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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Demographic Programs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Geographical Mobility: 

2002 to 2003

Population Characteristics

Issued March 2004

Current

Population

Reports

By 

Jason P. Schachter

P20-549

Geographic mobility has

long been an important

aspect of American life,

affecting both people

and geographic areas.

At an individual level,

moving has a number of

potential impacts, such

as expanding economic

opportunity or increasing residential satisfaction. The movement of

people is a key demographic factor for any

area’s population trends,

and can change its

demographic and

socioeconomic composition. Finally, federal,

state, and local government, as well as private

industry, need to understand who moves and

why when planning for

needed services, facilities, and businesses. 

This report examines

geographic mobility in

the United States,

including differences in

the extent and types of

movement in recent

years, characteristics of

movers compared with

nonmovers, distance of

moves, reasons for

moving, and regional

migration patterns.

All respondents in the 2003 Annual Social and

Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population

Survey (CPS) were asked whether they lived at the

same residence one year earlier. Nonmovers were living in the same home at both dates. Movers were

asked for the location of their previous residence.

Movers can be classified by type of move and are categorized as to whether they moved within the same

county, to a different county within the same state, to

a different county from a different state or region, or

from abroad. These different types of moves are treated as if they form a distance continuum, even though,

for example, some county-to-county moves are shorter

in distance than some within county moves. 

Figure 1.

Percent Distribution of Movers by 

Type of Move: 2002 to 2003

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

2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 

Same county

59%

(Population 1 year and older)

Different county,

same state

19%

Different state

19%

Movers from

abroad

3%
Reason-for-move and distance-ofmove tabulations are included in

this report for the first time, as

well as a special topic section that

uses multivariate analysis to examine how different variables influence the likelihood that a person

moved. 

About 40 million people in the

United States moved.

Between 2002 and 2003, 40.1 million United States residents moved,

fewer than the 41 million who

moved between 2001 and 2002

(Table A).1 Similarly, moving rates

have declined slightly over the

2 U.S. Census Bureau

1 The estimates in this report are based on

responses from a sample of the population.

As with all surveys, estimates may vary from

the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All comparisons made

in this report have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. Most

estimates in this report are from the Annual

Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to

the 2003 Current Population Survey. The

population represented (population universe)

is the civilian noninstitutionalized population

of the United States. Members of the Armed

Forces living off post or with their families on

post are included, if there is at least one civilian adult living in the household. Most of the

data from the ASEC were collected in March

(with some data collected in February and

April), and the data were controlled to

independent population estimates for March

2003. 

past decade, from 17 percent in

1994 to 14 percent in 2003. This

moving rate is among the lowest

rate found since the CPS began collecting this sort of data in 1948,

when the moving rate stood at 

20 percent. Though most moves

were within the same county,

longer distance moves (across

state boundaries) have become

slightly more likely over the past

10 years. In 2003, 59 percent of

all moves were within the same

county, while 19 percent were to a

different county within the same

state, 19 percent were to a different state, and 3 percent were from

In this report, a moving rate

is the percentage of people

who changed residence in a

1-year period (number of

movers divided by the total

population under consideration). Migration is commonly defined as moves that

cross jurisdictional boundaries (counties in particular),

while moves within a jurisdiction are referred to as residential mobility. Moves

between counties are referred

to as intercounty moves,

while moves within the same

county are referred to as

intracounty moves. Further,

migration can be differentiated as movement within the

United States (domestic or

internal migration) and

movement into and out of the

United States (international

migration). 

Table A.

Annual Moving Rates by Type of Move: 1993 to 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Mobility period

Total,

1 year

and older

Same

residence

(nonmovers)

Total movers Percent moved

90-

percent

confidence

interval

Number (±)

1 Total

Different county

Same Same Different

county state state

From

abroad

2002-2003 . . . ..................

2001-2002 . . . ..................

2000-2001* ....................

2000-2001**....................

2000-2001***...................

1999-2000......................

1998-1999......................

1997-1998......................

1996-1997......................

1995-1996......................

1994-19952 ....................

1993-1994......................

282,556

278,160

275,611

275,611

272,671

270,219

267,933

265,209

262,976

260,406

258,248

255,774

242,463

237,049

235,726

236,605

234,029

226,831

225,297

222,702

219,585

217,868

215,931

212,939

40,093

41,111

39,885

39,006

38,642

43,388

42,636

42,507

43,391

42,537

42,317

42,835

608

614

606

838

835

876

870

869

873

866

830

834

14.2

14.8

14.5

14.2

14.2

16.1

15.9

16.0

16.5

16.3

16.4

16.7

8.3

8.5

8.2

8.0

8.0

9.0

9.4

10.2

10.5

10.3

10.8

10.4

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.8

3.3

3.1

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.1

3.2

2.7

2.8

2.8

2.8

2.8

3.1

2.8

2.4

2.4

2.5

2.2

2.6

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.3

0.5

* Using 2000-census-based population controls and an expanded sample. See Source of Data for more information.

** Using 2000-census based-population controls. See Source of Data for more information.

*** Using 1990-census-based population controls. See Source of Data for more information.

1

This number, when added to and subtracted from the total number of movers, yields the 90-percent confidence interval around the estimate.

2

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

tion was asked about residence 1 year earlier, but the resulting 1-year data for the 1994-95 period are not totally comparable with the data for other years.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2003.

nal ques-
abroad (Figure 1).2 In 1994, 

62 percent were within the same

county, but just 16 percent of all

moves crossed state boundaries.

CHARACTERISTICS 

OF MOVERS

Moving rates varied by the

characteristics of movers.

Moving rates differ by characteristics such as age, race, Hispanic origin, nativity, marital status, household type, whether the housing

unit is owned or rented, income,

and poverty status. Table B shows

moving rates and types of move

by many of these characteristics,

and some of these differences are

described in detail below. 

Young adults had the highest

moving rates.

In 2003, about one-third of 20- to

29-year olds had moved in the previous year, more than twice the

moving rate of all people 1 year

and older. As shown in Figure 2,

mobility peaked during the twenties

U.S. Census Bureau 3

2 These 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. 

and then decreased with age, at

least until very advanced ages.

Among those who moved, people

55 and older were more likely to

have moved to a different state

than younger age groups, although

they were less mobile than younger

age groups. For example, 28 percent of all 55- to 64-year-old

movers crossed state lines, compared with 19 percent of 25- to 29-

year olds. Moving rates were higher for young adults because of their

relatively higher frequency of life

course events (such as new family

formations or jobs), while migration

related to retirement could help

explain age-based differentials in

the likelihood of interstate moves. 

