U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Support Providers: 2002

Household Economic Studies

P70-99

Issued February 2005

Current

Population

Reports

By

Timothy S. Grall

For many, the financial support received 12 months prior to the interview. (See

from people outside their household can Text Box: Who is a support provider?)

be an important source of income. In

most cases, payments are made to help ALL SUPPORT PROVIDERS2

support children, but they can also sup- In 2002, 7.8 million people port other nonhousehold members, such provided an aggregate $40 billion as an elderly parent. This report looks at in financial support to people monetary support provided for people living outside their household. 

living in other households, particularly About 60 percent of support paid ($24 children under 21. The data in this

billion) was exclusively for children report are from the 2001 panel of the under 21 years old living outside the Survey of Income and Program household, averaging $4,200 for the Participation (SIPP), a national longitudi- prior 12 months. Although less ($13 bil- nal survey conducted by the U.S. Census lion) was paid to other nonhousehold Bureau. Interviews for the Support for members who were at least age 21, the Nonhousehold Members Topical Module average annual amount paid was higher were collected from June through

September of 2002.1 Questions about

interhousehold financial support pay- 2 The estimates in this report (which may be

ments refer to those made in the shown in text, figures, and tables) are based on

responses from a sample of the population and may

differ from the actual values because of sampling

variability or other factors. As a r esult, apparent dif- 1 The data in this report were collected from June ferences between the estimates for two or mor e

through September 2002 in the fifth wave (interview) groups may not be statistically significant. All com -

of the 2001 SIPP. The population represented (the parative statements have undergone statistical testpopulation universe) is the civilian noninstitutional- ing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence

ized population of the United States. level unless otherwise noted.

Who is a support provider?

• Everyone who answered "Yes" to the following SIPP question is

considered a child support provider:

During the past 12 months, did you make payments for the support of your

child or children under 21 years of age who live outside of this household?

• Those answering "Yes" to the following SIPP question are also

support providers, but to other related and unrelated adults living

outside their household:

During the past 12 months, did you make r egular or lump-sum payments for the

support of any other person not living in this household?
2 U.S. Census Bureau

4ABLE 

3ELECTED #HARACTERISTICS OF !LL &INANCIAL 3UPPORT 0ROVIDERS TO .ONHOUSEHOLD

-EMBERS 

.UMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT DOLLAR AMOUNTS	

0ROVIDERS ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN 0ROVIDERS TO OTHER

!LL PROVIDERS UNDER  NONHOUSEHOLD MEMBERS


 
 
 
 
 


PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 #HARACTERISTICS CENT CENT CENT CENT CENT CENT

CONFI
 CONFI
 CONFI
 CONFI
 CONFI
 CONFI


DENCE DENCE DENCE DENCE DENCE DENCE

INTER
 0ER
 INTER
 INTER
 0ER
 INTER
 INTER
 0ER
 INTER


4OTAL VAL p	 CENT VAL p	 4OTAL VAL p	 CENT VAL p	 4OTAL VAL p	 CENT VAL p	

4OTAL                           8	    8	    8	

!VERAGE SUPPORT AMOUNT PAID

DURING PRIOR  MONTHS             8	 8	   8	 8	   8	 8	

!VERAGE ANNUALIZED FAMILY INCOME

FOR PRIOR  MONTHS                 8	 8	   8	 8	   8	 8	

-EDIAN SUPPORT AMOUNT PAID

DURING PRIOR  MONTHS             8	 8	   8	 8	   8	 8	

-EDIAN ANNUALIZED FAMILY INCOME

FOR PRIOR  MONTHS                 8	 8	   8	 8	   8	 8	

3EX

-ALE                                        

&EMALE                                     

!GE

5NDER  YEARS                              


                                       


                                       


                                       

