Tracking Hispanic Ethnicity: Evaluation of 

Current Population Survey Data Quality for 

the Question on Hispanic Origin, 1971 to 

2004 

by Dianne Schmidley and Arthur Cresce 

This paper is released to inform interested parties of ongoing 

research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. The views 

expressed on statistical, methodological, and technical issues are 

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

Bureau. 

The authors wish to thank Gregory Weyland in the Demographic 

Surveys Division, Kimball Jonas in the Demographic Statistical 

Methods Division, and Jorge del Pinal, Campbell Gibson, Roberto 

Ramirez and Anna Owens in the Population Division for their helpful 

comments on this paper. 

Tracking Hispanic Ethnicity: Evaluation of Current 

Population Survey Data Quality for the Question on 

Hispanic Origin, 1971 to 2004 

Contents 
Introduction. 

• 1. Overview of our approach 

• 2. Data sources 

• 3. What is ethnicity? 

• 4. How does the Current Population Survey work? 

• 4.1. CPS sample universe 

• 4.2. CPS sample design - selected aspects 

• 4.3. CPS sample weighting 

• 5. How has the Census Bureau conceptualized and measured 

ethnicity using the CPS? 

• 5.1. Hispanic origin questions 

• 5.2. CPS Hispanic data changes since 2000 

• 5.2.1.The new Hispanic origin question 

• 5.2.2. Results from changes in Hispanic question wording tied to 

nativity 

• 5.2.2.1. Natives more likely than foreign born to change reporting 

behavior 

• 5.2.2.2. Detailed Hispanic responses increased among the 

foreign born 

• 5.2.2.3. Response validity and the new question 

• 5.2.2.4. Rethinking Hispanic 

• 5.3. CPS 2001 sample expansion 

• 5.4. The Census 2000 benchmark 

• 5.5. Summary: What has happened to the CPS Hispanic data 

over time? 

• 6. Recommendations 

• References 

• Figure 1. CPS Hispanic/Spanish Population, 1971 - 2004 

• Figure 2. Selected CPS Hispanic Groups, 1971 - 2004 

• Table 1. Spanish/Hispanic Population in the U.S. 1971 - 2004: 

CPS Annual Supplemental Survey 

• Table 2. Selected Hispanic Groups: January to June 2003 
• Table 3-A. Population by Hispanic Origin for the 'New' and 'Old' 

Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 

• Table 3-B. Foreign-Born Population by Hispanic Origin for the 

'New' and 'Old' Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 

• Table 3-C. Native Population by Hispanic Origin for the 'New' and 

'Old' Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 

• Table 4-A. Place of Birth for Selected Hispanic Groups, 2003 

• Table 4-B. Place of Birth of Mother for Selected Hispanic Groups, 

2003 

• Table 4-C. Place of Birth of Father for Selected Hispanic Groups, 

2003 

• Table 5. Place of Birth of Persons for Selected Hispanic Groups: 

2003 and 2004 

• Table 6. Comparison of Selected Characteristics of the Hispanic 

Population: Current Population Survey – Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement(ASEC): 2001 and 2002 

• Appendix A - CPS and Census Hispanic origin questions 1970 to 

2003 

• Appendix B. Abstract: Matched Hispanic Origin Responses from 

Census 2000 and the Current Population Survey February to May 

2000 

Tracking Hispanic Ethnicity: Evaluation of Current 

Population Survey Data Quality for the Question on 

Hispanic Origin, 1971 to 2004 

Dianne Schmidley and Arthur Cresce 

Introduction. 
In 1992, the United States Census Bureau and Statistics Canada held 

a joint conference on the topic of ethnicity in Ottawa, Canada. Among 

other aspects of ethnicity, the speakers attending the conference 

shared various national experiences with conceptualizing and 

measuring ethnicity; assessing the need for ethnicity data in their 

respective countries; and describing the social-political contexts 

associated with the collection and use of ethnicity data. [1]

For several decades, the Census Bureau has attempted to 

operationally define and measure the population referred to as 

Spanish, Hispanic or Latino, an ethnic category first recognized 

officially by the Office of Management and Budget of the U.S. 

government in the 1970s. [2] This paper describes an evaluation of 

the Hispanic data reported in the Current Population Survey (CPS) 

over the past thirty-five years (1969 to 2004), while focusing in 

particular on events transpiring during and since 2000. The paper 

also complements a discussion the authors initiated concerning the 

Census Bureau’s experience with Hispanic origin data reported in the 

decennial censuses. [3] 

1. Overview of our approach 

In the next sections, we provide a brief overview of the mechanics of 

the CPS which has measured Hispanic ethnicity since 1969. In this 

part of our paper we focus on various aspects of the survey that 

directly affect Hispanic data results. We then present an overview of 

the Census Bureau experience with CPS Hispanic origin data 

collected between 1969 when the CPS first asked an ethnic origin or 

descent question through 2002, when the Census Bureau introduced 

specific Hispanic origin questions designed to approximate the 

Hispanic origin question asked in Census 2000. In this part of our 

paper we refer to the shifts that took place in the CPS Hispanic data 

over the thirty-five year period as the Census Bureau calibrated CPS 

data to match the census results, which reflected Hispanic population 
growth decade by decade. We continue the paper by comparing CPS 

Hispanic origin data with results from other sources. In the last 

segments of the paper we focus on how the CPS has changed since 

2002 following the introduction of the new CPS Hispanic origin 

question. [4] 

Specifically, in this paper we: 

• Assess the Internal consistency of CPS reporting; 

• Compare CPS data with data from other sources such as Census 

2000. [5]

2. Data sources 

We used the following resources to carry out our research (goal in 

parentheses): 

• CPS annual demographic supplement files as well as printed 

reports and tables --1969 to 2004; decennial census results; 

immigration data. (examine change over time); 

• A specially prepared file containing matched cases showing 

Hispanic origin data collected in Census 2000 and CPS 

information collected February through May of 2000 (gauge 

effects associated with differing data collection modes and 

question design); 

• A file containing CPS cases interviewed in a special supplement 

fielded in May 2002 that included both the old (pre-2002) CPS 

ethnic origin question and the new (2002) CPS Hispanic origin 

questions (specifically gauge question effect); 

• 2000 CPS March supplement cases (ASEC) weighted with 1990-

based and 2000-based second stage weights (assess Census 

2000 weighting changes); and 

• 2003 and 2004 Basic CPS and ASEC data. 

3. What is ethnicity? 
For over a century, social scientists have struggled to define and 

measure the phenomenon called ethnicity. Speakers attending the 

Joint Canada-United States Conference on the Measurement of 

Ethnicity in April 1992 [6] observed that anthropologists, sociologists, 

historians, demographers, and other researchers have all viewed the 

concept of ethnicity somewhat differently. While social psychologists 

and anthropologists have attempted to measure ethnicity using 

attitudinal scales and other instruments designed to assess mental 

processes associated with self concept, demographers have been 

more inclined to use: 1) external empirical criteria shown to be linked 

to the concept of ethnicity, such as place of birth, birthplace of parents 

(parential nativity), language spoken, or surname [7] , as well as 2) 

self-reported information. In this paper, we provide data on ethnicity 

based primarily on self-reported information. 