Non-Hispanic Whites were less

mobile than other race and

Hispanic-origin groups.3

Non-Hispanic Whites had the lowest

moving rate (12 percent), while

3 Data for the American Indian and Alaska

Native, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander, and Two or More Races populations

are not shown in this report because of the

small sample size in the Current Population

Survey. Based on the 2003 Current

Population Survey, 4 percent of the Black

alone population and 2 percent of the Asian

alone population were also of Hispanic origin.

Beginning January 2003,

respondents to the Current

Population Survey (CPS) could

choose one or more races to

indicate their racial identity.

The main race groups discussed in this report refer to

people who reported one

race: White, Black, or Asian.

A fourth category, not used in

this report, “All remaining

races,” refers to people who

were American Indian and

Alaska Native only, Native

Hawaiian and Other Pacific

Islander only, or any combination of Two or More Races.

These populations have been

included in the “All remaining

races” category because individually they were not large

enough to yield reliable

results in the CPS. The use of

the single-race population

groups in this report does not

imply that it is the preferred

method of presenting or analyzing data. The Census

Bureau uses a variety of

approaches.

Figure 2.

Moving Rates by Age: 2002 to 2003

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

(Percent moved for the population 1 year and older) 

21.4

15.9

13.2 14.2

30.1

28.1

19.8

15.3

11.8

9.2 7.8 6.8 5.9 4.5 4.0 3.7 3.8 3.5

1- 4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Age in years
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table B.

Geographic Mobility by Selected Characteristics: 2002 to 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Percent moved

Different county Selected characteristics

Total, Same

1 year residence Total Same Same Different From

and older (nonmovers) movers Total county state state abroad

Total, 1 year and older ........... 282,556 242,463 40,093 14.2 8.3 2.7 2.7 0.5

Age

1 to 4 years ........................ 16,409 12,896 3,513 21.4 13.6 3.9 3.3 0.6

5 to 9 years ........................ 19,708 16,584 3,124 15.9 9.8 2.9 2.7 0.4

10 to 19 years ...................... 41,372 35,715 5,657 13.7 8.3 2.6 2.4 0.4

20 to 24 years ...................... 19,884 13,906 5,979 30.1 17.8 5.8 5.6 0.8

25 to 29 years ...................... 18,721 13,470 5,252 28.1 16.1 5.5 5.2 1.3

30 to 34 years ...................... 20,522 16,460 4,061 19.8 11.7 3.6 3.8 0.7

35 to 44 years ...................... 44,074 38,139 5,934 13.5 7.8 2.7 2.5 0.5

45 to 54 years ...................... 40,234 36,786 3,448 8.6 4.9 1.6 2.0 0.2

55 to 64 years ...................... 27,399 25,644 1,755 6.4 3.2 1.3 1.8 0.2

65 to 84 years ...................... 30,687 29,441 1,246 4.1 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.1

85 years and older ................... 3,547 3,422 125 3.5 2.4 0.7 0.4 0.0

Sex

Male ............................. 138,156 118,105 20,051 14.5 8.4 2.8 2.8 0.5

Female ............................ 144,400 124,358 20,042 13.9 8.2 2.7 2.6 0.4

Race and Hispanic Origin

White alone ........................ 228,198 197,953 30,244 13.3 7.6 2.7 2.6 0.3

White alone, not Hispanic ............ 192,458 168,524 23,934 12.4 7.0 2.7 2.7 0.2

Black alone ........................ 35,333 28,981 6,352 18.0 11.7 2.8 3.1 0.4

Asian alone ........................ 11,430 9,507 1,923 16.8 8.6 2.7 2.8 2.7

Hispanic (of any race) ................ 38,680 31,727 6,953 18.0 11.5 2.7 2.5 1.3

Nativity

Native ............................ 249,103 214,823 34,279 13.8 8.3 2.9 2.8 0.2

Foreign born ....................... 33,453 27,639 5,814 17.4 9.9 2.6 2.9 3.5

Marital Status (15 years and older)

Total .......................... 225,250 194,594 30,656 13.6 7.8 2.7 2.7 0.5

Married............................ 120,349 108,051 12,298 10.2 5.5 2.0 2.3 0.4

Divorced or separated ................ 26,396 21,694 4,703 17.8 11.2 3.5 2.8 0.3

Widowed .......................... 14,001 13,077 924 6.6 3.2 1.5 1.7 0.2

Never married ...................... 64,503 51,772 12,731 19.7 11.6 3.8 3.7 0.6

Education (25 years and older)

Total .......................... 185,183 163,362 21,821 11.8 6.7 2.3 2.4 0.4

Not a high school graduate ............ 28,599 25,186 3,413 11.9 7.7 1.8 1.8 0.7

High school graduate ................. 59,292 52,953 6,339 10.7 6.2 2.1 2.1 0.2

Some college or Associate degree....... 46,910 41,167 5,743 12.2 6.9 2.6 2.5 0.2

Bachelor’s degree ................... 33,213 28,793 4,420 13.3 6.9 2.7 3.0 0.7

Graduate degree .................... 17,169 15,264 1,906 11.1 5.4 2.1 3.0 0.7

Household Income (in 2002)

Less than $25,000 ................... 62,143 50,336 11,807 19.0 12.0 3.3 3.2 1.0

$25,000 to $49,999 .................. 75,010 63,424 11,587 15.4 9.4 3.0 2.8 0.4

$50,000 to $99,999 .................. 95,232 83,651 11,581 12.2 7.0 2.6 2.3 0.3

$100,000 and over ................... 50,171 45,052 5,119 10.2 5.2 2.0 2.7 0.2

Poverty Status (in 2002)

Above poverty level .................. 248,066 216,284 31,782 12.8 7.4 2.6 2.5 0.3

Below poverty level .................. 34,490 26,178 8,312 24.1 14.7 3.8 4.0 1.7

Household Type

In married-couple family households ..... 180,967 162,233 18,734 10.4 5.7 2.1 2.2 0.4

In other households .................. 101,589 80,230 21,359 21.0 13.0 3.9 3.5 0.6

Housing Tenure

Owner-occupied ..................... 200,627 185,686 14,941 7.4 4.3 1.6 1.4 0.2

Renter-occupied ..................... 81,929 56,777 25,152 30.7 18.2 5.5 5.8 1.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Hispanics (of any race) and Blacks

had the highest overall moving rate

(18 percent), closely followed by

Asians (17 percent). Among people

who moved, Blacks and Hispanics

were most likely to have moved

within the same county (about 

65 percent), while non-Hispanic

Whites were most likely to have

made intercounty and interstate

moves (44 percent). Asians and

Hispanics were much more likely

than Blacks or non-Hispanic Whites

to have moved from abroad. Some

of these differences can be

explained by characteristics other

than race and Hispanic origin, as

described in the “special topic”

section of this report. 