 YEARS AND OVER                            

2ACE AND (ISPANIC /RIGIN

7HITE NOT (ISPANIC                          

"LACK                                       

!SIAN AND 0ACIFIC )SLANDER                     

!MERICAN )NDIAN AND !LASKA

.ATIVE                                     

(ISPANIC ORIGIN OF ANY RACE	                   

(OUSEHOLD 4YPE

&AMILY HOUSEHOLDS                           

-ARRIED COUPLE                             

-ALE HOUSEHOLDER NO SPOUSE

PRESENT                                  

&EMALE HOUSEHOLDER NO

SPOUSE PRESENT                           

.ONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS                        

-ALE HOUSEHOLDER                          

&EMALE HOUSEHOLDER                        

-ARITAL 3TATUS

-ARRIED SPOUSE PRESENT                      

3EPARATED                                   

$IVORCED                                    

7IDOWED                                    

.EVER MARRIED                               

0OVERTY 3TATUS IN 3URVEY

-ONTH

&AMILY INCOME BELOW POVERTY LEVEL             

%DUCATIONAL !TTAINMENT

,ESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA                 

(IGH SCHOOL GRADUATE                         

,ESS THAN  YEARS OF COLLEGE                  

"ACHELORS DEGREE OR MORE                    

%MPLOYMENT 3TATUS

7ORKED FULL TIME AT LEAST  HOURS

EVERY WEEK IN PAST MONTH                    

7ORKED AT LEAST SOME TIME IN PAST

MONTH NOT FULL TIME                          

$ID NOT WORK IN PAST MONTH                    

8 2EPRESENTS NOT APPLICABLE

 !MOUNT EXCLUDES SUPPORT PAID BY PROVIDERS WHO MADE PAYMENTS BOTH FOR THEIR CHILDREN AND OTHER NONHOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

3OURCE 53 #ENSUS "UREAU 3URVEY OF )NCOME AND 0ROGRAM 0ARTICIPATION *UNE
3EPTEMBER 
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Figure 1.

Median Annual Amount of Support Provided 

by the Relationship of the Recipient to 

the Nonhousehold Provider: 2002

Note: Relationship is of the youngest financial support recipient. Amounts rounded 

to nearest $100.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

June-September, 2002.

Parent

Other related or

unrelated people

Own childunder 21

Adult child

Spouse or ex-spouse

$1,500

$1,600

$3,400

$4,000

$6,000

($6,100) (Table 1). An additional

$3 billion of support was paid for

both children and other nonhousehold members.

Most providers (73 percent) who

supported people outside their

households made payments for

their children under 21 who lived

in another household. The remaining 27 percent made payments to

support other people, either related or unrelated, who lived in

another household.

Five years earlier, in 1997, there

were 8 percent fewer support

providers (7.2 million). Total

aggregate support paid in that year

was about 15 percent less, or $34

billion, when adjusted to 2002 dollars. The inflation-adjusted average annual support paid in 1997

by all providers was $4,700, about

8 percent less than the average

amount paid in 2002, $5,200.

The median annual amount of

support varied according to

the relationship of the

recipient to the provider. 

Providers paid a median of $3,400

(±$300) a year on behalf of their

children under 21. Parents of the

provider ($1,500 ±$300) and other

related or unrelated people

($1,600 ±$500), were given the

lowest median amounts of support, as seen in Figure 1.3

Child support providers’ median

family incomes were considerably

lower than those of providers supporting other people outside their

household ($42,000 versus

$52,000); yet both groups paid a

similar proportion (8 percent) of

their average family income for

support. Child support providers

3 The median support received by parents

of the provider ($1,500) was not significantly different from the amount received by

other related or unrelated people ($1,600).

were more likely to have family

incomes below the poverty level in

the survey month (9 percent) than

providers to other nonhousehold

members (6 percent) (Table 1).

Men were more likely than

women to provide support to

nonhousehold members. 

Approximately three-quarters 

(77 percent) of all support

providers were men. 

About 82 percent of all providers

had worked at least some time

during each week in the month

prior to the interview.4 Providers

to children were less likely (16 percent) than providers to other people (23 percent) not to have

worked at all in the prior month. 

Providers to other related and

unrelated nonhousehold members

tended to have higher educational

attainment than providers to children. About two-thirds (64 percent) of adult support providers

and one-half (48 percent) of child

support providers had attended at

least some college. Providers to

people other than children were

also more likely (74 percent) than

child support providers (63 percent) to reside in family households. Over half of financial

providers to adult nonhousehold

members were married (56 percent), compared with only about

one-third of child support

providers (37 percent) (Table 1).

4 The proportion of all support providers

who were male (77 percent) was not statistically different from the proportion of all

providers who worked at least some time

during each week in the month prior to

interview (82 percent).
CHILD SUPPORT PROVIDERS

In 2002, 5.7 million people

provided financial support for

their minor children.

5

The large majority (84 percent) of

child support providers were men,

while 16 percent were women

(Figure 2). Most child support pay -

ers supported one child (62 percent), while 28 percent made financial payments for two children, and

10 percent for three or more children (Table 2). 

About three-quarters (76 percent)

of child support providers made

payments as a result of a child

support agreement or court order.

