28,205 1,277 4.3 2.2 0.9 1.1 0.1

85 years and older. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sex

3,140 2,992 148 4.7 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.1

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,969 110,396 21,573 16.3 9.1 3.4 3.2 0.7

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race and Hispanic origin

138,250 116,435 21,815 15.8 8.9 3.2 3.1 0.6

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221,703 187,810 33,893 15.3 8.5 3.2 3.0 0.6

Non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,197 163,595 27,602 14.4 7.8 3.3 3.1 0.4

Black. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,948 28,226 6,722 19.2 11.7 3.5 3.6 0.5

Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . 10,779 8,577 2,202 20.4 10.5 3.4 3.6 3.0

Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nativity

32,103 25,347 6,756 21.0 13.3 3.1 2.7 2.0

Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Foreign born (naturalized and non

241,867 204,777 37,090 15.3 8.8 3.2 3.1 0.2

U.S. citizen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty status (in 1999)

28,352 22,054 6,298 22.2 11.1 3.4 3.2 4.4

Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100 percent to 149 percent above

32,100 23,229 8,871 27.6 16.8 4.6 4.4 1.9

poverty leve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,637 19,410 5,227 21.2 13.1 3.5 3.9 0.7

Above 149 percent of poverty level . .

Housing tenure

213,482 184,192 29,290 13.7 7.4 3.0 2.8 0.5

Owner-occupied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,408 172,258 17,150 9.1 5.0 2.1 1.7 0.3

Renter-occupied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Household type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80,811 54,573 26,238 32.5 18.6 5.9 6.4 1.6

In married-couple family households . 176,427 155,022 21,405 12.1 6.4 2.5 2.6 0.7

In other households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Household income (in 1999)

93,792 71,809 21,983 23.4 14.0 4.7 4.1 0.6

Less than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,680 50,228 13,452 21.1 12.9 3.6 3.6 1.1

$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,986 62,624 13,362 17.6 10.4 3.3 3.3 0.6

$50,000 to $99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,674 78,031 11,643 13.0 6.7 3.1 2.8 0.4

$100,000 and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital status (age 16 and older)

40,879 35,948 4,931 12.1 5.6 3.0 2.8 0.7

Never married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,182 43,316 12,866 22.9 12.9 4.9 4.2 1.0

Married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,719 101,871 13,848 12.0 6.3 2.6 2.6 0.6

Divorced or separated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,282 19,293 4,989 20.5 12.5 4.0 3.8 0.3

Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Education (age 25 and older)......

13,662 12,718 944 6.9 3.8 1.5 1.5 0.2

Not a high school graduate . . . . . . . . . 27,853 24,221 3,632 13.0 7.9 2.5 2.0 0.7

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,086 50,934 7,152 12.3 7.0 2.4 2.5 0.4

Some college or Associate degree . . . 44,445 38,394 6,051 13.6 7.6 3.1 2.6 0.3

Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,840 25,259 4,581 15.4 7.4 3.6 3.5 0.8

Graduate degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,006 13,094 1,912 12.7 5.6 2.7 3.5 1.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

their relatively higher frequency of

life course events (such as marriage, child birth, or a new job).

White non-Hispanics were less

mobile than other racial and

ethnic groups.3

White non-Hispanics had the lowest

moving rate (14 percent). Hispanics (of any race) and Asians and

Pacific Islanders had the highest

overall moving rates (about 20 percent), closely followed by Blacks

(19 percent). Among people who

moved, Hispanics and Blacks were

most likely to have moved within

the same county (63 and 61 percent, respectively), while White

non-Hispanics were most likely to

have made intercounty and interstate moves (44 percent).4 Asians

and Pacific Islanders and Hispanics

were much more likely than Blacks

or White non-Hispanics to have

come to the United States from

abroad.

Table C shows that some of the

mobility difference between White

non-Hispanics and other racial and

ethnic groups can be attributed to

age. For example, Hispanic moving rates were higher than White

non-Hispanics in most age categories. However, standardized overall moving rates show that even if

the Hispanic population had the

same age distribution as the White

non-Hispanic population, the moving rate would still have been

higher for Hispanics (18 percent

compared with 14 percent).

3Data for the American Indian and Alaska

Native population are not shown in this report

because of the small sample size in the Current

Population Survey. Based on the March 2000

Current Population Survey, 3 percent of the

Black population and 2 percent of the Asian

and Pacific Islander Population are also of Hispanic origin. 4See footnote 2.

Single and divorced people

were more likely to move than

married people.

Among those 16 years and older,

single and divorced or separated

people were most likely to have

moved, followed by married

people. Widowed people were

least likely to have moved. Age

could explain some of this variation, particularly the higher moving

rates of those never married and

the lower rates of widowed people.

People living in married-couple

family households were less likely

to have moved than those living in

other types of households.

One-third of renters moved.

Nearly one-third of people living in

renter-occupied housing units in

March 2000 moved in the previous

year, compared with only 1 in 11

people living in owner-occupied

housing units.5 Housing tenure is

closely related to age, race, Hispanic origin, and income. Those

living in owner-occupied housing

units are more likely to be older,

White non-Hispanic and more

affluent than those living in renteroccupied units.

