U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Geographical Mobility: 

2008 to 2009

Population Characteristics

Current

Population

Reports

P20-565

By 

David K. Ihrke,

Carol S. Faber, and 

William K. Koerber

Issued November 2011

Each year, millions of people pack up 

their belongings and move. A variety of 

reasons and conditions motivate these 

moves—life changes, personal and economic opportunities, setbacks and misfortunes. This report provides information 

about the level of geographical mobility 

in the United States between 2008 and 

2009, along with some sociodemographic 

characteristics of the people who moved.

The data used in this report come from 

two different survey collections undertaken by the U.S. Census Bureau. Since 

the late 1940s, questions on residential 

mobility have been asked as part of 

the March supplement to the Current 

Population Survey (CPS), which is now 

known as the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (ASEC). ASEC data provide 

estimates of geographical mobility in 

1-year retrospective periods over the last 

6 decades, and these data have been 

the source of a large, detailed set of 

tabulations and analyses, some of which 

are in this report. Many additional data 

tables are available on the Census Bureau 

Web site.1

In the 1990s, the Census Bureau began 

a new data collection activity that provides additional detailed information 

on geographical mobility. The American 

Community Survey (ACS) is a large, 

national, ongoing survey of the population that began full implementation in 

2005. The ACS was designed to replace 

the detailed data that had been collected 

from the “long-form” questionnaire as 

1 These tables are located on the Census Bureau’s 

migration Web page at <www.census.gov/hhes

/migration/data/cps.html>. 

part of the once-a-decade census. With a 

sample of nearly 3 million households a 

year, the ACS provides far greater geographic and demographic subgroup detail 

than other existing surveys can provide. 

Like the ASEC, the ACS includes questions about mobility in the past year. The 

questions are similar, but differ slightly 

for a variety of reasons.2 Some of the differences, and their impact on the actual 

2 Additional details on these differences are available in the Census Bureau’s migration comparison 

report at <www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data

/fs-migration.html> and in the report “Comparison 

of ACS and ASEC Data on Geographic Mobility: 2004” 

at <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/library/2007/2007_Koerber_01.pdf>. 

Report Highlights 

• According to the 2009 ACS, 15.4 

percent of the population 1 year 

and over lived in a different residence 1 year ago.

• Young adults between the ages of 

18 and 29 were the most mobile 

group of the U.S. population. 

• The top state-to-state migration 

flows (moving from one state 

to another) for 2009 were from 

California, Florida, New Jersey, 

and New York.

• About 40 percent of intercounty 

moves were less than 50 miles 

in distance, as indicated in 2009 

ASEC data.

• Housing-related reasons were the 

most common reasons given for 

moving. 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

estimates, are explained in the 

appendix of this report, along with 

further important details about the 

two surveys. 

Together, the ASEC and ACS provide important and useful analytic 

data that allow researchers the 

opportunity to produce historical 

trends, subnational disaggregations, and detailed socioeconomic 

descriptions of people who were 

geographically mobile between 

2008 and 2009.3

MOVER RATES AND 

PAST TRENDS 

Data from the 2009 ASEC indicate 

that 37.1 million U.S. residents 

moved between 2008 and 2009 

(Table 1a). This represents an 

increase of 1.9 million from the 

2008 estimate of 35.2 million movers. The same trend is noticeable 

for the mover rate, which increased 

from 11.9 percent in 2008 to 12.5 

percent in 2009. Figure 1 contains 

the percent distribution of movers 

by type of move for 2009. Of those 

who moved between 2008 and 

2009, 67.3 percent moved within 

the same county, 17.2 percent 

moved from a different county 

within the same state, 12.6 percent 

moved from another state, and 2.9 

percent moved from abroad.4 Compared with 2008, a greater percentage of moves were within the same 

county (65.4 percent in 2008 and 

67.3 percent in 2009), while moves 

3 All comparative statements in this 

report have undergone statistical testing, 

and, unless otherwise noted, all comparisons 

are statistically significant at the 10 percent 

significance level. 4 To calculate the distribution of moves, 

divide the percent moved for the focal type of 

move by the total percent moved. (Example: 

For the 2009 ASEC, movers within the same 

county=8.4; total percent moved=12.5. Thus, 

8.4/12.5=67.3 percent of moves were within 

the same county). 

from a different state decreased 

from 13.4 percent to 12.6 percent.5

Comparing the 1996–1997 mobility period with the current mobility 

period offers an appreciation of the 

near historic lows of the current 

mover rate, despite the increasing 

size of the universe (population 

1 year and over). The most notable 

difference between 1997 and 2009 

is the decrease in the number of 

movers, from 43.4 million to 37.1 

million. The mover rate experienced a decline from 16.5 percent 

to 12.5 percent. Moves within the 

same county represented a larger 

percentage of moves in 2009 than 

1997 (67.3 percent compared with 

63.9 percent), whereas moves from 

a different county, either within 

5 The percentage that moved from a different county within the same state and the 

percentage that moved from abroad are not 

statistically different between 2008 and 2009. 

the same state or from a different 

state, decreased from 33.1 percent 

to 29.7 percent.6 Based on these 

data, remaining in the same house 

or moving within the same county 

was more common in 2009 than 

in 1997. 

From a broader historical 

standpoint, current mobility 

6 Prior to 2006, cases were imputed 

using an initial sort order by the various 

ASEC subsamples, followed by geography. 

Research indicates this may have resulted 

in an overstatement of interstate movers 

for this period. For additional information, 

see Kaplan, Greg and Sam Schulhofer-Wohl, 

“Interstate Migration Has Fallen Less Than 

You Think: Consequences of Hot Deck 

Imputation in the Current Population Survey,” 

working paper 681, revised March 2011, 

<www.minneapolisfed.org/publications

_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=4568>. Beginning in 2006, a processing change sorted all 

data geographically, an improvement over the 

previous method. Additional details on this 

processing change can be found in the note 

“Impact of Processing on CPS Interstate Migration Rates: 2000–2006” at <www.census.gov

/population/www/socdemo/CPSnote.pdf>. 

Figure 1.

Percent Distribution of Movers by Type of Move: 

2008 to 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement, 2009. 

Same county

67.3%

(Population 1 year and over)

Different county,

same state

17.2%

Different state

12.6%

From

abroad

2.9%
U.S. Census Bureau 3

rates are among the lowest levels 

recorded throughout the entire 

60-plus years the ASEC has been 

conducted. Table 1a shows the 

gradual decline of mover rates in 

1-year intervals between 2002 and 

2009.7 Five-year intervals are 

provided before 2002, dating back 

to 1948. Between 1947 and 1948, 

20.2 percent of the U.S. population 

lived at a different residence 1 year 

ago, compared to 12.5 percent 

between 2008 and 2009. Moves 

within the same county remained 

the most prevalent, accounting for 

67.0 percent of all moves in 1948 

and 67.3 percent in 2009.8 In terms 

of numbers, the 2009 estimate of 

37.1 million represents an increase 

of approximately 8.4 million 

movers since the survey began. 

7 The 2005 mover rate is not statistically 

different from the 2004 or 2006 mover rate. 8 The distribution of moves for those who 

moved within the same county for 1948 and 

2009 is not significantly different. 

Even though the size of the U.S. 

population has more than doubled 

during this time period, the number of movers has not kept pace. 

Applying the 1948 mover rate to 

the 2009 population 1 year and 

over results in an estimate of 60.1 

million movers, over 23 million 

more than the 2009 estimate. 

According to the 2009 ACS estimate, 46.8 million people lived at 

a different residence 1 year ago. 

The mover rate was 15.4 percent 

for the population 1 year and over. 

These numbers are available in 

Table 1b, which shows the fluctuation in mover rates using singleyear ACS data from 2005 to 2009. 

The 2009 distribution of movers 

was 60.9 percent within the same 

county, 20.8 percent from a different county within the same state, 

14.7 percent from a different state, 

and 3.6 percent from abroad. While 

the ACS mover rate is higher than 

the ASEC’s, both data sources show 

a falling mover rate in recent years 

(with the exception of the 2008–

2009 period, when the ASEC rate 

actually increased).

CHARACTERISTICS OF 

MOVERS

Dividing populations according to 

characteristics allows researchers 

to analyze the geographical mobility of segments of the population 

that may be lost in the aggregate. 

This allows for an easier examination of differences between groups 

and the national average. For the 

purpose of this report, characteristics are divided into major demographic, social, and economic and 

housing categories. Table 2 provides data on geographical mobility 

for the U.S. population 1 year and 

over by selected characteristics, 

using the 2009 ACS. 

Table 1a.