4. How does the Current Population Survey work? [8]

Before we begin the discussion of our findings and conclusions 

regarding CPS Hispanic origin data, it is important to review some 

important characteristics of the CPS which play a role in the 

development of Hispanic data. 

4.1. CPS sample universe. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the primary sponsor of the 

CPS and refers to it as the 'Household Survey' in publications such as 

Employment and Earnings. In published reports, the Census Bureau 

states that the CPS universe is the civilian noninstitutionalized 

population. The Current Population Survey Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement (ASEC) universe also includes households 

with military members who live off post or on post with their families 

as long as one civilian adult lives in the housing unit. [9] Although it is 

probably easier for the lay person to think of the CPS as a household 

survey as opposed to a survey of the civilian noninstitutionalized 
population, there are a few caveats associated with either 

classification. 

Residents of the United States live in either households or group 

quarters (GQ). [10] The GQ population can be categorized as 

institutionalized or noninstitutionalized and civilian or military. People 

living in relatively homogeneous group quarters circumstances, such 

as soldiers in military barracks, patients in nursing homes, and 

incarcerated prisoners, are relatively easy to exclude from the civilian 

noninstitutionalized population. However, other population groups 

such as households with military members, college students in dorm 

rooms whose usual place of residence is a parental home, or the staff 

of prisons and hospitals who live in census defined special places are 

more difficult to classify. 

Estimates of the Hispanic population reflected in the CPS somewhat 

understate the resident population reflected in censuses, since the 

CPS does not include people living in institutional group quarters such 

as nursing homes, and correctional institutions. [11]

4.2. CPS sample design - Selected aspects. [12]

The CPS sample design is fully described elsewhere. [13] However, it 

is important to note a few aspects of the design that affect CPS 

Hispanic data (particular effects are discussed in more detail below): 

• The CPS is a multistage probability sample of housing units in the 

U.S. The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) 

includes additional sample to increase the precision of derived 

estimates associated with the Hispanic origin population. Neither 

the basic (monthly) or ASEC sample specifically target groups for 

Hispanic detail such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc. 

• CPS sample data are weighted to universe levels through a 

multistage process. The initial stage is based on the inverse 

proportion of the sampling probabilities. The last stage involves a 
ratio adjustment process where survey estimates are controlled to 

independent demographic estimates based on selected 

characteristics such as age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The 

last stage weights are re-calibrated after every decennial census. 

• CPS sample frame and stratification levels are based on the 

geographic distribution of the population as well as 

socioeconomic data drawn from the last census. Groups such as 

the total Hispanic origin population are targeted in the sample 

design strata and are therefore well represented from month to 

month although they are relatively non-randomly distributed 

across the United States. 

• On the other hand, depending on the size and distribution of their 

populations, the samples of detailed Hispanic groups may 

fluctuate more than the total Hispanic figures owing to the rotation 

of CPS sample panels. (Table 1, Table 2; Figure 1 and Figure 2). 

• Each monthly CPS sample contains eight rotation panels, and 

every household in the survey is assigned to a specific panel. 

Each panel is rotated in for 4 consecutive months, out for 8 

months, and back in for 4 months over a 16 month period, and 

then replaced. In any given month, one of the household panels 

is interviewed for the first time, one for the second time, and so 

on, up to eight. The CPS design includes a 75 percent overlap in 

the sample addresses from month to month and a 50 percent 

overlap from year to year for the same month, a feature that 

reduces sampling error for month-to-month and year-to-year 

comparisons. 

4.3. CPS sample weighting. 

The CPS is a "controlled" survey through which the Census Bureau 

transforms sample counts into national population totals in several 

stages. [14] The initial stage of weighting is done at the household 

level when base-weights are assigned to sample cases (a weight 

equal to the inverse of the case's probability of selection). The next 
major step in the primary stage of weighting the sample data is to 

inflate the base-weights by an average of about 6 to 7 percent to 

account for non-interview households (units eligible for interview but 

not actually interviewed). 

The second stage of weighting involves individual person cases. This 

step is designed to compensate for deficiencies resulting from survey 

under-coverage of the sample frame by controlling the first-stage 

weighted sample data to demographic estimates derived from 

combining census and administrative records data. Second-stage 

weights are based on three distributions derived independently of the 

CPS: 

• State of residence; 

• Age, sex, and Hispanic origin; and 

• Age, sex, and race. 

The independent values from the demographic estimates used to 

weight the survey are benchmarked to the previous census. [15]

5. How has the Census Bureau conceptualized and measured 

ethnicity using the CPS? 

5.1. Hispanic origin questions. 

The influx of refugees from Cuba beginning in the early 1960s, as well 

as subsequent changes in U.S. immigration law in 1965, substantially 

changed the composition of the U.S. foreign-born population. [16] In 

the late 1960s, it became apparent to demographers reviewing 

administrative data, such as vital statistics and immigration data, that 

the volume of residents with a non-European background had shifted 

dramatically. After examining their findings, OMB advised the Census 

Bureau to use the CPS to pilot test a subjective origin or "descent" 

question designed to measure the ethnic composition of the U.S. 

household population (Question examples in Appendix A). [17] To 
obtain a basis for comparing the validity of the “Origin” question, the 

CPS also asked questions about demographic characteristics known 

to be highly correlated with ethnic identity such as birthplace, parental 

birthplace, and language. 

After the initial attempt to identify and measure the ethnic composition 

of the population using the November 1969 CPS, the Census Bureau 

decided to add a specific "Spanish origin" or "Descent" question to the 

1970 decennial census questionnaire (Appendix A). As a result, the 

1970 Census provided Spanish/Hispanic population data from several 

sources including : (1) a language question; (2) an origin or descent 

question; (3) Spanish surnames from a surname code list; 

(4) birthplace and (5) parental birthplace questions. [18]

Following the census of 1970, the Census Bureau continued to use 

the CPS origin/descent question fielded in 1969 to collect Spanish 

data, however, the birthplace questions were not included again in the 

CPS until 1994, when "place of birth" as well as "mother's place of 

birth" and "father's place of birth" questions were added to the core or 

basic CPS questionnaire. [19]

5.2. CPS Hispanic data changes since 2000. 

5.2.1. The new Hispanic origin question 

In January 2003, the CPS began to produce results from a set of new 

Hispanic origin questions added to the CPS in 2002 (Appendix A). 