Lower-income groups were

more likely to move than

higher-income groups.

People living in households in lowerincome categories were more likely

to move than those in higher-income

categories: 21 percent for incomes

under $25,000, compared with

12 percent for incomes over

$100,000. Some of this disparity

may reflect differences in

homeownership patterns, particularly the higher proportion of renters

among households with low incomes.

Additionally, those living in households with income less than

$50,000 were more likely than

those with higher incomes to move

short distances (about 60 percent

and 50 percent, respectively).

Some of these differences could be

explained by factors like educational differences, differences in

reasons for moving, and potentially

higher costs associated with making longer distance moves.

Moving rates differ by the poverty

status of individuals. Those with income below the poverty level were

5As is the case with all characteristics on the

Current Population Survey, housing tenure is

measured at the time of the survey in March

2000; tenure before the move is not ascertained.

Table C.

Moving Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin and Age:

1999 to 2000

(In percent)

March

Age

White

nonHispanic Black

Asian and

Pacific

Islander

Hispanic

(of any

race)

1 to 9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 25.6 23.7 23.1

10 to 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 18.5 16.9 19.9

20 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 31.1 36.4 34.4

30 to 39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 21.3 23.9 20.8

40 to 49 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 15.6 13.8 14.4

50 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 7.8 10.9 11.1

65 to 84 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 4.8 8.5 8.0

85 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4.6 8.7 8.3

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 19.2 20.4 21.0

Standardized mobility rate. . . . . . . . . . *14.4 17.1 18.4 18.1

*Standardized by age, White non-Hispanic as reference category.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

more likely to have moved (28 per- educated people move longer discent) than those with income tances for better paying jobs.

150 percent above the poverty level

or higher (14 percent). Also, those REGIONAL MOVEMENTS

with income below the poverty level Interstate migration, along with dif- were more likely to have made a ferences in rates of natural increase short-distance move (about 61 per- (births minus deaths), changes the cent) than those in the higher in- distribution of the population come group (about 54 percent). among regions of the country. In

recent decades, more people have People of different education moved from North to South than in levels had similar moving the opposite direction, and this rates.

trend continued. Figure 3 shows

There were only small differences the flows of migrants among the

in moving rates by education, rang- four major regions of the United

ing from 12 percent of those with States between 1999 and 2000.

only a high school education to

15 percent of those with a Only the Northeast had a net bachelor’s degree. However, mov- loss in population because of

ers with a bachelor’s degree were internal migration.

more likely to have moved longer As found throughout the 1990s, distances: 47 percent made an in- more people moved from the tercounty move compared with Northeast than to it from other re- 34 percent of those with less than gions of the country. Of all the re- a high school education. This dif- gions, only the net loss of 252,000 ference could indicate that better people for the Northeast and the

net gain of 227,000 people for the

South were statistically significant

for the 1999-2000 year.

Nonmetropolitan areas had

net internal migration close

to zero.

Nonmetropolitan areas as a whole

had about equal numbers of

internal inmigrants and

outmigrants during the year —

1.9 million people compared with

2.0 million, as shown in Table D.

These numbers are not statistically

different.

Within metropolitan areas,

central cities had net

outmigration, while the

population outside central

cities had net inmigration.

Metropolitan areas outside central

cities were the most frequent destination among movers within and

between metropolitan areas. Although metropolitan areas as a

whole had about equal numbers of

inmigrants and outmigrants, central cities of metropolitan areas followed the migration pattern found

throughout the 1990s: continued

net migration loss. Between 1999

and 2000, 6.9 million people

moved out of central cities, while

3.7 million moved in, resulting in a

net loss due to internal migration

of 3.2 million people.

Movers from abroad added

population to the West and

helped offset net internal

migration losses for the

Northeast.

Between March of 1999 and 2000,

the CPS estimates that 1.75 million

people moved to the United States

from abroad. Two-thirds of these

movers were foreign-born and not

United States citizens (1.2 million),

while the other third were civilian

citizens (600,000). Most movers

Figure 3.

Region-to-Region Migration: March 1999 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. 

(Numbers in thousands)

Moved to Midwest

Moved to South

Moved to West

127

432

204

Northeast South Midwest

108 72

183

West Midwest South

223

83

416

West Northeast South

405

364

489

Northeast Midwest West

Moved from

Moved from

Moved from

Moved from

Moved to Northeast
6 U.S. Census Bureau

from abroad (1.2 million) came to based on data from the Immigra- net migration. While the West did

the South and West. tion and Naturalization Service and not experience a significant gain in

the 1990 decennial census; an esti- population from domestic migraThe CPS does not collect data on mate of emigration from the United tion, it did grow when net internathe number of people who move States based on data from the tional migration is included. Alaway from the United States, and 1980 and 1990 censuses; and net though the Northeast still had a

thus it is not possible to use the movement between Puerto Rico significant loss of people, this loss

CPS to estimate net international and the United States. was mitigated by net international

migration. However, the Census migration.