The bulk of these, 92 percent,

were court-ordered or ratified by

the court. Male providers were

more likely to make payments

under a child support agreement

or court order (80 percent) than

female providers (55 percent).

The two most common methods of

payment for those with an agreement or court order were wage

withholding and direct payment to

the other parent, each accounting

for about one-third of the ways

payments were made, as shown in

Figure 3 and Table 2. 

About one-third (38 percent)

of parents paying child

support provided health

insurance for their children,

paid their medical bills, or

included health care costs in

their child support payments. 

Approximately 18 percent of custodial parents were responsible for

their children’s health care costs.

About 17 percent of custodial parents had no provisions for health 4 U.S. Census Bureau 

Figure 2.

Selected Characteristics of Providers of 

Financial Child Support: 2002

*Excludes providers who also provided support for other nonhousehold members.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

June-September, 2002.

(In percent)

Asian and Pacific Islander

Income below povertylevel

Hispanic origin (of any race)

Female provider*

Black

Provides to two or more children*

Provides health insurance*

At least some college

Under 40 years of age

Infamily household

White,not Hispanic

With childsupport agreement* Workedin month before interview

Male provider* 84.5

84.4

76.2

67.0

63.4

52.6

48.4

38.4

38.2

16.4

15.5

14.4

9.2

2.1

Figure 3. Methods of Providing Child Support Payments: 2002 

Note: Payments as result of child support agreement or orde

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

June-September, 2002. Wage withholding 33.8% Other methods 2.4%

To child support agency 14.3%

To our 17.7%

To other parent 31.7%
U.S. Census Bureau 5

4ABLE 

3ELECTED #HARACTERISTICS OF 3UPPORT 2ECEIVED ON "EHALF OF #HILDREN 5NDER  9EARS /LD

,IVING IN !NOTHER (OUSEHOLD BY 3EX OF 0ROVIDER 

.UMBERS IN THOUSANDS	

#HARACTERISTICS

0ROVIDERS ON BEHALF OF

CHILDREN UNDER  -ALE PROVIDERS &EMALE PROVIDERS


 


PER
 PER


CENT CENT

CONFI
 CONFI


DENCE DENCE

INTER
 0ER
 INTER


4OTAL VAL p	 CENT VAL p	 4OTAL




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER
 0ER


VAL p	 CENT




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER
 0ER


4OTAL VAL p	 CENT




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	

4OTAL                     

.UMBER OF #HILDREN 3UPPORTED

 CHILD                        

 CHILDREN                     

 OR MORE CHILDREN              

0AYMENTS AS A RESULT OF CHILD

SUPPORT AGREEMENT OR COURT

ORDER                        

0ERCENT                       

6OLUNTARY AND RATIFIED BY THE

COURT                         

#OURT
ORDERED AGREEMENT        

/THER WRITTEN AGREEMENT        

.ONWRITTEN AGREEMENT          

(OW 0AYMENTS !RE -ADE

7AGE WITHHOLDING              

$IRECTLY TO OTHER PARENT          

$IRECTLY TO COURT                

$IRECTLY TO CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY  

/THER METHOD                  

(EALTH )NSURANCE 0ROVISIONS

.ONCUSTODIAL PARENT PROVIDES    

#USTODIAL PARENT PROVIDES       

.ONCUSTODIAL PARENT PAYS BILLS   

)NCLUDED IN CHILD SUPPORT PAY


MENTS                        

/THER PROVISION                 

.O PROVISION                   

#USTODY !RRANGEMENTS

*OINT LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY  

*OINT LEGAL WITH MOTHER PHYSICAL

CUSTODY                      

*OINT LEGAL WITH FATHER PHYSICAL

CUSTODY                      

-OTHER LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUS


TODY                         

&ATHER LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUS


TODY                         

3PLIT CUSTODY                   

/THER CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS     



























































































































8	













































8	









8	







































































































































































8	













































8	









8	







































































































































































8	













































8	









8	













































8 2EPRESENTS NOT APPLICABLE

 %XCLUDES  PROVIDERS WHO ALSO PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR OTHER ADULT NONHOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

3OURCE 53 #ENSUS "UREAU 3URVEY OF )NCOME AND 0ROGRAM 0ARTICIPATION *UNE
3EPTEMBER 
insurance for their children in their

child support agreement or court

order (Table 2).6

Approximately half (53 percent) of

people who provided financial support for their children were under

40 years of age. Two-thirds 

(67 percent) of child support

providers were White, not Hispanic;

16 percent were Black; 2 percent

were Asian and Pacific Islander;

and a similar proportion were

American Indian and Alaska Native.

About 14 percent were of Hispanic

origin (Table 3).7

The median annual amount of

support provided for children

under 21 varied by the

characteristics of the provider. 

For example, child support

providers with a college degree

6 The proportion of custodial parents who

were responsible for their children’s health

care costs (18 percent) was not statistically

different from the proportion with no provisions for their children’s health care in their

support agreements (17 percent). 7 Because Hispanics may be of any race,

data in this report for Hispanics overlap with

data for racial groups. Being Hispanic was

reported by 16 percent of White child support providers and 8 percent of Black child

support providers. The proportion of child

support providers who were Black (16 percent) was not statistically different from the

proportion who were Hispanic (14 percent).

paid a higher amount ($4,500)

than those with less than a high

school diploma ($2,400).

Providers who worked full-time

every week in the past month or

had family incomes above the

poverty level provided an annual

median of approximately $3,600 in

support for their children. This

was about twice as high as their

nonworking and below-poverty

counterparts who provided an

annual median of $1,500 in support (Table 3).

Male child support providers paid

an annual median of $3,600 for

support of their children, 50 percent more than was paid by female

child support providers ($2,400).

The most prevalent type of custody arrangement was the mother

having both legal and physical custody (28 percent). The median

amount of support paid in this

type of situation was $3,600 per

year. The second most common

custody arrangement was joint

legal custody between both parents with the mother having sole

physical custody (20 percent). The

median amount of child support

paid in these arrangements was

higher, $4,800 (Table 4).

OTHER SUPPORT

PROVIDERS

In 2002, 2.1 million people

provided support to people

other than their minor

children living outside 

their household. 

A larger proportion of other nonhousehold support providers was

men (58 percent) than women 

(42 percent) (Table 5).

Support for one person was most

common (70 percent), while 21 percent made payments for two

people, and 9 percent for three or

more people. The relationship of

the support recipient to the support

payer was likely to be a parent 

(36 percent), a child over 21 years

of age (27 percent), or another relative (23 percent).8 Spouses or exspouses accounted for 11 percent

of people receiving nonhousehold

support payments (Table 5).

6 U.S. Census Bureau

8 The proportion of support recipients

who were children over 21 years old (27 percent) was not statistically different from the

proportion of recipients who were another

type of relative (23 percent), or from the proportion of providers supporting two people

(21 percent). The proportion of support

receivers who were spouses or ex-spouses

(11 percent) was not statistically different

from the proportion of providers to three or

more people (9 percent).
U.S. Census Bureau 7

4ABLE 

!MOUNTS 2ECEIVED ON "EHALF OF #HILDREN 5NDER  9EARS /LD ,IVING IN !NOTHER

(OUSEHOLD BY 3ELECTED #HARACTERISTICS OF 0ROVIDERS 

.UMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT DOLLAR AMOUNTS	

!LL PROVIDERS TO CHILDREN

UNDER  -ALE PROVIDERS &EMALE PROVIDERS


 
 
 
 
 


PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 PER
 #HARACTERISTICS CENT CENT CENT CENT CENT CENT

CONFI
 -EDIAN CONFI
 CONFI
 -EDIAN CONFI
 CONFI
 -EDIAN CONFI


DENCE SUPPORT DENCE DENCE SUPPORT DENCE DENCE SUPPORT DENCE

INTER
 PRO
 INTER
 INTER
 PRO
 INTER
 INTER
 PRO
 INTER


4OTAL VAL p	 VIDED VAL p	 4OTAL VAL p	 VIDED VAL p	 4OTAL VAL p	 VIDED VAL p	

4OTAL                                  

!GE

5NDER  YEARS                            


                                     


                                     


                                     

 YEARS AND OVER                         "	 8	

2ACE AND (ISPANIC /RIGIN

7HITE NOT (ISPANIC                         

"LACK                                     

!SIAN AND 0ACIFIC )SLANDER                  "	 8	

!MERICAN )NDIAN AND !LASKA

.ATIVE                                  "	 8	

(ISPANIC ORIGIN OF ANY RACE	                 

(OUSEHOLD 4YPE

&AMILY HOUSEHOLDS                         

-ARRIED COUPLE                           

-ALE HOUSEHOLDER NO SPOUSE

PRESENT                               "	 8	

&EMALE HOUSEHOLDER NO

SPOUSE PRESENT                         

.ONFAMILY HOUSEHOLDS                      

-ALE HOUSEHOLDER                        

&EMALE HOUSEHOLDER                      

-ARITAL 3TATUS

-ARRIED SPOUSE PRESENT                    

3EPARATED                                "	 8	

$IVORCED                                  

7IDOWED                         "	 8	   "	 8	   "	 8	

.EVER MARRIED                             

0OVERTY 3TATUS IN 3URVEY

-ONTH

&AMILY INCOME BELOW POVERTY

LEVEL                                     

&AMILY INCOME ABOVE POVERTY

LEVEL                                     

%DUCATIONAL !TTAINMENT

,ESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA               

(IGH SCHOOL GRADUATE                       

,ESS THAN  YEARS OF COLLEGE                 

"ACHELORS DEGREE OR MORE                  

%MPLOYMENT 3TATUS

7ORKED FULL TIME AT LEAST  HOURS

EVERY WEEK IN PAST MONTH                  

7ORKED AT LEAST SOME TIME IN

PAST MONTH NOT FULL TIME                   

$ID NOT WORK IN PAST MONTH                  

8 2EPRESENTS NOT APPLICABLE " 2EPRESENTS BASE TOO SMALL TO SHOW DERIVED MEASURE

3OURCE 53 #ENSUS "UREAU 3URVEY OF )NCOME AND 0ROGRAM 0ARTICIPATION *UNE
3EPTEMBER 
8 U.S. Census Bureau

4ABLE 

!MOUNTS 2ECEIVED ON "EHALF OF #HILDREN 5NDER  9EARS /LD ,IVING IN !NOTHER

(OUSEHOLD BY 3ELECTED #HARACTERISTICS OF 3UPPORT 

.UMBERS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT DOLLAR AMOUNTS	

#HARACTERISTICS

0ROVIDERS ON BEHALF OF

CHILDREN UNDER  -ALE PROVIDERS &EMALE PROVIDERS


 


PER
 PER


CENT CENT

CONFI
 -EDIAN CONFI


DENCE SUPPORT DENCE

INTER
 PRO
 INTER


4OTAL VAL p	 VIDED VAL p	 4OTAL




PER


CENT

CONFI
 -EDIAN

DENCE SUPPORT

INTER
 PRO


VAL p	 VIDED




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	 4OTAL




PER


CENT

CONFI
 -EDIAN

DENCE SUPPORT

INTER
 PRO


VAL p	 VIDED




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	

4OTAL                     

.UMBER OF #HILDREN 3UPPORTED

 CHILD                        

 CHILDREN                     

 OR MORE CHILDREN              

0AYMENTS AS A RESULT OF CHILD

SUPPORT AGREEMENT OR COURT

ORDER                        

6OLUNTARY AND RATIFIED BY THE

COURT                         

#OURT
ORDERED AGREEMENT        

/THER WRITTEN AGREEMENT        

.ONWRITTEN AGREEMENT          

0AYMENTS NOT AS A RESULT OF

CHILD SUPPORT AGREEMENT OR

COURT ORDER                  

(OW 0AYMENTS !RE -ADE

7AGE WITHHOLDING              

$IRECTLY TO OTHER PARENT          

$IRECTLY TO COURT                

$IRECTLY TO CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY  

/THER METHOD                  

(EALTH )NSURANCE 0ROVISIONS

.ONCUSTODIAL PARENT PROVIDES    

#USTODIAL PARENT PROVIDES       

.ONCUSTODIAL PARENT PAYS BILLS   

)NCLUDED IN CHILD SUPPORT PAY


MENTS                        

/THER PROVISION                 

.O PROVISION                   

#USTODY !RRANGEMENTS

*OINT LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUSTODY  

*OINT LEGAL WITH MOTHER PHYSICAL

CUSTODY                      

*OINT LEGAL WITH FATHER PHYSICAL

CUSTODY                      

-OTHER LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUS


TODY                         

&ATHER LEGAL AND PHYSICAL CUS


TODY                         

3PLIT CUSTODY                   

/THER CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS     

















































































































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

















































































































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"	 8	

 

"	 8	

 

 































































































































"	

"	







"	



"	





"	

"	

"	



"	

"	



"	



"	

"	















8	

8	







8	



8	





8	

8	

8	



8	

8	



8	



8	

8	

8 2EPRESENTS NOT APPLICABLE " 2EPRESENTS BASE TOO SMALL TO SHOW DERIVED MEASURE

 %XCLUDES  PROVIDERS WHO ALSO PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR OTHER ADULT NONHOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