Almost one-third of 

renters moved.

Homeownership is one of the

strongest predictors of whether a

person moved. Nearly one-third of

people living in renter-occupied

housing units in 2003 moved during the previous year, compared

with only 1 in 14 people living in

owner-occupied housing units.4

Housing tenure is closely related to

age, race, Hispanic origin, and

income. In general, people living

in owner-occupied housing units

are more likely to be older, nonHispanic White, and more affluent

than those living in renter-occupied

units.5

People with income below

poverty were more likely to

have moved than those 

above poverty. 

Moving rates differed by the poverty status of individuals. Those

U.S. Census Bureau 5

4 As is the case with all characteristics on

the Current Population Survey, housing

tenure is measured at the time of the survey;

tenure before the move was actually made is

not ascertained. 5 For example, see U.S. Census Bureau,

2003, Moving to America—Moving to

Homeownership: 1994-2002, by Robert R.

Callis, Current Housing Reports H121/03-1,

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

with income below the poverty

level were more likely to have

moved (24 percent) than those

with income above poverty 

(13 percent). Some of this disparity may reflect differences in homeownership patterns, particularly

the higher proportion of renters

among households with low

incomes. Also, among people who

moved, those with income below

the poverty level were more likely

to have made an intracounty move

and less likely to have made an

interstate move (about 61 percent

and 17 percent, respectively) than

those above poverty (58 percent

and 20 percent, respectively).

Some of these differences could be

explained by factors such as education, reasons for moving, and

potentially higher costs associated

with longer distance moves.

People of different 

education levels had similar

moving rates.

Education accounted for only small

differences in moving rates, ranging

from 11 percent of those with only

a high school education to 13 percent of those with a bachelor’s

degree. However, movers with a

bachelor’s degree were more likely

to have moved longer distances: 

23 percent made an interstate

move, compared with 15 percent of

those with less than a high school

education. This difference could

reflect better-educated people moving longer distances for jobs.

HOW PERSONAL

CHARACTERISTICS CAN

INFLUENCE MOVING RATES:

A MULTIVARIATE

APPROACH

As previously shown, the likelihood that a person moved during

a 1-year period varies by individual

characteristics. Blacks, Asians, and

Hispanics were more likely to

move than non-Hispanic Whites,

6 Blacks aged 25 to 29 were not significantly different from non-Hispanic Whites

aged 25 to 29. 

but to what degree were these differences due to race or to differences in other demographic and

socioeconomic characteristics? For

example, given that mobility is

related to age, do these race and

Hispanic-origin differences arise

simply because non-Hispanic

Whites are relatively older than

other race/Hispanic-origin groups?

Using race/Hispanic origin as a

test case, this section examines

how the interaction of individual

characteristics influences mobility,

and it presents increasingly complex methods that help to explain

how particular variables can have

different effects on moving rates,

depending on other characteristics. 

Two-Way Cross Tabulations

One of the simpler ways of examining the effects of two variables

on one another is to cross tabulate

their distributions. An example of

a two-way cross tabulation would

be moving rates by race/Hispanic

origin and age (Table C1).

Disaggregating moving rates by

race and age shows that nonHispanic Whites aged 20 to 29

tended to be slightly more mobile

than Blacks and Hispanics, while

being about as mobile as Asians of

the same age.6 For most other age

categories under 55, non-Hispanic

Whites tended to be less mobile

than the other race and ethnicity

groups. When compared with the

other race and ethnicity groups,

the moving rates of Asians were

generally higher among those aged

25 to 44. 

Standardized Moving Rates 

By Age

Another way to look at the relationship between moving rates,

age, and race/Hispanic origin, is to
standardize moving rates by the

age distribution of a reference

group (for example, non-Hispanic

Whites). Standardization helps to

eliminate extraneous sources of

variation in the data that may

affect the analysis of the subject

under investigation.7 This method

recalculates the overall moving

rate as if each group had the same

age distribution as non-Hispanic

Whites. In other words, by standardizing, the age-specific moving

rates can provide summary measures that eliminate the influence of

differences in age distributions. 

After moving rates were standardized based on the age distribution

of the non-Hispanic White population, differences among rates were

substantially reduced. However,

non-Hispanic Whites still had an

overall lower moving rate than

other racial and ethnic groups — 

12 percent compared with 16 percent for Blacks, 15 percent for

Asians, and 15 percent for

Hispanics.8 This suggests that the

age distribution explains some, but

not all, of the variation in 

mobility differences.

Higher Order Cross

Tabulations

Another analytical method is to

introduce an additional variable to

calculate more complex multi-way

cross tabulations. In addition to

the effect of age on mobility, people of different poverty statuses

varied widely in their likelihood of

moving. Table C2 shows a threeway cross tabulation of moving

rates by race/Hispanic origin, age,

and poverty status. 

6 U.S. Census Bureau

7 Shyrock, Henry S., Jacob S. Siegel, and

Associates. 1976. The Methods and

Materials of Demography. San Diego,

Academic Press. 8 Asians were not statistically different

from Blacks and Hispanics.

Among people with income below

the poverty level, Blacks were as

likely as non-Hispanic Whites and

Hispanics to have moved, though

Asians were still more likely to have

moved than Blacks. Once another

variable (age) is added to the tabulation, the picture becomes more

complicated, with no consistent patterns emerging. Non-Hispanic

Whites aged 20-to-24 with income

below the poverty level were the

most mobile group, with half having moved between 2002 and

2003. Among those with income

below the poverty level, 10- to 24-

year old Hispanics were less mobile

and 25- to 44-year old Hispanics

were as mobile as comparable nonHispanic Whites. Little consistency

appeared among the patterns for

other age groups with income

below the poverty level. As should

be evident, this methodology

becomes increasingly difficult to

interpret, and higher order crosstabulations (four-way, five-way, etc.)

can quickly become impractical 

to use. 

Multivariate Analysis

A more complex, yet advantageous, method is to model these

relationships using multivariate

regression techniques.9 The

advantage of this method is the

ability to control simultaneously

for more than one variable and to

gauge the impact those variables

have on mobility, as well as on

each other, when the impact of all

of them is taken into account at

the same time. Multivariate statistical techniques can assess the

influence of demographic, family,

economic, and geographic characteristics on the likelihood that a

person moved. Because we are

examining whether or not a person

moved, which is a “yes, no”

response, logistic regression is the

appropriate multivariate estimation

method. Such models predict how

9 For more information about multivariate

regression techniques for categorical

response variables, see Alan Agresti. 1996.

An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis.

New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Table C1.

Moving Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin and Age:

2002 to 2003

(In percent)

Age Total,

1 year

and older

White

alone,

not HispanicBlack

alone

Asian

alone

Hispanic

(of any

race)

Total...................... 14.2 12.4 18.0 16.8 18.0

Age standardized moving rate1 . . (X) 12.4 15.9 14.8 14.9

1 to 4 years ................... 21.4 18.6 28.4 21.6 23.7

5 to 9 years ................... 15.9 13.4 21.6 14.8 18.6

10 to 19 years . . ............... 13.7 11.8 18.6 12.9 15.9

20 to 24 years . . ............... 30.1 31.2 27.3 29.6 27.2

25 to 29 years . . ............... 28.1 28.4 27.2 30.5 26.7

30 to 34 years . . ............... 19.8 18.5 20.9 24.5 21.6

35 to 44 years . . ............... 13.5 12.0 17.6 17.4 15.2

45 to 54 years . . ............... 8.6 7.5 12.4 9.2 11.6

55 to 64 years . . ............... 6.4 6.0 6.5 9.5 8.4

65 to 84 years . . ............... 4.1 3.9 4.3 5.2 4.5

85 years and older ............. 3.5 3.4 3.8 0.2 6.7

(X) Not applicable.

1

Standardized by age. White alone, not Hispanic is the reference category. See text for more

detailed explanation of standardization.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
the likelihood of moving depends includes all the variables, is examon other explanatory factors. ined to see how different variables

Table D lists the explanatory fac- affect the likelihood of Blacks,

tors used in this analysis. Hispanics, and Asians moving relative to the non-Hispanic White pop- The results of the analysis are ulation. When interpreting Figure 3 most easily interpreted using odds (nested models), positive odds-ratio ratios, which are derived from the differentials (odds ratios greater regression model’s estimates. than one) mean that the group was When the odds ratios shown in more likely to have moved than Table D are greater than 1, the per- non-Hispanic Whites (the reference son with the specified characteris- group). Negative odds-ratio differ- tic was more likely to have moved entials (odds ratios less than one) than the comparison group. Odds mean the group was less likely to ratios of less than 1 indicate that have moved. The strength of the these people were less likely to effect is relative to the size of the have moved. Because variables bar. Figure 3 shows that the effects like education and marital status of race/ethnicity on the likelihood are related to certain age thresh- of moving declined as other vari- olds, those under 18 were ables were added to the model, removed from the analysis. To becoming insignificant and eventu- account for these missing people, ally reversing direction. a variable controlling for the presence of children under 18 years of Results

age in the household was included The first model looks at the effects in the analysis. of race/ethnicity on the likelihood

The nested models, in which a sin- of having moved without the influgle variable or a group of variables ence of any other variables (similar

is added to the model, are first to the one-way cross tabulation of

examined to see how those vari- moving rates by race/Hispanic oriables affect the race/ethnicity vari- gin). Blacks were 40 percent,

ables. Next, the full model, which Asians 49 percent, and Hispanics

57 percent more likely to have

moved than non-Hispanic Whites.10

When age is added to the model

(model 2), the likelihood of moving

for the race and Hispanic-origin

groups declined relative to nonHispanic Whites, with Blacks now

being just 23 percent, Asians 

34 percent, and Hispanics 24 percent more likely to have moved.11

In other words, part of the reason

non-Hispanic Whites were less likely

to have moved is that they were

more likely than their race and

Hispanic-origin counterparts to be

older, at which point moving rates

were generally lower. 

The addition of education (model 3)

did little to alter the effect of

race/ethnicity, but the addition of

economic variables (employment

status, welfare receipt, and poverty

status) to obtain the fourth model

decreased the odds ratios for each

group. This was particularly true

for Blacks, as they became just 

U.S. Census Bureau 7

10 There were no significant differences

between Blacks and Asians, or between

Hispanics and Asians. 11 There were no significant differences

between Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians.

Table C2.

Moving Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin, Age, and Poverty Status: 2002 to 2003

(In percent)

Age

White alone,

not Hispanic Black alone Asian alone Hispanic (of any race)

Not in

poverty

In

poverty

Not in

poverty

In

poverty

Not in

poverty

In

poverty

Not in

poverty

In

poverty

Total, 1 year and older ........ 11.4 23.8 16.4 23.1 15.5 28.9 16.3 23.9

1 to 4 years ....................... 16.4 35.2 23.5 36.4 19.4 41.2 21.5 28.9

5 to 9 years ....................... 11.8 26.0 20.3 23.8 12.7 28.8 16.0 24.2

10 to 19 years..................... 10.2 27.8 17.7 20.7 10.1 29.6 14.1 21.2

20 to 24 years..................... 28.1 51.4 23.6 37.4 27.9 38.0 24.7 36.8

25 to 29 years..................... 27.6 35.8 25.7 32.9 29.6 38.0 25.1 34.2

30 to 34 years..................... 17.6 29.9 20.4 23.2 22.8 43.9 20.0 27.8

35 to 44 years..................... 11.4 21.2 17.0 20.2 15.9 30.2 14.6 18.1

45 to 54 years..................... 7.1 16.5 11.4 17.0 8.8 14.3 10.5 18.2

55 to 64 years..................... 5.7 8.8 5.7 10.4 9.4 10.7 7.7 12.1

65 to 84 years..................... 3.9 3.5 3.7 6.3 5.4 2.5 3.6 7.9

85 years and older................. 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.8 0.0 1.4 4.5 12.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
14 percent (rather than 25 percent)

more likely than non-Hispanic

Whites to move, when they had the

same age, education, and economic

characteristics. Asians were now

27 percent (rather than 30 percent)

and Hispanics 21 percent (rather

than 27 percent) more likely to

move than comparable nonHispanic Whites.12 The fifth model

added household characteristics

(marital status, sex, and presence of

children under 18), which slightly

increased the odds ratio for

Hispanics and Asians (indicating

they were more likely to move than

comparable non-Hispanic Whites),

and decreased the odds ratio for

Blacks (indicating they were less

8 U.S. Census Bureau

12 There were no significant differences

between Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians.

likely to move than comparable

non-Hispanic Whites). 

The sixth model added nativity

(whether a person was native or

foreign born) and type of residence

(metropolitan/nonmetropolitan).

This slightly increased the odds

ratio for Blacks, while Asians and

Hispanics were now less likely to

have moved than in the previous

model: they were just 13 percent

and 18 percent, respectively, more

likely to have moved than comparable non-Hispanic Whites who also

had the same nativity status and

residence characteristics.13

The final (full) model (Table D)

added household tenure, which

13 There was no significant difference

between Hispanics and Asians.

had a strong effect. Its inclusion

greatly decreased the likelihood of

having moved for race and

Hispanic-origin groups, even

reversing some of the effects of

race/ethnicity found in the base

model (model 1). When respondents had the same tenure status,

Blacks were 14 percent less likely

to have moved than non-Hispanic

Whites, while Hispanics and Asians

were no longer significantly different from non-Hispanic Whites in

this regard. In other words,

adding household tenure to the

model lowered the likelihood of

moving for all groups, but lowered

it for Blacks and Hispanics to the

point that they actually had a

lower likelihood than similar nonHispanic Whites of having moved

in the past year.

Figure 3.

Likelihood of Having Moved, Using Logistic Regression Models, for Blacks Alone, 

Asians Alone, and Hispanics, Controlling for Different Factors: 2002 to 2003

Note: Model 1 controls for race and ethnicity. 

Model 2 controls for same factors as model 1, and also for age. 

Model 3 controls for same factors as model 2, and also for education.

Model 4 controls for same factors as model 3, and also for economic characteristics.

Model 5 controls for same factors as model 4, and also for household characteristics. 

Model 6 controls for same factors as model 5, and also for nativity and type of residence. 

Model 7 controls for same factors as model 6, and also for household tenure. 

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

(Population 18 years and older) 

Difference of odds ratios, compared with non-Hispanic Whites 

Black alone

Asian alone

Hispanic (of any race)

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
The preceding discussion looked at and tenure status were strong prethe effects of certain variables on dictors of having moved. People

the probability of moving for mem- living in renter-occupied housing

bers of various racial and ethnic units were 5 times more likely than

groups. This section looks at the those living in owner-occupied

full model, which shows how all the housing units to have moved. This

factors are related to the likelihood shows that homeownership is a

of moving, when they are consid- strong factor in dampening the likeered simultaneously. The final lihood that a person will change

model (model 7) shows that age residences, likely due to the

invested costs (both financial and

emotional) associated with homeownership. Looking at the effects

of age, people aged 18 to 34 were

one and a half times more likely

than, and people 50 years and older

were less than half as likely as, 35-

to 49-year olds to have moved.

Further, people with more education, the unemployed, those who

were not married, those living

below poverty, people living in nonmetropolitan areas, and people

without children under 18 were

more likely to move than their

counterparts with opposite characteristics. Nativity, sex, and receipt

of public assistance were not statistically related to the likelihood of

moving when other factors were

included in the model. These models did not attempt to measure

more complicated effects, whereby

some factors can interact with

others.

In summary, age and housing

tenure were found to explain much

of the variation in moving rates

between non-Hispanic Whites and

other racial and ethnic groups. In

fact, taking other factors into

account, race and ethnicity were

not strongly related to the likelihood of moving: their influence

decreased as other variables were

added to the model, eventually

becoming non-significant and even

reversing direction. Similarly,

when looking at the final model,

which included all variables, age

and housing tenure were found to

be the strongest factors related 

to moving.

DISTANCE OF MOVE

Type of move often serves as a

proxy for distance of move. In

general, domestic moves across

state boundaries are treated as

being of longer distances than

moves across county boundaries

within a state, which in turn are

U.S. Census Bureau 9

Table D.

Full Logistic Regression Model (Model 7) Predicting

Likelihood of Moving: 2002 to 2003

(18 years and older. See text for discussion of logistic regression)

Characteristics Parameter

coefficient

Standard

error

Odds

ratio

Model 1

RACE/ETHNICITY

(reference: White alone, not Hispanic)

Black alone ............................

Asian alone ............................

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

Added in Model 2

AGE

(reference: 35-49 years)

18-34 years ............................

50 and more years .....................

Added in Model 3

EDUCATION

(reference: less than high school)

High school ............................

Some college ..........................

College plus ...........................

Added in Model 4

Poor (reference: nonpoor) ...............

Unemployed (reference employed) .......

Welfare recipient (reference: no welfare

receipt)...............................

Added in Model 5

Not Married (reference: married) .........

Male (reference: female) ................

Presence of children under 18 ...........

Added in Model 6

Native (reference: foreign born) ..........

Nonmetropolitan origin (reference:

metropolitan origin) ....................

Added in Model 7

Rent (reference: homeowner) ............

Intercept.................................

Somer’s D1 ..............................

Number of cases (unweighted) .............

–0.146

0.030

–0.055

0.500

–0.939

0.123

0.230

0.460

0.241

0.248

0.195

0.058

0.026

–0.126

0.012

0.321

1.594

–2.658

0.505

145,453

0.026

0.043

0.028

0.021

0.024

0.026

0.027

0.029

0.024

0.035

0.067

0.019

0.017

0.019

0.028

0.021

0.018

0.035

–

–

*0.86

1.03

0.95

*1.65

*0.39

*1.13

*1.26

*1.58

*1.27

*1.28

*1.22

*1.06

1.03

*0.88

1.01

*1.38

*4.93

–

–

–

* Significant at .05 percent.

– Not applicable.

1

Somer’s D is an ordinal measure of association. Values range between -1.0 and 1.0. The stronger

the relationship, the larger the absolute value of Somer’s D.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
treated as being of longer distances than moves within counties.

A special tabulation of intercounty

movers, using each origin and destination county’s geographic population centroid, was performed to

calculate an estimated distance of

move in miles.14

The majority of intercounty

moves were greater than 

100 miles.

Figure 4 shows the distances

moved by the 15.4 million intercounty movers in the United

States. People were most likely to

have moved less than 25 miles, 25

to 49 miles, 100 to 249 miles, and

250 to 499 miles (about 16 percent each). The median distance

of an intercounty move was 

160 miles, while the mean (average) distance was a much longer

400 miles. 

People 55 years and older

were more likely to move

longer distances than those

under 55 years. 

Although older people were less

likely to move than younger people, when they did make an intercounty move, the move tended to

be of a longer distance (Table E).

While movers in the age span 20 to

44 were most likely to have moved

less than 50 miles, those aged 55

to 84 were not more likely to have

moved less than 50 miles. For

example, people 55 to 64 years of

age made intercounty moves with

a median distance of 250 miles,

while the corresponding median

10 U.S. Census Bureau

14 A population centroid is the geographic

point that represents the center of population. This point is the place on the map

where an imaginary, flat, weightless, and

rigid map of the county would balance perfectly if all residents were of identical

weight. Since distances were computed

using a centroid for each county, intracounty

moves and moves from abroad were excluded from this analysis because of the inability

to compute an estimated distance for them. 

for 25- to 29-year olds was 140

miles. As noted earlier in the

discussion of type of move, these

differences could reflect retirement

migration patterns or people moving to be closer to family at elderly

ages, which could involve longer

distances.

Hispanics tended to make

longer distance intercounty

moves, while Blacks tended to

move shorter distances. 

Among race and Hispanic-origin

groups, Asians and Hispanics were

most likely to have moved over

500 miles, while they were just as

likely as the other groups to have

moved under 50 miles. The mean

distance of move was 550 miles

for Asians (median of 230 miles),

410 miles (median of 180 miles)

for Hispanics, 390 miles (median

of 150 miles) for non-Hispanic

Whites, and 330 miles for Blacks

(median of 150 miles).15

15 The estimated differences in median

distance moved for Asians, Hispanics, nonHispanic Whites, and Blacks were not statistically significant. 

The patterns in distance of move

for the foreign-born population

resemble the patterns for Asians

and Hispanics, who account for

most of the foreign-born population. The foreign born were more

likely than natives to have moved

500 miles or more, and natives

were more likely to have moved

less than 200 miles. These findings perhaps reflect different reasons for moving, with the foreign

born more willing to move longer

distances for work-related reasons,

and natives moving shorter distances for other reasons, such as

housing or family. 

College-educated movers 

were more likely than less

educated movers to move

longer distances.

Consistent with their higher proportion of interstate moves, those

with a graduate degree were more

likely to have moved 500 miles or

more, while they were also least

likely to have moved less than 

50 miles, compared with other

Figure 4.

Distance of Intercounty Move: 2002 to 2003

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

2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.

(Percent of intercounty movers 1 year and older)

16.2 16.1

10.3

16.7 15.9

13.6

11.3

1,000

or more

Less than 25 25-49 50- 99 100-249 250-499 500-999

Miles
educational-attainment groups. than under 50 miles (25 percent).

Few differences appeared between The median distance of move for

education groups for moves those with a graduate degree was

between 50 and 499 miles. 240 miles, in contrast with 150

However, within education groups, miles for those with just a high

almost all groups were more likely school diploma. 

to have moved less than 50 miles

than any other distance category. REASONS FOR MOVING

Only those with a graduate degree In 1998, a question on reason for were more likely to have moved moving was added to the Current 500 miles or more (32 percent) Population Survey to measure

individuals’ perceived reasons for

moving.16 This question is asked of

the householder and all other people 1 year and older who moved

during the past year. Only one

U.S. Census Bureau 11

16 For more information on the reason-formove question, and more detailed results

from earlier years, see U.S. Census Bureau,

Current Population Reports, P23-204, “Why

People Move: Exploring the March 2000

Current Population Survey,” by Jason

Schachter, May 2001. 

Table E.

Intercounty Moves by Distance and Selected Characteristics: 2002 to 2003

Selected characteristics Number

(in thousands)

Percent distribution Median

distance

of move

(miles)

Mean

distance

of move

Total (miles)

Less than

50 miles

50 to 199

miles

200 to 499

miles

500 miles

or more

Total, 1 year and older ........

Age

15,356 100.0 32.3 22.2 20.7 24.9 155.3 399.2

1 to 4 years ....................... 1,181 100.0 37.2 21.5 16.1 25.2 106.0 403.8

5 to 9 years ....................... 1,103 100.0 34.0 24.2 17.2 24.7 137.7 373.6

10 to 19 years..................... 2,070 100.0 29.2 24.1 20.9 25.8 173.0 390.6

20 to 24 years..................... 2,266 100.0 32.1 24.5 19.5 24.0 138.7 386.3

25 to 29 years..................... 1,997 100.0 34.3 19.9 19.6 26.1 142.9 401.0

30 to 34 years..................... 1,522 100.0 33.7 20.3 21.0 25.0 158.0 395.0

35 to 44 years..................... 2,287 100.0 36.0 21.0 19.9 23.0 128.9 374.0

45 to 54 years..................... 1,418 100.0 30.0 20.5 26.2 23.4 194.7 379.2

55 to 64 years..................... 843 100.0 23.2 22.5 26.8 27.5 251.8 437.0

65 to 84 years..................... 627 100.0 23.8 25.6 23.7 26.9 215.5 426.0

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

Sex

42 100.0 43.2 13.0 22.6 21.2 168.7 446.4

Male ............................. 7,714 100.0 31.9 22.1 21.1 24.9 157.4 395.4

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

Race and Hispanic Origin

7,642 100.0 32.6 22.2 20.3 24.9 154.1 389.0

White alone, not Hispanic........... 10,262 100.0 32.4 22.6 20.8 24.2 153.0 388.0

Black alone ....................... 2,090 100.0 30.8 25.2 21.9 22.1 145.0 334.2

Asian alone . . ..................... 628 100.0 33.7 15.6 16.7 34.0 225.8 552.4

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

Nativity

2,015 100.0 31.6 20.2 19.9 28.4 179.7 413.9

Native ............................ 13,628 100.0 32.3 22.4 21.0 24.3 154.9 387.0

Foreign born ......................

Education (25 years and older)

1,727 100.0 31.6 20.3 18.6 29.5 167.0 432.5

Total ......................... 8,735 100.0 32.2 21.0 22.0 24.8 164.5 394.9

Not a high school graduate ......... 1,021 100.0 31.8 22.9 21.0 24.3 159.3 385.9

High school graduate .............. 2,534 100.0 32.7 21.3 22.8 23.3 153.6 363.7

Some college or associate degree . . . 2,403 100.0 32.8 22.1 21.6 23.5 157.4 375.4

Bachelor’s degree ................. 1,904 100.0 34.2 17.8 22.2 25.8 163.4 423.4

Graduate degree . . . ...............

Poverty Status

873 100.0 24.8 21.9 21.8 31.6 238.5 487.2

Above poverty level . . . ............. 12,694 100.0 33.2 21.3 20.6 24.9 152.9 397.1

Below poverty level ................ 2,662 100.0 27.9 26.4 21.1 24.7 172.9 368.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
reason is entered for each mover,

with responses to the “other” category recorded verbatim. 

Most people move for

housing-related reasons.

Among people who changed residence between 2002 and 2003 (see

Table F), the highest percentage of

people moved for housing-related

reasons (51 percent), followed by

family-related (26 percent) and

work-related reasons (16 percent).

Within these major categories, most

moved for a “new/better

house/apartment” (20 percent), followed by “other family” reasons 

(13 percent), “other housing” reasons (11 percent), “to own

home/not rent” (10 percent), or for

a “new job/job transfer” (9 percent).

Given the high number of responses included in “other” categories, it

is often more meaningful to interpret the data by grouping the

responses into the four major categories shown in bold in Table F.

Long distance moves were

more likely to be made for

work-related reasons.

The distance moved has been

shown to be closely related to the

reason for moving. The proportions

of intracounty and intercounty

moves made for family-related reasons were only slightly different,

but those for housing and workrelated reasons were dramatically

different. Only 6 percent of intracounty movers cited a work-related

reason, compared with 28 percent

of intercounty movers. The greatest percentage of work-related

intercounty movers moved for a

new job or a job transfer (19 percent). Conversely, 65 percent of

intracounty movers cited a housingrelated reason, compared with just

34 percent of intercounty movers.

Among housing reasons, the largest

percentage point difference

between short and long distance

movers was for those moving to Highly educated movers were

live in a new or better house or more likely to move for workrelated reasons, especially for apartment (26 percent and 11 per- longer distance moves. cent, respectively). Movers from

abroad were even more likely to As seen in Table G, higher educahave moved to the United States for tional attainment increased the likework-related reasons (38 percent) lihood of having moved for workand much less likely to have moved related reasons. Among all movers,

for housing reasons (9 percent). only 13 percent of people with only

A large percentage of movers from a high school education moved for

abroad also moved for “other rea- work-related reasons, compared

sons” (24 percent), over one-third to with 23 percent of those with a

attend or leave college. bachelor’s degree and 25 percent of

those with a master’s degree or The same patterns emerge by dis- higher. Similarly, 29 percent of tance of intercounty moves those with a high school education (Figure 5). Moves under 50 miles moved for family-related reasons, were predominantly for housing- compared with 21 percent of those related reasons (48 percent), while with a bachelor’s degree. Housing- moves of 500 miles or more were related reasons remained the most predominantly work-related frequent response given by movers, (38 percent). Intermediate dis- but it was slightly more likely tance moves (50 to 499 miles) among those with lower levels of were likely made for work-related educational attainment. or housing-related reasons. 

12 U.S. Census Bureau

Table F.

Reasons for Moving by Type of Move: 2002 to 2003

(Movers, 1 year and older)

Reason All

movers Intracounty Intercounty

From

abroad

Total movers (thousands) ...... 40,093 23,468 15,356 1,269

Percent............................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family-related reasons......... 26.3 24.7 28.5 29.4

Change in marital status............. 6.7 6.4 7.1 5.9

To establish own household.......... 7.0 8.8 4.5 4.6

Other family reasons . . . ............. 12.6 9.5 16.8 19.0

Work-related reasons .......... 15.6 6.0 28.3 38.1

New job/job transfer. . . .............. 8.8 1.7 18.6 22.6

To look for work/lost job . . . .......... 1.9 0.7 3.0 9.0

Closer to work/easier commute. . ..... 3.2 2.9 3.9 0.2

Retired ............................ 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6

Other job related reason............. 1.4 0.6 2.4 5.7

Housing-related reasons ....... 51.3 65.3 33.5 8.8

Wanted to own home/not rent ........ 10.2 12.7 7.1 0.5

New/better house/apartment ......... 19.8 26.2 11.3 4.5

Better neighborhood/less crime....... 3.8 4.7 2.7 0.5

Cheaper housing . .................. 6.5 8.2 4.5 0.6

Other housing ...................... 11.0 13.5 7.8 2.7

Other reasons ................. 6.8 3.9 9.9 23.7

Attend/leave college ................ 2.5 1.1 4.2 9.1

Change of climate .................. 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.5

Health reasons ..................... 1.4 1.1 2.0 0.9

Other reason....................... 2.5 1.8 2.7 13.2

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

Supplement.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

Figure 5.

Reason for Move by Type of Move and Distance of Intercounty Move: 2002 to 2003 

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

(Percent distribution of movers 1 year and older)

500

or more

From Less than 50 50-199 200-499

abroad

Intracounty Intercounty

Miles

Other reasons

Family-related reasons

Work-related reasons

Housing-related reasons

14.5

24.7

6.0

65.3

3.9

28.5

28.3

33.8

9.9

29.4

38.1

8.8

23.7

29.3

16.8

48.4

5.5

28.1

31.4

28.9

11.6

26.2

30.7

34.2

9.0

29.5

38.4

17.6

Table G.

Reason for Moving by Educational Attainment and Type of Move: 2002 to 2003

(Movers, 18 years and older)

Less than High Some college

Reason for moving high school school or associate Bachelor’s Graduate

Total education graduate degree degree degree

Total movers (thousands)............. 29,154 4,839 8,694 8,343 5,323 1,956

Percent of movers: ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family-related reasons ................... 25.9 27.9 28.5 26.2 21.3 20.6

Work-related reasons .................... 16.3 12.5 13.4 15.2 22.6 25.3

Housing-related reasons ................. 50.0 53.4 51.4 48.9 47.4 47.0

Other reasons. .......................... 7.9 6.2 6.7 9.8 8.7 7.1

Intracounty movers....................... 16,675 3,161 5,095 4,779 2,697 942

Percent of movers: ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family-related reasons ................... 25.1 25.8 27.4 25.9 20.3 20.1

Work-related reasons. ................... 6.6 6.9 6.3 5.7 8.1 7.7

Housing-related reasons ................. 63.7 63.1 62.2 62.6 67.6 68.4

Other reasons . ......................... 4.6 4.2 4.1 5.8 4.0 3.8

Intercounty movers....................... 11,517 1,415 3,413 3,414 2,373 901

Percent of movers: ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family-related reasons ................... 27.1 32.3 30.1 27.0 22.4 20.2

Work-related reasons. ................... 28.2 19.3 23.0 27.8 36.7 41.0

Housing-related reasons ................. 33.6 39.8 37.3 31.5 28.9 30.3

Other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 8.6 9.7 13.7 12.0 8.5

From abroad ............................. 962 262 186 150 253 112

Percent of movers: ........................ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Family-related reasons ................... 25.3 29.1 30.8 16.8 21.7 27.1

Work-related reasons. ................... 40.1 44.0 31.6 29.4 45.3 47.3

Housing-related reasons ................. 7.9 9.2 11.4 9.2 5.6 2.6

Other reasons . ......................... 26.7 17.7 26.2 44.6 27.5 23.0

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Similar relationships appeared

among longer distance movers.