Annual Mover Rates by Type of Move: Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1948–2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Mobility period Population 

1 year and over

Same 

residence 

(nonmovers)

Total movers Percent moved

Number

Margin of 

error1

 (±) Total

Same 

county

Different county From 

Same state Different state abroad 2

2008–2009. . . . . 297,182 260,077 37,105 591 12.5 8.4 2.1 1.6 0.4 

2007–2008. . . . . 294,851 259,685 35,167 578 11.9 7.8 2.1 1.6 0.4 

2006–2007. . . . . 292,749 254,068 38,681 599 13.2 8.6 2.5 1.7 0.4 

2005–2006. . . . . 289,781 249,945 39,837 606 13.7 8.6 2.8 2.0 0.4 

2004–2005. . . . . 287,148 247,261 39,888 606 13.9 7.9 2.7 2.6 0.6 

2003–2004. . . . . 284,367 245,372 38,995 601 13.7 7.9 2.8 2.6 0.4 

2002–2003. . . . . 282,556 242,463 40,093 608 14.2 8.3 2.7 2.7 0.4 

2001–2002. . . . . 278,160 237,049 41,111 614 14.8 8.5 2.9 2.8 0.6 

1999–2000. . . . . 270,219 226,831 43,388 628 16.1 9.0 3.3 3.1 0.6 

1996–1997. . . . . 262,976 219,585 43,391 880 16.5 10.5 3.0 2.4 0.5 

1991–1992. . . . . 247,380 204,580 42,800 842 17.3 10.7 3.2 2.9 0.5 

1986–1987. . . . . 235,089 191,396 43,693 821 18.6 11.6 3.7 2.8 0.5 

1981–1982. . . . . 223,719 185,592 38,127 776 17.0 10.3 3.3 3.0 0.5 

1975–19763

. . . . 208,069 171,276 36,793 722 17.7 10.8 3.4 3.0 0.6 

1970–19713

. . . . 201,506 163,800 37,705 730 18.7 11.4 3.1 3.4 0.8 

1966–1967. . . . . 192,233 155,710 36,523 720 19.0 11.6 3.3 3.4 0.7 

1961–1962. . . . . 179,663 144,445 35,218 868 19.6 13.0 3.0 3.1 0.5 

1956–1957. . . . . 164,371 131,648 32,723 841 19.9 13.1 3.2 3.1 0.5 

1951–1952. . . . . 150,494 120,016 30,478 999 20.3 13.2 3.2 3.4 0.4 

1947–1948. . . . . 141,698 113,026 28,672 972 20.2 13.6 3.3 3.1 0.3 

1

 The margin of error, or MOE, when added to or subtracted from the total number of movers, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate.

2

 Users of ASEC interstate migration data should be cautious when comparing rates from the 1999–2000 to 2004–2005 period with other periods. For additional 

information, see the note “Impact of Processing on CPS Interstate Migration Rates” at <www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/CPSnote.pdf>. 3

 The 1-year geographic mobility question was not asked from 1972 to 1975 and from 1977 to 1980. In the first half of the 70s (1971 to 1975), a question asked 

about migration since 1970, and in the second half (1976 to 1980), a question asked about migration since 1975. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, select years, 1948–2009. 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1b. 

Annual Mover Rates by Type of Move: American Community Survey, 2005 to 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Mobility 

period Population 

1 year and 

over

MOE1

 

(±)

Same 

residence 

(nonmovers)MOE1

 

(±)

Total movers Percent moved

Number

MOE1 

(±) Total

MOE1 

(±)

Same 

county

MOE1 

(±)

Different county

From 

abroad

MOE1 

(±)

Same 

state

MOE1 

(±)

Different 

state

MOE1 

(±)

2009. . . . 

2008. . . . 

2007. . . . 

2006. . . . 

20052

 ...

302,952

299,926

297,545

295,345

284,367

35

31

28

30

32

256,165

253,113

250,026

245,678

238,488

259

253

282

296

332

46,786

46,813

47,519

49,667

45,878

256

250

274

290

324

15.4

15.6

16.0

16.8

16.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

9.4

9.2

9.4

9.9

9.9

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.6

3.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.7

2.5

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.1

1

 The margin of error, or MOE, when added to or subtracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate.

2

 Residents living in group quarters were not included in 2005. 

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuracy of the data.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-year estimates, 2005 to 2009.

Demographic Characteristics people ages 25 to 29 (30.0 per- with 7.1 percent for 55 to 64 year 

cent). These ages cover busy points olds, 5.2 percent for 65 to 74 year 

Individuals between the ages of 18 in the life course because several olds, and 6.6 percent for those 75 

and 29 were the most mobile. major events (college, employment, years and over. To offer a better 

and marriage) typically occur dur- idea of how mover rates fluctu- People in the 18 to 24 age range 

ing these years. Older respondents ate over the life course, Figure 2 had the highest geographical mobilreported the lowest mover rates, displays a line graph showing the ity rate (32.7 percent), followed by 

Figure 2.

Mover Rate by Age: 2009

(Population 1 year and over)

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuarcy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further 

information on the accuarcy of the data.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40 Household population

Total population

8885827976737067646158555249464340 37343128252219161310741

Age (in years)

Percent 
U.S. Census Bureau

5

Table 2. Geographical Mobility in the United States by Selected Characteristic: 2009—Con.

Selected characteristic

Total

Margin 

 of error1 

(±)

Same 

residence 

(nonmovers)

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Total 

movers

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Percent moved

Total

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Same 

county

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Different county

From 

abroad

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Same 

state

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Different 

state

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Total population  1 year and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Age1 to 4 years .......................

5 to 17 years ......................18 to 24 years .....................25 to 29 years .....................

30 to 44 years .....................

45 to 54 years .....................55 to 64 years .....................65 to 74 years .....................75 years and over ..................SexMale .............................Female ...........................RaceWhite alone .......................Black or African American alone .......American Indian and 

 Alaska Native alone ................

Asian alone .......................Native Hawaiian and 

 Other Pacific Islander alone ..........

Some other race alone ..............

Two or more races ..................Hispanic or Latino OriginHispanic or Latino origin 

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

White alone, not Hispanic or Latino .....

See footnotes at end of table.

302,951,552

17,154,20353,287,77630,557,19021,525,21861,522,57244,597,26834,800,67720,825,63718,681,011

149,303,667153,647,885227,031,333

37,542,269

2,419,565

13,610,826

449,195

14,654,023

7,244,341

47,316,174

197,230,069

35,36337,74626,71448,65527,78833,21233,38218,20420,06214,43236,57139,134

130,209

55,25529,66629,01210,229

126,887

76,79419,15430,531

256,165,199

13,536,80945,938,57720,562,57915,057,36451,176,08240,361,52732,334,44019,741,80417,456,017

125,611,664130,553,535194,634,209

30,215,760

1,966,953

11,307,731

355,576

11,950,072

5,734,898

38,853,918

169,992,327

259,435

41,36264,58460,96952,33982,38158,24634,66825,54025,521

138,582144,256210,754

88,17528,60246,08411,781

112,210

67,68682,413

163,307

46,786,353

3,617,3947,349,1999,994,6116,467,854

10,346,490

4,235,7412,466,2371,083,8331,224,994

23,692,00323,094,35032,397,124

7,326,509

452,612

2,303,095

93,619

2,703,9511,509,4438,462,256

27,237,742

256,011

42,30073,82959,41245,49073,33542,03126,88417,08721,702

136,924138,177187,468

81,53518,73439,649

7,929

49,48230,07482,062

163,433

15 .421.113.832.730.016.8

9.57.15.26.6

15.915.014.319.518.716.920.818.520.817.913.8

0 .1

0.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.70.31.70.30.40.20.1

9 .4

14.3

9.5

17.518.010.3

5.84.22.94.19.49.48.5

13.011.7

8.8

13.313.113.112.5

7.9

0 .1

0.20.10.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.60.21.40.30.30.20.1