Prior to this, CPS Hispanic data had been derived from the "origin or 

descent" question described above. That is, during the years 1971 to 

2002, Hispanic data were not produced by a direct question about 

Hispanic ethnicity, but rather by combining selected responses to a 

more general ethnic question. [20] On the other hand, the new 

Hispanic question(s) specifically asks “Are you/Is....Spanish, 

Hispanic, or Latino?” Persons responding “yes” are then asked a 

subsequent question, “Are you/Is....Mexican, Mexican-American, 
Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Cuban-American, or some other 

Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group?” thus naming the groups 

identified in the old descent question. A probe question is used to 

elicit more specific information about people responding affirmatively 

to the “Other” category. [21] The interviewer asks the probe question 

using a flash card containing a listing of 42 possible responses 

(Appendix A). 

The Hispanic detailed groups historically listed in CPS data products 

from the Census Bureau have included census categories in use 

since the 1970 Census (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or 

South American, and Other Hispanic). (Census data in Table A, CPS 

detail in Table 1, see Figures 1 and 2). Beginning January 2003, the 

new Hispanic origin questions included in the CPS made the addition 

of more specific Hispanic categories in Census Bureau Current 

Population Reports feasible. 

Table A. Detailed Hispanic Categories from the Census: 1970 to 1990 

Year Mexican Cuban Puerto Rican Total Hispanic 

1990 13.4 million 1.1 million 2.6 million 21.9 million 

1980 8.7 million 803,226 2.0 million 14.6 million 

1970 4.5 million 544,600 1.4 million 9.1 million 

Source: Census Bureau (2002), Working Paper No. 56 (Gibson and 

Jung) 

As a result, it is now possible to show the population totals as well as 

social and economic information for additional detailed Hispanic 

categories such as: "Dominican", "Salvadoran", "Other Central 

American", and South American" in CPS products (Table 2). 
5.2.2. Results from Changes in Hispanic Question Wording tied 

to Nativity. 

5.2.2.1 Natives more likely than foreign born to change reporting 

behavior. 

A research file from the May 2002 CPS supplement, containing 

responses from the old "origin or descent" question along with 

responses to the new Hispanic origin question(s) for the same 

person, reveals that the new question elicits a greater response of 

Hispanic origin (37.3 million) than does the old question (35.5 million) 

while the reverse appears to be true for "Other Hispanic" which 

seems to be higher for the old question (2.4 million) than the new 

question (2.2 million). (Table 3-A.) 

A more in-depth analysis of data from this matched file indicates that 

the increase in the number of Hispanic responses appears to be 

coming from the native population, about 22.8 million for the new 

question versus 21.0 million for the old question, for a difference of 

about two million compared with 14.6 million versus 14.5 million 

respectively for the foreign-born population. [22] ( Table 3-B and Table 

3-C). 

Although the questions seem to have produced no meaningful 

difference in the total number of Hispanics for the foreign-born, further 

investigation shows that the proportion of the foreign-born Hispanics 

who reported "Other Hispanic" in response to the old question 

declined from 4.3 percent to 1.9 percent in response to the new 

question. In comparison, native Hispanics reported more similar 

proportions (6.4 percent versus 5.9 percent). 

The 2002 file also indicates that among the 2.2 million persons 

reporting "Other' Hispanic in response to the new CPS question, 

about 31.8 percent previously had reported "Not Hispanic" to the old 

CPS question. Most of the respondents (89.8 percent) who switched 
from "Not Hispanic" to "Other Hispanic" were native. In fact, 84.3 

percent of the people who reported "Other Hispanic" to the new 

question were native. 

5.2.2.2. Detailed Hispanic responses increased among the 

foreign born. 

The new Hispanic question elicits a higher degree of reporting of 

specific Hispanic groups than does the "old" origin or descent 

question. [23] It also seems as though the new question format may 

have been more likely to increase detailed origin reporting among 

foreign-born Hispanics. 

Given the shift described in Section 5.2.2.1 concerning the decrease 

in people reporting "Other Hispanic", evidence from the matched file 

also shows that the new Hispanic question(s) led more people to 

report a specific Hispanic origin group, than did the old origin 

question. Many of those reporting "Other Hispanic" in response to the 

old question, provided a more detailed response to the second of the 

new questions which allows the respondent 42 choices, several of 

which are non-Hispanic. For example, Table 3-A shows that among 

those who said they were "Dominican" in response to the new 

question 44.8 percent had provided the more general "Other 

Hispanic" response to the old question. This shift was more 

pronounced among the foreign born where 48.7 percent of the 

Dominicans in the new question had responded "Other Hispanic" to 

the old question (Table 3-B), compared with the natives, where only 

38.4 percent of those identified as Dominican by the new question 

had responded "Other Hispanic" in the old question (Table 3-C). 

The data in these tables support the conclusion that those who 

provided detail for the old question continued to provide detail for the 

new question, although consistency appears to be better for the 

foreign-born population. For example, the percent reporting Mexican 
origin consistently between the new and old questions was 96.1 

percent for the foreign-born population and 90.1 percent for the native 

population. The corresponding percentages for Cubans were 91.7 

percent and 81.5 percent, respectively. Puerto Ricans are not foreign 

born; so no comparison can be made along the nativity dimension, 

however, the consistency for all Puerto Ricans was 85.7 percent. [24]

5.2.2.3. Response validity and the new question. 

Traditionally, statistical validity has referred to a measurement that is 

representative of, or an actual gauge for an observed phenomenon. 

By providing respondents greater choice, the new Hispanic origin 

question seems to improve the validity of responses by allowing 

interviewed subjects to better approximate their detailed Hispanic 

origin answers than did the old question. However, some caveats 

remain. 

Table 4-A reveals that long-standing detailed Hispanic groups such 

as Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican show high consistency in 

reporting birthplace and detailed Hispanic origin. In 2003, among 

those born in Mexico, 98.5 percent say they are Mexican in response 

to the new Hispanic question. Comparable figures are 93.4 percent 

for those born in Cuba and 92.8 percent for those born in Puerto Rico. 

However, not all the newly identified groups display comparable 

levels of consistency between birthplace and detailed Hispanic 

response. For example, among those born in the Dominican 

Republic, 88.7 percent report Dominican, while in contrast, among 

those born in El Salvador, a figure of 62.4 percent emerges. [25] The 

relatively lower proportion of foreign-born from El Salvador 

responding as Salvadoran raises questions about the responses for 

this Hispanic category. 

5.2.2.4. Rethinking Hispanic. 
A number of people reported as Hispanic in the "Yes-No" question 

(first in the series of new Hispanic questions shown in Appendix A), 

but in a follow-up question, some of those reporting Hispanic also 

indicated they were Portuguese, Haitian, Brazilian, or of some other 

group not traditionally identified by the Office of Management and 

Budget as an Hispanic category. Using unedited data, about 180,000 

people reported in this manner in 2003. In all these cases, the 

response to the “Yes-No” question was changed in the edit to “No.” 