Bureau does provide independently These estimates based on adminisderived estimates for net interna- trative records indicate that SOURCE OF DATA

tional migration using administra- 852,000 more people came to the

Most estimates in this report come tive records and other data. The United States from abroad than left

from data collected in March 2000 components of net international between July 1 of 1998 and 1999,

migration include: legal immigra- by the CPS. The CPS is a monthly the latest year for which these estinational survey of about 50,000 tion to the United States as re- mates are available. Combining

households, representative of the ci- ported by the Immigration and these estimates by region with reNaturalization Service; refugee data vilian noninstitutional population of gional net domestic migration figthe United States. Some estimates from the Office of Refugee Resettle- ures suggests that all regions exment; an estimate of net undocu- are based on data collected by the cept the Northeast showed

mented immigration from abroad, CPS in earlier years. The Census significant population gains from

Table D.

Annual Internal Migration by Region and Type of Residence, March 1999 to 2000 and

Annual Net International Migration by Region, July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999

(Numbers in thousands)

Geographic area

Estimates from the Current Population

Survey for March 1999 to March 2000

Estimate for

July 1, 1998 to

July 1, 1999

based on

administrative

records4

Internal migration

Movers

from

abroad3

Net

international

Inmigrants Outmigrants migration

Net internal

migration

Region

Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,106 3,106 - 1,745 852

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 615 *–252 292 184

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 640 82 238 99

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,258 1,031 *227 612 244

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 820 –57 604 325

Type of residence

Total2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,951 3,951 - 1,745 (NA)

Metropolitan areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,044 1,907 137 1,639 (NA)

Central cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,670 6,928 *–3,258 845 (NA)

Outside central cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,376 3,981 *3,395 794 (NA)

Nonmetropolitan areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,907 2,044 –137 106 (NA)

NA Not available. *The net migration flows are significantly different from zero.

1

There were 3,106,000 internal migrants who moved from one region to another.

2

There were 3,951,000 internal migrants who moved from metropolitan areas to nonmetropolitan areas or vice-versa.

3

These numbers from the CPS include both temporary and permament movers to the United States, among the civilian U.S. population.

See text for more details. 4

These numbers are derived independently by the Population Estimates Program and are not directly comparable to the CPS. See text

for more details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000, and Population Estimates Program.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Bureau conducts the CPS every present when people who are $24.50 payable to Commercemonth but collects the data on resi- missed in the survey differ from Census-88-00-9010, to the U.S. Dedential mobility only in March. those interviewed in ways other partment of Commerce, Census Buthan the categories used in weight- reau, P.O. Box 277943, Atlanta, GA

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES ing (age, race, sex, and Hispanic 30384-7943, or call the Population

origin). All of these considerations Division’s Statistical Information Of- Statistics from sample surveys are affect comparisons across different fice on 301-457-2422. A copy of subject to sampling and nonsam- surveys or data sources. these tabulations will be made availpling error. All comparisons pre- able to any existing Current Popula- sented in this report have taken For further information on statisti- tion Report P20 subscriber without sampling error into account and cal standards and the computation charge, provided that the request is meet the Census Bureau’s stan- and use of standard errors, contact made within 3 months of the issue dards for statistical significance. Alfred Meier, Demographic Statisti- date of this report. Nonsampling errors in surveys may cal Methods Division, at

be attributed to a variety of 301-457-4220 or on the Internet at CONTACTS sources, such as how the survey Alfred.G.Meier@census.gov.

was designed, how respondents in- Statistical Information Staff

terpret questions, how able and pop@census.gov MORE INFORMATION

willing respondents are to provide 301-457-2422

correct answers, and how accu- A set of detailed tabulations consistrately answers are coded and clas- ing of 30 tables from the 2000 Jason Schachter

sified. The Census Bureau employs March CPS shows more detailed jason.p.schachter@census.gov

quality control procedures through- characteristics of movers and 301-457-2454

out the production process — in- nonmovers by type of move for the

cluding the overall design of sur- United States and the regions. The USER COMMENTS

veys, testing the wording of electronic version of these tables is

The Census Bureau welcomes the

questions, reviewing the work of available on the Internet at the Cencomments and advice of users of

interviewers and coders, and statis- sus Bureau’s World Wide Web site

our data and reports. If you have tical review of reports. (www.census.gov). Once on the site, any suggestions or comments, go to “Subjects A to Z,” then click on please write to: The CPS employs ratio estimation, “M,” and finally on “Migration.”

whereby sample estimates are ad- Chief, Population Division justed to independent estimates of An abbreviated paper version of the U.S. Census Bureau

the national population by age, tables (without the race and geo- Washington, DC 20233 race, sex, and Hispanic origin. graphic repeats) is available as PPLThis weighting partially corrects for 144 for $24.50. To receive a paper or send e-mail to:

bias due to undercoverage, but copy, send a request for “PPL-144, pop@census.gov

how it affects different variables in Geographical Mobility: March 1999

the survey is not precisely known. to March 2000,” along with a check

Moreover, biases may also be or money order in the amount of