3 .2

3.52.28.66.43.42.01.41.01.33.43.03.13.83.92.73.22.74.12.73.2

0 .1

0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.10.80.10.10.10.1

2 .3

2.81.75.44.52.51.31.20.90.92.42.22.32.22.62.63.11.73.01.72.4

0 .1

0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.10.70.10.10.10.1

0 .6

0.50.41.21.10.60.30.30.30.20.60.50.40.40.52.81.31.00.60.90.3

0 .1

0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.40.10.10.10.1
6 U.S. Census Bureau Table 2. Geographical Mobility in the United States by Selected Characteristic: 2009—Con. Selected characteristic Total Margin of error1 (±) Same residence (nonmovers) Margin of error1 (±) Total movers Margin of error1 (±) Percent moved Total Margin of error1 (±) Same county Margin of error1 (±) Different county From abroad Margin of error1 (±) Same state Margin of error1 (±) Different state Margin of error1 (±) SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS Total population 1 year and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302,951,552 35,363 256,165,199 259,435 46,786,353 256,011 15.4 0.1 9.4 0.1 3.2 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 Nativity Native. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264,454,204 124,284 224,092,116 267,671 40,362,088 219,450 15.3 0.1 9.3 0.1 3.4 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 Foreign born. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,497,348 115,321 32,073,083 106,784 6,424,265 71,783 16.7 0.2 9.9 0.1 2.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.7 0.1 Marital Status Population 15 years and over. . . . . . . . . . 245,155,843 34,911 207,829,201 203,761 37,326,642 182,886 15.2 0.1 9.0 0.1 3.3 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 Never married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,010,818 162,355 59,913,229 124,748 18,097,589 106,119 23.2 0.1 13.4 0.1 5.6 0.1 3.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 Now married, except separated. . . . . . . 120,756,313 244,816 108,787,316 254,805 11,968,997 88,036 9.9 0.1 5.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 Separated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,390,597 45,509 3,914,840 33,980 1,475,757 27,854 27.4 0.4 17.9 0.3 5.8 0.2 3.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 Widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,954,049 55,064 13,621,225 50,716 1,332,824 23,123 8.9 0.1 5.6 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,044,066 77,236 21,592,591 68,442 4,451,475 47,590 17.1 0.2 10.6 0.1 3.8 0.1 2.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 Household or Group Quarters Type Population 1 year and over living in households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294,678,598 35,378 251,902,307 251,473 42,751,251 254,678 14.5 0.1 9.2 0.1 2.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 In married-couple family households. . . 180,096,335 368,959 161,965,841 145,819 18,130,947 146,034 10.1 0.1 6.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.1 Other family households. . . . . . . . . . . . 66,189,824 319,176 52,607,991 144,761 13,582,214 146,156 20.5 0.2 14.5 0.2 3.4 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 Other nonfamily households. . . . . . . . . 48,392,439 127,680 37,328,475 95,118 11,038,090 96,285 22.8 0.2 14.0 0.1 4.8 0.1 3.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 Group quarters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,272,954 1,241 4,237,852 35,696 4,035,102 35,696 48.8 0.4 16.7 0.3 21.3 0.4 9.3 0.3 1.4 0.1 Institutionalized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,222,433 2,670 2,335,212 20,352 1,887,221 20,352 44.7 0.5 20.0 0.4 21.0 0.4 3.3 0.2 0.5 0.1 Noninstitutionalized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,050,521 2,768 1,902,640 30,012 2,147,881 30,012 53.0 0.7 13.4 0.5 21.7 0.6 15.5 0.5 2.4 0.2 Householder 15 Years and Over. . . . . . . 113,616,229 161,397 98,290,663 182,708 15,325,566 68,231 13.5 0.1 8.7 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 Currently married (includes separated and spouse absent). . . . . . . 61,533,840 145,531 55,413,376 147,579 6,120,464 46,249 9.9 0.1 6.1 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 Unmarried (never married, divorced, and widowed)2. . . . . . . . . . . 52,082,389 87,610 42,877,287 89,091 9,205,102 54,181 17.7 0.1 11.7 0.1 3.4 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 Partner in an unmarried household. . . 6,262,995 40,005 4,571,035 33,037 1,691,960 23,176 27.0 0.3 18.5 0.3 5.3 0.2 2.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 Not a partner in an unmarried household. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,819,394 85,873 38,306,252 87,094 7,513,142 48,423 16.4 0.1 10.7 0.1 3.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 Educational Attainment Population 25 years and over. . . . . . . . . . 201,952,383 73,039 176,127,234 186,481 25,825,149 140,928 12.8 0.1 7.7 0.1 2.6 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1 Less than high school graduate. . . . . . . 29,785,248 108,900 25,500,661 92,633 4,284,587 46,243 14.4 0.1 9.5 0.1 2.9 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.7 0.1 High school graduate (or equivalent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,551,671 116,233 50,599,896 107,304 6,951,775 62,468 12.1 0.1 7.8 0.1 2.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 Some college or associate’s degree. . . 58,279,810 120,558 50,593,820 120,086 7,685,990 56,914 13.2 0.1 8.1 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.3 0.1 Bachelor’s degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,494,367 120,221 31,000,269 120,765 4,494,098 40,869 12.7 0.1 6.8 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.5 0.1 0.7 0.1 Graduate or professional degree. . . . . . 20,841,287 90,808 18,432,588 89,962 2,408,699 27,368 11.6 0.1 5.6 0.1 2.2 0.1 3.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau

7

Table 2. Geographical Mobility in the United States by Selected Characteristic: 2009—Con.

Selected characteristic

Total

Margin

 of error1 

(±)

Same 

residence 

(nonmovers)

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Total 

movers

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Percent moved

Total

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Same 

county

Margin 

of 

error1 

(±)

Different county

From 

abroad

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Same 

state

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

Different 

state

Margin 

of error1 

(±)

ECONOMIC AND HOUSINGCHARACTERISTICS

Total population 

1 year and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302,951,552 35,363 256,165,199 259,435 46,786,353 256,011 15.4 0.1 9.4 0.1 3.2 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.6 0.1

Poverty Status in the Past 12 MonthsPopulation 1 year and over for whom

poverty status is determined. . . . . . . . . . 295,028,476 39,222 252,148,730 254,968 42,879,746 251,797 14.5 0.1 9.2 0.1 2.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.1

Below 100% of the poverty level. . . . . . 41,904,533 229,377 30,783,112 166,224 11,121,421 131,612 26.5 0.2 17.7 0.2 4.7 0.1 3.0 0.1 1.1 0.1

100% to 149% of the poverty level. . . . . 27,096,696 166,516 21,818,622 150,835 5,278,074 72,552 19.5 0.2 13.4 0.2 3.3 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.6 0.1

At or above 150% of the poverty level. . . 226,027,247 312,460 199,546,996 360,998 26,480,251 163,805 11.7 0.1 7.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1

Household Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars)Less than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,534,274 108,632 11,692,338 86,639 3,841,936 57,312 24.7 0.3 16.0 0.3 4.4 0.1 3.0 0.1 1.3 0.1

$10,000 to $14,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,929,975 93,449 9,407,655 80,566 2,522,320 53,433 21.1 0.4 14.6 0.3 3.5 0.1 2.4 0.1 0.6 0.1

$15,000 to $24,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,666,190 135,905 21,376,457 119,517 5,289,733 77,249 19.8 0.3 13.8 0.2 3.3 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.6 0.1

$25,000 to $34,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,850,786 163,668 22,774,433 134,314 5,076,353 72,475 18.2 0.2 12.3 0.2 3.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.5 0.1

$35,000 to $49,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,039,657 172,199 33,597,649 159,370 6,442,008 85,878 16.1 0.2 10.6 0.2 2.9 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.1

$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,681,444 213,387 49,872,968 186,752 7,808,476 93,541 13.5 0.1 8.5 0.1 2.6 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.5 0.1$75,000 to $99,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,889,289 184,256 36,287,961 165,218 4,601,328 62,182 11.3 0.1 6.7 0.1 2.3 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.4 0.1$100,000 to $149,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,042,005 187,930 38,831,384 182,073 4,210,621 75,526 9.8 0.2 5.4 0.1 2.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1$150,000 to $199,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,605,037 111,275 14,213,182 108,879 1,391,855 30,442 8.9 0.2 4.7 0.2 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.5 0.1$200,000 or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,550,530 116,775 13,320,640 112,353 1,229,890 31,772 8.5 0.2 4.1 0.1 1.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.6 0.1Housing TenurePopulation 1 year and over living in 

occupied housing units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294,678,598 35,378 251,927,347 254,665 42,751,251 251,473 14.5 0.1 9.2 0.1 2.7 0.1 2.1 0.1 0.5 0.1

Owner-occupied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,494,765 463,873 187,152,899 448,452 13,341,866 108,645 6.7 0.1 3.9 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.1Renter-occupied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,183,833 463,609 64,774,448 299,284 29,409,385 246,669 31.2 0.2 20.5 0.1 5.4 0.1 4.3 0.1 1.1 0.1

1 The margin of error, when added to or subracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate.2 Includes cases in which marital status is separated but unmarried partner is in household.Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuracy of the data.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009. 
8 U.S. Census Bureau

mover rate by single year of age for 

the total population and household 

population.9 As shown in Table 2, 

the largest proportion of migrations occurs between the ages of 

18 and 29. The percentage of movers reaches its peak around the age 

of 23 and steadily declines until 

the early 70s, where it rebounds 

slightly. This upswing is more 

pronounced for the total population than the household population 

and can partially be explained by 

people moving into and between 

assisted-living facilities. 