Using edited data, there were also about 287,000 people in 2003 who 

provided responses not listed in the Hispanic code list for CPS, such 

as “Mestizo,” “Raza,” or “Mixed,” and were therefore coded as “Other 

Other.” (Table 5) 

These responses raise the issue of self-concept. While it was 

possible that some of the CPS respondents misunderstood the 

question, because a Census Bureau field representative conducted 

the CPS interview and many of these interviewers spoke the 

respondents’ language, confusion about the questions should have 

been minimized compared with the mail-out, mail-back census form. 

Furthermore, our research shows respondents’ or respondents’ 

parental birthplace may have led them to believe the terms “Hispanic” 

and/or “Latino” applied to them. Table 5 shows that among the 

287,000 “Other Other” Hispanics in 2003, about 158,000 (55 percent) 

were born in the United States and about 129,000 (45 percent) were 

born elsewhere (primarily in Spanish-speaking countries). For 2004, 

among the 306,000 “Other Other” Hispanics, about 200,000 (65 

percent) were born in the United States and about 106,000 (35 

percent) were born elsewhere (again, primarily in Spanish-speaking 

countries). 

Additional research needs to be conducted to understand why 

respondents who indicated they were Hispanic to the “Yes-No” 

question and then gave an explicitly non-Hispanic group in the followup question. One possible suggestion is that this is the only way 
these respondents can report a mixed ancestry. We might want to 

look at parental birthplace to see if one or both parents were born in a 

Spanish-speaking country, thus allowing for the possibility that the 

respondent wanted to express a multiple response. Regarding the 

“Other Other,” we have no additional data from the CPS, even with 

the parental birthplace data, to determine that the respondent is 

Hispanic. Overall, however, the number of these responses 

represents a relatively small share of the Hispanic population. 

5.3. CPS 2001 sample expansion. 

Following Census 2000, the Census Bureau began testing an 

expanded CPS monthly or basic sample. The primary goal of the 

ASEC expansion is the production of more precise as well as reliable 

state estimates of low-income children without health insurance (State 

Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP). In July 2001, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) officially included the expanded 

sample in its labor force statistics. [26] The Census Bureau also 

increased the ASEC sample for minorities, and households with 

children living with a White householder. [27] The expanded ASEC 

sample in 2001 consisted of 78,000 interviewed households. 

Although the SCHIP sample expansion was specifically designed to 

improve state-based estimates of children’s health insurance status, 

other estimates have been improved as a result of the additional 

sample (Table 7 discussed below). [28] 

5.4. The Census 2000 benchmark 

We noted above, the Census Bureau uses independent demographic 

estimates to develop the CPS second stage weights and these 

demographic estimates are benchmarked to the last previous census. 

Table 1 shows the CPS Hispanic Origin totals as well as detailed 

groups series history, 1971 to 2004. Note that the CPS Hispanic 

origin estimates were benchmarked to censuses beginning in 1980 
and again in 1990, and 2000 reflected in jumps in the plotted trend 

lines in Figure 1. 

The 1990 census total shown earlier in Table A above represents the 

official census number. Demographic estimates used to develop 

second-stage weights benchmarked to 1990 were derived from a 

modified census base, sometimes called MARS for the “Modified 

Age-Race-Sex-Hispanic origin” distribution, where the category 

“Other” race has been proportionally distributed to four major race 

groups. [29] There was no immediate requirement for a fully 

developed MARS file for Census 2000. [30] Demographic estimates 

benchmarked to Census 2000 reflect change for five race groups: 

White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; 

Asian; and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Prior to 2000, 

the Asian and Pacific Islander groups were combined. 

In 2001, the Census Bureau introduced a new set of demographic 

estimates benchmarked to Census 2000. These new estimates 

currently form the basis of the CPS controls or second stage weights 

as described above. For evaluative purposes, the Census Bureau 

retrofitted the April 2000 census-based weights to basic survey data 

from October 1999 forward. [31] Monthly or basic CPS data weighted 

to population controls benchmarked to Census 2000 and earlier 

censuses are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. [32] The introduction of 

the 2000 controls increased the stated value of the basic March 2000 

Hispanic population from 32.6 million (weights based on estimates 

benchmarked to 1990) to 34.7 million (weights based on estimates 

benchmarked to 2000), for a difference of about 2.1 million. 

The introduction of the 2000 controls also resulted in an increase of 

2.2 million Hispanics in the 2001 ASEC, as shown in Table 7, 

columns 1-3. Furthermore, the application of the new population 

controls introduced small changes in some of the stated sizes and 

proportions of selected characteristic-based subgroups found in the 
ASEC, as well as some of statistics derived from those numbers, as 

can be seen in Table 7, columns 1-3. [33]

5.5 Summary: What has happened to CPS Hispanic data over 

time? 

Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 show the CPS Hispanic population 

estimates 1971 to 2004. The final column in Table 1 shows important 

milestones in the CPS series over the period, up to and including the 

switch to the new Hispanic origin question in 2002. [34] Although Table 

1 shows the years when census data were collected, Figure 1 

graphically illustrates when the effects of updated weights based on 

census-based estimates were applied each decade. [35] Although the 

jumps in 1983 and 1993 are noticeable, the trend line is relatively 

smooth. [36] This smoothness reflects the application of the annual 

updated census-based population weights during the years between 

censuses. In the early years of the survey, the CPS Hispanic 

numbers were much more volatile. The application of census-based 

weights to the CPS estimates led to “control” of radical annual and 

monthly fluctuations as well as more precise estimates of the total 

Hispanic population. [37] 

On the other hand, Figure 2 shows a somewhat different picture. 

Because the detailed Hispanic group samples are smaller than the 

total Hispanic sample and they are not controlled to census-based 

weights, they are much more prone to sampling variability. [38] Owing 

to the fact that detailed census information is only collected every 10 

years, the Census Bureau has not attempted to develop and apply 

detailed Hispanic group census-based controls to CPS. 

Table 6 reveals the precision of Hispanic group categories was 

improved, which may allow analysts to examine various 

characteristics of these groups and consider adding new groups to 

the core list. Using reporting of Hispanic origin and associated birth 
place, we saw in Table 5 that those born in "Mexico" reported 

"Mexican" 98.5 percent of the time in 2003 and 98.9 percent in 2004; 

those born in "Cuba", reported "Cuban" 93.4 percent in 2003 and 95.7 

percent in 2004; people born in "Puerto Rico" reported "Puerto Rican" 

92.8 percent and 95.8 percent in 2003 and 2004, respectively. [39] 

Table 2 revealed that each of the "old" groups (Mexican, Cuban, 

Puerto Rican) consistently exhibits a population in excess of 1 million 

people. Six-months of data from the CPS Basic survey also show that 

other groups such as Dominican, Central American and South 

American have also shown populations above one million in recent 

years. The category Salvadoran has not shown a population of one 

million consistently and as we noted above, people born in El 

Salvador do not identify themselves as Salvadoran with the same 

levels of consistency as some other groups. 