3OURCE 53 #ENSUS "UREAU 3URVEY OF )NCOME AND 0ROGRAM 0ARTICIPATION *UNE
3EPTEMBER 
U.S. Census Bureau 9

4ABLE 

3ELECTED #HARACTERISTICS 2ELATED TO 3UPPORT FOR .ONHOUSEHOLD -EMBERS  9EARS

AND /LDER 

.UMBERS IN THOUSANDS	

#HARACTERISTICS

0ROVIDERS TO OTHER

NONHOUSEHOLD MEMBERS -ALE PROVIDERS &EMALE PROVIDERS


 


PER
 PER


CENT CENT

CONFI
 CONFI


DENCE DENCE

INTER
 0ER
 INTER


4OTAL VAL p	 CENT VAL p	 4OTAL




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER
 0ER


VAL p	 CENT




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	 4OTAL




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER
 0ER


VAL p	 CENT




PER


CENT

CONFI


DENCE

INTER


VAL p	

4OTAL                          8	    8	    8	

.UMBER OF 0EOPLE 3UPPORTED

 PERSON                      

 PEOPLE                      

 OR MORE PEOPLE               









































































9OUNGEST !DULT 2ECIPIENT )S

0ARENT                        

3POUSE                       

%X
SPOUSE                     

#HILD OVER                   

/THER RELATIVE                  

.OT RELATED                    

















































































































































,OCATION OF 9OUNGEST !DULT

3UPPORT 2ECIPIENT

0RIVATE HOME OR APARTMENT      

3OMEPLACE ELSE                

















































8 2EPRESENTS NOT APPLICABLE

3OURCE 53 #ENSUS "UREAU 3URVEY OF )NCOME AND 0ROGRAM 0ARTICIPATION *UNE
3EPTEMBER 
SOURCE OF THE DATA confidence level unless otherwise in ways other than the age, race,

noted. This means the 90-percent sex, and Hispanic origin. How this The population represented in the confidence interval for the differ- weighting procedure affects other 2001 SIPP is the civilian noninstitu- ence between the estimates being variables in the survey is not pre- tionalized population living in the compared does not include zero. cisely known. All of these consider- United States. The SIPP is a longitu- Nonsampling errors in surveys may ations affect comparisons across dinal survey conducted at 4-month be attributed to a variety of different surveys or data sources. intervals. The data for this report

sources, such as how the survey is were collected from June through For further information on the designed, how respondents inter- September 2002 in the fifth wave source of the data and accuracy of pret questions, how able and will- (interview) of the 2001 SIPP. The the estimates, including standard ing respondents are to provide cor- institutionalized population, which errors and confidence intervals, go rect answers, and how accurately is excluded from the population to <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp the answers are coded and classi- universe, is composed primarily of /sourceac/S&A01_w1tow6_cross fied. The Census Bureau employs the population in correctional insti- _puf.pdf> or contact quality control procedures through- tutions and nursing homes (91 per- Reid Rottach of the Census out the production process includ- cent of the 4.1 million institutional- Bureau’s Demographic Statistical ing the overall design of surveys, ized people in Census 2000). Methods Division at the wording of questions, review <Reid.A.Rottach@census.gov>. of the work of interviewers and ACCURACY OF THE DATA Further information on the SIPP coders, and statistical review of

The estimates in this report (which may be found in the SIPP Users’ reports to minimize these errors.

may be shown in text, figures, and Guide at <www.sipp.census.gov The Survey of Income and Program /sipp/usrguide/sipp2001.pdf> or tables) are based on responses Participation weighting procedure the SIPP Quality Profile at from a sample of the population uses ratio estimation, whereby

and may differ from the actual val- <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp sample estimates are adjusted to

ues because of sampling variability /workpapr/wp230.pdf>. independent estimates of the

or other factors. As a result, national population by age, race, For further information on the

apparent differences between the sex, and Hispanic origin. This content of the report, contact estimates for two or more groups weighting partially corrects for John J. Hisnanick, Longitudinal may not be statistically significant. bias due to undercoverage, but Income Statistics Branch, at All comparative statements have biases may still be present when <John.J.Hisnanick@census.gov> or undergone statistical testing and people who are missed by the sur- at 301-763-6685.

are significant at the 90-percent vey differ from those interviewed

10 U.S. Census Bureau
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