Non-Hispanic Whites had the lowest 

mover rate of all races.

Mover rates vary considerably by 

race.10 Respondents reporting two 

or more races or Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander had the 

highest mover rates, with 20.8 percent each.11 Non-Hispanic Whites 

were the least mobile, with 13.8 

percent. The mover rate among 

9 The household population excludes 

individuals who currently live in group quarters. Examples of group quarters are adult 

correctional facilities, juvenile facilities, nursing facilities, other health care facilities and 

residential schools for people with disabilities, college and university student housing, 

military quarters and military ships, and other 

noninstitutional facilities. 10 Federal surveys now give respondents 

the option of reporting more than one race. 

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a 

race group are possible. A group such as 

Asian may be defined as those who reported 

Asian and no other race (the race-alone or 

single-race concept) or as those who reported 

Asian regardless of whether they also 

reported another race (the race-alone-or-incombination concept). This report shows data 

using the first approach (race alone). This 

report refers to the White-alone population 

as White, the Black-alone population as Black, 

the Asian-alone population as Asian, and the 

White-alone-non-Hispanic population as nonHispanic White. Use of the single-race population does not imply that it is the preferred 

method of presenting or analyzing data. The 

Census Bureau uses a variety of approaches. 

In this report, the term “non-Hispanic White” 

refers to people who are not Hispanic and 

who reported White and no other race. The 

Census Bureau uses non-Hispanic Whites as 

the comparison group for other race groups 

and Hispanics. Because Hispanics may be any 

race, data in this report for Hispanics overlap 

with data for racial groups. 11 The mover rate for Black or African 

American is not significantly different from 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. 

Hispanics of any race was 17.9 

percent. These differences in mover 

rates can be partially explained by 

age differences within the racial 

and Hispanic origin categories. The 

“Logistic Regression” section of 

this report discusses this point in 

further detail. Of those who moved, 

non-Hispanic Whites had the largest percentage that moved from a 

different county within the same 

state (23.2 percent). Asians had the 

highest proportion of movers from 

abroad (16.8 percent). 

Social Characteristics

In terms of marital status, 

separated respondents were 

the most mobile. 

Of the population 15 years and over, 

regardless of marital status, 15.2 

percent moved within the last year.

The two marital statuses that had 

the most mobile people were separated (27.4 percent) and never married (23.2 percent). Married12 and 

widowed respondents reported the 

lowest mobility rates, with 9.9 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively. 

People who are partners living in an 

unmarried household had a mover 

rate of 27.0 percent, compared to 

16.4 percent of people who are 

roommates or other nonpartners 

living together in a household. 

Most movers with an educational 

attainment level of less than high 

school graduate moved within the 

same county. 

For the population 25 years and 

over, total mover rates were similar 

among the various levels of educational attainment. People who did 

not graduate from high school13

were the most mobile group, with 

14.4 percent, and the least mobile 

group was graduate or professional 

degree holders, with 11.6 percent. 

Even though mover rates were 

12 The married marital status excludes 

separated respondents. 13 Or equivalent. 

similar between these levels, the 

type of move varied considerably.

Same county moves were more 

common among people who did 

not graduate from high school, 

whereas those with graduate or 

professional degrees tended to 

move from a different county. 

Sixty-six percent of all moves for 

respondents who did not graduate from high school were within 

the same county, and 29.1 percent 

were from a different county. By 

comparison, 48.2 percent of moves 

by those with a graduate or professional degree were within the same 

county, and 44.8 percent were from 

a different county. Graduate or professional degree holders also had 

the largest percentage of movers 

from abroad (7.1 percent), trailed 

by those with a bachelor’s degree 

(5.5 percent). 

Economic and Housing 

Characteristics

As an individual’s poverty level 

increased, the likelihood of moving 

decreased.

Of the population for whom 

poverty is determined, 14.5 

percent lived in a different residence 1 year ago.14 People below 

100 percent of the poverty level 

had the highest mover rate, with 

26.5 percent. Individuals between 

100 percent and 149 percent of the 

poverty level had the second 

highest mover rate (19.5 percent), 

while those at or above 150 

percent of the poverty level had the 

lowest rate (11.7 percent). A similar 

relationship exists between geographical mobility and household 

income. The mover rate decreases 

from a high of 24.7 percent for 

households making less than 

$10,000 to 8.5 percent for households earning $200,000 or more.

14 Poverty is not determined for people 

not living in households, nor for children 

under 15 years who are not related to the 

householder. 
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table 3. 

Largest Migration Inflow and Outflow by State: 2009—Con.

(Population 1 year and over)

State Largest inflow 

was from Size of inflow

Margin of 

error1 (±)

Largest outflow 

was to Size of outflow

Margin of 

error1 (±)

Alabama Georgia 20,889 3,782 Georgia 18,302 3,493 Florida 15,799 3,202

Alaska (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Arizona California 46,921 5,970 California 34,040 5,056

Arkansas Texas 14,036 2,630 (X) (X) (X)

California (X) (X) (X) Texas 61,270 6,014

Colorado California 21,223 3,248 Texas 19,748 5,184

Texas 19,214 3,557 California 16,798 2,956

Connecticut New York 19,313 3,499 (X) (X) (X)

Delaware Pennsylvania 9,068 2,425 (X) (X) (X)

District of Columbia Maryland 9,960 2,471 Maryland 21,189 3,944

Florida New York 53,482 6,261 Georgia 43,170 6,119

Georgia Florida 43,170 6,119 Florida 33,835 5,069

Hawaii California 11,820 2,846 California 13,042 2,986

Idaho Washington 11,906 2,740 (X) (X) (X) California 10,008 2,555

Illinois Indiana 19,672 3,359 (X) (X) (X) Florida 17,472 3,479

Indiana Illinois 28,173 4,299 Illinois 19,672 3,359

Iowa Illinois 11,981 2,320 Illinois 11,109 3,452

Kansas Missouri 24,307 3,964 Missouri 18,757 3,084

People living in renter-occupied 

housing units were 4.7 times more 

mobile than those living in owneroccupied housing units. 

Of the population 1 year and over 

living in households, 14.5 percent lived in a different residence 

between 2008 and 2009. Consistent 

with results shown in past geographical mobility reports, respondents living in renter-occupied 

housing units had a high rate of 

geographical mobility. Nearly onethird (31.2 percent) currently living 

in renter-occupied housing units 

moved to a different residence, 

compared to 6.7 percent living in 

owner-occupied housing units. 

STATE-TO-STATE 

MIGRATION

The number of movers between 

states declined from 7.2 million in 2008 to 6.9 million in 

2009, according to the ACS. This 

continued the downward trend of 

interstate movers seen since the 

ACS started collecting data for the 

total population—households and 

group quarters—in 2006, when 

7.9 million persons moved between 

states. Table 3 shows the largest 

inmigration and outmigration flows 

for each state. These flows usually involve a neighboring state, 

but there are some exceptions. 

The largest inflow to Florida, for 

instance, was from New York. Table 

4 lists the top ten state-to-state 

migration flows for people 1 year 

and over, as reported by the ACS 

from 2006 through 2009. Throughout the 4 years, the largest state-tostate flows were fairly consistent. 

The top seven flows in 2009 were 

within the top ten for 2006, but 

all with significant decreases. A 

notable exception was the flow 

from Louisiana to Texas. This was 

the largest state-to-state migration flow in 2006 in the aftermath 

of Hurricane Katrina, but was not 

among the largest flows in subsequent years. 

Three of the four most populous 

states (California, Florida, and New 

York) were responsible for the top 

eight state outmigration flows in 

2009. The largest state-to-state 

migration flow was from California 

to Texas, with 61,270 movers.15

Flows from California to Arizona, 

Washington, and Nevada were 

also on the top ten list. These four 

states combined (Texas, Arizona, 

Washington, and Nevada) were the 

destination of 34.9 percent of the 

domestic migrants from California. 

People from California represented 

36.6 percent of the interstate movers to Nevada, 20.8 percent to Arizona, 22.2 percent to Washington, 

and 12.1 percent to Texas. 

15 The flow from California to Texas was 

not significantly different from New York to 

Florida. 

See footnotes at end of table.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3. 

Largest Migration Inflow and Outflow by State: 2009—Con.