6. Recommendations 

As a result of our findings, we recommend the following for 

CPS/ASEC: 

• The new Hispanic/Latino categories list should include (new 

items are indicated with an asterisk): Mexican, Puerto Rican, 

Cuban, Dominican*, Central American*, and South American* 

and Other Hispanic. The social, demographic, and economic 

characteristics for the new groups are sufficiently different from 

each other and the other Hispanic groups that they merit being 

shown separately. 

• “Salvadoran” should not be shown separately at this time or until 

we understand better why so many people born in El Salvador do 

not report Salvadoran origin. 

• Additional Hispanic groups should be shown separately when 

they exceed the 1 million threshold for at least 6 consecutive 

months (Basic or monthly CPS) and two CPS ASEC and ACS 
cycles, as well as exhibit internal consistency reflected in the 

correlations between place of birth and detailed identification. 

• We recommend more research into the responses where: 1) 

people reported they were Hispanic in the “Yes-No” question and 

then reported a non-Hispanic response and 2) people reported 

they were Hispanic in the “Yes-No” question and then essentially 

reported a response that was uncodeable. Although the number 

of these responses is small, we need to understand better why 

respondents report in this manner. This is especially important for 

other data collection efforts such as the decennial census and the 

American Community Survey where the primary method of data 

collection is through self-enumeration via a mail-out/mail-back 

form and the respondents who choose to respond by mail do not 

have the benefit of an experienced field representative to help 

answer the question. 

• Because the CPS includes information on the second generation 

not available from other data sources it affords a unique 

opportunity to report on population trends and should be used as 

a basis for analysis. We know from past research on immigration 

the importance of tracking how well succeeding generations have 

fared in making their way in society. We see the tremendous 

value of showing data for the above-mentioned groups by birth 

place and parental birth place, which currently can only be 

obtained from the CPS files. We propose periodic reports 

showing social, demographic, and economic characteristics for 

the Hispanic population by these detailed groups by first, second 

and third generation available and where sample permits. [40] The 

resulting report, we believe, will be received with great interest by 

our data users. 

We plan to continue our research to demonstrate the quality of CPS 

estimates for the selected Hispanic groups we propose for inclusion in 

Current Population Reports beginning with the CPS 2006 Annual 

Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) products. 
References 

• Coon, Carleton (1962) The Races of Man. Random House, New 

York, NY. 

• Cresce, A. (2002) "A Comparison of Editing Procedures for the 

Question on Hispanic Origin: 1990 Census and Census 2000." 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American 

Statistical Association, NYC. 

• ________ and R. Ramirez (2003). Analysis of General Hispanic 

Responses in Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau: Population 

Division Working Paper No. 72. Washington DC.* 

• ________, R. Ramirez, and G. Spencer (2001). Evaluating 

Components of International Migration: Quality of Foreign-Born 

and Hispanic Population Data. U.S. Census Bureau: Population 

Division Working Paper No. 65. Washington DC.* 

• ________, A. Dianne Schmidley, and Roberto Ramirez (2004). 

Identification of Hispanic Ethnicity in Census 2000: Analysis of 

Data Quality for the Question on Hispanic Origin. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Population Division Working Paper No. 75. Washington 

DC.* 

• del Pinal, J. (1994). "Social Science Principles: Forming RaceEthnic Categories for Policy Analysis." Paper presented at the 

Workshop on Race and Ethnic Classification: An Assessment of 

the Federal Standard for Race and Ethnicity Classification, 

National Research Council, Commission on Behavioral and 

Social Sciences and Education, Committee on National Statistics. 

• ________ and Audrey Singer (1997). Generations of Diversity: 

Latinos in the United States Population Reference Bureau. 

[Bulletin 52:3]. 

• ________ and A. Dianne Schmidley (2005) Matched Race and 

Hispanic Origin Responses from Census 2000 and Current 

Population Survey, February to May 2000. 
• Fernandez E. and A. Cresce (1986). "Who Are the Other 

Spanish?" Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

Population Association of America, San Francisco, CA; 

• Gibson, C. and K. Jung (2002). Historical Census Statistics on 

Population Totals by Race, 1790 to 1990, and by Hispanic Origin, 

1970 to 1990, For the United States, Regions, Divisions, and 

States. U.S. Census Bureau: Population Division Working Paper 

No. 56. Washington DC.* 

• Guzman, B. (2001). The Hispanic Population. U.S. Census 

Bureau: Census 2000 Brief. Washington DC.* [C2KBR/01-3] 

• Jacobson, M.F (1999). Whiteness of a Different Color: European 

Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Harvard University Press. 

Cambridge MA. 

• Logan, J. (2002). Hispanic Populations and Their Residential 

Patterns in the Metropolis. Lewis Mumford Center for 

Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University at Albany. 

[www.mumford1.dyndns.org]. 

• Martin, E. (2002). Questionnaire Effects on Reporting of Race 

and Hispanic Origin: Results of a Replication of the 1990 Mail 

Short Form in Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau: Alternative 

Questionnaire Experiment. Washington DC.* 

• Mead, G.H. (1964) George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology. 

University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Il. 

• Proctor, Bernadette (2001). Poverty in the United States: 2001 

[P60-219]. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, October 

2002.* 

• Robinson, J.G. (2001a). "ESCAP II: Accuracy and Coverage 

Evaluation: Demographic Analysis Results," Executive Steering 

Committee For A.C.E. Policy II, Report No.1, October 13. U.S. 

Census Bureau. Washington DC.* 

• ____________________.(2001b). Accuracy and Coverage 

Evaluation: Demographic Analysis Results. U.S. Census Bureau: 
DSSD Census 2000 Procedures and Operations Memorandum 

Series B-4. Washington DC.* 

• Rosenberg, M. and H.B. Kaplan (1982) The Social Psychology of 

the Self-Concept. Harlan Davidson, Inc. Arlington Heights. IL. 

• Schmidley, Dianne. (2002). Profile of the Foreign-Born Population 

in the United States: 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Current 

Population Reports [P23-206]* 

• ________ and C. Gibson. (1999). Profile of the Foreign-Born 

Population in the United States: 1997 [P23-195] * 

• ________ and J.G. Robinson (2003). Measuring the ForeignBorn Population in the United States with the Current Population 

Survey:1994-2002, U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 

Working Paper No. 73.* 

• Sforza-Cavalli (2001). Genes, People, Languages. University of 

California Press. Berkeley CA. 

• Suro, R. (2002). "Counting the 'Other Hispanics": How Many 

Colombians, Dominicans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans and 

Salvadorans are there in the United States?" Pew Hispanic 

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

• U.S. Census Bureau (1996). Results of the 1996 Race and Ethnic 

Targeted Test. Population Division Working Paper No.18. 