The likelihood of having moved for

a work-related reason followed a

positive linear relationship with

education, ranging from 19 percent of those with less than a high

school diploma to 41 percent of

those with a graduate degree.

Movers from abroad, however,

showed a different pattern by education level. Among this group, 

47 percent of those with a graduate degree and 44 percent of those

with less than a high school

education moved for work-related

reasons.17

REGIONAL MOVEMENTS

Interstate migration, along with

differences in rates of natural

increase (births minus deaths),

changes the distribution of the

population among regions of the

country. Table H shows the flows

of migrants among the four geographic regions of the United

States between 2002 and 2003.

The Midwest and the

Northeast experienced net

domestic migration loss of

population.

As during the 1990s, more people

moved away from the Northeast

than to it from other regions of the

country. Between 2002 and 2003,

the Midwest (-101,000) and the

Northeast (-98,000) both experienced net domestic migration loss

of population, while both the

South (125,000) and the West

(74,000) had net domestic migration gain of population.18 Much of

the net domestic migration loss

was offset, and net domestic

migration gain amplified, by

14 U.S. Census Bureau

17 The difference between those with a

graduate degree and those with less than a

high school education was not significantly

different. 18 Among the four regions, only the net

migration loss of the Northeast was statistically significant.

movers from abroad.19 Between

2002 and 2003, the Northeast

gained 161,000, the Midwest

179,000, the South 550,000, and

the West 380,000 movers from

abroad.20

SUMMARY

Moving rates have declined slightly

in recent years, but geographic

mobility remains an important

aspect of life in the United States.

People with different characteristics

have differing likelihoods of having

moved during the past year, with

some of these differences partially

explained by characteristics like age

and housing tenure. The type and

the distance of move also vary by

individual characteristics, and are

strongly correlated with the reason

behind these moves. Finally,

regional migration patterns within

the United States remain consistent

with past years, with net migration

loss in the Northeast. 

19 Net migration is only calculated for

domestic migration since the CPS does not

collect information about movers who left

the United States. 20 The Midwest and Northeast were not

statistically different from one another.

SOURCE OF DATA

Most estimates in this report are

from the Annual Social and

Economic Supplement (ASEC) to

the 2003 Current Population

Survey. Some estimates are based

on data collected by the CPS in earlier years. The population represented (the population universe) is

the civilian noninstitutionalized

population of the United States.

Members of the Armed Forces living off post or with their families

on post are included if there is at

least one civilian adult living in the

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). The Census

Bureau conducts the CPS every

month, but only collects data on

residential mobility in the Annual

Social and Economic Supplement.

Most of the data from the ASEC

were collected in March (with some

data collected in February and

April), and the data were controlled

Table H.

Migration by Region for the Population 1 Year and Older:

2002 to 2003

(Numbers in thousands)

Residence in 2002 Residence in 2003 (inmigrants)

(outmigrants) Total Northeast Midwest South West

DOMESTIC MIGRATION1

Total......................

Northeast .....................

2,693

483

385

*

574

71

1,016

319

718

93

Midwest ....................... 675 62 * 378 235

South . . ....................... 891 198 303 * 390

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 125 200 319 *

Net Domestic Migration . . . ...... 0 –98 –101 125 74

INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION

Movers from abroad2 ........... 1,270 161 179 550 380

1

Domestic migration limited to interregional migration.

2

Data not available on movers to abroad from the United States.

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

Supplement.
to independent population esti- Nonsampling errors in surveys may Demographic Statistical Methods

mates for March 2003. The sam- be attributed to a variety of Division on the Internet at

ple size of the ASEC is about sources, such as how the survey dsmd.source.and.accuracy@

78,000 interviewed households. was designed, how respondents census.gov.

For annual time series from the interpret questions, how able and

CPS, data collected in the 2003 willing respondents are to provide MORE INFORMATION

ASEC may be compared with data correct answers, and how accurate- A set of detailed tabulations from

collected in the March Supplement ly the answers are coded and classi- the 2003 CPS shows more detailed

to the CPS in prior years. fied. The Census Bureau employs characteristics of movers and nonquality control procedures through- movers by type of move for the Two significant changes were out the production process, includ- made to the processing of March United States and regions, as well ing the overall design of surveys, as reason-for-moving data. The 2001 and later ASECs that affect the wording of questions, review of electronic version of these tables is the estimates contained in this the work of interviewers and available on the Internet at report. The first change was the coders, and statistical review of implementation of population con- www.census.gov, under “subjects A reports to minimize these errors. to Z,” then “M” for “Migration.” trols based on Census 2000,

replacing those based on the 1990 The Current Population Survey CONTACTS Census of Population and Housing. weighting procedure uses ratio

The second was the State estimation whereby sample esti- Information and 

Children’s Health Insurance (SCHIP) mates are adjusted to independent Research Services Branch

sample expansion. The use of estimates of the national popula- pop@census.gov

independent survey controls and tion by age, race, sex, and 301-763-2422

the SCHIP expansion are explained Hispanic origin. This weighting Jason P Schachter in more detail in Bureau of Labor partially corrects for bias due to Jason.p.schachter@census.gov Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau, undercoverage, but biases may still 301-763-2419 Current Population Survey be present when people who are

Technical Paper 63RV, Design and missed by the survey differ from USER COMMENTS Methodology, TP63RV, Washington those interviewed in ways other

DC, March 2002. than age, race, sex, and Hispanic The Census Bureau welcomes the

origin. How this weighting proce- comments and advice of users of

ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES dure affects other variables in the our data and reports. If you have

survey is not precisely known. All any suggestions or comments, Statistics from surveys are subject of these considerations affect com- please write to: to sampling and nonsampling error. parisons across different surveys All comparisons presented in this Chief, Population Division or data sources. report have taken sampling error U.S. Census Bureau

into account and are significant at For further information on statistical Washington, DC 20233

the 90-percent confidence level. standards and the computation and Or send e-mail to: This means the 90-percent confi- use of standard errors, go to pop@census.gov dence interval for the difference www.bls.census.gov/cps/ads/2002

between the estimates being com- /S&A_02.pdf or contact Rebecca

pared does not include zero. Olson of the Census Bureau

U.S. Census Bureau 15
U.S. Department of Commerce

FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300