(Population 1 year and over)

State Largest inflow 

was from Size of inflow

Margin of 

error1 (±)

Largest outflow 

was to Size of outflow

Margin of 

error1 (±)

Kentucky (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Louisiana Texas 24,857 3,994 Texas 26,438 4,025

Maine Massachusetts 3,518 1,081 (X) (X) (X) New Hampshire 3,395 1,031

Maryland Virginia 22,050 3,569 Virginia 26,226 4,014

District of Columbia 21,189 3,944 Pennsylvania 18,826 2,811

Massachusetts New York 22,409 3,867 (X) (X) (X)

Michigan (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Minnesota Wisconsin 17,189 2,577 Wisconsin 16,937 2,646

Mississippi (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Missouri Illinois 21,245 3,799 Kansas 24,307 3,964 Kansas 18,757 3,084

Montana Washington 4,701 1,163 (X) (X) (X)

Nebraska (X) (X) (X) Iowa 7,380 1,935

Nevada California 39,762 4,657 California 32,333 5,352

New Hampshire Massachusetts 14,984 3,216 Massachusetts 10,775 2,430

New Jersey New York 41,692 4,980 Pennsylvania 38,000 5,221

New York 36,630 5,045

New Mexico (X) (X) (X) Texas 15,279 2,741

New York New Jersey 36,630 5,045 Florida 53,482 6,261 Florida 30,875 4,819

North Carolina (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

North Dakota Minnesota 13,564 2,052 Minnesota 7,160 1,660

Ohio (X) (X) (X) Florida 21,346 4,283

Oklahoma Texas 32,437 5,060 Texas 25,784 4,080

Oregon California 32,088 4,316 Washington 26,687 4,105

Pennsylvania New Jersey 38,000 5,221 (X) (X) (X) New York 31,898 4,091

Rhode Island Massachusetts 6,947 1,445 Massachusetts 6,316 1,543

South Carolina North Carolina 24,468 4,184 North Carolina 22,374 3,955

South Dakota Minnesota 5,445 1,646 (X) (X) (X)

Tennessee Georgia 15,255 3,539 (X) (X) (X) Florida 14,221 2,921

Texas California 61,270 6,014 California 35,104 5,123

Oklahoma 32,437 5,060

Utah (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Vermont (X) (X) (X) New York 4,407 1,283

Virginia (X) (X) (X) North Carolina 27,787 4,088

Washington California 42,693 5,917 California 33,408 4,711

West Virginia (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)

Wisconsin Illinois 21,139 3,512

Minnesota Minnesota 17,189 2,577 16,937 2,646

Wyoming Colorado 4,636 1,386

Utah Colorado 5,630 2,796 3,832 1,456

Puerto Rico Florida 11,603 2,735 Florida 14,783 4,366

(X) Neither a single flow nor two flows were statistically the largest.

1

 The margin of error, when added to or subtracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent confidence interval around the estimate. 

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuracy of the data.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

The other largest flows were from 

New York to Florida and New 

Jersey; from Florida to Georgia 

and Texas; from New York to 

New Jersey; and from New Jersey to 

Pennsylvania and New York.16

The percentage of people who 

lived in a different state 1 year 

ago is shown in Figure 3. At least 

4 percent of people who lived in 

Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, 

North Dakota, Washington, D.C., 

or Wyoming in 2009 moved from 

another state within the last year.17

The states that fell below 2 percent 

of people who lived in a different 

state 1 year ago were California, 

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New 

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.18 All of the 

states below 2 percent are located 

in the Midwest and Northeast 

regions of the country, with the 

lone exception of California. 

LOGISTIC REGRESSION

Table 5 provides the results of 

a logistic regression model of 

geographical mobility on select 

demographic, social, and economic 

characteristics for respondents 

18 years and over, using 2009 ACS 

data.19 Logistic regression is used 

because the dependent variable—

geographical mobility—is binary 

(moved/did not move). Similar 

to other multivariate techniques, 

logistic regression statistically controls for other variables included in 

the model. For interpretation purposes, people with characteristics 

that have an odds ratio higher than 

16 For additional state-to-state migration 

flow tables and reports, visit the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s state-to-state migration flows Web 

page at <www.census.gov/hhes/migration

/data/acs/state-to-state.html>. 17 The following states were not significantly different from 4 percent: Hawaii, 

Nevada, Delaware, Idaho, and South Dakota. 18 Maine, Louisiana, Texas, and Indiana 

were not significantly different from 

2 percent. 19 Only respondents who gave valid 

responses to all variables in the logistic 

regression model are included in this analysis. 

Table 4. 

The Ten Largest State-to-State Migration Flows: 2006 to 2009

(Population 1 year and over)

Year and 

rank Migration flow Estimate1

Margin of 

error2 (±)

2009 ACS

Movers between states3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,897,773 73,469

1 California to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61,270 6,014

2 New York to Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,482 6,261

3 California to Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,921 5,970

4 Florida to Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,170 6,119

5 California to Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,693 5,917

6 New York to New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,692 4,980

7 California to Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,762 4,656

8 Florida to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,150 5,339

9 New Jersey to Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,000 5,221

10 New Jersey to New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,630 5,045

2008 ACS

Movers between states3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,238,473 71,643

1 California to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,174 4,866

2 New York to Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,145 4,507

3 California to Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,253 4,295

4 Florida to Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,222 4,006

5 New York to New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,055 4,175

6 Georgia to Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46,743 3,789

7 California to Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,615 3,577

8 Texas to California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,451 3,389

9 Florida to North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,061 3,429

10 New York to Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,606 2,869

2007 ACS

Movers between states3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,506,867 63,665

1 California to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,310 5,052

2 Florida to Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77,098 5,354

3 California to Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,684 5,961

4 New York to Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,312 3,201

5 California to Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,489 4,354

6 New York to New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,294 3,961

7 New York to Pennsylvania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,476 2,902

8 Florida to North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,954 3,543

9 California to Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,361 3,351

10 Texas to Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,743 3,092

2006 ACS

Movers between states3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,947,060 73,469

1 Louisiana to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118,552 9,858

2 New York to Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87,576 7,883

3 California to Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,497 8,213

4 California to Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81,572 7,350

5 Florida to Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,182 8,524

6 California to Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,811 6,768

7 New York to New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54,781 5,341

8 California to Washington. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,034 6,203

9 California to Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,295 4,509

10 Texas to California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,027 6,617

1 Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be significantly different from one 

another or from estimates for other flows not listed in the table. 2 The margin of error, when added to or subtracted from the estimate, represents the 90 percent 

confidence interval around the estimate. 3 Includes the District of Columbia.

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of

_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuracy of the data.

 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 1-year estimates, 2006 to 2009. 
12 U.S. Census Bureau AK

HI

Percentage4.0 or more3.0 to 3.92.0 to 2.9Less than 2.0U.S. average: 

 2.3 percent

Source: U.S. Census Bureau,American Community Survey, 2009.

WA

MT

ID

OR

WY

CA

NV

UT

CO

AZ

NM

NDSDNE

KS

OK

TX

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

IN

OH

WV

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SCFL

NC

PA

VA

NY

RI

CT

MA

VT

NH ME

NJ

DEMD

DC

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuarcy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuarcy of the data.

Figure 3.Percentage of People Who Lived in a Different State 1 Year Ago: 2009(Population 1 year and over)

AK

HI
U.S. Census Bureau 13

1.00 have a higher likelihood of 

geographical mobility than those in 

the comparison group. By contrast, 

values lower than 1.00 suggest a 

lower likelihood to move than the 

comparison group. 

The focal independent variable for 

the current study is housing tenure 

and its impact on geographical 

mobility. When all other variables 

listed in the model are controlled, 

the odds ratio suggests respondents currently living in renteroccupied housing units are 5 times 

more likely to have moved than 

those in owner-occupied housing 

units. The fact that the odds ratio 

is high demonstrates how strong a 

predictor housing tenure is on the 

likelihood of moving. No other variable in the model has an odds ratio 

near this magnitude. 

The first block of variables in the 

model includes the demographic 

characteristics of age, sex, race, 

and Hispanic origin. Compared 

with 18 to 29 year olds, people in 

all three age ranges (30 to 44; 45 

to 64; and 65 and over) had lower 

odds of migration. These findings 

are consistent with the data on residence 1 year ago by age displayed 

in Figure 2 and the 2009 ACS 

selected characteristics shown in 

Table 2. Based on the odds ratios, 

people ages 30 to 44 years old had 

73.5 percent lower odds of moving, ages 45 to 64 had 84.8 percent 

lower odds of moving, and ages 65 

and over had 49.1 percent lower 

odds of moving than 18 to 29 year 

olds. Females were less likely to 

move than males. 