Washington DC.* 

• U.S. General Accounting Office (2003). Decennial Census: 

Methods for Collecting and Reporting Hispanic Subgroup Data 

Need Refinement. Washington DC. [GAO-03-228] 

* Items available on the Census Bureau website: www.census.gov
Figure 1. CPS Hispanic/Spanish Population, 1971 - 

2004
Figure 2. Selected CPS Hispanic Groups, 1971 - 

2004

Table 1. Spanish/Hispanic Population in the U.S. 1971 - 2004: 

CPS Annual Supplemental Survey [.xls 24k | .csv 4k] 

Table 2. Selected Hispanic Groups: January to June 2003 [.xls

20k | .csv 3k] 

Table 3-A. Population by Hispanic Origin for the 'New' and 'Old' 

Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 [.xls 22k | .csv 7k] 

Table 3-B. Foreign-Born Population by Hispanic Origin for the 

'New' and 'Old' Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 [.xls

25k | .csv 7k] 

Table 3-C. Native Population by Hispanic Origin for the 'New' and 

'Old' Origin Questions: CPS Match File May 2002 [.xls 23k | .csv

3k] 
Table 4-A. Place of Birth for Selected Hispanic Groups, 2003 [.xls

23k | .csv 10k] 

Table 4-B. Place of Birth of Mother for Selected Hispanic Groups, 

2003 [.xls 21k | .csv 8k] 

Table 4-C. Place of Birth of Father for Selected Hispanic Groups, 

2003 [.xls 21k | .csv 9k] 

Table 5. Place of Birth of Persons for Selected Hispanic Groups: 

ASEC 2003 and 2004 [.xls 34k | .csv 19k] 

Table 6. Comparison of Selected Characteristics of the Hispanic 

Population: Current Population Survey - Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement (ASEC): 2001 and 2002 [.xls 20k | .csv 8k] 

 Appendix A - CPS and Census Hispanic origin questions 1970 to 

2003 

1970 Census question 

13b. Is this person's origin or descent - (Fill one circle) 

• Mexican 

• Central or South American 

• Puerto Rican 

• Other Spanish 

• Cuban 

• No, none of these 

March 1972 CPS question 

52. What is ...'s origin or descent ? 

(Show Flash Card or Read List) 
• German 

• Mexican or Chicano 

• Italian 

• Puerto Rican 

• Irish 

• Cuban 

• French 

• Central or So American 

• Polish 

• Other Spanish 

• Russian 

• Negro 

• English, Scot, Welsh 

• Other 

• Don't know 

March 1973 CPS question 

52. What is ...'s origin or descent ? 

(Show Flash Card or Read List) 

• German 

• Italian 

• Mexican American 

• Irish 

• Chicano 

• French 

• Mexican (Mexicano) 

• Polish 

• Puerto Rican 

• Russian 

• Cuban 

• English 

• Central or So. Amer 
• Scottish 

• Other Spanish 

• Welsh 

• Negro or Black 

• Don't know 

• Other (Specify below) 

March 2003 CPS questions 

Are you/Is... Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? 

1. Yes 

2. No 

(Asked only of those responding "Yes" to the preceding question) 

Are you/Is... Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, 

Cuban, Cuban-American, or some other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 

group? 

IF MULTIPLE ANSWER - PROBE 

“Which group do/does he/she most closely identify with?” 

1. Mexican 

2. Mexican-American 

3. Chicano 

4. Puerto Rican 

5. Cuban 

6. Cuban-American 

7. Other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group 

(Asked only of those responding "Other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 

group" to the preceding question) 
“What is the name of his/her other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino 

group?” 

1. Argentinean 

2. Baleric Islands 

3. Basque 

4. Belize or British Honduras or Belice 

5. Bolivian 

6. Brazilian 

7. Canary Islands 

8. Castilian 

9. Catalan 

10. Central American 

11. Central American Indian 

12. Chilean 

13. Colombian 

14. Costa Rican 

15. Dominican 

16. Ecuadorian 

17. Filipino 

18. Guatemalan 

19. Guamanian or Chamorro 

20. Haitian 

21. Hispanic 

22. Honduran 

23. Latin American 

24. Latino 

25. Nicaraguan 

26. Panamanian 

27. Paraguayan 

28. Peruvian 

29. Portuguese 

30. Salvadoran 

31. Sephardic 
32. South American 

33. South American Indian 

34. Spanish 

35. Spanish American 

36. Spanish American Indian 

37. Spanish Basque 

38. Spaniard 

39. Uruguayan 

40. Venezuelan 

41. Both Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino and some other group 

42. Other 

Specify "Other" Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group. 

CPS data variables based on the new question(s): 

PEHSPNON 2 Are you/Is... Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino? 

Universe: All 

1. Yes 

2. No 

PEORISPN 2 Are you/Is... Mexican, Mexican-American, Chicano, 

Puerto Rican, Cuban, Cuban-American, or some other Spanish, 

Hispanic, or Latino group? 

IF MULTIPLE ANSWER - PROBE "Which group do/does he/she most 

closely identify with?" 

Universe: PEHSPNON = 1 

1. Mexican 

2. Mexican-American 

3. Chicano 

4. Puerto Rican 
5. Cuban 

6. Cuban-American 

7. Other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group 

PEOROTSP 2 What is the name of his/her other Spanish, Hispanic, 

or Latino group? 

Universe: PEORISPN = 7 

1. Argentinean 

2. Baleric Islands 

3. Basque 

4. Belize or British Honduras or Belice 

5. Bolivian 

6. Brazilian 

7. Canary Islands 

8. Castilian 

9. Catalan 

10. Central American 

11. Central American Indian 

12. Chilean 

13. Colombian 

14. Costa Rican 

15. Dominican 

16. Ecuadorian 

17. Filipino 

18. Guatemalan 

19. Guamanian or Chamorro 

20. Haitian 

21. Hispanic 

22. Honduran 

23. Latin American 

24. Latino 

25. Nicaraguan 
26. Panamanian 

27. Paraguayan 

28. Peruvian 

29. Portuguese 

30. Salvadoran 

31. Sephardic 

32. South American 

33. South American Indian 

34. Spanish 

35. Spanish American 

36. Spanish American Indian 

37. Spanish Basque 

38. Spaniard 

39. Uruguayan 

40. Venezuelan 

41. Both Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino and some other group 

42. Other 

Appendix B 

Matched Race and Hispanic Origin Responses from Census 2000 and 

Current Population Survey February to May 2000 

by Jorge Del Pinal and Dianne Schmidley 

This paper examines differences between Census 2000 and CPS 

Hispanic origin and race responses by comparing data from a 

matched file containing answers provided by the same respondents to 

both CPS and Census 2000 Hispanic origin questions. The paper 

suggests that non-response in either the CPS or Census 2000 may 

account for more of the inconsistency between Census and CPS 

responses than switching identity between Hispanic and non-Hispanic 
categories, and that most of the non-reporting for the Hispanic origin 

question is done by non-Hispanics. 

I. Hispanic origin. 

About 13.1 percent of the 276 million CPS-Census 2000 matched 

cases were Hispanic according to Census 2000 responses, however, 

only 12.6 percent (98.8 percent of the Census 2000 Hispanics) were 

Hispanic according to the CPS. In contrast, among the 240 million 

non-Hispanics identified in Census 2000 and matched to CPS cases, 

98.7 percent also said they were non-Hispanic in the CPS, while 98.0 

percent of those same CPS cases (241 million people) identified as 

non-Hispanic in Census 2000. 

Unedited data reveal that most of the non-reporting to the Hispanic 

origin question is done by non-Hispanics. About four percent (3.9 

percent) of the matched respondents did not answer the Census 2000 

Hispanic origin question whereas half as many or 1.8 percent did not 

answer the CPS Hispanic origin question. Among the respondents 

who did not answer the Census 2000 question,78.8 percent of the 

cases (representing 8.4 million people) reported as not Hispanic in 

the CPS. In contrast, 91.9 percent of the total cases did not answer 

the CPS question but reported as not Hispanic in Census 2000. 

Around 81.1 percent of the total cases reported they were not 

Hispanic in both the CPS and Census 2000, while 10.8 percent of the 

total responded as Hispanic in both surveys. Less than one percent of 

the respondents failed to answer either set of questions. While the 

percent answering neither set of questions was relatively small (one 

percent) the total of those who failed to answer either/or the CPS and 

Census 2000 (1 percent + 3.9 percent + 1.8 percent = 5.8 percent) 

was larger than the percent of cases switching from Hispanic to not 

Hispanic or vice versa (5.6 percent) between the survey and the 

census. 
The paper also discusses the responses of detailed Hispanic groups 

as reported in Census 2000 and the CPS. About 18.8 percent of the 

cases that did not provide an answer in Census 2000 said they were 

Hispanic in the CPS. In contrast, among those reporting as Not 

Hispanic in Census 2000, about one percent reported as Hispanic in 

CPS. Among the detailed Hispanic groups reported in Census 2000, 

the proportion reporting as Hispanic in the CPS ranged between 80 

percent and 90 percent. For example, among those reporting Mexican 

in Census 2000, 91.3 percent also reported as Hispanic in the CPS. 

Similar proportions were provided for other groups where CPS 

provides Hispanic examples (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban). Among 

those who reported Puerto Rican in Census 2000, the proportion 

reporting Hispanic in the CPS was 83.3 percent and among Cubans, 

the number was 88 percent. 

 There was no statistical difference in the relatively low CPS nonresponse rates of those who reported Mexican (0.2 percent) or Cuban 

(1.1 percent) in Census 2000, revealing a pattern of consistent self 

identification across the data collections. Those identified as Mexican 

in Census 2000 also had the highest consistency in reporting as 

Hispanic in CPS (91.3 percent) compared with those reporting Other 

Hispanic who had the lowest (77.9 percent). Conversely, Other 

Hispanics had the highest proportion reporting as non-Hispanic in 

CPS (21.2 percent) while Mexicans had the lowest (8.5 percent). 

Clearly, in some cases the CPS origin question generates different 

answers about Hispanic origin compared with the Census question. 

Next, the paper compares joint Hispanic origin response in CPS and 

Census 2000 for a subset of the Hispanic population born in the 

selected places outside the U.S. (U.S. births are excluded with the 

exception of Puerto Rico): 

Mexican, Puerto Rican and Cuban (do not confuse with Mexico, 

Puerto Rico and Cuba). There was very high consistency of 
"Hispanic" response in both CPS and Census 2000 (about 90 

percent) for people born in Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Cuba, however, 

each of the three origin groups (based on these places of birth) 

appear as examples in Census 2000 and the CPS Hispanic origin 

questions. Even so, about three percent of each group of respondents 

(based on birth place) switched from not Hispanic in Census 2000 to 

Hispanic in the CPS, while around one percent switched the other 

way. 

Central [41] and South American [42] Countries. About 4 percent of 

those born in countries specified as Central America or South 

America reported as "not Hispanic" in both collections. On the other 

hand, 83 percent of Central Americans and 78 percent of South 

Americans reported as "Hispanic" in both collections. In addition, 

about 4.6 percent of Central Americans and about 5.3 percent of 

South Americans switched from not Hispanic in Census 2000 to 

Hispanic in CPS. About 4.4 percent and 8.3 percent, respectively, 

switched the other way (Not Hispanic in CPS to Hispanic in Census 

2000). 

Dominican Republic. About 77 percent of those born in the 

Dominican Republic identified as Hispanic in both the CPS and 

Census 2000. However, 17 percent of those born in the Dominican 

Republic switched from Hispanic in Census 2000 to not Hispanic in 

the CPS, compared with 2.1 percent who went the other way. Almost 

3 percent reported "no answer" in Census 2000 and "Hispanic" in 

CPS. Clearly, the CPS does not identify a large proportion of those 

born in the Dominican Republic as Dominican, but at least some of 

them must have been confused by the questions as well. 

Spain. About 17.2 percent of these born in Spain consistently report 

as "not Hispanic" while about 26.6 percent report consistently as 

"Hispanic" in both CPS and Census 2000. About 51 percent of the 

foreign born from Spain said they were "not Hispanic" in CPS and 
"Hispanic" in Census 2000 compared with none who went the other 

way. 

Other Places of Birth. Respondents from other places of birth, such 

as the Philippines, Portugal, or Brazil, also appear to have some 

confusion about whether they should identify as "Hispanic" or not 

Hispanic. 

II. Race. (Summary of this section is not included. For more 

information please see Working Paper #79 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0079/twps

0079.html.) 

Footnotes 

[1] Participants included speakers from the U.S. and Canada, as well 

as Britain, Australia, Malaysia, and the former USSR. 

[2] The terms Spanish, Hispanic, and Latino are used interchangeably 

in this paper. 

[3] Cresce, et al. (2004). 

[4] The question change introduced throughout 2002 was fully 

implemented by the beginning of 2003, so that all the CPS panels 

were using the new question by the beginning of the new year. This 

was the first and only change in the question in the 35 years the CPS 

has collected Hispanic origin data. 

[5] Appendix B summarizes a portion of a paper by Del Pinal and 

Schmidley (2005) examining Matched Race and Hispanic Origin 

Responses from Census 2000 and Current Population Survey 

February to May 2000. 
[6] Statistics Canada and US Bureau of the Census, Challenges of 

Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, politics and reality US 

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1993. 

[7] For example, surname was considered a 'proxy' for Spanish Origin 

in the 1970 Census. 

[8] The basic or monthly Current Population Survey captures 

information about age, race, sex, descent/origin, and nativity status 

(1994-current). Supplemental questions have been added on both an 

occasional and periodic basis. For example, the nativity questions 

adapted in 1994 on a periodic basis were included on a temporary 

basis in the 1969 basic questionnaire. 