With controls for the various social, 

economic, and demographic characteristics in place, several racial 

categories differed significantly 

from Whites. For example, controlling age allows for a better comparison of geographical mobility 

across races. Any age differences 

that were causing the mover rate 

to vary by race are now taken into 

consideration. Respondents who 

are Black, American Indian and 

Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some 

other race, or two or more races 

between the ages of 18 to 29 are 

compared to White respondents of 

the same age. With this in mind, 

the results of the logistic regression 

suggest that Blacks and respondents of some other race both had 

lower odds of moving than Whites 

(21.7 percent and 8.0 percent, 

respectively). The only racial group 

with significantly higher odds of 

moving than Whites were respondents who reported two or more 

races. Respondents of Hispanic origins were less likely to move than 

non-Hispanics.

Social characteristics are the 

second block of variables in the 

likelihood model of moving. Native 

born respondents were 1.2 times 

more likely to move than those 

foreign born.20 Respondents with 

marital statuses of separated, widowed, and divorced all had higher 

odds of geographical mobility than 

never married individuals, although 

married respondents showed no 

significant difference from those 

never married. Separated adults 

were 2 times more likely to move 

than their never married counterparts. Widowed and divorced 

respondents also had higher odds 

of moving than never married individuals, at 40.0 percent and 55.6 

percent, respectively. Mobility by 

educational attainment was evenly 

divided; people with education 

levels below some college or who 

have associate’s degrees had lower 

odds of geographical mobility, and 

people with higher levels of education had higher odds.

20 Native born people are U.S. citizens at 

birth. All people with the following citizenship status are native born: (1) born in the 

United States; (2) born in Puerto Rico or a U.S. 

outlying area; or (3) born abroad of a U.S. 

citizen parent or parents. All other people are 

foreign born.

Economic characteristics are the 

third and final block of characteristics included in the model. Households within the three income 

groups ($50,000 to $74,999; 

$75,000 to $99,999; and $100,000 

or more) were significantly less 

likely to have moved than households earning between $35,000 

and $49,999. Households in the 

remaining income groups (less than 

$10,000; $10,000 to $24,999; and 

$25,000 to $34,999) had higher 

odds of moving than households 

earning between $35,000 and 

$49,999. 

DISTANCE MOVED AND 

REASONS FOR MOVING

The ASEC has been conducted 

for over 60 years. Data from the 

ASEC provide a historical picture 

of national and regional migration 

patterns. The ASEC data also show 

how different variables influence the 

likelihood that a person moved and 

provide a distinct understanding of 

who moves, how far, and why.

Between 2008 and 2009, about 40 

percent of intercounty moves were 

less than 50 miles. 

Distance moved is a unique characteristic calculated using the ASEC. 

This measure is only calculated for 

intercounty moves (that is, moves 

from one county to another), which 

can vary greatly in terms of the 

distance involved. In the ASEC, distance moved is calculated from the 

population center (the “centroid”) 

of the origin county to the destination county.21 Table 6 provides 

the distance of intercounty moves 

by year for 2003 (the first year 

distance moved was calculated) 

through 2009. Between 2008 and 

2009, 39.9 percent of intercounty 

moves were less than 50 miles 

21 More details on this process can be 

found on page 10, footnote 14, of the Current 

Population Report titled “Geographical Mobility: 2002 to 2003” at <www.census.gov

/prod/2004pubs/p20-549.pdf>.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5. 

Likelihood Model of Moving in the Past 12 Months: 2009

Characteristic Parameter 

coefficient Standard error Odds ratio Margin of error

Intercept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.924 0.015 (NA) (NA)

Housing Tenure 

(Reference: owner-occupied housing unit)

Renter-occupied housing unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.623 0.008 *5.07 0.0785

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Age

(Reference: 18 to 29 years old)

30 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.327 0.008 *0.27 0.0045

45 to 64 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –1.886 0.012 *0.15 0.0035

65 years and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.675 0.007 *0.51 0.0065

Sex

(Reference: male)

Female. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.045 0.004 *0.96 0.0070

Race

(Reference: White alone)

Black or African American alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.245 0.010 *0.78 0.0155

American Indian and Alaska Native alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.052 0.031 0.95 0.0575

Asian alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.023 0.018 1.02 0.0355

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone. . . . . . . . . . . . –0.044 0.070 0.96 0.1310

Some other race alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.084 0.017 *0.92 0.0305

Two or more races. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.059 0.018 *1.06 0.0370

Hispanic or Latino Origin 

(Reference: any race, not Hispanic or Latino)

Hispanic or Latino (of any race). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.177 0.011 *0.84 0.0180

SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS

Nativity

(Reference: foreign born)

Native born. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.193 0.010 *1.21 0.0235

Marital Status 

(Reference: never married)

Married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.007 0.007 0.99 0.0145

Separated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.708 0.015 *2.03 0.0600

Widowed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.336 0.015 *1.40 0.0420

Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.442 0.008 *1.56 0.0255

Educational Attainment 

(Reference: some college or associate’s degree)

Less than high school graduate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.155 0.008 *0.86 0.0140

High school graduate (includes equivalency). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.115 0.005 *0.89 0.0095

Bachelor’s degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.117 0.007 *1.12 0.0160

Graduate or professional degree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.159 0.009 *1.17 0.0205

ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Household Income in the Past 12 Months 

(Reference: $35,000 to $49,999)

Less than $10,000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.090 0.012 *1.10 0.0260

$10,000 to $24,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.070 0.010 *1.07 0.0205

$25,000 to $34,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.038 0.011 *1.04 0.0230

$50,000 to $74,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.035 0.012 *0.97 0.0215

$75,000 to $99,999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.065 0.013 *0.94 0.0230

$100,000 or more. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –0.081 0.012 *0.92 0.0220

Somers’ D1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.587 (NA) (NA) (NA)

Number of unweighted cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,307,535 (NA) (NA) (NA)

(NA) Not applicable.

* Significant at .05 percent. 1

 Somers’ D is an ordinal measure of association. Values range between –1.0 and 1.0. The stronger the relationship, the higher the absolute value of Somers’ D.

Note: See <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf> for further information on the accuracy of the data.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

in distance. The longest distance 

moved category (500 miles or 

more) had the second largest share, 

at 24.1 percent. Both of these categories led distance moved in 2008 

as well, with 40.4 percent and 25.8 

percent, respectively. None of the 

2008 estimates were significantly 

different from 2009 except moves 

50 to 199 miles, which increased 

from 19.2 percent to 21.8 percent. 

The number of intercounty movers 

decreased by 4.3 million between 

2003 and 2009. 

The last geographical mobility 

report described distance moved 

using 2003 data. In 2003, 15.4 

million people completed an intercounty move. In 2009 the number 

of intercounty movers was 11.0 

million, representing a decline of 

4.3 million.22 Long distance moves 

comprised fewer intercounty moves 

between 2003 and 2009. Combining the categories of 200 to 499 

miles and 500 or more miles into 

a measure of long distance moves 

shows that 45.6 percent of intercounty moves were long distance 

in 2003, compared to 38.3 percent 

22 At least some of this decline may be 

due to the previously mentioned processing 

change. The difference in the number of intercounty movers for 2003 and 2009 was 4.3 

million instead of 4.4 million due to rounding. 

of moves in 2009. Changes in 

distance moved over time can also 

be tracked by analyzing means and 

medians. While no significant difference existed between the mean 

distance moved between 2003 and 

2009, more people were moving 

shorter distances in 2009 than in 

2003, a result that is consistent 

with changes in the distribution of 

moves less than 50 miles during 

these years. 

Housing-related reasons were the 

most common reasons given for 

moving. 

Another unique measure collected 

by the ASEC is reason for moving.

Respondents are asked to select 

from a list of common reasons for 

moving, with an option to write-in 

other reasons for responses that 

do not fit the choices provided.

Table 7 shows reason for move 

by type of move (intracounty 

versus intercounty) for the 1999 

and 2009 ASEC.23 The most cited 

reasons for moving in 2009 were 

housing-related (47.1 percent), 

followed by family-related (26.5 

percent), employment-related (17.0 

percent), and other (9.4 percent). 

23 Reason for move was first asked in 

1998. Additions and changes were made to 

the reasons in 1999, so comparisons between 

1998 and other years are discouraged.

Within these major categories, most 

moved because they “wanted a new 

or better home/apartment” (14.9 

percent), for “other family reason” 

(11.4 percent), for a “new job or 

job transfer” (8.2 percent), or “other 

reasons” (4.5 percent). Reason for 

move was less evenly distributed 

among the major reason categories 

in 1999. About half (51.0 percent) 

of all reasons given were housingrelated, while 25.6 percent were 

family-related, 16.0 percent were 

employment-related, and 7.4 

percent were other.24 Part of the 

change in housing-related 

reasons can be attributed to 21.5 

percent selecting “wanted new or 

better home/apartment” and 11.4 

percent choosing “other housing 

reason.” These two reasons were 

more frequently cited by movers in 1999 than 2009. However, 

“wanted cheaper housing” became 

more important over the decade; 

that estimate increased from 6.2 

percent in 1999 to 11.4 percent 

in 2009. 

24 The percentage of respondents who 

gave family-related reasons or employmentrelated reasons was not statistically different 

between 1999 and 2009. 

Table 6.

Distance of Intercounty Move by Year: 2003–2009

Characteristic 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009

 Intercounty movers 1 year and over 

 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,356 15,171 15,287 13,690 12,299 11,009 11,034

Distance of intercounty move 

(in percent)

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than 50 miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 30.8 30.5 40.9 41.9 40.4 39.9

50 to 199 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 24.5 24.6 21.3 21.0 19.2 21.8

200 to 499 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.7 21.0 19.7 15.3 14.7 14.6 14.2

500 miles or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.9 23.7 25.3 22.6 22.5 25.8 24.1

Distance of intercounty move

(in miles)

Mean. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.2 382.4 419.3 361.8 358.4 400.4 389.3

Median. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.3 154.6 156.4 90.5 83.0 103.2 97.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2003–2009.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Based on reason for move 

responses, intracounty movers 

placed more importance on housing 

than employment. 

Among intracounty movers, 

housing-related reasons dominated, with 57.2 percent of respondents giving these reasons for 

moving in 2009. “Wanted new or 

better home/apartment” led the 

housing-related reasons category 

and all single reasons given, with 

18.6 percent. Among intercounty 

movers, employment-related 

reasons were highest, with 35.5 

percent. “New job or job transfer” 

led the employment-related reasons category and is the highest 

selected single reason, with 22.0 

percent. For both types of movers, 

family-related reasons were the 

second most reported, with 26.5 

percent for intracounty and 26.6 

percent for intercounty movers.25

“To establish own household” and 

“other family reason” were the most 

common responses given within 

the family-related reasons category 

for intracounty movers, with 11.6 

percent and 9.5 percent, respectively. Intercounty movers gave 

“other family reason” as the most 

prevalent reason within the familyrelated reasons category, with 15.8 

percent. 

Employment-related reasons 

were the most common among 

intercounty movers, especially 

those who moved 50 miles or more. 

Figure 4 combines the major 

reason for move categories with 

the distance of intercounty move 

measure, using data from the 2009 

25 The difference in percentage who 

responded with family-related reasons for 

intercounty and intracounty moves was not 

statistically significant. 

ASEC. Employment-related reasons 

are the most reported category for 

all intercounty movers 1 year and 

over, with 35.5 percent. Housingrelated and family-related reasons 

trail behind with 24.3 percent 

and 26.6 percent, respectively. 

Employment-related reasons are 

most commonly selected among 

people who move 200 to 499 miles 

(54.0 percent), 500 or more miles 

(43.9 percent), and 50 to 199 miles 

(43.8 percent).26 People who moved 

shorter distances, less than 50 

miles, cited housing (40.0 percent) 

and family-related (29.5 percent) 

reasons more often than employment (19.2 percent). Housingrelated reasons were used far less 

often among longer distance movers; these reasons comprised 13.8 

26 The percentages of intercounty movers 

who gave employment-related reasons and 

moved 500 or more miles or 50 to 199 miles 

were not statistically different. 

Table 7.

Reason for Move by Type of Move: 1998 to 1999 and 2008 to 2009

Reason for move

Percent distribution by reason

1998 to 1999 2008 to 2009

Total

IntracountyIntercounty TotalIntracountyIntercounty

 Total domestic movers 1 year and over (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . 41,207 25,268 15,939 36,017 24,984 11,034

Family-related reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 25.4 25.9 26.5 26.5 26.6

Change in marital status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 6.5 6.6 5.4 5.5 5.4

To establish own household. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 9.7 4.8 9.7 11.6 5.4

Other family reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 9.2 14.5 11.4 9.5 15.8

Employment-related reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 5.6 32.6 17.0 8.9 35.5

New job or job transfer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 1.4 21.5 8.2 2.1 22.0

To look for work or lost job. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.3 2.9 2.3 1.0 5.4

To be closer to work/easier commute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.0 3.6 5.2 5.0 5.6

Retired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.8

Other job-related reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.7 3.6 1.0 0.7 1.8

Housing-related reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.0 64.7 29.3 47.1 57.2 24.3

Wanted own home, not rent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 10.0 5.0 5.6 6.6 3.6

Wanted new or better home/apartment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 28.2 10.8 14.9 18.6 6.5

Wanted better neighborhood/less crime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.4 3.3 5.2 6.2 2.9

Wanted cheaper housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 7.8 3.6 11.4 13.9 5.8

Other housing reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 14.3 6.7 10.0 11.9 5.5

Other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 4.3 12.3 9.4 7.5 13.6

To attend or leave college. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.5 4.0 2.4 1.5 4.5

Change of climate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.1 1.5

Health reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.0

Natural disaster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (NA) (NA) (NA) 0.4 0.5 0.2

Other reason. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 2.7 5.2 4.5 4.1 5.5

(NA) Not applicable. The natural disaster reason for move was added in 2006.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1999 and 2009. 
U.S. Census Bureau 17

percent of moves 200 to 499 miles 

and 11.6 percent of moves 500 or 

more miles.27

APPENDIX

The ASEC provides a historical perspective on geographical mobility 

dating back to 1948. Throughout 

this period the survey has been 

conducted annually.28 Most of the 

data are collected one week in 

March29 through computer-assisted 

telephone and personal interviews, 

with additional households 

27 The percentages of movers who gave 

housing-related reasons and moved 200 to 

499 miles or 500 or more miles were not 

statistically different. 28 The 1-year geographic mobility question was not asked from 1972 to 1975 and 

from 1977 to 1980. In the first half of the 

70s (1971 to 1975), a question asked about 

migration since 1970, and in the second 

half (1976 to 1980), a question asked about 

migration since 1975. 29 The interview week for the ASEC is the 

week containing the 19th of the month.

interviewed in February and April 

to achieve the necessary sample 

size.30 The 2009 sample consists of 

about 97,000 households, representing the civilian31 noninstitutionalized population of the United 

States. Mobility data from the ASEC 

are available at the national and 

regional levels.32

The ACS was first conducted in four 

test counties in 1996. The sample 

expanded during the testing phase 

and achieved full implementation 

in 2005; every county or county 

equivalent in the United States 

and Puerto Rico was covered, 

30 Prior to 2001, all interviews were 

conducted during the month of March and, on 

rare occasions, early April. 31 Members of the Armed Forces in the 

United States living off post or with their 

families on post are included, but all other 

members of the Armed Forces are excluded. 32 For more information about the Current 

Population Survey operations, see “Current 

Population Survey: Design and Methodology, 

Technical Paper 66” at <www.census

.gov/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf>.

with about 250,000 housing units 

sampled each month. The next 

year, the sample was expanded to 

include residents living in group 

quarters. The large sample size 

allows reasonable estimates to 

be published for a wide range of 

geographies,33 such as congressional districts, counties, school 

districts, and places. Housing 

units in each monthly sample are 

mailed questionnaires during the 

first month of collection. If there is 

no response from a housing unit 

by the second month, the Census 

Bureau attempts to get the information by a computer-assisted telephone interview. A subsample of 

housing units that did not respond 

are visited in the third month for 

computer-assisted personal interviews. Thus, there is a 3-month 

period in which the survey can be 

completed.

The wording of the geographical mobility questions are similar 

on both surveys. The questions 

as they appear on the 2009 ACS 

paper questionnaire are shown in 

Figure 5.34 The ASEC asks “Was the 

reference person living in this 

house (or apartment) one year 

ago?” If the person moved within 

the United States, the respondent 

is asked to provide state, county, 

place, zip code of residence 1 year 

ago, and whether the person lived 

inside city limits or not. If the person moved from abroad, country of 

residence 1 year ago is asked.35

33 Geographical mobility data are not available below the state level for group quarters. 34 The ACS began collecting street-level 

addresses of respondents in 2008 to improve 

the precision of determining where a person 

lived 1 year ago. For more information, see 

“2006 American Community Survey Contest 

Test Report P. 3: Evaluation Report Covering 

Residence 1 Year Ago (Migration)” at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth

/content_test/P3_Residence_1_Year_Ago.pdf>. 35 A facsimile of the ASEC Supplement 

Questionnaire is available on pages D-93 

and D-94 of the “2009 ASEC Technical 

Documentation” at <www.census.gov/apsd

/techdoc/cps/cpsmar09.pdf>.

Figure 4.

Reason for Move by Distance of Intercounty 

Move: 2009 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement, 2009.