[9] Occasionally a sample housing unit is discovered to be a group 

quarters after the field representative (FR) begins interviewing. 

Nevertheless, the FR collects information about each person living in 

the unit and that information is included in the CPS 'person' file. 

These cases are identified as "in group quarters" on the person file 

and omitted from the household file. College students in dorm rooms 

whose usual place of residence is a parental home are classified as 

part of the CPS household population even though they could be 

considered members of the GQ population. See Figure 7-5 

"Summary table for determining who is to be included as a member of 

the household" page 7-6 , in Design and Methodology, Current 

Population Survey Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, Washington DC, March 2000. 

[10] Census 2000 definitions of household and group quarters 

populations can be found in 'Appendix B. Definitions', Census 2000 

Summary File 1 United States, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

Washington DC, 2000. See Design and Methodology, Current 

Population Survey Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, Washington DC, March 2000, pages 3-7 for CPS definitions. 
[11] For more information about the differences between the census 

and CPS universes, see Schmidley, D. (2002). Appendix 

C."Comparison of Population Universes" . Page 67. 

[12] Much of the material in Section 4.2 is excerpted from Schmidley 

and Robinson (2003) 

[13] See Design of the Current Population Survey Sample, pp. 3-1 to 

3-17 in Design and Methodology, Current Population Survey 

Technical Paper 63RV, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington DC, 

March 2002. 

[14] For more information see "Appendix D. Derivation of Independent 

Population Controls", Current Population Survey: Design and 

Methodology, Technical Paper No. 63RV. Washington DC, March 

2002. 

[15] As soon as possible after the census, the demographic estimates 

are re-calibrated. The application of these newly benchmarked 

weights does not take place immediately, however. For example, 

following the 1990 census the weights were introduced to the CPS in 

1993. In contrast, the Census 2000 weights were introduced to the 

CPS in 2001. 

[16] Schmidley, D. and Campbell Gibson. (1999). “Section 1. ‘Trends in 

Immigration and the Foreign-born Population”. 

[17] Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States: November 1969. 

(P20, No. 213):1971. 

[18] The 1940 census was the first to include tabulations on the 'White 

population of Spanish mother tongue.' See, Gibson and Jung. (2002); 

however, the wording of the new CPS "Origin" question was 

specifically designed to collect information for all persons. See 

Cresce, A.,. et al (2004) and Schmidley and Robinson (2003). 
[19] The birthplace question has continued to be part of the Census 

and ACS questionnaires, however, the parental nativity questions 

have not appeared on the census form since 1970, and have never 

appeared on the ACS questionnaire. Examples of the CPS nativity 

questions can be found in "Appendix A" of Schmidley and Robinson.( 

2003). 

[20] Mexican or Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South 

American, and Other Spanish were combined to create Total 

Hispanic. 

[21] Those responding "some other Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino group" 

to the first question. 

[22] There is no statistical difference between the two numbers 14.5 

million and 14.6 million. 

[23] The greater articulation of Hispanic detail is a function of the 

increased number of response options. 

[24] Percentages in this paragraph used the responses to the old 

Hispanic question as a denominator. People born in Puerto Rico are 

automatically citizens of the United States and thus natives; thus the 

value shown in Table 4-B is a statistical artifact. 

[25] There is no statistical difference between the two values for Puerto 

Rico (92.8 percent) and Cuba (93.4 percent). Given trends in 

international migration, it may be presumptuous to assume a 

relationship between birthplace and ethnicity for any group. 

[26] The number of eligible households was increased from 50,000 to 

60,000. Of the eligible basic households, approximately 56,000 were 

actually interviewed monthly. 

[27] The SCHIP and minority samples cover Hispanic and race groups. 
[28] Proctor (2001). "Appendix B. Sample Expansion and Introduction 

of Census 2000-Based Population Controls". Page 32. 

[29] Beginning in January 2003, the CPS included a new race 

question that will likely lead to additional changes. For more 

information about the development of the 1990 MARS file, see 

'Modification of the census race and age distributions,' page D-14 in 

"Appendix D. Derivation of Independent Population Controls", 

Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Technical 

Paper No. 63RV. Washington DC, March 2002. 

[30] A 1990 type file was obviated by changes in the Census 2000 age 

question. However, a modified race file was created. See Modified 

Race Data Summary File, 2000 Census of Population and Housing 

Technical Documentation. Issued September 2002 by the U.S. 

Census Bureau, Washington DC. 

[31] Official CPS data released through December 2001 reflect the 

1990 benchmark. 

[32] Monthly estimates before 1994 were benchmarked to the 1980 

Census. The marked increase between December 1995 and January 

1996 is owing to a sample cut in the ten largest states. Apparently, 

the cut disproportionately affected the Hispanic populations. 

[33] The new controls slightly modified the stated size of the Hispanic 

population groups under age 18 or age 65 years and over, but they 

changed the stated employment and unemployment rates by very 

little. On the other hand, the Hispanic labor force universe, which is 

primarily concentrated in the ages 18 to 65, was increased by 1.8 

million when the new weights were applied. Although the apparent 

size of the education universe increased by about one million, the 

rate of Hispanics attaining bachelor's degrees was the same under 

the old and new controls. Similarly, the child poverty rate was 

unaffected, and the poverty rate of those age 65 and older affected 
minimally, by the population control changes, although the control 

changes increased the stated absolute number in poverty. All of 

these apparent changes were strictly due to changes in the 

population controls (weights) and did not involve statistical (sample) 

change. 

[34] Although the switch to the new question began in 2002, it was not 

fully implemented until January 2003. 

[35] Prior to 2000, post-census second-stage weight changes, sample 

redesign, and in the early 1990s the introduction of the CATI/CAPI 

interview technique produced a combined effect on the CPS totals. 

Following Census 2000, these changes were introduced sequentially, 

thus allowing analysts to decompose and examine their effects. 

Schmidley and Robinson (2003) discuss these changes with regard to 

the foreign-born population which is highly correlated with the 

Hispanic population. 

[36] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html. 

[37] Recall from the discussion in the preceding section that the 

application of new weights does not generally affect the measurement 

of characteristics. 

[38] In addition, the members of detailed groups tend to cluster, i.e. are 

not randomly distributed across the US, so as the CPS sample panels 

change the likelihood of selection changes as geographic shifts in the 

primary sampling units occurs. 

[39] Two implied comparisons in this paragraph are not statistically 

significant: 2003 Cuban (93.4 percent) is not different from 2003 

Puerto Rican (92.8 percent), and 2004 Cuban (95.7 percent) is not 

different from 2004 Puerto Rican (95.8 percent). 
[40] A P23 report every three years and a one-page "update" to 

release a table package in the intervening years. 

[41] Specific Central American places of birth were Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and “Other 

Central America.” 

[42] Specific South American places of birth were Argentina, Bolivia, 

Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela and 

“Other South America.” 

 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division 

Questions? / 1-866-758-1060 

Page Created: December 05, 2007