(Percent distribution of intercounty movers 1 year and over)

Distance (in miles)

Other 

reason

Employmentrelated 

reason

Familyrelated 

reason

Housingrelated 

reason

Less than 50 to 199 200 to 499 500 or more

50

Total,

intercounty

movers

35.5

26.6

24.3

13.6

19.2

29.5

40.0

11.3

43.8

24.7

16.4

15.0

54.0

18.9

13.8

13.3

43.9

28.1

11.6

16.4
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Besides the slight differences 

in questions, there are other 

dissimilarities between the 

surveys. These include the 

use of three interview modes 

in the ACS (mail, phone, and 

personal) and only two in the 

ASEC (personal and phone);

group quarters coverage (the 

ASEC includes only civilian noninstitutional group 

quarters population), the 

process in which the master 

address file (MAF) is updated; 

residence rule definitions; 

data editing and imputation procedures; selection of 

controls; and the calculation 

of weights.36

Another critical difference for 

understanding and comparing these two data sources 

is the actual collection and 

reference periods that the 

two surveys use. These differences ensure that ACS 

and ASEC estimates will not 

match; both sources track 

the “pace of mobility,” but at 

different levels. 

Figure 6 shows and compares the collection and 

reference periods for the 

ACS and ASEC. The collection 

period for the ASEC occurs 

during mid-February to mid-April of 

the survey year, with the data being 

gathered within a 1-week period for 

any given housing unit. The ACS 

data is collected from the beginning of the survey year until the 

end of the survey year. Obtaining 

data from a housing unit may take 

up to 3 months. 

The reference period, the time 

frame in which a respondent 

moves, is the year prior to the 

36 For more information on the differences 

of migration estimates between the ACS and 

ASEC, see “Comparison of ACS and ASEC 

Data on Geographic Mobility: 2004” at 

<www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/library/2007/2007_Koerber_01.pdf>. 

completion of a survey. The ASEC 

data are collected in the months of 

February, March, and April. Thus, 

for the ASEC, data cover a period 

from mid-February of the year 

before the survey year to mid-April 

of the survey year, a span of about 

14 months. ACS data are collected 

monthly January through December, so the ACS data cover about 24 

months.37

37 Additional information on data 

collection can be found in “Current 

Population Survey: Design and Methodology, 

Technical Paper 66” at <www.census.gov

/prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf> and “American 

Community Survey: Design and Methodology” 

at <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/survey_methodology/acs_design

_methodology.pdf >.

The net result of these differences in the surveys is 

that “annual” ACS migration 

rates are higher than those 

obtained from the ASEC.

The ACS mobility rate for 

people 1 year and over living 

in households (excluding residents living in group quarters) is 15.9 in 2006, 15.0 

in 2007, 14.6 in 2008, and 

14.5 in 2009.

As shown in Table 8, the 

ACS estimates of the proportion of persons who moved 

in the past year have varied 

from the ASEC estimate in 

each year. During this period, 

the ASEC instrument and 

operations were relatively 

stable. The ACS, on the other 

hand, underwent numerous 

changes, including a major 

sample expansion in 2005, 

the addition of institutional 

populations (likely to be 

much more mobile than the 

noninstitutional populations) 

in 2006, and changes to the 

survey questions in 2008. 

Through this the ACS estimate has been higher and has 

stayed higher. 

All of the design differences 

likely contribute in some way to the 

overall difference in the estimate 

itself.

SOURCES OF THE DATA

The data in this report are from the 

2009 American Community Survey 

(ACS) and the 2009 Annual Social 

and Economic Supplement (ASEC) 

of the Current Population Survey 

(CPS). Some estimates are based on 

data obtained by the ACS and ASEC 

in earlier years. 

The population represented (the 

population universe) in the ACS is 

the population living in both households and group quarters (that is, 

Figure 5.

Reproduction of the Migration

Questions from the 2009 

American Community Survey
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-08 Oct-08 Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10

Figure 6.

Collection and Reference Periods for the 

2009 ACS and 2009 ASEC 

ACS: American Community Survey

ASEC: Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey

ASEC collection period

ACS collection period

ACS reference period

ASEC reference period

Table 8.

One-Year U.S. Mobility Rate: ASEC and ACS

(Population 1 year and over)

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ASEC 13.9 13.7 13.2 11.9 12.5

ACS *16.1 16.8 16.0 15.6 15.4

*

 Residents living in group quarters were not included in 2005. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Current Population Survey, 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2005 to 2009.

the resident population). The group 

quarters population consists of 

the institutionalized population 

(such as people in correctional 

institutions or nursing homes) and 

the noninstitutionalized population (most of whom are in college 

dormitories). 

The population represented (the 

population universe) in the ASEC 

is the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population living in the United 

States. Members of the Armed 

Forces living off post or with their 

families on post are included if at 

least one civilian adult lives in the 

household. The institutionalized 

population, which is excluded 

from the population universe, is 

composed primarily of the population in correctional institutions and 

nursing homes (91 percent of the 

4.1 million institutionalized people 

in Census 2000). Most of the data 

from the ASEC were collected in 

March 2009 (with some data collected in February and April), and 

the data were controlled to independent population estimates for 

March 2009. For analysis of annual 

time series from the CPS, data collected in the 2009 ASEC may be 

compared with data collected in 

the March supplement to the CPS in 

prior years. 

ACCURACY OF THE 

ESTIMATES

Statistics from surveys are subject to 

sampling and nonsampling error. All 

comparisons presented in this report 

have taken sampling error into 

account and are significant at the 90 

percent confidence level. This means 

the 90 percent confidence interval for the difference between the 

estimates being compared does not 

include zero. Nonsampling errors 

in surveys may be attributed to a 

variety of sources, such as how the 

survey is designed, how respondents 

interpret questions, how able and 

willing respondents are to provide 

correct answers, and how accurately 

the answers are coded and classified. The Census Bureau employs 

quality control procedures throughout the production process, including the overall design of surveys, 

the wording of questions, review of 

the work of interviewers and coders, 

and statistical review of reports, to 

minimize these errors. 

The CPS weighting procedure uses 

ratio estimation, whereby sample 

estimates are adjusted to independent estimates of the national population by age, race, sex, and Hispanic 

origin. This weighting partially corrects for bias due to undercoverage, 

but biases may still be present when 

people who are missed by the survey differ from those interviewed in 

ways other than age, race, sex, and 

Hispanic origin. How this weighting 

procedure affects other variables in 

the survey is not precisely known. 

All of these considerations affect 

comparisons across different surveys 

or data sources. 

For further information on statistical 

standards and the computation and 

use of standard errors, go to 

<www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc

/cps/cpsmar09.pdf> or contact 

the Census Bureau’s Demographic 

Statistical Methods Division via e-mail 

at <dsmd.source.and.accuracy

@census.gov>. 
20 U.S. Census Bureau

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Permit No. G-58

The final ACS population estimates 

are adjusted in the weighting procedure for coverage error by controlling specific survey estimates to 

independent population controls by 

sex, age, race, and Hispanic origin. 

The final ACS estimates of housing 

units are controlled to independent 

estimates of total housing. This 

weighting partially corrects for bias 

due to over- or undercoverage, 

but biases may still be present; for 

example, when people who are 

missed by the survey differ from 

those interviewed in ways other 

than sex, age, race, and Hispanic 

origin. How this weighting procedure affects other variables in the 

survey is not precisely known. All 

of these considerations affect comparisons across different surveys or 

data sources. 

For further information on the ACS 

sample, weighting procedures, 

sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and quality measures from the ACS, 

see <www.census.gov

/acs/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf>. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Detailed geographical mobility/

migration tables from the 2009 

ASEC are available on the Census 

Bureau’s Web site <www.census

.gov>. Once on the site, click 

“Subjects A to Z,” select “M,” then 

select “Migration/Geographic 

Mobility.” From the “Geographical 

Mobility/Migration” page, use 

the quick link for “CPS Data on

Geographical Mobility/Migration.” 

Under the “Geographic Mobility 

2008 to 2009” subheading select

“Detailed Tables.” 

To access ACS tables about 

geographical mobility/migration, 

visit the American Factfinder on 

the Census Bureau’s Web site at 

<factfinder.census.gov>.

CONTACTS

David K. Ihrke

david.k.ihrke@census.gov

Carol S. Faber

carol.s.faber@census.gov

William K. Koerber

william.k.koerber@census.gov

For additional information, contact 

the U.S. Census Bureau Customer 

Services Center at 1-800-923-8282 

(toll free) or visit <ask.census.gov>.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Ihrke, David K., Carol S. Faber, and 

William K. Koerber. 2011. 

Geographical Mobility: 2008 to 

2009. Current Population Reports, 

P20-565. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC.