Coverage of the

Hispanic Population

of the United States

in the 1970 Census

A Methodological

Analysis

current population

reports

Special Studies

P-23, No. 82

U.S. Department

of Commerce

BUREAU OF

THE CENSUS

 
current population

reports

Special Studies

P-23, No. 82

Coverage of the

Hispanic Population

of the United States

in the 1970 Census

A Methodological

Analysis

by Jacob S. Siegel

and

Jeffrey S. Passel

 

U .S. Department of Commerce

Juanita M. Kreps, Secretar

Luther H. Hodges, Jr.,

Under Secretary

Courtenay M. Slater,

Chief Economist

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Vincent P. Barabba

Directo
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Vincent P. Barabba, Director

Daniel B. Levine, Deputy Director

George E. Hall, Associate Director

for Demographic Fields

POPULATION DIVISION

Meyer Zitter, Chief

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Siegel, Jacob S. Coverage of the Hispanic population of the United States in the 1970 census.

(Current population reports : Special studies :

Series P-23 ; no. 82) 1. Hispanic Americans—Statistics. 2. United States-Census, 19th. 1970. I. Passel, Jeffrey S., joint author. II. United States. Bureau of the Census. III. Title. IV. Series: United States. Bureau of the Census. Current population reports : Special studies : Series P-23 ; no. 82. HA203.A218 no. 82 [E184.S75I 312 .0973s (312.93] 79-18517

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Postage stamps not acceptable; currency submitted at sender's risk. Remittances from foreign countries must be by international money order or by a draft on a U.S. bank. Current Population Reports are sold in two subscription packages: Series P-20, P-23, P-27, and P-60 are available for $40.00 per year ($10 additional for foreign mailing); Series P-25, P-26, and P-28 are available for $70.00 per year ($1 7.50 additional for foreign mailing). The single-copy price of this report is $2.25.
Preface

As part of its continuing effort to measure and report on the quality of census data, particularly the cover

age of major segments of the population, the Census Bureau initiated a study to consider the possibilities

of measuring the coverage of the Hispanic population in the 1970 census, at least at the national level.

Such a study would complement a previous study which presented measures of the coverage of the White

and the Black populations of the United States in the 1970 census. It was recognized early that a study

of the kind contemplated would necessarily be exploratory in nature since the lack of comprehensive data

on the Hispanic population and the use of various census concepts to identify the Hispanic population

would hamper the efforts to arrive at adequate measures of coverage, if not preclude that possibility al

together. In spite of the evident difficulties, the Census Bureau undertook to review the problems and

possible methods of evaluating the census count of the Hispanic population and to apply such methods as

seemed feasible.

This report represents the results of this effort. It reflects also the Census Bureau's interest in filling the

request of the Census Advisory Committee on the Spanish-Origin Population for the 1980 Census and in

filling the requirements of Public Law 94-311 (a Joint Resolution of the Congress relating to publication

of statistics for the Spanish-origin population), to explore various methods which could be used to produce

adequate estimates of the census coverage of the Hispanic population.

This report applies the method of demographic analysis to evaluate the general quality of the data on

the Hispanic population in the 1970 census, as well as to measure the coverage of specific age -sex groups.

A detailed description of the methods employed in developing the various estimates, including a descrip

tion of the data and the assumptions incorporated into the methods, is given.

This report supplements two earlier Census Bureau publications presenting estimates of coverage of the

population in the 1970 census: "Estimates of Coverage of Population by Sex, Race, and Age: Demographic

Analysis," Evaluation and Research Program of the 1970 Census of Population and Housing, PHC(E)-4,

February 1974; and "Developmental Estimates of the Coverage of the Population of States in the 1970

Census: Demographic Analysis," Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 65, December 1977. The

first report presents estimates of the completeness of coverage of the population of the United States as

a whole in the 1970 census, for age, sex, and race (White, Black) categories, developed by the method of

demographic analysis. The second report presents several alternative series of estimates of the coverage of

the population of States in the 1970 census, representing the results of an exploratory effort to apply the

demographic method for measuring geographic variations in coverage.

Jacob S. Siegel, Senior Statistician for Demographic Research and Analysis, Population Division, and

Jeffrey S. Passel, Demographic Statistician on the Research and Analysis Staff of the Population Division,

are responsible for the preparation of this report and the research underlying it. Siegel initiated and directed

the study, while Passel designed the particular calculations and prepared the basic draft of the text. Janet

Kalwat served as a professional assistant on the project during a summer internship. Rita A. Daly and

Gary D. Smith assisted the professional staff in carrying out the various calculations. Mary J. Kisner typed

the various drafts of the report with the assistance of Joan M. Kans.

The provisional draft of the report was made available for comment in advance of publication to several

social scientists with special knowledge and interest in the areas of census evaluation and Hispanic statistics,

namely Harley Browning, Leobardo Estrada, David C. Heer, Guillermina Jasso, and Julian Samora. The

authors wish to thank those who responded to the request for comments.

Ill
IV

The Bureau of the Census would also like to thank the Census Advisory Committee on Population Sta

tistics, the Census Advisory Committee on the Spanish-Origin Population for the 1980 Census, the General

Government Division of the U.S. General Accounting Office, and the Subcommittee on Census and Popu

lation of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, for encouraging

the Bureau to continue its research on the subject treated here and to prepare an appropriate report. The

Bureau of the Census is wholly responsible, however, for the contents of this report, including the analyses

and interpretations as well as the selection of materials.

This report has raised a number of unresolved problems and has, in effect, been essentially exploratory.

Readers' comments and suggestions regarding its contents and possible approaches to the problems raised

are invited.
Contents

Introduction and Summary ra^e

Introduction 1

Summary *

Methods of Coverage Evaluation

Case-by-case matching *

Reinterview survey *

Record checks 4

Demographic methods 5

Aggregated data from administrative records 5

Demographic analysis 5

Statistical methods 5

Alternative Definitions of the Hispanic Population and Implications for Coverage Evaluation

Alternative definitions in census data 6

Country of birth or parentage 6

Mexican race 7

Spanish surname 7

Spanish language '

Spanish heritage 8

Spanish origin "

Implications of alternative definitions for coverage evaluation °

Differences in census counts *»

Consistency of response ■

1970 Content Reinterview Survey 10

CPS longitudinal match studies 11

Special census of Gallup, New Mexico 11

Spanish origin-Spanish surname cross-tabulations 12

National Content Test 13

Relation to measurement of coverage 14

Applications of Coverage Evaluation Methods

Data on the Hispanic population useful in coverage evaluation 15

Census data 15

Non-census data 15

Vital statistics 15

Immigration data 16

Administrative record data 16

General indicators of errors in age and sex data 17

Heaping indexes 17

Age ratios 18

Age-sex accuracy indexes 19

Census survival ratios 20

Native population of Mexican parentage 21

Native population of Puerto Rican parentage 22

Population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage 22

Age-specific death rates and life expectation 23

Sex ratio analysis 25

V
VI

Contents — Continued

Page

Specific measures of net errors in age-sex data 29

Comparison with expected populations 29

Intercensal cohort analysis 30

General considerations 30

Population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage 30

Foreign-born Cuban population 35

Native population of Mexican parentage 38

Stable population models 39

Comparison with aggregate administrative record data 39

Conclusion 40

Prospects for Measuring the Coverage of the Hispanic Population

Prospects for development of data 41

Plans for evaluation studies in 1980 43

CHARTS Figure

1 . Observed and expected sex ratios for the White, Black -and-other-races, and Spanish-origin

populations, by age: 1970 26

2. Sex ratios for the Spanish-origin population, by type of Spanish origin and age: 1970 27

3. Sex ratios for various Hispanic populations, by age: 1970 and 1960 28

4. Percent net undercount in 1970 for various subgroups of the Hispanic population as a

function of the assumed ratio of undercount rates for the subgroups in 1 960 to undercount

rates for the Black-and-other-races population in 1960 34

DETAILED TABLES

Table

1 . Hispanic population according to various identifiers, for the United States and selected areas

within the United States: April 1 , 1970 9

2. Consistency of responses to the Spanish-origin question as measured by reinterview studies

and the Current Population Survey, by type of Spanish origin: 1970 to 1976 10

3. Proportion of persons of Spanish origin with Spanish surnames, and proportion of persons

with Spanish surnames of Spanish origin, for the United States and the five Southwestern

States: March 1971 12

4. Proportion of persons of Spanish origin with Spanish surnames, by type of Spanish origin, for

the United States and the five Southwestern States: March 1971 13

5. Percent of blended population with ages ending in each terminal digit 0 to 9 and Myers'

summary index of heaping, for the Spanish-origin, White, and Black populations of the

United States: 1970 17

6. Age ratios and age-accuracy indexes for the Spanish-origin, Spanish-surname, White

(corrected), and Black (corrected) populations of the United States, by sex: 1970 18

7. Summary measures of errors in age and sex data for selected Hispanic, White, and Black

populations of the United States: 1970 and 1960 19

8. Deviation of census survival ratios for selected Hispanic, White, and Black populations from

life table survival rates, by sex: 1960 to 1970 21

9. Age-specific and age-adjusted death rates for the Spanish-surname population of Texas,

1970, and other selected populations, by sex 23

10. Expectation of life at birth, age 20, and age 65 for the Spanish-surname population of Texas,

1970, and selected other populations, 1970 and 1969-71 24

11. Preferred estimates of the percents of net undercount of the population of the United

States, by sex, race, and broad age group: 1970 and 1960 29

12. Estimates of bicensal relative error for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage,

using sample survey data for the age-sex distribution of migrants, by sex: 1960-1970 32
VII

Contents — Continued

Page

13. Estimates of bicensal relative error for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage,

using census data on migration, by sex: 1960-1970 33

14. Immigrants of Cuban birth, by type of admission, for each year, 1959-60 to 1969-70 35

15. Illustrative estimates of the percents of net census error for the population of Cuban birth,

by sex and age and by sex and year of entry into the United States: 1970 37

16. Estimates of bicensal relative error for the native population of Mexican parentage, by sex:

1960-1970 38
Introduction and Summary

INTRODUCTION

Much interest has been expressed in an estimate of the

coverage of the Hispanic population of the United States in

the 1970 census, both for its own sake and for its value in

measuring the coverage of the population in specific areas.1

The Bureau of the Census had considered the feasibility of

developing an estimate of the completeness of coverage of

the Hispanic population in the 1970 census in connection

with its studies of the coverage of the White and Black

populations in that census. Estimates of coverage were

prepared and published for the total. White, and Black

populations (with age and sex detail),2 but an estimate of the

coverage of the Hispanic population could not be prepared at

the same time because of the lack of appropriate data and an

acceptable methodology. This difficulty was complicated by

the lack of a consistent and definitive identifier for the

Hispanic population. In this report, these obstacles to the

estimation of the coverage of the Hispanic population in the

1970 census are explored more fully and possible strategies

for overcoming the obstacles are discussed.

Any estimate of "coverage" (net census error) for a

particular subgroup of the total population, such as the

Hispanic population, may be viewed as consisting of two

components: net coverage error and net classification error.

With reference to the Hispanic population, net coverage error

is the excess of persons of Spanish ancestry omitted from the

census over persons of Spanish ancestry counted twice or

erroneously included in the census. Net classification error is

the balance of persons erroneously classified as of nonSpanish ancestry and persons erroneously classified as of

Spanish ancestry. Determining the combined error or the

separate components for the Hispanic population is a major

problem. In the 1970 census, which relied largely on

self-administered questionnaires and self-identification of

' The term "Hispanic" is employed here as a general term for the population of Spanish background or ancestry, and is used variously to encompass any of the several specific concepts which have been used to identify this group on the basis of specific questions or measures and which are quantitatively represented in Bureau of the Census tabulations. The term does not, therefore, have any specific statistical or numerical connotation. JU.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing: Evaluation and Research Program, PHC(E)-4, Estimates of Coverage of Population by Sex, Race, and Age: Demographic Analysis, 1974.

ethnic affiliation, the measurement of classification error is

especially problematic. Such errors may arise from a number

of sources. They may result from misinterpretation of the

question on ethnic affiliation on the part of the respondent

or enumerator, misreporting of ethnic affiliation by the

respondent (e.g., born in Cuba, but reporting "not

Hispanic"), or processing errors. They may also be associated

with inconsistent application of the various definitions of the

Hispanic population on the part of the respondent or

enumerator or variability in response to the same identifier.

The estimation of net census error rates for any popula

tion group requires adequate data for the construction of an

"expected" population, with which the census figures can be

compared, or reinterview or administrative records covering

all or most of the population, with which the census records

can be matched. Most of the data available on the Hispanic

population come from the decennial censuses or the Current

Population Survey (CPS), the Census Bureau's continuing

national sample of the population. A small part of the data

comes from State and local sources; these data are generally

limited to the corresponding geographic areas and to recent

years. Administrative record data in which members of the

Hispanic population are identified are rare. Where they exist,

restricted geographic coverage and population coverage limit

their utility for evaluating census data.

Evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic population in

1970 is complicated in particular by the fact that there may

have been a substantial (but unknown) number of illegal

residents of Hispanic origin in the United States at that time.

Accordingly, some of the "findings" presented here regarding

the coverage of the Hispanic population and, in particular, of

the population of Mexican origin must be qualified by the

fact that no direct allowance was made in the analysis for

illegal immigration prior to 1970.

This report includes (1) a discussion of the principal

methods that can be used to evaluate population coverage in

the 1970 census and the general advantages and limitations

of each for the evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic

population, (2) a survey of the census data available on the

Hispanic population to be evaluated, (3) a discussion of the

implications of the alternative definitions of the Hispanic

population in the census for coverage evaluation, (4) a survey

of the demographic and administrative record data available

1
on the Hispanic population useful for evaluating coverage,

(5) a description of the specific procedures of demographic

analysis employed here to evaluate the accuracy of the 1970

census data on the Hispanic population and a discussion of

the illustrative results, and (6) consideration of possible

alternative approaches and possibilities for 1980 and beyond.

SUMMARY

The methods available for estimating the coverage of a

population group such as the Hispanic population may be

grouped under three general categories: case-by-case match

ing (employing reinterview surveys or record checks),

demographic methods, and statistical methods. The possible

application of these methods is explored in this report. The

applicability of these methods to the Hispanic population is

dependent on the availability of appropriate data from

census and other sources. Our present belief is that, of the

methods discussed, a national reinterview survey designed for

the specific purpose at hand, supplemented by a check

against administrative records, could possibly provide the

most satisfactory direct information on the coverage of the

Hispanic population. Such a survey was not conducted

following the 1970 census, however, partly because funding

was not available for such an activity at that time. Other

survey data and demographic analysis provide the basis for

the present exploratory efforts to measure coverage of the

Hispanic population in the 1970 census.

Attempts to measure net census error in 1970 for the

Hispanic population were severely limited by two problems:

the variability of response to the several classifiers or

identifiers and the paucity of appropriate data. A central

problem is the inability of the census data to reflect a clear,

unambiguous, and objective definition of exactly who is a

member of the Hispanic population. The Census Bureau has

tried several different ways of identifying the Hispanic

population in past censuses, but each identifier presents

serious problems for use in measuring the national cover

age of the Hispanic population. In 1970, four different

identifiers of the Hispanic population were used: Spanish

origin or descent, Spanish surname (five States only), Spanish

mother tongue, and Spanish birth or parentage. These

identifiers were then used to define six different populations:

Spanish origin or descent, Spanish surname (five States only),

Spanish language, Spanish heritage, Spanish language or

surname, and Spanish birth or parentage. The primary

difficulty with most of these identifiers and classifiers is the

amount of variation in response associated with them. It is

possible, in fact, that the differences between the counts of

the Hispanic population according to the various identifiers

and classifiers are larger than the coverage error of the

Hispanic population. Furthermore, a number of studies show

a substantial amount of variability in individual responses

over time. The implications of these definitional problems

for the estimation of coverage of the Hispanic population in

1970 are explored in this report.

The evaluation of census data by demographic techniques

requires data from sources other than the census. The usual

non-census sources—vital registration, immigration records,

and administrative records— provide only limited data on the

Hispanic population. The data that are available are either

incomplete or are of unknown completeness in terms of

either population coverage or geographic coverage or do not

adequately identify the Hispanic population. As a result,

they may not be compatible with any identifier from the

census or may require major supplementation (as, for

example, for illegal immigration or understatement of

emigration). The lack of satisfactory national data on the

Hispanic population from independent sources means that

the analyses to the coverage of census data which can be

made by conventional demographic techniques are mainly

checks on the internal consistency of the census data and

provide only rough general indications of errors rather than

specific estimates of coverage.

Among the techniques providing general indications of

error which have been applied to the census data on the

Hispanic population for 1970 are the measurement of age

heaping, use of indexes of age-sex composition, and the

analysis of census survival ratios, death rates, and sex ratios.

As a result of applying these techniques no gross errors were

found in the data.

Some of the standard demographic techniques for

measuring coverage, such as the use of survivors of births as

the expected population for a substantial part of the age

distribution, were not applicable to the Hispanic population.

Applying these techniques would have required making

unsupportable assumptions of such broad scope that the

resulting estimates of coverage would be conjectural at best.

One approach, intercensal cohort analysis, did yield rough

estimates of the change in coverage of three selected Hispanic

subgroups between the 1960 and 1970 censuses, along with

some illustrative estimates of net census error for 1970.

Primarily on the basis of these calculations, some general

observations relating to the coverage of the Hispanic popu

lation in 1970 can be made. The coverage of Hispanic males

in 1970 was substantially worse than the coverage of

Hispanic females and coverage of young adults was sub

stantially worse than the coverage of other age groups. The

population of Cuban birth showed an overall undercoverage

of about 3 to 4 percent in 1970. Unlike the White and Black

populations, coverage of the Puerto Rican population and

the second-generation Mexican-American population appears

to have improved substantially between the 1960 and 1970

censuses. The estimates suggest roughly a 5-percent improve

ment for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage

and a 6-percent improvement for the native population of

Mexican parentage (excluding age cohorts born during the

decade, i.e., under 10 years of age in 1970). Coverage of

these three subgroups of the Hispanic population, taken as a

group, appears to have improved by about 5 percent between

1960 and 1970. However, the three groups, constitute less

than two-fifths of the reported population of Spanish origin

in 1970.
3

Although intercensal cohort analysis provided indications

of the 1960-70 changes in coverage, the lack of coverage

estimates for the 1960 census and of comprehensive vital

statistics and immigration data for the Hispanic population

for the 1960-70 period precluded the calculation of defini

tive estimates of the absolute level of coverage of the

Hispanic population in the 1970 census. These difficulties

limited the development of coverage estimates in 1970 to

ones which could be designated as illustrative at best.

The results of demographic analysis suggest a tentative

hypothesis regarding the relative coverage levels of the

Hispanic, White, and Black populations, that is, that the

coverage of the Hispanic population in the 1970 census was

intermediate between the coverage of Whites and the

coverage of Blacks. The general indications of errors, such as

those provided by indexes of age heaping, age ratios, and sex

ratios, are consistent with this hypothesis. It is further

supported by intercensal cohort analyses which yielded

intermediate coverage estimates for three selected subgroups

of the Hispanic population (foreign-born Cubans, Puerto

Ricans, natives of Mexican parentage) in 1970 for a wide

range of assumptions as to the coverage rates for these

subgroups in the 1960 census. This type of analysis could not

be carried out for the foreign-born population of Mexican

origin and, hence, any "finding" regarding the coverage of

the Hispanic population based on calculations for the three

subgroups fails to incorporate the effect of the possibly

differential coverage of several numerous foreign-born sub

groups, which may have included a substantial number of

persons illegally resident in the United States.

The possibilities and prospects for estimating the coverage

of the Hispanic population in 1980 are also considered.

Successful application of demographic techniques to this

problem will mainly require the development of sources of

data on the Hispanic population other than the census. Steps

are being taken to expand the range of Hispanic data, e.g.,

vital statistics, but these will be of little utility for 1980.

Resolution of the problem of the subjectivity of the

identifier and the inconsistency in the identification of

Hispanic persons would also aid greatly in developing

adequate coverage estimates, but the prospects here are for

only limited improvement. Case-by-case match studies, such

as a Census/Post-Enumeration Survey/Social Security Match

Study, are being planned for 1980 by the Bureau of the

Census. If such studies are successfully carried out, then the

prospects for estimating the coverage of the Hispanic popu

lation in the 1980 census should be considerably better than

they were for the 1970 census.
Methods of Coverage Evaluation

A variety of methods have been devised to evaluate census

data. The Census Bureau has used many of these methods to

measure the coverage of the population in recent censuses.

These methods are enumerated and briefly described here,

with some indication of the issues and problems in applying

them to the evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic

population in the 1970 census. These methods may be

classified as (1) case-by-case matching, employing data from

either (a) a reinterview survey or (b) records; (2) demo

graphic methods, employing either (a) demographic analysis

or (b) comparison with aggregated data from administrative

records; or (3) "statistical" methods, involving either (a)

synthetic methods or (b) correlation estimation methods. 3

CASE-BY-CASE MATCHING

Reinterview Survey

A reinterview survey consists of reenumerating a probability

sample of households and matching the individuals in them

on a case-by-case basis with the census, for the purpose of

checking the coverage of the population represented by the

households in the census (or the accuracy of the reporting of

the characteristics of the matched persons). Two major

limitations of the reinterview method are its requirement of

perfect or nearly perfect matching and the tendency for

coverage errors in the reinterview to be correlated with

coverage errors in the census (i.e., the chance of being

excluded from the census is associated with the chance of

being excluded from the reinterview). The first limitation

tends to result in an overstatement of the omission rate, the

second in an understatement. These limitations affect the use

of this method for evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic

population as well as the total population. The tendency of

reinterview studies to suffer from correlation bias, in

particular, sharply limits their utility for the direct esti

mation of the coverage of the Hispanic population.

A principal advantage of the reinterview procedure is that

the coverage of the reinterview survey does not have to be

complete to establish the true level of undercoverage in the

1 For a fuller explanation, with illustrative applications, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 56, "Coverage of Population in the 1970 Census and Some Implica tions tor Public Programs," August 1975, especially pp. 1-13; and Series P-23, No. 65, "Developmental Estimates of the Coverage of the Population of States in the 1970 Census: Demographic Analysis", December 1977, especially pp. 1-9.

census. Another advantage is its ability to measure the

components of net census error (that is, to distinguish

coverage error from reporting or classification error) if the

appropriate match studies are carried out. Because of the

different concepts employed in the census to count the

Hispanic population, the capability of the reinterview pro

cedure to measure the principal components of error is

especially useful. The in-depth probes generally included in

the reinterview, such as alternative and detailed forms for

questions, provide valuable information relating to group

definition.

Shifts in identification of individuals as Hispanic over time

with the same identifier, differences in identification of

individuals as Hispanic with different identifiers for the same

date, and differences in the identification of individuals as

Hispanic in synchronous surveys, such as a census and a

reinterview sample survey, with the same identifier can be

measured and analyzed by use of a sample reinterview

survey. The Census Bureau has conducted a number of

studies using techniques similar to the reinterview method

that were designed to measure such shifts and differences.

The specific studies are discussed in later sections of this

report.

Record Checks

A record check consists of matching a list of names, either a

sample drawn from a set of records or the complete set,

against the census being evaluated. The principal advantage

of the record-check method over the reinterview method is

that omissions from the record file are less likely to be

correlated with omissions from the census. As with the

reinterview method, completeness of the list is not a

necessary condition for its use in evaluating coverage in the

census; the two collection systems need only be independent,

that is, the chance of inclusion in each of the two systems

should not be correlated. Moreover, these methods do not

require use of other external data such as migration data and,

hence, they can be employed effectively to measure coverage

for geographic areas within the United States.

In practice the limitations of the record -check method are

the same as for the reinterview method. The matching

problem remains and, in spite of the greater likelihood of

4 See Eli S. Marks, William Seltzer, and Karol J. Krotki, Population Growth Estimation, The Population Council, New York, 1974, esp. Chapter 2.

4
5

independence between the census and the record file, the

two sets of records will not be completely independent.

While the record is accessible at any time for matching of

individuals, the form and content of the record file must be

accepted as given; as a result the matching procedure is

rendered more difficult. Furthermore, because the analysis

depends on the content of the record files, the record-check

method tends to provide less information on the components

of net census error.

The most serious problem in the application of the

record-check method for evaluating the national or regional

coverage of the Hispanic population in the 1970 census is the

lack of an adequate set of records, other than the census,

which is national or regional in scope and in which the

Hispanic population is identified. This situation precludes the

direct application of the record-check technique to the

measurement of the coverage of the Hispanic population for

1970.

DEMOGRAPHIC METHODS

Aggregated Data From Administrative Records

Estimates of net census errors can sometimes be obtained by

comparing census data with aggregated data from adminis

trative records such as Social Security records of covered

workers, Medicare records, or school enrollment records. The

administrative record file must be complete or must be

adjusted for incompleteness, and further adjusted for

differences in scope and definition from the census. This

method can provide estimates only for particular agesex segments of the population and for the net census

error, not the (coverage and classification) components of

error. The major shortcoming of this method for the

estimation of the coverage of the Hispanic population is,

again, the lack of a set of administrative records identifying

the Hispanic population with which the census can be

compared.

Demographic Analysis

The method of demographic analysis consists essentially of

the development, by various demographic techniques, of

expected values for the population in the census categories to

be evaluated and the comparison of these expected values

with the actual census counts. The expected values are

derived by combining data essentially independent of the

census being evaluated, such as birth, death, and immigration

statistics and data from other censuses, and employing such

techniques or devices as life tables, intercensal cohort

analysis, expected sex ratios, and population models.

Demographic analysis can provide an estimate of net

coverage error for the entire population (for which there is

no classification error) and estimates of net census error,

which combine both coverage and reporting error, for

specific groups in the population, such as age, sex, and race

groups. The principal limitation of demographic analysis for

estimating census coverage is that the expected population

developed by this method is directly affected by errors in the

basic demographic data and the methodological assumptions

employed.

Because of the lack of data on the Hispanic population

from independent sources for the entire country or for a

particular region or regions, the possible application of

demographic analysis to the estimation of the coverage of the

Hispanic population in the 1970 census is severely limited.

Rough indications of the overall quality of the data for the

Hispanic population can be secured, however. The

demographic techniques employed do not provide actual

estimates of coverage error; rather, they give indications of

internal inconsistencies in the census data that can be used to

suggest the occurrence of coverage and reporting problems,

particularly in certain age-sex groups. One technique, inter

censal cohort analysis, is also used to derive some rough

estimates of bicensal relative coverage error in the 1970 and

1960 censuses for several subgroups of the Hispanic

population.

STATISTICAL METHODS

Another possible approach to the estimation of the coverage

of the Hispanic population for subnational areas in the 1970

census involves the application of "statistical" methods.

There are many variations of these methods but the primary

variations are the synthetic and correlation-estimation

methods. The standard version of the synthetic method

involves the application of rates or proportions, for specific

segments of the population (e.g., socioeconomic or residence

categories), relating to some characteristic of the population

(e.g., coverage) at a given geographic level (e.g., the United

States), to the population at some subordinate level (e.g..

States). For example, synthetic coverage estimates for States

could be derived by applying national coverage rates for

income classes to State populations disaggregated by income.

Synthetic estimation could be applied to the Hispanic

population if detailed coverage estimates for demographic

and socioeconomic segments of the national Hispanic popu

lation, or even of the national total population, were

available. This requirement cannot be met for 1970. The

correlation-estimation method requires detailed estimates of

coverage for at least a sample of geographic subdivisions of

the United States and hence cannot be applied in 1970.
Alternative Definitions of the Hispanic Population and Implications

for Coverage Evaluation

ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS IN CENSUS

DATA

Recent censuses have provided some data on the Hispanic

population. The Bureau of the Census has used a number of

different bases to identify the Hispanic population or some

of its subgroups in decennial censuses. The various identi

fiers include:

a. Country of birth and country of birth of parents (1880

to 1970)

1. Mexico, Cuba, Central or South America, other (1880

to 1970)

2. Puerto Rico (1950, 1960, 1970)

b. Mexican "race" (1930 only)

c. Spanish surname in five Southwestern States (1950, 1960,

1970)

d. Spanish mother tongue (1940 and 1970)

e. Spanish origin, by type: Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,

Central or South American, other (1970)

By combining the four identifiers employed in 1970, the

Bureau of the Census defined six different Hispanic popula

tions either regionally or nationally: Spanish origin or

descent, Spanish surname (five States only), Spanish lan

guage, Spanish heritage, Spanish surname (five States only)

or language, and Spanish birth or parentage.

Problems of comparability, coverage, and insufficient

scope limit the utility of these data in evaluating the 1970

census.5 Each of these identifiers presents special problems

in the precision with which the Hispanic group is defined,

the degree of applicability of the identifier to the Hispanic

population, the difficulty of constructing an expected popu

lation, and the utility of the identifier for estimating

coverage.6

5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Data on the Spanish Ancestry Population Available from the 1970 Census of Population and Hous ing," Data Access Descriptions, DAD No. 41, May 1975, and Persons of Spanish Ancestry, Supplementary Report PC(S1)-30, 1970 Census of Population, February 1973.

"Jose Hernandez, Leo Estrada, and David Alvlrez, "Census Data and the Problem of Conceptually Defining the Mexican-American Population," Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 53(4), March 1973, pp. 671-687.

C

Country of Birth or Parentage

The questions on place of birth of each individual and coun

try of birth of parents have provided the only consistent

method of identifying foreign stock from Spanish-speaking

countries in successive censuses. These questions are cur

rently of limited utility in identifying members of the

Hispanic population, however, because there are large num

bers of people of Spanish (particularly Mexican) origin who

are third-or-higher-generation residents of the United States.

In some areas of the Southwest, particularly New Mexico,

this problem is especially acute because there are many

people of Spanish origin with a distinctive Mexican culture

whose ancestors have lived in the same area for centuries.

For some of the other Spanish-origin subpopulations, in

particular the Cuban and Puerto Rican populations, most

individuals are first-or-second-generation residents, so that

data on country of birth and country of birth of parents

should cover almost all persons of this background. For these

groups very rough coverage estimates might be obtained by

demographic analysis using immigration statistics classified

by country of origin for the last few decades from the Im

migration and Naturalization Service (INS) and estimates

of births and deaths to this group for this period. (See the

subsequent section, "Intercensal Cohort Analysis.") The relia

bility of these coverage estimates would still be in question,

however, because vital statistics are not available according

to country of birth or country of birth of parents. Place of

birth of parents is recorded on the birth certificate, and

place of birth is recorded on the death certificate, but this

information is not tabulated by the National Center for

Health Statistics.

The population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in

1970 as well as in 1960 and 1950 may be identified by the

questions on place of birth and place of birth of parents. In

these censuses, these classifiers identified practically all of

the population of Puerto Rican origin because even in 1970

this population still consisted mainly of first or second

generation residents in the United States. (Less than 10

percent of the second generation of Puerto Ricans in the

United States was over 30 years of age in 1970.)
7

Mexican "Race"

The Bureau of the Census tried to identify all persons of

Mexican origin, regardless of generation, in the 1930 census

by including a category "Mexican" in the question on race.

The classification of Mexican as a race was markedly un

popular, particularly with the Mexican Government, and was

not attempted again.

Spanish Surname

In 1950, 1960, and 1970, the Census Bureau attempted to

identify Mexican-Americans in five Southwestern States (i.e.,

Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas)

through the use of a list of Spanish surnames. The list used

in 1970 was developed by the Bureau of the Census after

periodic revisions of a list originally compiled in the 1930's

by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The identi

fication of Mexican-Americans through surnames makes

possible the inclusion of persons beyond the first two genera

tions in any tabulation of the group.

This identification technique, as it has been applied, has

major shortcomings. Many of the "Spanish" surnames on the

list are apparently common among persons of Italian, Portu

guese, or similar origins. For this reason, the Census Bureau

confined the tabulations based on the list to the five South

western States where most of the Mexican-American popu

lation lives and where there are few other persons of Latin,

non-Hispanic origins (unlike the situation in other parts of

the country). Even in this area the correspondence between

the population with Spanish surnames and the population

of Mexican ethnicity is not always very close. In the five

Southwestern States, only about 74 percent of the Spanishorigin population is of Mexican origin and 81 percent of

the Spanish-surname population is of Spanish origin.7 In

many parts of these States, however, the problem is less

pronounced. In research encoding the city directory of

Waco, Texas, according to the Bureau's list of surnames,

only 4 percent of the Spanish-surname population could

not trace their ancestry to Mexico.8 On the other hand, as

migration into the Southwest by persons from Spanishspeaking countries other than Mexico increases, the likeli

hood that Spanish surnames will identify Mexican-Americans

only will decrease. A further difficulty with the Spanish -surname classifica

tion is that women who marry men with non-Spanish sur

names are lost to the Hispanic population, as are their

children. About 15 percent of Mexican-American women

marry non-Mexican-American men so that the potential loss

to the Spanish surname population is substantial. At least

part, if not all, of this loss is offset by marriages of Anglo

women to Mexican-American men, however.

'U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, Comparison of Persons of Spanish Surname and Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States, 1975.

"Raymond H. C. Teske, Jr. and Bardin H. Nelson, "Fertility and Related Demographic Variables among Middle-Class Mexican- Americans: A Descriptive Analysis," unpublished paper presented at the 1975 meeting of the Southwestern Social Science Association, San Antonio, Texas, March 1975.

The geographic restriction to the Southwest places severe

limitations on the use of the concept of a Spanish-surname

population for estimating coverage in the Southwest by the

usual demographic methods. The population is not closed

(i.e., is subject to migration) and there is no reliable way of

measuring the migration of this population to and from the

area. Migrants from the five Southwestern States to the

rest of the United States and to foreign countries are lost to

the Spanish surname population in later censuses and esti

mates of the number of such migrants are likely to be very

rough at best.

Spanish Language

Spanish mother tongue was used as the principal basis for

measuring the Spanish-language population in 1970 but the

Spanish-language population included many persons in

addition to those of Spanish mother tongue. The Spanishlanguage population was comprised of persons of Spanish

mother tongue and all other persons in families in which the

head or wife reported Spanish as his or her mother tongue.

The 1970 census question on mother tongue was asked of

all persons in the 15-percent sample; mother tongue refers

to the language spoken in the person's home when he or

she was a child.

Problems of consistency in definition and scope of the

identifier complicate the evaluation of the coverage of the

Hispanic population based on the Spanish-language identifier.

The Spanish-language population is not a closed population

and it is not clearly equivalent to the population which

considers itself, or is considered by the general population,

to be the Hispanic population. Persons may gain Spanishlanguage affiliation by marriage and lose it by separation

or divorce. The children of persons of Spanish mother

tongue do not necessarily fall into the Spanish-language

population when they became adults. The phenomenon of

shifting identification may have been increasing over time

as more of the Spanish-language population has assimilated

culturally.

It would appear that the Hispanic population cannot be

adequately defined by a single characteristic such as language.

For example, it is possible that many persons who consider

themselves Hispanic may not have spoken the Spanish

language at home as a child. As a greater percentage of the

Spanish-origin population has become third or higher genera

tion residents and as more and more Hispanic families have

moved out of ethnic enclaves, more Hispanic children may

have been reared speaking English. As a result, the Spanishlanguage identifier becomes less successful in identifying the

Hispanic population. One final difficulty with this identifier

is that it does not differentiate among the various Hispanic

subpopulations.

Reliable estimation of the Spanish-language population

by demographic analysis is not now possible. In addition to

the problem of measuring change due to shifts in identifica

tion, there is the problem of measuring the births, deaths,

and immigration for this group.
8

Spanish Heritage

The Spanish-heritage population, defined only for the 1970

census, is an unduplicated combination of populations

identified by three of the criteria discussed above, primarily

Spanish language. Specifically, it consists of the population

identified by:

1. Spanish surname or Spanish language in the five South

western States (Arizona, California, Colorado, New

Mexico, Texas);

2. Puerto Rican birth or parentage in the Middle Atlantic

States (New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania); and

3. Spanish language in the remaining 42 States and the

District of Columbia.

These data have the advantage of being national in scope.

However, except for the Puerto Rican population in the

Middle Atlantic States, the various Hispanic subpopulations

are not distinguished in the figures.

Attempting to evaluate the Spanish-heritage figures by

developing an independent estimate of the expected popu

lation of Spanish heritage would be an almost impossible

task. The population is a loosely concocted mixture rather

than a compound of even consistency. Children of members

of the Spanish-heritage population may not be members

of this population group. Furthermore, individuals may

move in and out of the population as they change their

residences within the United States. For example, persons

of Puerto Rican parentage with a Spanish surname but not

of Spanish mother tongue would leave the Spanish-heritage

population if they moved from New York to Kansas but

would reenter it if they then moved to California. Their

children would not be counted as part of the Spanishheritage population (through Spanish surname) until the

families arrived in California. Given problems such as these

and the others noted, it would be futile to attempt an evalu

ation of the 1970 census count of the Spanish-heritage popu

lation by demographic methods in spite of the relatively

objective nature of the definition.

Spanish Origin

The limitations in the use of Spanish surnames in the South

west, Spanish country of birth and Spanish country of birth

of parents, Spanish language, and Spanish heritage to identify

the Hispanic population led the Census Bureau to try

another method of identifying this group in the 1970 census,

namely, use of a specific question on Spanish origin or

descent. In November 1969, a supplement was appended to

the Current Population Survey (CPS), which asked for a

person's origin or descent (by self-identification) as Hispanic

(several categories) or non-Hispanic. Specifically, respondents

were asked if they were of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,

Central or South American, or other Spanish origin or

descent.

This practice has been continued, although the various

sets of data are not strictly comparable because the form of

the question, the classificatory system and practices, and the

sample design have varied. The same question was asked in

the 1970 census on the 5-percent sample questionnaire. For

the March 1971 and March 1972 Current Population Surveys,

the question on origin or descent was expanded to include

ethnic groups other than Spanish, and the category "Mexican

(Mexicano)." These changes in nomenclature probably had

only small effects on the figures for the Mexican-American

population as identified. More importantly, the method of

assigning children under 14 to the Spanish-origin category

was changed in 1973 so that children in households where

the wife (but not the head) was of Spanish origin were classi

fied as Spanish. This change added about 300,000 children

to the Spanish-origin category between 1972 and 1973.

Two major advantages of the question on Spanish origin

as an identifier of the Hispanic population are its ability to

identify various subpopulations and its ability to cover third

and higher generation residents of Spanish descent. The

primary limitation of the Spanish-origin question, particu

larly for coverage evaluation, stems from the self-designation

feature of the question. An individual's conception of him

self or herself as of Spanish origin or non-Spanish origin may

vary over time.'' Because of this variability of self-identifica

tion, the definition of exactly who is a member of the

Spanish-origin population is unclear and often ambiguous.

This fuzziness of group boundaries would make the calcula

tion of an independent estimate of an expected population

difficult under the best circumstances but the problem is

complicated by the lack of adequate data corresponding to

this identifier. These issues are particularly relevant for 1980

and later years since a question on Spanish origin or descent

is to be included on the 100-percent questionnaire for the

1980 census and self-designated Spanish origin or descent

will be the primary means for identifying members of the

Hispanic population.

IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE DEFINI

TIONS FOR COVERAGE EVALUATION

Differences in Census Counts

The figures for the Hispanic population of the United States

in 1970 vary considerably for the four identifiers (or classi

fiers) applicable at the national level, from a low of

9,073,000 for the population of Spanish origin or descent

to 10,115,000 for the Spanish-language and/or surname

population. The second figure exceeds the first by 11.5

percent (table 1). For the five Southwestern States, the area

with the greatest concentration of Hispanic population, the

relative excess of the highest figure over the lowest figure

based on the various identifiers is even greater, about 30

percent. The figures range from 4,668,000 for the Spanish-

* Several studies conducted by the Bureau of the Census bear on this point. They are discussed in more detail in the next section of this report. A similar phenomenon has been found among American Indians; see Jeffrey S. Passel. "Provisional Evaluation of the 1970 Census Count of American Indians," Demography 13 (1), August 1976, pp. 397-409.
9

Table 1. Hispanic Population According to Various Identifiers, for the United States and Selected Areas

Within the United States: April 1, 1970

Identifier

United States

Southwestern

States1 Remainder ofUnited States

Middle

Atlantic States2 Florida

NUMBER

Spanish 9,072,602 5,008,556 4,064,046 1,749,363 405,036 Spanish (x) 4,667,975 (X) (x) (X) S panish 9,589,216 5,662,700 3,926,516 1,873,051 451,382 Spanish 9,294,509 6,188,362 3,106,147 1,052,682 451,382

Spanish language or surname7 . . . 10,114,878 6,188,362 3,926,516 1,873,051 451,382

Spanish birth or parentage3.... 5,241,892 2,321,642 2,920,250 1,738,802 336,961

PERCENT OF SPANISH ORIGIN9

Spanish 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Spanish (X) 93.2 (X) (X) (x)

Spanish 105.7 113.1 96.6 107.1 111.4

Spanish 102.4 123.6 76.4 60.2 111.4 Spanish language or surname.... 111.5 123.6 96.6 107.1 111.4

Spanish 57.8 46.4 71.9 99.4 83.2

X Not applicable.

1Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. 2New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 3U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Subject Reports, PC(2)-lC, Persons of Spanish Origin. 1973, table 1. *U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Subject Reports, PC(2)-lD, Persons of Spanish Surname. 1973, table 1. sThis group consists of all persons of Spanish mother tongue and all other persons in families in

which the head or wife reported Spanish as his or her mother tongue. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Supplementary Report, PC(Sl)-30, Persons of Spanish Ancestry, 1973,

table 3. 6This group consists of persons of Spanish language or surname in the 5 Southwestern States, persons of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in the 3 Middle Atlantic States, and persons of Spanish language in the remaining 42 States and the District of Columbia. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics. PC(1)-C, 1972, table 85 (United

States) and table 49 (States). 7 Ibid. , table 86 (United States) and table 49 (States). 80p.cit. , PC(Sl)-30, table 5. 'Figures represent ratio of specified population to Spanish-origin population (per 100).

surname population to 6,188,000 for the Spanish-heritage

population. This difference cannot be attributed to sampling

variability since it is considerably greater than its 95-percent

confidence interval; it represents, therefore, a real variation

in the size of the Hispanic population according to various

identifiers.

The large differences between the counts of the Hispanic

population according to different identifiers have serious

implications for estimating the coverage of the Hispanic

population in the 1970 census. If the undercoverage rate of

the Hispanic population in 1970 was similar to that of Whites

or Blacks, it would fall in the range of 2 to 10 percent. The

differences among the various counts of the Hispanic popula

tion are generally of this magnitude or larger. Thus, in at

tempting to measure the undercoverage of the Hispanic

Population in the 1970 census, we are trying to estimate

quantities which are smaller than the differences which can

be attributed to definitional variation and, as will be seen

next, to response variability for a particular definition.

Consistency of Response

Some evidence is available suggesting that individuals' re

sponses as Hispanic or non-Hispanic vary considerably from

time to time. Five studies provide evidence on the reliability

and consistency of answers to the Spanish-origin question:

(1) 1970 Content Reinterview Survey;10 (2) CPS match

studies for March 1 97 1 , 1 972, and 1 973;' 1 (3) special census

of Gallup, New Mexico, November 1974;' 2 (4) Spanish

origin-Spanish surname cross-classifications from the March

1971 CPS;1 3 and (5) the National Content Test of 1976.14

10 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population and Housing: Evaluation and Research Program PHC(E)-9, Accuracy of Data for Selected Population Characteristics as Measured by Reinter- views, 1974. ' 'U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 31, Consis tency of Reporting of Ethnic Origin in the Current Population Survey, 1974.1 : Unpublished tabulations and records. 1 3 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38. op. cit. ' 4 Unpublished tabulations and records.
10

Table 2. Consistency of Responses to the Spanish-Origin Question as Measured by Reinterview

Studies and the Current Population Survey, by Type of Spanish Origin: 1970 to 1976

(Base of percent is the population in the reinterview or in the second-named survey. Nonresponses and responses of "don't know" have been eliminated from the calculations)

Central Study and measure All Puerto or South Other Amer Spanish Mexican Rican Cuban American Spanish ican origins origin origin origin origin origin White Black Indian

PERCENT SAME CATEGORY

1970 Content Reinterview Study1.... 75.9 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 399.5 399.1 (NA) 94.6 91.3 95.0 94.6 71.3 40.9 (NA) 96.2 (NA) 90.9 86.1 92.1 83.3 73.0 46.6 (NA) 96.9 (NA) 89.2 74.1 (B) (B) (B) 45.9 (NA) 97.9 91.7

PERCENT NET DIFFERENCE2

93.9 96.1 93.9 (B) (B) 4.6 (NA) (NA) (NA)

1970 Content Reinterview Study1.... +7.9 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 3-t0.3 3-0.7 (NA) -3.4 +0.6 +2.9 -10.1 -48.3 -16.7 (NA) + 2.1 (NA) + 3.3 + 5.7 -2.2 +2.0 -2.5 + 5.9 (NA) +0.2 (NA) +6.0 + 15.0 (B) (B) (B) -50.9 (NA) -2.1 -3.0

PERCENT NON-SPANISH ORIGIN *

-4.6 -48.8 -23.5 (B) (B) +83.4 (NA) (NA) (NA)

1970 Content Reinterview Study1.... 24.1 (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (X) (X) (X) 5.4 2.7 1.3 2.0 9.2 24.2 (x) (x) (X) 9.1 4.4 4.4 2.5 18.0 30.3 (X) (X) (X) 10.8 11.0 (B) (B) (B) 9.3 (X) (X) (X) 6.1 3.6 4.1 (B) (B) 8.6 (X) (x) (x)

B Base of percent less than 40 persons. NA Not available. X Not applicable.

1The question in the reinterview differed considerably from the census question. Results may not be comparable with others shown. 2A plus sign (+) indicates a net shift into the category in the reinterview phase; a minus sign (-) indicates a

net shift out of the category. 'From 1970 CPS-Census Match Study. 'These figures represent the proportion of a Hispanic subgroup, as identified in the second survey or interview, that was Identified as non-Hispanic in the first survey or interview. Most persons reporting different origins in the two interviews reported a Hispanic origin in both interviews.

Sources: Content Reinterview Study—U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, Evalu ation and Research Program PHC(E)-10, Accuracy of Data for Selected Population Characteristics as Measured by Reinterviews. 1974, tables A, D, and 1. CPS Longitudinal Match Studies —U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 31, Reporting of Ethnic Origin in the Current Population Survey, 1974, tables D and K. Gallup and NCT Reinterviews —Unpublished tabulations.

Consistency of Response: 1970 Content Reinterview

Survey

The Content Reinterview Survey taken following the 1970

census included the question, "Where did your father's (or

mother's) ancestors come from?" An individual was then

classified as being of Spanish origin or descent if any of

his or her ancestors came from a Spanish-speaking country.

This classification differs somewhat from the 1970 census

classification because it includes as Spanish some people

who may think of themselves as primarily of some origin

or descent other than Spanish.

The likelihood of reporting Spanish origin in the census

declined with the distance of the relationship between the

respondents and their immigrant forebears. Of the popula

tion born in "Hispanic" countries (according to the reinter

view), 99 percent reported being of Spanish origin in the

census. For the second generation (at least one parent from

a Hispanic country), about 83 percent reported being of

Spanish origin in the census; for the third generation, 73

percent; for fourth generation, 44 percent; and for those

whose Spanish ancestry is further removed than greatgrandparents, only 6 percent reported being of Spanish

origin in the census. For persons reporting Spanish origin

on both sides of the family in the reinterview, 97 percent

reported Spanish origin in the census, whereas only 21

percent with Spanish origin on one side reported themselves

to be of Spanish origin in the census.1 5

1 5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Evaluation and Research Program PHC(E)-9, op. cit., pp. 5-8 and table 1 .
These data clearly indicate that the relatively objective

criterion of having an ancestor, albeit distant, from a

Hispanic country does not correspond to the psychosocial

ciiteria applied by respondents to determine their own

origin or descent.

Overall, only 76 percent of the persons reporting an

cestors from Hispanic countries in the Content Reinterview

Survey reported any type of Spanish origin in the census.

The consistency of reporting varied considerably according

to the characteristics of the respondent. Those with Spanish

surnames reported Spanish origin more consistently than

those without Spanish surnames. Respondents who were

foreign-born reported Spanish origin more consistently than

those who were native. Persons living in the Southwest

reported Spanish origin more consistently than those in

other areas.

Consistency of Response: CPS Longitudinal Match

Studies

Because of the design of the Current Population Survey, it is

possible to match approximately half of the sample on a

case-by-case basis from one year to the next. Such longi

tudinal match studies were carried out between the March

1971, 1972, and 1973 CPS samples. The consistency of re

porting Spanish origin in the March 1971—March 1972 and

in the March 1972-March 1973 match studies is summarized

in table 2.""

These studies indicate that persons of Mexican, Puerto

Rican, and Cuban origins report their origin more con

sistently than persons of Central or South American and

Other Spanish origins.' 7 Although the populations of

Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban origin fall in the range

called highly consistent in the report (80 to 95 percent

reporting the same category in both years), from the point

of view of measuring the coverage of a group even a 5-

percent inconsistency is disturbingly and intolerably large.

In fact, the 95.0-percent consistency reported for the Puerto

Rican origin group in the March 1971—March 1972 match

study could be substantially larger or smaller because the

95-percent confidence interval is 90.4 percent to 99.6

percent. The high consistency in reporting of Puerto Rican

and Cuban origins is related to the recency of immigration;

the vast majority of these persons are first- or secondgeneration Americans.

For each of the various Spanish-origin populations, a

large percentage of those who reported a different origin

on the second interview remained within the Spanish-origin

population. Many of these individuals chose the "Other

Spanish" category on one occasion (giving a local or na

tionalistic designation such as Hispano or Borinqueno) and

a specific origin group on the other. Of those who incorrectly

I * Nonresponscs and responses of "don't know" in either of the

matched surveys have been eliminated from the calculations. In cluding such responses would, in general, reduce the percentage in the same category, increase the percent net difference, and increase the percent of non-Spanish origin. II Because of sampling variability, other differences between

groups may not be significant, however.

reported the Spanish-origin group, many non-Hispanic

persons had misinterpreted the phrase "Central or South

American origin" to mean central or southern United States.

This problem also affected the 1970 census reports and in

addition to distorting the data on Central or South American

origin, renders the data for all Hispanic origins combined less satisfactory for estimating the coverage of the group.1 H

For the Nation as a whole, it appears that, from the point

of view of estimating the total sisc of the Spanish-origin

population, reporting of origin is relatively consistent over

time, as is reporting of the major subgroups, Mexican, Puerto

Rican, and Cuban. However, from the point of view of

measuring the coverage of these groups, the amount of in

consistency is excessive. Furthermore, self-identification

of Spanish origin is not very consistent over time when

specific geographic areas are considered.

Consistency of Response: Special Census of Gallup,

New Mexico

In conjunction with the November 1974 special census of

Gallup, New Mexico, the Census Bureau conducted an

experiment to check the consistency of reporting of Spanish

origin. The census questionnaire, which was mailed out,

requested the respondent to indicate origin or descent. This

mailing was followed up with an interview in which flnshcards were used to solicit a reply to the question on origin

or descent. The results comparing the reports on oriqin or

descent are summarized in table 2." 9

The level of overall consistency for Gallup is similar to

the results of the other studies. About 80 percent of the

persons calling themselves Spanish in the census did so again

in the reinterview. However, the consistency of the Mexicanorigin response was quite low—only 74 percent gave the same

response. Most of the inconsistent responses involved changes

from "Mexican" to "Other Spanish," or vice versa. These

shifts illustrate some of the problems in attempting to

identify a socially defined group in a self-enumeration

census.

A large percentage of the members of the Spanish-origin

population in New Mexico often refer to themselves as

Hispano or Spanish, and not as Mexican, because they are

descended from the original Spanish settlers of the area

rather than from immigrants from Mexico. However, the

culture of the New Mexican Hispanos is sufficiently similar

to that of most Mexican-Americans that the two groups

can be combined for most practical purposes.

The Census Bureau has used a number of alternative

formats for the Spanish -origin question in order to identify

the Hispanic population. Some of the formats included as

response categories such terms as "Mexican-American,"

"Chicano," and "Hispano," either as separate categories or

grouped with "Mexican" origin. Including various designa

tions for the Mexican-origin population and tabulating them

"The persistence of this problem in tests for the 1980 census has led to the elimination of the "Central or South American" cate gory from the listed responses to the Spanish-origin question.

1 'See footnote 16 regarding treatment of nonresponses.
12

together ;ncreases greatly the consistency of response for this

population. Such categories might result in some slight

confusion and in the erroneous inclusion of some persons of

Portuguese or Brazilian origin as Spanish. However, the costs

are likely to be small and are greatly outweighed by the

benefits of a more consistently defined population.

The Gallup study highlights another facet of the problem

of defining the population of Spanish origin or descent. In

certain areas, the terms used by the respondents to define

their own group membership differ from the more general

terms used by the Census Bureau and other public agencies.

This problem is especially prevalent in areas with large

concentrations of Hispanic population, such as New Mexico,

Texas, California, and New York. To the extent that the

distinctive local terms are not recognized by the Census

Bureau, the reliability of the data on the Spanish-origin

population is lessened and the difficulty of defining a com

parable expected population for coverage estimation is

increased.

Consistency of Response: Spanish Origin-Spanish

Surname Cross-tabulations

Cross-tabulations of the subjectively defined Spanish-origin

population and the objectively defined Spanish-surname

population provide valuable information on the reliability

of both identifiers for delineating the Hispanic population

of the United States. Such a study was carried out in con

nection with the March 1971 Current Population Survey.20

The Spanish surnames were encoded with the list used for

the 1970 census; Spanish origin or descent was tabulated

1 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, Com parison of Persons of Spanish Surname and Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States, 1975.

from responses to a question on origin or descent which

contained 13 categories, 5 of which were Spanish.2 1

This report concludes that "identification by Spanish

surname appears to provide a fair approximation of the

Spanish-origin population in the five Southwestern States

of the United States, but not in the States outside this

area."22 This relationship can be seen in the data presented

in tables 3 and 4. In the five Southwestern States, 81 percent

of the population with Spanish surnames identified them

selves as being of Spanish origin but, outside these States,

only 46 percent did so. Likewise, of the population which

identified itself as of Spanish origin, 74 percent had Spanish

surnames in the five Southwestern States, but only about 61

percent did in the remainder of the United States. In general,

the Spanish-surname and Spanish-origin identifiers cor

respond better for the Mexican-origin population than for

any of the other Spanish subgroups. The same report also

concludes that, in spite of the possible losses and gains for

the Spanish-surname population through the marriage of

women, there is no significant difference between the sexes

in the percent with Spanish surnames who report Spanish

origin or vice versa.

These findings have important implications for estimating

the coverage of the Hispanic population in the 1970 census.

Self-declared Spanish origin or descent is the best measure

we now have for measuring the Hispanic population. How

ever, nationally, the Spanish-surname population, as

measured by the present list of Spanish surnames, does not

approximate the Hispanic population as defined by Spanish

origin or descent. In fact, about 11 percent of the "Spanish2 1 "Mexicano, Chicano," "Puerto Rican," "Cuban," "Central or So. Arner.," and "Other Spanish." "U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, op. cit., p. 2.

Table 3. Proportion of Persons of Spanish Origin With Spanish Surnames, and Proportion of Persons

With Spanish Surnames of Spanish Origin, for the United States and the Five Southwestern

States: March 1971

(Numbers in thousands)

Origin and surname Five Southwestern Remainder of

United States States1 United States

8,957 5,345 3,612 Percent

68.3 73.6 60.5 31.7 26.4 39.5

9,575 4,850 4,725 Percent

63.9 81.1 46.2 36.1 18.9 53.8

1Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, Comparison of Persons of Spanish

Surname and Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States, 1975, table A, p. 3.
1 3

surname" population outside of the five Southwestern

States is actually of Italian origin.23 Yet the only identifier

for which it might be possible to get birth and death data

for 1970 and earlier years is Spanish surname. Thus, there

is a distinct lack of correspondence between the type of

data that can be made available and the population for which

coverage is to be measured.24 Limiting coverage estimates

to geographic areas for which Spanish-surname, the identifier

available in the census and in non-census sources, corre

sponds more closely to the Hispanic population requires

another type of data which is not available — information

on migration within the United States of persons with

Spanish surnames.

2 3 lbid., table 9. 14 Current research at the Census Bureau suggests that it might be possible to develop a list of Spanish surnames which would provide better correspondence with the Spanish-origin identifier and which could be applied throughout the United States. See the section, "Plans for 1980" for further discussion.

Consistency of Response: National Content Test

The National Content Test (NCT) of July 1976 provided

another observation on the consistency of reporting of

Spanish origin. This survey covered two panels of retired

CPS households (each of about 14,000 households). The

question on Spanish origin listed seven categories of Spanish

origin: "Mexican or Mexicano," "Mexican-American,"

"Chicano," "Puerto Rican," "Cuban," "Central or South

American (Spanish)," "Other Spanish," or "No, none of

these." In September 1976, detailed reinterviews were

conducted with about 2,300 households from each sample.

Respondents in the reinterview phase were asked a series of

questions about the ethnicity of parents and ancestors and,

finally, a question regarding ethnic self -perception.

The results of this reinterview study, shown in table 2,

are generally consistent with the others previously dis

cussed.55 The reporting of all Spanish origins, Mexican

3 5 See footnote 1 6 regarding treatment of nonresponses.

Table 4. Proportion of Persons of Spanish Origin With Spanish Surnames, by Type of Spanish Origin,

for the United States and the Five Southwestern States: March 1971

(Numbers in thousands)

Area and type of Spanish origin

Total persons

Spanish surname

Number Percent

0

UNlTED STATES

Total, Spanish origin.

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central or South American.

Other Spanish

FlVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES1

Total, Spanish origin.

Mexican

Other Spanish2.

REMAINDER OF UNITED STATES

Total, Spanish origin.

Mexican

Puerto Rican

Cuban

Central or South American.

Other Spanish

8,957

5,023

1,450

626

501

1,356

5,345

4,358

987

3,612

665

1,407

561

406

573

6,117

3,793

913

410

238

764

3,933

3,324

609

2,184

469

898

384

181

252

68.3

75.5

63.0

65.5

47.5

56.3

73.6

76.3

61.7

60.5

70.5

63.8

68.4

44.6

44.0

'Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

2Includes Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South American, and Other Spanish origin.

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, Comparison of Persons of Spanish

Surname and Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States, 1975, table 1, p. 13.
14

origin, and Puerto Rican origin was reasonably consistent.

Over 90 percent of persons reporting one of these origins in

the NCT reported the same category in the reinterview. For

Mexican and Puerto Rican origins, the net shifts into these

categories were extremely large (49 and 23 percent, re

spectively). Much of this change was the result of shifts of

individuals who identified themselves as “Other Spanish”

in the original interview into specific origin categories in the

reinterview (net shift of 83 percent). The net shifts in the

National Content Test appear to be much larger than for

some of the other tests. These large shifts can probably be

attributed not only to the previously discussed tendency

to use local or nationalistic designations, but also to the

probing nature of the NCT reinterview.

The National Content Test offers further evidence that

self-designation as Spanish is subject to great response

variability. The shift between specific categories for indi

viduals designating themselves as Spanish illustrates further

the difficulty of developing a set of categories for the

Hispanic population which can provide unambiguous identi

fication of individuals as members of specific Hispanic

groupS.

RELATION TO MEASUREMENT OF COVERAGE

Among other ways, the Census Bureau has been measuring

ethnicity on the basis of self-identification of individuals

with a group having a common heritage. In 1970, individuals

were asked, “What is your origin or descent?” to determine

Hispanic ethnicity and were classified as Hispanic if they

reported themselves as belonging to a particular Hispanic

subgroup. First or second generation residents of the United

States can be considered to be of a particular origin or

descent whether they designate themselves as such or not.

However, individuals of perhaps the third or fourth genera

tion should be counted as of a particular origin or descent

only if they consider themselves to be of that origin or

descent.

The Hispanic population of the United States, as defined

collectively by its members through responses to questions

on origin or descent, does not correspond to demographic

notions of a population. The offspring of the Hispanic

population may or may not be members of the Hispanic

population depending on a number of factors, including

external circumstances. Membership in the Hispanic popu

lation may change from time to time either as a result of

change in self-identification or as a result of artificial factors

(e.g., responses for other household members including

children) which are not closely measurable.

The demographic methods used to estimate coverage are

generally based on the assumptions that the offspring of

members of a population will also be members of that popu

lation and that an individual enters a population by birth or

immigration and leaves by death or emigration.” These as

**The methods can also be applied to populations where none

of the offspring are members and net immigration is inapplicable

or nonexistent, or where the population is subject to change on the

basis of measurable socioeconomic categories such as marriage or

sumptions are obviously not valid for the population defined

by the Spanish-origin question in the 1970 census. Thus,

conventional demographic techniques are unlikely to give

reliable coverage estimates for this population.

Estimation of the net census error of the Hispanic popula

tion as defined by origin or descent must take into account

both omission of persons and errors in classification. When

self-designation is the basis of defining membership in the

Hispanic population, the notion of misclassification of adult

respondents

is,

ina

strict sense, not applicable since persons

are

of

Spanish origin

if

they call themselves Spanish and,

conversely, are not Spanish

if

they do not call themselves

Spanish. Misclassification can perhaps be deemed to occur

for those persons who would classify themselves differently if

they responded personally

tothe question, the question

was varied slightly,orthe survey was repeated under similar

conditions.’"Ifsufficient data were availableto

develop

estimates of net census error and its components for the

Hispanic population, say from demographic analysis and a

post-enumeration survey,

itis

probable,

as

suggested by

the results of the match studies and consistency tests dis

cussed, that alarge part of the estimated net census error

would consist of misclassifications of the types notedin

addition to coverage error.

The overall impression given by the consistency testsis

that the Hispanic populationisa

socially defined group of

persons whose self-identification with the Hispanic popula

tion, and particularly with a

given Hispanic subgroup, may

vary over time and between different records, even without

variationinthe form of the question. Thus, evenifbirth

and death data could be obtained for the Spanish-origin

population, the possible inconsistency

in

self-designation

as

Spanish between vital statistics and census data could

seriously prejudice the quality of any estimates of coverage

error obtained by demographic analysis. The componentof

the difference between an expected figure and acensus

figure attributable to changing or inconsistent self-identifica

tion could be

as

large

asthe component attributableto

coverage error. Changes or inconsistencies

inself-identifica

tion, however, are not properly viewed

as

census-taking

errors; rather such changes

or differences reflect the changing

views

ofindividuals regarding their relationtoother mem

bers of societyaswellas

changing sociocultural conditions.

In

sum, each of the various identifiers the Census Bureau

has usedtomeasure the size of the Hispanic population

presents problems

in

evaluating census coverage for that

group.

In

part, these problems are definitional

incharacter.

Lack of a

precise definition of the Hispanic population

isan

evident obstacleto

any attempt

at

deriving coverage esti

mates for the group by meansof

demographic analysis.

The same problem appliestoreinterview and record studies,

butinmuch less degree.

**Misclassification can,of

course, also occur

asaresult of mis

interpretation of the question on the part

of

respondents or emu

merators, errors

in

recording responses, failure to follow the rules

divorce. for assigning ethnicity

tominors, and processing errors.
Applications of Coverage Evaluation Methods

Evaluation of the census count for the total population or

an age-sex category by the method of demographic analysis

requires an estimate of the true total population or the true

population in the age-sex category. Such an estimate is or

dinarily obtained by use of data independent of the census

under study. In attempting to measure the coverage of the

Hispanic population in the 1970 census, a number of demo

graphic techniques were applied with varying degrees of

success. The results of these efforts are described in detail

following a review of the data useful in evaluating the cover

age of the Hispanic population.

DATA ON THE HISPANIC POPULATION USE

FUL IN COVERAGE EVALUATION

An adequate evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic

population in the United States in the 1970 census requires

a set or sets of data essentially independent of the census

itself, national in scope, nearly or wholly complete in

coverage, and corresponding in concept to at least one of the

identifiers of the Hispanic population used in the 1970

census.

Census Data

Data on the Hispanic population in the 1970 census can be

obtained for any one of the six population groups previously

enumerated: Spanish country of birth or parentage, Spanish

surname, Spanish language, Spanish heritage, Spanish

language or surname, and Spanish origin. For comparison

with an independently developed estimate of the true popu

lation or for estimation of parameters or components used

in deriving these estimates, the choice of census data is

determined almost solely by the nature of the non-census

data on which the estimate is based.

Non-Census Data

Data which can be considered for use in evaluating 1970

census data, particularly by demographic methods, can be

obtained from vital records, immigration records, previous

census records. Social Security records, and other admini

strative records.

Non-Census Data: Vital Statistics

Vital statistics tabulations for the Hispanic population are

not now available on the basis of any Hispanic identifier

from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the

Federal agency which compiles vital statistics. The standard

birth and death certificates promulgated by the National

Center, however, do contain information which could be

used to identify a part of the Hispanic population according

to two of the identifiers noted earlier. First, the names

(including maiden name of mother on birth certificates)

could be coded according to a list of Spanish surnames for

the five Southwestern States. The development of vital

statistics useful for measuring coverage of the Hispanic

population would require coding surnames on birth and

death certificates for a substantial period prior to 1970,

perhaps 25 to 35 years.

Coding surnames on birth and death certificates for such

a period, even if done on a sample basis, is an enormous

undertaking and usable data might still not be obtained.

Information regarding the completeness of registration of

Spanish-surname births or births according to some other

Hispanic identifier for the period is required for preparing

component estimates (i.e., estimates employing birth,

death, and migration data directly). Such information does

not exist and cannot be accurately developed. Furthermore,

vital statistics for the Spanish-surname population of only

five States are of limited utility for demographic analysis

in the absence of data on internal migration for the Hispanic

population.

Another possibility for developing vital statistics for the

Hispanic population, in this case national data, is to code

the responses to the place-of-birth question on the death

certificate and the place-of-birth-of-parents question on the

birth certificate. Such a procedure could be used to identify

deaths of first-generation residents and births of secondgeneration residents of Hispanic origin. Third-and-highergeneration births and second-and-higher-generation decedents

could not be identified on this basis. Again, as with

Spanish-surname data, these data would be needed for a

substantial period of years prior to the 1970 census if they

are to be useful for evaluating census coverage in 1970.

Such tabulations are not currently available.

Some States and localities which have concentrations of

Hispanic population provide vital statistics data for the

Hispanic population according to surname, country of origin,

or special ethnic identifiers. Three States, Arizona, Cali

fornia, and Texas, code births and deaths according to

Spanish surname. Arizona has tabulated births and deaths

for the Spanish-surname population since 1969 and Texas

15
16

has done so since 1970. California codes its vital records

according to Spanish surname but does not tabulate the data.

New Mexico has tabulated births and deaths according to

ethnic group since 1960, using a classification system which

distinguishes Anglo, Spanish, and Mexican. New York State

tabulates births and deaths of Puerto Ricans, regardless of

place of birth. Some cities and counties also provide tabu

lations of vital statistics for the Hispanic population:

Dallas for Mexican-Americans (based on surnames). New

York City for Puerto Ricans, Los Angeles county and San

Antonio for the Spanish-surname population, etc. The data

for the various States and cities are not all comparable,

however. Coding practices and the lists of Spanish surnames

employed vary considerably from place to place. The quality

of the coding also varies and standards are often lower than

acceptable for use with corresponding census data.

The utility of these vital statistics for States and cities for

the evaluation of the coverage of the Hispanic population

in 1970 is limited. The data are not adequate to develop an

expected population even for the specified areas because of

the short time span covered and the lack of corresponding

data on migration. However, various demographic measures

that can provide general indications of the overall quality

of the data on the Hispanic population, such as life table

measures, can be calculated from the data for some of these

areas.

Vital statistics tabulated for Puerto Rico are another

useful type of demographic information. Birth and death

rates are available for several decades and life tables have

been compiled periodically since the early part of the

century. These data can serve as bench marks against which

various data and measures for the Puerto Rican population

and other Hispanic groups in the United States can be

compared.

Non-Census Data: Immigration Data

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) provides

information on the number of alien immigrants admitted to

the United States classified by age, sex, country of birth,

and State (or city) of intended residence, as well as a number

of administrative categories. These data are available at least

for several decades and countries of Spanish language can be

identified. This type of data would be useful for deriving an

expected national Hispanic population if comparable data on

alien emigration, citizen arrivals, citizen departures, and

births and deaths were available. These data are lacking in

general and cannot be estimated closely enough for use in

deriving definitive measures of census coverage for the

Hispanic population in 1970. However, illustrative estimates

based on the available immigration data are presented in a

subsequent section for the population of Cuban birth.

Production of these coverage estimates did require a number

of unsupported assumptions regarding survival rates, age

and sex structure, and emigration because of the lack of

suitable data.

Data on arrivals and departures are available for Puerto

Rico for each month since January 1959 from the Puerto

Rico Planning Board. Prior to 1970 most such movement

was destined for or originated in New York. Combined with

birth and death statistics for Puerto Ricans in New York

City and State, these data constitute the best set of

demographic data on any of the Spanish sub-populations

independent of the census. Because these data apply only

to a local area, however, information on internal migration

of the U.S. Puerto Rican population (i.e., net in-migration or

out-migration for New York) is also required to develop an

estimate of the expected Puerto Rican population for this

area in 1970. Such data are not available from sources other

than the census, and the census data pertain only to the

1965-70 period as a whole or represent "lifetime" migration.

The data on Puerto Rican passenger traffic and census data

on 1965-70 migration to and from Puerto Rico have been

used to estimate coverage of the population of Puerto Rican

birth or parentage for the entire United States in 1970.

(See the section, "Intercensal cohort analysis.") The lack of

satisfactory survival rates and particularly of satisfactory data

on the age and sex structure of the migrants necessitated

making a number of unsupported and untestable assumptions

which render any coverage estimates for the Puerto Rican

population illustrative rather than definitive.

The measurement of the net immigration of the Hispanic

population is rendered especially difficult by the possibility

of a substantial illegal immigration of persons of Hispanic

origin for which there are no reliable data or estimates.28

The presence in the United States in 1970 of many illegal

residents of Hispanic origin who entered in the several years

just prior to the 1970 census is widely assumed.29 However,

their number is not known and may be unknowable, except

in impractically broad limits. The available material, both

analytic and conjectural, supports the view that the number

of illegal aliens in the United States in 1970 was substantially

smaller than in recent years.

The possibly large numbers of illegal aliens of Hispanic

origin in the country in 1970 and the difficulties of estimat

ing the size of this segment of the Hispanic population

present serious obstacles to the development of reliable

estimates of coverage for the Hispanic population in 1970.

This issue will remain for 1980. (See the section, "Prospects

for Development of Data" for further discussion of illegal

aliens.)

Non-Census Data: Administrative Record Data

There are a few other types of data which could prove

useful in estimating the coverage of the Hispanic population.

Some States and localities compile data on school enrollment

for the Spanish-surname population. Use of these data re

quires considerable caution because of variations in Spanishsurname lists, coding practices, and coding quality, as men

tioned earlier.

Charles B. Keely, "Counting the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens in the United States," Population and Develop ment Review, Volume 3, No. 4, December 1977, pp. 473-482. "Domestic Council Committee on Illegal Aliens, Preliminary Report, December 1976.
17

Spanish ancestry is not identified in any way in the Social

Security, Medicare, or Internal Revenue Service records, but

it might be possible to code a sample of the records for the

Southwestern States in 1970 according to the Census

Bureau's Spanish-surname list. These data could then be used

in the aggregate or, more effectively, in a (case-by-case)

match study, to evaluate the coverage of the Spanish-surname

population in the Southwestern States. The required coding

has not been done and would be extremely expensive to

carry out at this time. Such a match study could establish

whether an individual was included in the census, but it

could not establish whether he or she was included in the

Spanish-surname count. The limited geographic applicability

of this identifier in its present form would still make addi

tional information for other States necessary.

None of the various non-census data which are available

meet the criteria set forth earlier for use in evaluation of the

coverage of the Hispanic population: independence from the

census, national scope, complete or measurable coverage,

and agreement with a census identifier of the Hispanic popu

lation. Thus, definitive estimates of coverage for the Hispanic

population in 1970 are precluded. However, with appropriate

demographic analysis almost all of the data can provide some

information regarding coverage.

GENERAL INDICATORS OF ERRORS IN AGE

AND SEX DATA

The general overall quality of 1970 census data on the

Hispanic population can be evaluated through the use of

certain limited techniques of demographic analysis even if

precise estimates of coverage cannot be prepared. The tech

niques that have been applied include an examination of the

internal consistency of the data, mainly with regard to age

and sex reporting. The results of this type of analysis es

sentially indicate general patterns and types of errors in the

data, but they are sometimes useful in identifying specific

age-sex groups which are strongly affected by coverage and

reporting errors.

Heaping Indexes

Myers' heaping index is used to measure "age heaping," or

the tendency of respondents to report ages with certain

terminal digits (e.g., zeros, fives) at the expense of others.30

The method also provides rough minimal indications of the

proportion of the population misreporting on each terminal

digit. Measures of heaping are considered here because high

levels of misreporting in single ages are usually associated

with high levels of misreporting of age groups and of omis

sions. The indexes and proportions are shown in table 5

for the Spanish-origin population in 1970, along with the

corresponding figures for the total, White, and Black popu

lations.

Myers' index for the Spanish-origin population in 1970

(0.6) is very low. This value is about the same as the value

for the White population in 1970 (0.5) and well below the

figure for the Black population (1.5). Myers' index and the

proportions misreporting on each terminal digit indicate

little or no digital preference in reporting ages on the part

of the Spanish-origin population in 1970. In fact, the results

3 "U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Methods and Materials of Demography, 2 vols, by Henry S. Shyrock, Jacob S. Siegel. and Associates, third printing, 1975, esp. Vol. 1, p. 207.

Table 5. Percent of Blended Population With Ages Ending in Each Terminal Digit 0 to 9 and Myers'

Summary Index of Heaping, for the Spanish-Origin, White, and Black Populations of the United

States: 1970

(Percentages were obtained by Myers' blended method, using ages 10 to 79, and should be compared

with expected values of 10.0)

Spanish-origin population

Terminal digit Total

population

White

population Black Total Male Female population

10.1 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.6 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.5 10.0 9.9 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.8 10.0 10.0 9.6 10.0 9.9 10.0 9.8 9.8 9.9

10.2 10.3 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.1 9.9 10.0 10.0 9.9 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 10.3 9.9 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.1 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.3

Summary index1. 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 1.5

1Summary index is one-half the sum of the absolute values of deviations from the expected

value of 10.0; i.e., summary index =» V^b -10.0 J.
18

for the Spanish-origin population are within the range of

error of the measurement device and are consistent with no

heaping at all.

Age Ratios

More directly relevant to the measurement of coverage is

the quality of data for age groups. One method of assessing

the reporting and coverage of grouped data on age is to

calculate so-called age ratios and an accompanying summary

index.31 Substantial deviations of the age ratios from 100.0

point to age groups which may be overreported or underreported at the expense of adjacent groups and/or which

may be underenumerated. The age ratios shown in table 6

for the Hispanic population in 1970, defined in terms of

Spanish origin and Spanish surname, identify some age

3 1 An age ratio is defined here as 1 ,~ i p + p~.I p { x

5 a-5 5 a 5 a+5 that is, the ratio of the population in an age group to one-third of the population in the three age groups centered on the numerator popu lation, expressed per 100.

groups that appear to have coverage problems. The corre

sponding age ratios for the White and Black populations in

1970, corrected for net census undercounts, are shown in

the table for comparison.

The 5-9 age group shows ratios greater than 105 for both

Hispanic populations reported in table 6. These figures may

indicate greater undercoverage of the 0-4 and 10-14 age

groups than the 5-9 age group. The very low ratios for males

aged 20-24 suggest possibly large net undercounts in this

age group. The low ratios for ages 50-54, coupled with the

relatively high ratios for ages 45-49 and ages 55-59, suggest

substantial age misreporting in this age range, if not also

differences in coverage from age group to age group. Like

wise, the high ratios for ages 65-69, when considered in

combination with the much lower ratios for the adjacent

age groups, suggest substantial misreporting into the 65-69

age group at the expense of the adjacent age groups. On the

other hand, no firm meaning can be attached to the deviant

age ratios because of the distorting effect of past fluctua

tions in numbers of births and of migration flows into and

out of the country. Even the White population corrected

Table 6. Age Ratios and Age-Accuracy Indexes for the Spanish-Origin, Spanish-Surname, White

(Corrected), and Black (Corrected) Populations of the United States, by Sex: 1970

3P

(An age ratio is defined as +p +p X 100)

a-5 a a+5

Spanish-origin Spanish--surname White population Black population

Age (years) population population1 (Corrected) (Corrected)

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

105.4 105.2 105.1 105.4 104.0 104.0 103.8 103.6

102.5 101.7 103.6 102.6 103.8 103.5 104.0 103.7

101.4 99.1 104.3 102.2 102.2 100.4 102.6 101.4

20 to 24 94.4 99.8 91.7 98.2 98.6 102.7 94.8 98.5

98.6 97.3 98.2 95.7 100.1 98.4 99.0 97.4

99.2 100.1 97.1 97.6 94.7 94.9 95.8 96.2

99.5 99.5 99.2 99.2 96.7 96.1 99.1 98.6

103.7 102.7 104.0 104.1 101.9 101.5 102.0 101.7

102.6 101.7 105.2 102.5 103.9 104.1 102.4 102.2

92.7 92.7 91.4 93.3 99.9 99.6 97.9 98.0

99.8 101.8 99.0 100.7 101.2 100.6 102.7 102.7

97.4 97.6 99.3 97.6 102.4 102.9 101.2 102.4

105.3 103.5 104.9 106.2 97.3 97.1 95.5 94.1

93.2 94.2 94.8 92.2 98.4 100.9 98.4 101.0

Deviations from 100,

95.8 95.7 91.2 96.2 101.6 103.9 98.2 101.9

Irrespective of sign

Sum of deviations.... 50.3 40.8 65.2 53.7 35.4 38.4 40.1 37.8

3.4 2.7 4.3 3.6 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.5

1Five Southwestern States only.
I i

for net census errors shows great irregularities in the age

ratios and these irregularities may be taken as true reflections

of the age patterns of this population.

Age-Sex Accuracy Indexes

Age ratios such as those just described can be combined with

one another over the entire age range and with sex ratios in

various ways to obtain summary measures of errors in

census data on age and sex. These can then be used to assess

the general quality of the data. Three such indexes. Das

Gupta's age-sex accuracy index,32 a simple age-accuracy

index,33 and the United Nations' age-sex accuracy index33

are shown in table 7 for a variety of population groups.

Caution should be observed in interpreting these indexes.

They are all based on assumptions of smooth age structures

* 7 Ajit Das Gupta, "Accuracy Index of Census Age Distributions," Proceedings of the World Population Conference, 1954 (Rome), Vol. IV, United Nations, N.Y., 1955, pp. 63-74. " The Methods and Materials of Demography, op. cit., esp. Vol. 1, pp. 222-223.

and small, regular changes in sex composition over the age

span. The first assumption does not apply very well to the

total population of the United States, which has been af

fected by sharp fluctuations in the number of births over the

last several decades. Populations affected by substantial im

migration or emigration, such as the population of Cuban

origin in 1970 or the population of Puerto Rican birth or

parentage in 1960, are especially unsuitable for the appli

cation of these age-sex indexes. The native Hispanic popu

lation of foreign parentage meets the assumptions of the

indexes better than the total Hispanic population (i.e., in

cluding the foreign born). At best, the measures identify the

levels and variations in errors in census age-sex data only

roughly.

The summary indexes of errors in age-sex composition

suggest that the 1970 census data for various Hispanic popu

lations are generally somewhat less accurate than the 1970

census data for Whites and Blacks (table 7). Das Gupta's

index for the Spanish-origin population in 1970 (2.1) is

larger than those for the White population (0.6) or the

Table 7. Summary Measures of Errors in Age and Sex Data for Selected Hispanic, White,

and Black Populations of the United States: 1970 and 1960

Population Das Gupta's

Grouped Age-Sex

Accuracy Index1

Age-Accuracy

Index

United Nation.s

Age-Sex Accuracy

Index2

2.1 3.0 18.7

Spanish surname3

4.1 4.3 23.3

3.0 4.0 21 .8

Puerto Rican birth or parentage

3.4 4.2 21.1

2.7 3.3 22.2

White, 1970

6.2 4.9 29.8

0.6 2.2 16.0

Black, 1970

0.7 2.5 17.4

0.6 3.2 17.0

0.8 2.6 17.6

1Das Gupta suggests describing census

depending on whether the index is under

2The United Nations describes census

data as "accurate,

5, 5 to 15, or over

data as 'accurate,"

it it. ii i

inaccurate, or highly inaccurate"

highly inaccurate"

15. ii . ,ii ii inaccurate, or

depending on whether the index is under 20, 20 to 40, or over 40.

3Five Southwestern States only.

References: U.S. Bureau of the Census, The Methods and Materials of Demography, by H.S.

Shryock, J.S. Siegel, and Associates, Third Printing (rev.), 1975, pp. 218-223.

Ajit Das Gupta, "Accuracy Index of Census Age Distributions," Proceedings of the

World Population Conference, 1954 (Rome), United Nations, Vol. IV, 1955, pp. 63-74.
20

Black population (0.6). However, the value is still quite low

and falls well within the range considered by Das Gupta to

be "accurate." The index values for the Spanish-surname

population and the Puerto Rican population in 1970 are

somewhat higher, but are still in the “accurate" range. The

Spanish-surname population shows about the same level of

accuracy in the 1960 census as in the 1970 census. On the

other hand, the population of Puerto Rican birth or parent

age shows substantial improvement between the two cen

suses. In 1960, the population of Puerto Rican birth or

parentage was largely of Puerto Rican birth, i.e., it consisted

mainly of immigrants. The large proportion of immigrants

affected the age-sex structure sufficiently to produce a

relatively large value for the summary measure. Under these

circumstances, the measure is not wholly indicative of re

porting or coverage errors. The factor of immigration prob

ably also accounts for the larger index value for the Mexican

origin population in 1970.

The age-accuracy index shows a general pattern similar to

Das Gupta's index. The indexes for the Spanish-origin popu

lation and the Black population in 1970 (3.0 and 3.2, re

spectively) are about the same and relatively small (table 7).

This measure suggests less irregularity in the reporting and

coverage of Spanish-origin females (2.7) than males (3.4);

furthermore, the index for Spanish-origin females is about

the same as that for the White female and Black female

populations corrected for net census errors. (See table 6.)

The United Nations' age-sex accuracy index is slightly higher

for the Spanish-origin population (19) than for Whites (16)

or Blacks (17) in 1970. However, all three values are below

20 and thus fall in the “accurate" range. The United Nations'

index values for the other Hispanic populations reported in

table 7 are at or just above 20, with the exception of the

much higher value for the population of Puerto Rican birth

or parentage in 1960 (30). Again, heavy recent immigration

and annual fluctuations in the number of births probably

account for the relatively high level of these indexes.

These rough measures of error generally indicate that the

data for the various Hispanic populations in 1970 are of

fairly good quality. No gross irregularities in reporting or

coverage of age groups are apparent in any of the popula

tions. The measures of errors in age data do, however, point

to a few age-sex groups in the Hispanic population that may

have substantially larger coverage or reporting errors than the

rest, in particular, males aged 20-24 and the age groups 50-54

and 65-69.

It is doubtful whether one can draw any clear inferences

from these figures regarding the relative accuracy of census

data for Hispanics, Whites, or Blacks. In fact, these figures

are quite inconsistent with the estimates of relative coverage

error for Whites and Blacks derived by direct demographic

analysis.

Census Survival Ratios

Analysis of so-called national census survival ratios may be

helpful in revealing errors in census age data. Census survival

both mortality during an intercensal period and shifts in

net census errors for age cohorts in the two censuses. As

such, census survival ratios should be calculated for popu

lations not subject to immigration or emigration during the

intercensal period or should be adjusted to exclude net im

migration (or to include net emigration) during the period.

The computation of census survival ratios for a population

requires, at a minimum, data distributed by age for the

population from two censuses. For the 1960 and 1970

censuses, the required age data are available for the Spanish

surname population of the five Southwestern States, the

population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage, and the first

and second generations of Mexican stock.”

Adequate census survival ratios cannot be computed even

for all of these population groups because of the lack of

appropriate data on net immigration (or net internal migra

tion for the Spanish-surname population.) The native popu

lation of Mexican parentage can be treated as an approxi

mately closed population (i.e., unaffected by international

migration); hence, satisfactory census survival ratios can be

computed for

it.For the native population of Puerto Rican

parentage, adjustments for net immigration can be made;

hence, satisfactory census survival ratios can be calculated

for this group, too. Appropriate data for making migration

adjustments for the Spanish-surname population and for the

population

of Mexican birth are not available.

The census survival ratios shown

intable 8reflect cover

age and age-reporting errors

in

combination, for age cohorts

inthe 1960 and 1970 censuses.Ifboth of these censuses

were freeof

coverage

or

age-reporting errors, the census

survival ratios would represent mortality only. They would

then exhibit acharacteristic pattern similar to that shown

by life table Survival rates; i.e., all rates would fall below

1.00, the rates would show a

smooth decline with increasing

age, and the male-female ratios of the rates would be less

than 1.00 and shift downward generally with increasing age.

(See table 8for an example based on the 1965 U.S. life

tables for Whites and Black-and-other-races.) Deviations

from the “expected" pattern, represented by an unweighted

average of the survival rates from the White and Black-and

other-races life tables, may be taken

as

suggestive

ofprob

lems in the data.

Table 8shows the deviations of the census survival ratios

for the native populations of Mexican and Puerto Rican

parentage from the average life table survival rates. The

national census survival ratios for the White and Black

populations provide a

further basis for comparison and

analysis of the census survival ratios for the Hispanic popu

lations. Becauseofthe assumptions relatingto

migration

madeinthe computationofthe census survival ratios,

differences between the ratios for the Hispanic populations

and those for the U.S. life table populations must be in

terpreted with caution, however.

*"Tabulations by age and sex are not available from the 1960

census for the first and second generations

ofother Hispanic popu

ratios for a

population group measure jointly the effects

of

lations.
21

Table 8. Deviation of Census Survival Ratios for Selected Hispanic, White, and Black Populations from

Life Table Survival Rates, by Sex: 1960 to 1970

(Differences computed from unrounded figures)

Census survival ratios1 Deviation fro* life table survival rate

Puerto Puerto Sex and age (years) Rican Native Life table Rican Native of

Native of birth of Puerto survival Native of birth Puerto Mexican or par Rican rates, Mexican or par Rican parentage entage parentage1 White Black 1965 1 parentage4 entage* parentage4 White5 Black'

In 1960 In 1970

HU

10 to 14 1.225 1.004 1.029 1.002 1.021 .992 + .232 + .012 +.037 + .008 + .031 13 t.> 1.175 .993 1.016 1.005 .999 .992 + .183 +.001 +.024 + .011 +.007 10 to 14 20 to .970 .835 1.083 .987 .912 .985 -.016 -.150 + .098 -.001 -.071 25 to .931 1.271 1.192 .973 .894 .978 -.047 +.293 +.214 -.011 -.078 30 to 1.084 1.173 .982 .984 .958 .973 + .111 + .200 +.009 +.000 -.004 35 to 1.024 1.054 1.113 .980 .955 .966 + .058 +.088 +.147 -.002 +.004 40 to .974 .967 .980 .972 .939 .953 +.020 +.014 +.027 -.002 +.006

40 to .976 .904 .959 .948 .892 .933 +.043 -.029 +.026 -.010 -.017 50 to .897 .954 .797 .933 .884 .902 -.005 +.052 -.105 +.002 + .010 55 to .884 .901 1.034 .885 .829 .857 +.027 + .044 + .177 -.004 +.004 60 to 64 .857 .925 .934 .845 .819 .797 +.059 + .128 + .137 + .014 + .056 65 to 69 .841 .826 .928 .750 .777 .714 +.128 + .113 +.214 -.004 +. 105 70 to 74 .820 .752 (B) .675 .699 .613 + .206 + .139 (B) + .016 + .132

FEMALE

75 A nt .503 .615 (B) .389 .379 .390 + .113 +.225 (B) + .016 -.028

10 to 1.239 .969 1.012 .997 1.015 .994 + .246 -.025 + .018 +.001 + .023 15 to 1.179 .942 .998 1.007 1.004 .996 +.183 -.054 +.002 +.010 + .009 10 to 14 20 to .993 .846 1.062 .998 .970 .994 -.001 -.146 +.069 +.003 -.022 25 to .942 1.280 1.340 .989 .994 .990 -.049 + .290 +.349 -.005 +.007 30 to 1.095 1.272 1.254 .996 1.028 .986 +.109 +.286 +.268 +.004 +.048 35 to 1.060 1.110 1.072 .994 1.009 .980 + .081 +.130 +.092 + .004 + .039 40 to .970 1.004 .959 .989 .970 .970 +.000 +.034 -.011 +.004 +.014

43 to .960 1.019 .954 .968 .914 .957 +.003 +.062 -.003 -.008 -.024 50 to .949 1.038 1.029 .964 .910 .939 + .010 +.099 +.090 +.002 -.006 55 to 59 .949 .982 1.179 .939 .871 .912 + .037 +.070 + .266 -.005 -.010 60 to .897 1.110 1.068 .936 .902 .873 +.024 + .237 + .194 + .017 + .074 65 to 69 .842 1.001 1.108 .891 .928 .815 +.027 +.186 +.294 +.015 + .174 70 to .968 .839 (B) .837 .808 .743 +.225 +.096 (B) +.029 + .129 75 am .684 .684 (B) .509 .466 .461 +.223 +.223 (B) + .059 -.006

B Base less than 500. 'Male population adjusted to include Armed Forces overseas in I960 and 1970. 'For calculation of census survival ratios, the native population of Puerto Rican parentage in 1960 and 1970 includes persons enumerated In Puerto Rico and born in the United States. 'Average of white and Black-and -other-races survival rates. 'Standard la average of White and Black-and-other-races survival ratea for 1965 (column 6). 'Standard la 1965 U.S. White life table survival ratea (not shown). 'Standard is 1965 U.S. Bl ack-and-other-racea life table survival rates (not shown). Source of life tables: National Center for Health statistics, Vital Statistics of the United Statea, 1965, Vol. II - Mortality, Part A, 1967, p. 5-4.

Census Survival Ratios: Native Population of Mexi

can Parentage

The census survival ratios for the native population of Mexi

can parentage show patterns roughly similar to those of

Whites and Blacks but the ratios for the Hispanic group are

more extreme and irregular. The census survival ratios for

both male and female natives of Mexican parentage for ages

10-14 and 15-19 in 1970 are much larger than 1.00. These

figures can be explained by better coverage of the popula

tion at ages 10-19 in 1970 than at ages 0-9 in 1960. This

pattern may also be accounted for by an increased tendency

for persons born in Mexico to misreport their place of birth

as the United States.

The census survival ratios for native males and females of

Mexican parentage are well below 1.00 at ages 25-29 in 1970,

much greater than 1.00 at ages 30-34 in 1970, and relatively

close to 1.00 at ages 20-24. This pattern of census survival

ratios suggests lower coverage rates for ages 25-29 than for

the surrounding ages in the 1970 census. The particularly

high census survival ratios for ages 30 to 39 in 1970 indicate

that coverage errors for ages 20 to 29 in 1960 may have been

especially serious. Furthermore, the substantially lower

census survival ratios for Black males ages 20 to 29 in 1970

compared to the census survival ratios for the Mexicanparentage group could indicate that census coverage was

worse for Black males in these ages in 1970 than for

Mexican-American males. Other notable differences occur at the older ages. The

census survival ratio for native females of Mexican parentage

aged 65-69 in 1970 is too low and the ratio for ages 70-74

in 1970 is much too high, in comparison with the White

female life table survival rates for 1965 and the ratios for

both White females and Black females at these ages in 1970.

This pattern is indicative of some age misreporting—either

a preference for ages 70-74 at the expense of ages 65 69

in 1970, or a preference for ages 55-59 at the expense of
22

ages 60-64 in I960.35 Age misreporting is also possibly

indicated for native males of Mexican parentage aged 45-54

in 1970; the census survival ratio for males aged 45-49 ap

pears slightly high and the ratio for males ages 50-54 appears

slightly low. The other census survival ratios are similar to

those for the White population.

The census survival ratios for the native population of

Mexican parentage virtually all exceed those of the standard

(table 8). The exceptions occur in age groups adjacent to

others which exceed the standard by an exceptionally large

amount, suggesting age misreporting for these groups. One

possible explanation for the general excess in the ratios is

that mortality for the Mexican parentage population was

lower during the 1960's than in the standard population.

Another, more likely, possibility is that coverage improved

over the decade more for persons of Mexican parentage than

for the total population (approximately 0.3 percent for

persons over 10 in 1970). Other evidence supporting this

contention is presented in the subsequent section, "lntercensal cohort analysis."

Census Survival Ratios: Native Population of Puerto

Rican Parentage

The derivation of the census survival ratios displayed in

table 8 for the native population of Puerto Rican parentage

required a large adjustment for migration. This adjustment

was made, in effect, by combining the population residing

in Puerto Rico and reporting the United States as place of

birth with the native population of Puerto Rican parentage

residing in the United States in both 1960 and 1970. In each

year the overseas group was about 18 percent as large as the

resident group. Because of the nature of the migration ad

justment, the survival ratios for the native population of

Puerto Rican parentage are even more problematic than the

census survival ratios for the Mexican-parentage population.

Deficiencies in the adjustment procedure could easily ac

count for much of the deviations from the expected patterns.

Errors in reporting place of birth in the census could also be

responsible for some of the deviations. Hence, any inferences

regarding the net census errors for the population of Puerto

Rican parentage based on the census survival ratios in table

8 are to be interpreted merely as reasonable possibilities.

The high census survival ratios for males of Puerto Rican

parentage aged 20-29 and 35-39 in 1970 could indicate

coverage errors in the 1960 census at ages 10-19 and 25-29.

Similarly, the large ratios for males aged 60-69 in 1970

JSAge misrepon , of both types is likely to have occurred.

Heaping indexes computed for other populations show a preference for ages ending in the digit nine in 1960 because the question on age asked only for year of birth. An unusual concentration at age 59, corresponding to year ot birth 1900 mas further noted. For 1970, the more usual form of age heaping on zeros and fives was again found as the question format included both age and year of birth. Age heaping in recent U.S. censuses h3s been more pronounced at the older ages so that the pattern of age misreporting hypothesized is consistent with the pattern of survival ratios noted. (See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Volume 1, Char acteristics of the Population, Part 1, United States Summary- Section 2, 1973, p. App-13.)

could indicate relatively large coverage errors in 1960 or

considerable age misreporting in both censuses. Age mis

reporting would seem to be more definitely responsible

for the low census survival ratio at ages 50-54 in 1970 in

combination with the excessive value at ages 55-59. For

females of Puerto Rican parentage the ratios are too large

relative to those for Whites and Blacks at ages 20-39 (es

pecially ages 25-34) and at ages 50-69. The remaining ratios

for both sexes are similar to the expected patterns.

Taken at face value, the 1960-70 census survival rates for

the population of Puerto Rican parentage give an indication

of some serious coverage problems for this population in the

1970 or 1960 censuses. As was the case for the native popu

lation of Mexican parentage, virtually all the ratios for the

population of Puerto Rican parentage exceed those for the

standard population. As before, this fact could indicate

coverage improvements from 1960 to 1970 in excess of those

found in the standard population (0.3 percent).36 Again, it

should be stressed that, because the adjustment for migration

is only approximate, these and other indications, by them

selves, cannot be treated as definite signs of serious errors in

the data or of the absence of serious errors.

Census Survival Ratios: Population of Puerto Rican

Birth or Parentage

If we consider the entire Puerto Rican population of the

United States, both persons of Puerto Rican birth and

persons of Puerto Rican parentage, another possibility for

adjusting census survival ratios for migration is to exclude

survivors of net migration during the intercensal period from

the figures for the second census. The monthly figures on net

arrivals and departures between the United States and Puerto

Rico can be used to adjust the census survival ratios for the

migration component. These data themselves required a

substantial amount of adjustment for errors and allocations

for unknown characteristics. Unfortunately, the magnitudes

of some of the adjustments are sufficiently great that the

general patterns and levels of the ratios shown in table 8

could be almost solely attributable to the adjustments them

selves rather than to mortality or changes in census cover

age.37 Nonetheless, we shall examine these census survival

ratios for what indications of coverage errors they can

provide.

The census survival ratios for both sexes at ages 25-39

in 1970 are much too large relative to those for the standard

population and the other populations shown in table 8.

These large values are partially complemented by ratios

which are too small in the preceding age group 20-24.

This pattern is suggestive of either age misreporting in one

or both censuses or, more likely, errors in the procedures for

allocating net migration to age and sex groups. Census

survival ratios for Puerto Rican females aged 10-19 in 1970

3 6 See the section, "lntercensal cohort analysis", for further evidence supporting this assertion.

' 'The adjustments and the rationale for making the particular adjustments are discussed in detail in the subsequent section "Inter censal cohort analysis: population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage."
23

are somewhat lower than those for any population group

shown in table 8. Better coverage of ages 0-9 in the 1960

census than ages 10-19 in 1970 is not a very appealing or

likely explanation as young children tend to be among the

age groups with the worst coverage and teenagers among

those with the best. However, overstatement of the mortality

of these cohorts between 1960 and 1970 or errors in the

procedures for allocating migration offer a better explanation

for the observed pattern.

At ages over 50 for males and over 30 for females in 1970,

the census survival ratios for the Puerto Rican birth or

parentage population all exceed those for the standard popu

lation. Furthermore, at ages over 60 for both sexes the

amount of the excess is large. As was mentioned in the

preceding sections, this pattern of excess census survival rates

is indicative of coverage improvements from 1960 to 1970

greater than 0.3 percent, if it is assumed that the adjust

ments for intercensal net migration are accurate or at least

approximately correct.

Age-Specific Death Rates and Life Expectation

Analysis of age-specific death rates and life table functions

computed from these deaths rates for Hispanic populations

"Further discussion, including more detailed evidence can be found in the subsequent section entitled "Intercensal cohort analysis: population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage."

can provide some evidence of coverage and reporting errors

in the census data for specific age groups as well as indica

tions of the overall quality of the census data. Mortality

data for Hispanic populations are not widely available. The

Texas State Department of Health provides tabulations of

deaths classified by age for the Spanish-surname (and White

non-Spanish-surname) population which can be used with

the corresponding census data to compute age-specific death

rates for the Spanish-surname (and White non-Spanishsurname) population of Texas. Age-specific death rates

were computed with deaths of Spanish-surname persons

(and White non- Spanish-surname persons) for 1970 as

numerators and data for the Spanish-surname (and White

non-Spanish-surname) population of Texas taken from the

1970 census as denominators.39 These rates are shown in

table 9, along with age-specific death rates for the White

population of the United States in 1970 and death rates

from one of the Coale-Demeny model life tables, specifically

West model life table, level 22." 0

"The tabulations of deaths were available only in 10-year age groups above age 15; accordingly, the deaths were subdivided into 5-year groups by means of Newton's method (The Methods and Materials of Demography, op. cit., pp. 222-223). The population data were taken from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Subject Reports PC(2)-1D, Persons of Spanish Surname, 1973.40 Ansley J. Coale, and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, Princeton University Press, 1966.

Table 9. Age-Specific and Age-Adjusted Death Rates for the Spanish-Surname Population of Texas, 1970,

and Other Selected Populations, by Sex

(Rates per 1,000 population)

Male resale

Tex.s, 1970 United States, 1970 Texas, 1970 United Ststes, 1970 Age (years) White, Black and West model White, Black end West model Spanish non -Spanish other life table Spanish non-Spanish other life table

(e„-67.2> surname surnnme White races (Level 22) surname surname White races (Laval 22) (e„-68.1) (•,-68.1> (e,-61. 3) (•,-68.6) (•,«73.4) (•,-76.5) (e0-7;.7) (•,-69.4) (■0>72.5)

31.3 22.3 21.1 40.2 31.6 25.8 15.9 16.2 31.7 23.1 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 2.1 1.5 1.5 2.2 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6

3.4 1.9 2.0 4.2 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.4 0.8 3.1 1.4 1.7 4.6 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.9 1.0 J. 4 2.0 1.9 5.6 1.7 1.3 1.1 1.0 2.5 1.3 3.5 2.7 2.6 7.2 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.5 4.0 1.7 4.1 4.4 4.2 10.2 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.3 5.9 2.5

5.6 7.3 6.8 14.0 5.2 3.8 3.5 3.7 8.3 3.8 10.5 11.6 11.0 19.4 8.3 6.8 5.3 5.6 11.5 5.8 16.0 17.8 17.7 26.4 13.6 9.5 7.2 8.3 16.1 8.9 22.8 25.1 27.1 35.3 21.6 14.5 10.8 12.2 22.2 14.3 34.3 38.9 40.5 47.6 34.3 24.2 17.1 19.2 31.3 24.4

55.1 56.6 58.3 65.6 55.0 42.0 27.2 31.3 44.9 42.3 84.0 82.7 86.9 84.8 \ on

88.0 f 92.4 66.5 49.4 53.5 57.8 72.7 109.6 125.9 126.1 98.6 t 180.6 79.2 88.7 74.2 r 162.0 157.9 179.1 185.5 114.1 V 126.2 160.1 159.8 102.9

Age-adjusted death rate1 11.7 12.0 12.3 15.2 11.9 8.3 6.7 7.2 9.9 9.4

1 Standard population is 1970 United States total White population. Sources: Texas, Spanish surname population: Computed from death statistics supplied by tho Texas state Department of Health and population data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Subject Reports PC(2)-1D, Persons of Spanish Surname, 1973, and General Population Characteristics, PC(1)-B45, Texas, 1971, table 20. United States: U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. II - Mortality, Part A, 1970, 1974, tables 1-8. Model Life Table: Ansloy J. Coale and Paul Demeny, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, Princeton University Press, 1966.
24

With few exceptions the age-specific death rates for the

male and female Spanish surname populations of Texas in

1970 are similar (in level and overall pattern) to 1970 death

rates for the White, non-Spanish-surname population of

Texas and the White population of the United States, and

to rates from the West model life table, level 22. Not all of

the differences should be taken as indicative of coverage

errors. The higher infant death rate for the Spanish-surname

population of Texas than for the other populations pre

sumably reflects real differences between the infant mortality

of the Spanish-surname population of Texas and the other

populations. The relatively low level of the death rates for

Spanish-surname males aged 80-84 and Spanish-surname

persons of both sexes at ages 85 and over supports the

hypothesis that many elderly Mexican-Americans (par

ticularly those born in Mexico) with chronic diseases of

later life return to Mexico to spend their last years "at

home." On the other hand, the relatively low level of the

rates may be an artifact since they are subject to large

random fluctuations as a result of the small size of the

population involved.

The abnormally high death rates for Spanish-surname

males in the age range 15 to 39 may result from the greater

incidence of violent and accidental deaths in this population.

Another plausible explanation is that these ages suffered

large undercounts in the 1970 census which made the de

nominator of the death rate smaller than the true value and

the rate larger. In contrast, the death rates at these and most

other ages for the female Spanish-surname population of

Texas differ only slightly from those of the other three

populations and do not suggest the presence of serious

coverage errors among females.

The existence of problems with population data can

also possibly be inferred from the corresponding life tables,

which summarize the mortality experience implicit in the

age-specific death rates for a population. Life tables for the

Spanish-surname and White non-Spanish-surname popula

tions of Texas were constructed on the basis of the agespecific death rates shown in table 9 by means of Greville's

short-cut method.'' 1 Measures of expectation of life at

birth, age 20, and age 65, taken from these and selected

other life tables, are shown in table 10.

The life tables for the Spanish-surname population of

Texas in 1970 imply that the mortality experience of this

population is roughly equivalent to that of the total White

population and the White non-Spanish-surname population

of Texas in 1970 and is much better than that of the Black -

and-other-races population of Texas in 1970. For example,

the expectation of life at birth in 1970 is 702 years for

the Spanish-surname population, 71.7 years for the (total)

White population, and 65.5 years for the Black -and-otherraces population. At age 20 similar relationships appear,

but at age 65 the groups differ less.

The differences in life expectation between Spanishsurname males and White non-Spanish-surname males of

Texas are all quite small: -0.9 year at birth, -0.1 year at age

20, and +0.6 year at age 65 (table 10). Indeed, if some ir

regularities in the age-specific death rates for Spanishsurname males at ages 15 to 34 are removed, the deficit at

birth disappears and the Spanish-surname males have an

expectation of life at age 20 which is 0.6 year higher than

445. 'The Methods and Materials of Demography, op. cit., pp.444

Table 10. Expectation of Life at Birth, Age 20, and Age 65 for the Spanish-Surname Population of Texas,

1970, and Selected Other Populations, 1970 and 1969-71

At birth At age 20 At age 65 Population and year Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

TEXAS, 1969-71

70.2 67.2 73.4 53. 2 50.4 56.0 15.3 14.1 16.4 70.5 68. 1 73.4 53.3 51.1 56.0 15.3 14. 1 Id. 4

72.2 68.1 76.5 54.3 50.5 58. 3 15.8 13.5 17.9 71. 7 67.8 75.9 54.0 50.4 57.8 15.5 13.3 17.5 65.5 61.7 69. 5 48. 7 45.2 52.3 14.9 13.3 16. 5

UNITED STATES, 1969-1971

70.7 67.0 74.6 53.0 49.5 5b. 6 15.0 13.0 16.8 71.6 67.9 75.5 53.7 50.2 57.2 15.1 13.0 16.9 65.0 61.0 69.0 48.1 44.4 51.8 14.5 12.9 16.0

'1970 only. 2Age-specif ic death rates for ages 15-34 (males) and 35-39 (females) were smoothed graphically.

Sources: United States: U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, United States Life Tables: 1969-71, 1975.

Texas, White and Black-and-Other-Races : U.S. Public- Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, State Life TabKs: 1969-71, 1977.

Texas, Spanish-surname population: Computed from death statistics supplied by the Texas State Department of Health and population data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Sub ject Reports PC(2)-lD, Persons of Spanish Surname, 1973.
?'">

for White non-Spanish-surname males. On the other hand,

the deficits for females are not negligible at any age: 3.1

years at birth, 2.3 years at age 20, and 1.5 years at age 65.

Such differences are probably not caused primarily by

coverage errors; they probably reflect real deficits in life

expectancy for the most part.

Life tables are available for various "Hispanic" countries

and regions, such as Mexico and Puerto Rico. However, the

mortality experience depicted in these tables is quite differ

ent from that of the Spanish -surname population of Texas.

Life expectation at birth in 1970 for Mexico was 61.4

years,42 well below that computed for the Spanish-surname

population of Texas for the same year. For Puerto Rico,

life expectation at birth in the 1969-71 life table was 72.0

years, but the distribution of deaths by cause of death in

Puerto Rico is very different from the distribution of deaths

for the U.S. population of Puerto Rican birth.43 Thus, the

mortality level of the Hispanic population in the United

States, as summarized in the life tables for Texas, appears

to be more similar to the mortality level of the rest of the

U.S. population than to the mortality level in various Hispanic

countries of origin.

lf we can assume that the deaths and the population used

to compute the age-specific death rates represent a common

population and if we can assume that the deaths are rather

completely registered, then these death rates and the cor

responding life expectancy figures provide little or no

support to the view that the Hispanic population of Texas

is greatly underenumerated. Any substantial underenumeration would result in excessively high death rates and ex

cessively low life expectancy values in comparison with the

true values. However, the life expectancy figures are already

unexpectedly high, in view of the relative socioeconomic

positions of Mexican-Americans and Anglos in Texas. lt

does not seem reasonable to believe that they should be

higher. A uniform reduction of 10 percent in the death

rates of the Spanish-surname population of Texas, cor

responding to a uniform adjustment of the population by

10 percent, for example, would increase life expectation

at birth from 70.2 years to about 71.9 years, bringing it

to about the level for the (total) White population of Texas

in 1970.

Sex Ratio Analysis

A very powerful method of analyzing census figures for

coverage and reporting errors is the comparison of observed

sex ratios (males per 100 females) for age groups with

"expected" sex ratios or sex ratios with known charac

teristics. A rough set of expected sex ratios for the Hispanic

42United Nations, Demographic Yearbook, 1973, New York,

1974, pp. 344 and 84. Life expectancies by sex were averaged, using

the total population of each sex as weights.

43The life table was supplied by the Division of Demographic

Registry and Vital Statistics, Puerto Rico Department of Health.

Cause-of-death statistics for Puerto Rico were taken from: National

Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States

Volume l, 1970. The distribution of deaths by cause for the U.S.

population of Puerto Rican birth is represented by statistics for

New York City which apply to the city's population of Puerto Rican

birth. The data were supplied by the New York City Department

of Vital Statistics.

population is displayed in figure 1. Also shown in figure 1

are observed sex ratios for the Spanish-origin population and

observed and expected sex ratios for the White and Blackand-other-races populations in 1970.

The expected sex ratios were obtained by applying 1 .05,

the assumed sex ratio of births, to the sex ratios of the

survival rates from the life table for the Spanish-surname

population of Texas in 1970; that

is,

the male survival rates

were divided by the female survival rates and then adjusted

upward for the assumed sex ratio of births. Because the

mortality level represented

inthis life tableislower than the

actual mortality of older cohorts (since

it

reflects only mor

tality

in

1970), the survival rates are probably biased upward.

On the other hand, this bias

is

at least partially offset by a

downward bias attributable to the smaller gap between the

actual male and female mortality in the past. The assumed

sex ratio of births was selected after an examination of sex

ratios of births for various populationsin

Latin America

and selected Hispanic populations in the United States, such

as the Spanish-surname population of Texas and the Puerto

Rican population of New York City.

The overall shape of the curve of actual sex ratios for age

groups for the Spanish-origin population in 1970 differs only

moderately from that of the expected sex ratios based on the

life table. At ages 0

to 14, there appears to be a

small deficit

of the actual sex ratios relative to the expected sex ratios,

implying a

small relative deficit of males compared with

females. However, comparison of sets of sex ratios in the

age range 15 to 39 suggests that there

is

a

pronounced rela

tive deficit of males over this age range, with the sex ratios

at ages 25 to 34 being almost 15 points lower than the ex

pected values. Over the age range 40 to 59, the shape of the

curve of observed sex ratios

issimilar to the curve of ex

pected sex ratios, but the observed levels are a

few points

lower. This difference may also indicate a

larger undercount

of males than females. However, the level of the expected

curve may be

inerror for various other reasons. The assumed

sex ratio of births may be too high; the male-female differ

ences in survival rates actually experienced in these and

younger ages may have been greater than shown by the life

tables used to compute the expected sex ratios; or the sex

balance of net immigration may have been more "female"

than "male" in these and younger ages.

At ages over 65, the sex ratios observed for the Spanishorigin population are slightly greater than the expected

values. This difference could indicate relatively better cover

age of Spanish-origin males than females at the older ages.

Another possibility, however,

is

greater emigration of women

at these ages. There may have been substantial emigration

to Mexico on the part of older persons who have chronic

illnesses and who go to Mexico in order to spend their

remaining months or years among friends and relatives "at

home." The occurrence of this phenomenon

is

suggested by

an examination of the distribution of deaths by cause among

Mexican-Americans in the United States. Adisproportionate

share of deaths at the older ages among Mexican-Americans

in Southwestern United States results from violence and

acute causes; there are relatively few deaths from chronic
26

FlGURE 1.

Observed and Expected Sex Ratios for the

White, Black-and Other- Race, and SpanishOrigin Populations, by Age: 1970

Sex ratio (males per 100 females)

Observed

Expected

Observed including

American forces overseas

 

110

100

90

80

70

60

 

BLACK AND OTHER RACES

I l J i L J i L

10 20 30 40 50

 

110

100

 

Note: Points are plotted at center of each 5-year age interval; last point (age 80) denotes 75 years and over.
27

causes (e.g., the so-called degenerative diseases).44 To the

extent that such migration is selective of women and that

deaths due to violence and acute causes are more prevalent

among males, the observed sex ratios of death rates at the

older ages will tend to be elevated. The hypothesis that such

return migration or some similar phenomenon frequently

occurs is supported also by the fact that, among the various

Spanish-origin populations, only the Mexican-origin group

exhibits very high sex ratios at the older ages (figure 2).

The sex ratios of the populations classified by the major

Hispanic identifiers in 1970 all give roughly the same indi

cations. The curves of the sex ratios for the Spanish-heritage,

Spanish-language, and Spanish -surname populations are

virtually identical (figure 3). These curves have the same

general form as the curve for the Spanish-origin population.

* 4 Benjamin S. Bradshaw and Edwin Fonner, Jr., 'The Mortality of Spanish Surnamed Persons in Texas: 1969-71," in Frank D. Bean and W. Parker Frisbie (wis.). The Demography of Racial and Ethnic Groups, Academic Press, forthcoming.

although at ages over 25 the Spanish-origin population has

somewhat lower sex ratios. This difference may be an indi

cation of a greater tendency for adult females to designate

themselves as being of Spanish origin. Another possible

explanation for the higher sex ratios in populations identified

wholly or partly by surname is the previously mentioned

loss of women from the Spanish-surname population through

marriage.

The implications of these sex ratios for estimating cover

age are the same for the various identifiers. At ages under 20,

the various Hispanic populations have sex ratios in 19/0

roughly similar to the expected sex ratios. One exception is

the sex ratio of the 1970 Mexican-origin population under 5

years of age; the figure is less than 100 and suggests a larger

undercount of males relative to the undercount of females

at these ages.

The sex ratios of the various Hispanic populations in 1970

imply a substantial undercount of young adult males regard

less of which Hispanic identifier is used. They indicate large

FIGURE 2.

Sex Ratios for the Spanish—Origin Population,

by Type of Spanish Origin and Age: 1970

Sex Ratio (Males per 100 females)

Spanish origin

Mexican origin

Puerto Rican origin

Cuban origin

110

100

 

20 30 40

Years of Age

Note: Points are plotted at center of each 5—year age interval.

50 80

i/r.t-)
28

FIGURE 3.

Sex Ratios for Various Hispanic Populations,

by Age: 1970 and 1960

Sex Ratio (Males per 100 females)

-- Spanish heritage, 1970

- Spanish language, 1970

Spanish surname,1 1970

Spanish surname,' 1960

Spanish origin, 1970

 

' Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas only.

NOTE: Points are plotted at center of each 5-year age interval.

deficits of males relative to females in the age groups 20 to

39. For example, the sex ratio of the Spanish-origin popula

tion is about 90 for this age range with the value for the age

group 25-29 being only 78. Coverage rates for males aged

25 to 34 years in both the White and Black populations for

1970 are also relatively low (table 11).

The level of the sex ratios of the Hispanic populations

in the age range 40 to 59 appears to be slightly low. Excep

tions to this pattern occur for the age group 45-49, especially

among the Mexican-origin and Spanish-surname populations;

for these groups the sex ratio in each case is about 101. This

higher sex ratio may be the indirect result of the "bracero"

program of the 1950's. In this program Mexican laborers

were imported into the United States on a temporary basis.

Since most of the laborers were male and many remained in

the United States, the population sex ratio may have been

significantly raised.

Another basis for analyzing sex ratios of the Hispanic

population in 1970 is comparison with sex ratios of groups

whose coverage levels are known reasonably well such as the

White and Black populations of the United States. The sex

ratios of the Spanish-origin population fall between those of

the White and the Black-and-other-races populations at ages

under 40. In the age range 40 to 59, the sex ratios of the

Spanish-origin population continue to exceed those of the

Black-and-other-races population, being roughly equal to

those of the White population. At ages over 60 the sex ratios

of the Spanish-origin population are substantially greater

than those of either the White or the Black-and-other-races

population.

Analysis of the sex ratios for the various Hispanic popula

tions in 1970 suggests the following tendencies in census

coverage. Males appear to be covered less well than females.

There appear to be substantial undercounts at the young
29

Table 11. Preferred Estimates of the Percents of Net Undercount of the Population of the United States,

by Sex, Race, and Broad Age Group: 1970 and 1960

(Base of percentages is corrected population. Minus sign (-) indicates a net overcount)

Both sexes Male Female

Year and age (years) White Black White Black White Black

1970 -

1.9 7.7 2.5 9.9 1.4 5.5

2.1 10. 1 2.3 10.4 2.0 9.8 2.3 7.3 2.4 7.7 2.2 6.9

1.0 3.2 1.1 3.5 0.9 2.8

0.9 3.7 1.3 4.3 0.5 3.2 1.8 8.5 2.5 12.1 1.1 5.2 3.4 12.5 4.3 18,5 2.4 6.7 2.0 10.7 3.6 17.7 0.5 4.0

1.4 8.7 2.7 12.4 0.1 5.3 1.1 8.0 2.2 9.2 1.9 7.0

1960

1.8 1.2 1.2 -3.1 2.2 4.2

2.0 8.0 2.4 9.7 1.6 6.3

1.5 5.8 1.9 6.6 1.1 5.1

1.9 4.7 2.4 5.1 1.5 4.2

2.0 4.4 2.5 5.0 1.5 3.9

3.2 10.9 3.8 12.3 2.4 9.6 3.4 13.9 4.3 18.4 2.4 9.5

25 to 34 2.3 12.5 3.6 18.5 1.0 6.5 1.0 7.6 2.2 11.5 -0.2 3.8

2.5 9.9 2.5 11.0 2.4 9.0 1.1 10.1 0.5 8.5 1.7 11.6

2.2 -1.0 0.0 -5.8 3.5 2.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing: 1970, Evaluation and Re search Program PHC(E)-4, Estimates of Coverage of Population by Sex, Race, and Age: Demographic Analy

sis, 1974, table 6, p. 31.

adult ages, with especially large undercounts for males in

their 20's and 30's. Comparison of sex ratios for the various

Hispanic populations in 1970 with those for Whites and

Blacks further suggests that levels of undercoverage for the

Hispanic populations are intermediate between those of the

White and Black populations (see table 1 1).

SPECIFIC MEASURES OF NET ERRORS IN

AGE-SEX DATA

The demographic techniques which have been used to derive

specific measures of net errors in age-sex data from censuses

include construction of an expected population from vital

statistics and. immigration data, comparative analysis of data

from a series of previous censuses and reconstruction of

the population for the date of the last census (e.g., the CoaleZelnik and Coale-Rives methods),45 intercensal cohort

*5Ansley J. Coale and Melvin Zelnik, New Estimates of Fertility and Population in the United States, Princeton University Press, 1963. Ansley J. Coale and Norfleet W. Rives, Jr., "Statistical Recon struction of the Black Population of the United States, 1880-1970: Estimates of True Numbers by Age and Sex, Birth Rates, and Total Fertility," Population Index, January 1973.

analysis, and comparison with aggregate data from admini

strative records. Application of such techniques to the His

panic population in 1970 is not possible or, at the least, is

seriously handicapped by the lack of appropriate data, the

limited comparability of the available data, and/or their

restricted temporal and geographic scope. Some examples

of attempts to estimate census coverage and reporting of

specific age groups for the Hispanic population by demo

graphic techniques, particularly intercensal cohort analysis,

are presented in this part of the report.

Comparison with Expected Population

Construction of an expected population from vital statistics

makes use of a form of the population component estimating

equation

Ap1970=B1970-(a+1)_D +M

a a a

That is, the expected population aged a in 1970 is equal to

the births a to a+1 years earlier minus the deaths that have
30

occurred to the birth cohort between the date of birth and

the census date plus net migration of this birth cohort.

As has been noted, practically none of these data exist

for the Hispanic population for the entire country accord

ing to any of the identifiers. Only very limited data on His

panic births exist-births to persons of Spanish surname for

about five States, Puerto Rican births for one State (New

York), and corresponding data for selected cities (e.g., Los

Angeles, San Antonio, New York City)—and even these

data do not go back very far in time." For deaths, the

situation is similar. Only a limited amount of data on the

international and internal migration of the Hispanic popula

tion exists even though migration is an important contribu

tor to the growth of the Hispanic population. Since adequate

data of this kind are not available, the construction of an

expected population and the estimation of coverage errors

for the Hispanic population in 1970 by applying this par

ticular demographic technique cannot be satisfactorily

accomplished.

Intercensal Cohort Analysis: General Considerations

Intercensal cohort analysis uses the component estimating

equation to follow a cohort from one census to another

/\ 1970 p.1960 T, 1960-70 1960-70 -

P. = P-6-D', +M: , a.210

Here the components b'970 and wisdozo refer to the

data for the intercensal period for the cohort age a-10 in

1960 and a in 1970. Comparison of the expected population

- - - £1970

...,

ina

given age group

in

1970,

P:

,with the census count

for 1970inthe age group yields ameasure of “bicensal rela

tive error," i.e., ameasure of the net errorinthe 1970 count

relative to the net errorinthe 1960 census Count for the

same age cohort. This measure, calculated by dividing the dif

ference between the census count and the expected popula

tion by the expected population, canbe

interpreted loosely

asthe number of percentage points by which the “coverage”

of a

cohort improved or worsened relative to its “coverage”

inthe previous census."

In order to derive ameasure of absolute error

inthe 1970

census Count by means of intercensal cohort analysis,itis

necessary

tocorrect the 1960 population count,p' for

net census error. Since definitive estimates of the coverage

**

In1978 about 18 States started to collect birth statistics identi

fying births

ofthe Spanish-origin population. See the subsequent sec

tion, “Prospects for Measuring the Coverage of the Hispanic Popula

tion."

*"Bicensal relative error algebraically represents the changeinthe

amount of undercount between the two censuses divided by the

excess

ofthe 1970 true population (unknown) over the amountof

undercountin1960 (also unknown). As such, the bicensal relative

error

isan upper limit to the percentage point changeinnet census

error for an age cohort under most conditions. Another similar in

terpretation

ofthe bicensal relative erroristhatit

represents the

percent net “coverage" error

inthe second census on the assumption

that the first censusisaperfect count.Ifthe amount of intercensal

change exceeds the amount

ofundercountinthe earlier census,as

itwill for most populations and for age cohorts subjecttoin-migra

tion, then the bicensal relative error will be greater than the change

of the 1960 census are not available for anyofthe Hispanic

populations, the results

ofintercensal cohort analysis for

these populations are limitedtobicensal relative errorsor

illustrative calculations based on assumed levels of coverage

for 1960. Furthermore, the limited data available on the

mortality and migration

ofthe Hispanic population for the

1960-70 intercensal period make any results subject

topos

sibly serious errors.

The lackofhistorical comparability and the limited geo

graphic scope

ofthe data also preclude ameaningful applica

tionofintercensal cohort analysis on anational scaletothe

estimationofthe coverageofthe Hispanic population. Data

are not available for the entire country accordingto

any

general Hispanic identifier for the last two censuses. As

previously noted, only two of the Hispanic identifiers em

ployed

in1970 were usedinthe previous census-Spanish

surname (in five Southwestern States) and birthorparentage

ina

country

ofSpanish language (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico,

etc.). However, intercensal cohort analysisisnot feasible for

the Spanish-surname population. Counts of the Spanish

surname populationinthe 1960 and 1970 censuses were pro

duced only for the five Southwestern States. This geographic

restriction, combined with a

lackofdata on the migration

of

persons

of

Spanish surname

toand from the five States,

prevents any possibility of deriving adequate coverage esti

mates for this population.Infact, intercensal cohort analysis *

the Spanish-surname population would probably produce

Letter estimates of intercensal net migration than of coverage.

Intercensal cohort analysis can be meaningfully appliedto

certain populationsof

Hispanic birth

or

parentage for

cohorts alivein1960 (i.e., aged 10 years and overin1970).

At best, such an analysis can tell us only about the relative

consistency

ofcoverage and reportinginthe two censuses for

the restricted population groups involved. The estimates

would be affected by any errorsinthe allowances for inter

censal mortality and net migration.

In

applying intercensal

cohort analysis when thereisno needtoallow for net

migration

orwhen satisfactory data on net migration are

available, relatively more accurate estimates

of

coverage and

reporting errors may be derived. Accordingly, illustrative

estimates

ofthe coverage of the population of Puerto Rican

birthor

parentage, the population

ofCuban birth, and the

native populationofMexican parentage will be presented.

The specific circumstances that permit the preparationof

these estimates are discussedinsubsequent sections.

Intercensal Cohort Analysis: Populationof Puerto

Rican Birth or Parentage

Data on the population of Puerto Rican birthorparentage

inthe United States are available for each of the components

inthe intercensal estimating equation. Detailed tabulations

for sex and age categories are available from both the 1960

and 1970 censuses for the population of Puerto Rican birth

Or parentage." *

Life tables applicabletovarious time periods

** U.S. Bureauofthe Census, CensusofPopulation: 1970, Subject

Reports, PC(2)-1E, Puerto Ricans

inthe United States, 1973, and U.S.

Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960, Subject Reports,

in undercount rates. PC(2)-1D. Puerto Ricans

inthe United States, 1963.
31

in the decade have been developed for the population of

Puerto Rico and were assumed to apply to the United States

population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage for measuring

the mortality component of the population.49 Estimates

of net migration, usually the most elusive component, were

developed from the monthly totals of passenger traffic enter

ing and leaving Puerto Rico compiled by the Puerto Rico

Planning Board. Estimates of the corresponding age-sex

distribution of net migration are more problematical than

other elements of the intercensal cohort analysis but can be

derived from several small surveys conducted in Puerto Rico

and from the 1960 and 1970 censuses of both the United

States and Puerto Rico. Subsequent sections describe the

specific procedures and assumptions employed to produce

estimates of bicensal relative coverage of the population of

Puerto Rican birth or parentage.

A basic step in deriving the expected population of Puerto

Rican birth or parentage in 1970 is to calculate the survivors

in 1970 of the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage

in the United States in 1960. To determine the size of this

population for each age-sex group in 1970, 5-year (ageinterval) life table survival rates from the Puerto Rican life

tables for 1959-61 and 1967-69 were applied to the enumer

ated population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in 1960.

(See table 12.) The levels of life expectation at birth in the

Puerto Rican life tables—67.1 years and 68.2 years for males

in 1959-61 and 1967-69, and 71.9 years and 73.8 years for

females in 1959-61 and 1967-69, respectively—are similar to

the levels in the life tables for the Spanish-surname popula

tion of Texas and the Puerto Rican population of New York

City. Thus, it was deemed appropriate to apply the Puerto

Rican life tables to Puerto Ricans residing in the United

States.

The migration component for the intercensal period was

not derived in such a straightforward manner. The Puerto

Rico Planning Board supplies the Bureau of the Census

with monthly totals of arrivals and departures by air and

water for Puerto Rico. These figures are adjusted slightly

to remove seasonal fluctuations and the difference between

them gives the net migration from Puerto Rico to the United

States. However, information on the age and sex distribution

of the migrants is not available from the same source. The

age and sex distribution of migrants to Puerto Rico was

derived from the Labor Force Survey conducted by the

Puerto Rico Planning Board covering the years 1965

through 1967. The age and sex distribution of migrants from

Puerto Rico to the United States came from the Health Sur

vey (a subsample of the Labor Force Survey) for the years

1963 and 1965 through 1967. These two age-sex distribu

tions were combined to give a distribution for "net migrants"

which was assumed to apply to each year of the decade.

The annual net migration figures for the 1960-1970

decade from Puerto Rico to the United States were recom

piled into age cohorts for the two periods April 1, 1960 to

March 31, 1965 and April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1970. The

4'Life tables for 1959-61, 1967-69, and 1969-71, for each sex, were supplied by the Division of Demographic Registry and Vital Statistics, Department of Health, Puerto Rico.

migrants for the first half of the decade were "survived"

to April 1, 1970, the census date, by applying 2y2-year

survival rates from the 1959-61 Puerto Rican life tables and

then 5-year survival rates from the 1967-69 Puerto Rican

life tables. For migrants entering in 1965-70, 2y2-year survival

rates from the 1967-69 life tables were used. The resulting

estimates of surviving migrants were added to survivors of

the 1960 census population to derive the expected popula

tion in 1970. Comparison of this expected population with

the 1970 census counts of the population of Puerto Rican

birth or parentage then gives a measure of the improvement

or deterioration in census coverage since 1960 for each

cohort. The results are shown in table 12.

Intercensal cohort analysis indicates a slight improvement,

0.9 percent at most, in the coverage of the population of

Puerto Rican birth or parentage between the 1960 and 1970

censuses. Although the estimate of coverage for the total

population is plausible, many of the estimates for specific

age and sex groups are clearly implausible and the possibility

of errors in the estimation procedure is indicated. The

coverage rates for each sex, a 6.2 percent decline in coverage

for males and an 8.7 percent improvement for females,

taken separately, are each within the realm of possibility.

However, there is no good explanation why the coverage

of one sex would improve so dramatically while the other

is experiencing an almost equally dramatic decline.

The results in table 12 indicate that the coverage of the

total cohort aged 20-29 in 1970 (10-19 in 1960) was 24

percent worse, and the male cohort 34 percent worse, in

1970. lt is extremely unlikely that coverage decreased by

such a tremendous percentage even for this age cohort,

which usually has greater decreases in coverage than other

age cohorts. (See table 11 for coverage rates in 1970 and

1960 for Whites and Blacks.) For females over age 30 and

males over age 40 in 1970 coverage seems to have improved

between 1960 and 1970. However, the magnitudes of the

improvements, from 25 to 99 percent for males and 28 to 94

percent for females, are much too large to be plausible. Cov

erage of the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in

the 1960 census could not have been so poor as to leave

room for improvements of this magnitude.

The pattern of large relative overcounts in some age-sex

groups and large relative undercounts in others, combined

with a plausible coverage level for the total population, in

dicates the possibility of misallocation of one or more

components by age and sex. The most likely source of this

type of error is the age-sex distribution of the net migrants.

Although the total number of migrants was determined from

a complete count of traffic to and from Puerto Rico, the age

and sex distribution of these migrants was determined from

small sample surveys covering only a part of the decade.

Consequently, for re-estimation of the coverage of Puerto

Ricans, the total number of migrants for each half of the

decade, approximately 46,000 from 1960 to 1965 and

112,000 from 1965 to 1970, was accepted as accurate, but

the age-sex distribution of the migrants derived from the

Puerto Rican sample surveys was rejected as unsatisfactory

and an alternative source was investigated.
32

Table 12. Estimates of Bicensal Relative Error for the Population of Puerto Rican Birth or Parentage,

Using Sample Survey Data for the Age-Sex Distribution of Migrants, by Sex: 1960-1970

(Populations in thousands. Percentages and totals computed ! mm unrounded figures)

Age (years) and sex

Census population ,

I9601

Survivors of 1960 census, 1970 1

Net move ment from Puerto Rico, 1960-1970'

Survivors of net move ment from Puerto Hlco, 19701 4

141

hxpected populat ion, 1970 fensus populat ton, 19701

Percent relative error1

(1) '2) '3) (2U<4>- (5) '*! [(6)-<5>W<5>=. (7)

ln 1960 ln 1970

TOTAl.

893.0 859.0 •141.3 •146.2 1,005 1 1 ,014 2 •0.9

to 19 255.1 252.4 •66. 3 .66.0 JIB 5 308 2 -3.2 165.9 164.2 • 175. 3 •174.2 338 5 257 8 -23.8 180.5 176.9 -0.2 -0. 1 176 8 194 9 • 10.2 143.3 138.3 -38.6 -37.6 100 6 128 2 • 27.4 100.5 93.1 -42.5 -40.3 52 8 91 4 •73. 1

MALE

47.6 33.9 -19.0 -16.0 17 9 33 B • 88.6

446.9 427. 7 • 94.9 -97.4 525 1 '.92 6 -6.2

129.2 127.7 • 32.7 •32.6 160 3 156 6 -2.3 81.7 80.6 +108.0 •107.2 187 8 123 0 -34. i

91.0 88.6 •9.4 •9.4 98 0 94 0 -4. 1

73.7 70. 5 -21.2 -20.6 50 0 62 2 • 24.6 50.5 45.9 -25.8 -24.3 21 6 43 0 •99.2

FEMALE

20.8 14.5 -8.1 -6.9 7 6 13 8 •81.7

446.2 431.2 • 46.4 +48.8 480 0 521 6 •8.7

125.9 124.8 •33.5 •33. 5 158 2 151 6 -4.2 84.3 83.7 •67.3 + 67.0 150 7 134 S -10. 6

89.5 88.3 -9.6 -9.5 78 8 100 8 • 27.9 69.7 67.8 -17.4 -17. 1 50 7 66 0 + 30.3 50.0 47.3 -16.7 -16.0 31 2 48 4 •55.1 26.8 19.4 -10.6 -9.1 10 J 20 0 • 93.6

'Males adjusted to include Armed Forces overseas. 'Derived with 1959-61 and 1967-69 life tables for Puerto Rico (by sex). 5A plus sign denotes net movement into the United States; a minus sign denotes net movement into Puerto Kico. 'Derived from 1960-65 and 1965-70 migration figures and 1959-61 and 1967-69 life tables for Puerto Rico (by sex). 5A plus sign denotes a relative net overcount in the 1970 census as compared with the 1960 census; a minus sign denotes s relative net undercount. Base of percent is expected population.

Sources: See text.

Basic sources of information on migration between

Puerto Rico and the United States are the replies to the

questions on place of birth and residence 5 years ago in the

1960 and 1970 censuses of the United States and Puerto

Rico. Data on residence in Puerto Rico in 1965 from the

1970 census for age-sex groups 15 years and over of the

population of Puerto Rican birth and parentage were ad

justed to include a proportion of persons who had moved

but did not report their residence.50 These data, given only

in broad age groups, were subdivided into 5-year groups on

the basis of the distribution of the corresponding age-sex

groups for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage

residing in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. To esti

mate migrants from Puerto Rico from 1965 to 1970 at ages

under 15, the proportion of each Puerto Rican birth cohort

migrating to the United States in a 5-year period was first

calculated by combining the population residing in the

United States but born in Puerto Rico with the population

residing and born in Puerto Rico, as shown by the 1960

and 1970 censuses. Successive differences in lifetime propor

tions migrating for age cohorts in the two censuses then gave

an estimate of the proportion of the birth cohort migrating

to the United States from 1965 to 1970. The result of apply

ing these procedures was a complete age-sex distribution of

migrants from Puerto Rico to the United States during the

1965-70 period.

The procedure for estimating migration from the United

States to Puerto Rico was similar. Data for 5-year age-sex

groups over age 15 on residence in the United States in 1965

from the 1970 census for Puerto Rico were adjusted pro

rata to include a proportion of those who had moved but

failed to report their residence in 1965." For ages under

15, the calculation paralleled that for migrants from Puerto

Rico except that the cohorts born in the United States con

sisted of the sum of persons of Puerto Rican parentage resid

ing in the United States in 1970 and persons born in the

United States and residing in Puerto Rico in 1970. These

procedures yielded a complete age-sex distribution of persons

migrating from the United States to Puerto Rico during the

1965-70 period.

The differences between the age-sex distribution of mi

grants from Puerto Rico and the age-sex distribution of mi

grants to Puerto Rico from 1965 to 1970 yielded a distri

bution by age and sex for net migration to the United

"U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Subject e3grts, C(2)'1 E' Puerto Ricans in the United s*ates, 1973, table 5,

51 U.S.Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population, Part 53, Puerto Rico, PC(D- 53, 1973, table 113, p. 53-623.
33

States from Puerto Rico. This age-sex distribution was then

assumed to apply both to net migrants for the 1965-70

period in cohorts aged 5 years and over in 1970 and for the

1960-65 period in cohorts aged 10 years and over in 1970.

The distribution was adjusted by the plus-minus proportion

ate adjustment method52 for each 5-year period to the pre

viously established totals derived from the Puerto Rico Plan

ning Board data. The net migrants in each 5-year period were

then "survived" to 1970 by use of the same life tables as

in the previous estimate and then added to survivors of

the 1960 census counts, to yield the estimates of the ex

pected population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage shown

in table 13.53

The coverage estimates for the population of Puerto Rican

birth or parentage in the 1970 census relative to the 1960

census which result from use of the revised migration esti

mates are clearly much more plausible than those originally

derived. These estimates indicate an improvement in cover

age of 4.9 percent for the total population 10 years and over

in 1970 (3.9 percent for males and 5.8 percent for females).

5 'The Methods and Materials of Demography, op. cit., pp. 705-6. 5 3 Discrepancies in the migration totals shown in tables 12 and 13 are the result of differences in the number of migrants allocated to the cohorts born between 1960 and 1970.

The largest improvements are for the male and female

cohorts aged 30-39 in 1970 (20-29 in 1960), 16 percent for

males and 22 percent for females. The ages 20-29 are usually

among the most poorly covered (table 11), so that this

amount of improvement is consistent with an overall im

provement in coverage and the improvement attributable to

the aging of the cohort. Other large improvements in cover

age occurred for the male cohorts aged 65 and over in 1970

and female cohorts aged 50 and over in 1970. These large

coverage increases relative to the 1960 census are consistent

with the inferences drawn from the analysis of census sur

vival ratios regarding the existence of possibly large coverage

errors in 1960 in these cohorts. Relative coverage errors in

the other cohorts are generally small and appear plausible.

Again, it must be stressed that the coverage estimates for

the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage shown in

table 13 represent bicensal relative errors, i.e., changes in

levels of census coverage between 1960 and 1970. In order to

derive measures of the absolute level of census coverage in

1970 for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage

using intercensal cohort analysis, estimates of coverage in the

1960 census are required. Since such estimates are not avail

able, definitive estimates of coverage for the population of

Puerto Rican birth or parentage in 1970 cannot be developed.

Table 13. Estimates of Bicensal Relative Error for the Population of Puerto Rican Birth or Parentage,

Using Census Data on Migration, by Sex: 1960-1970 (Populations in thousands. Percentages and totals computed from unrounded figures)

census population, I9601Survivors of

1960 census, 1970!

Adjusted net Migration from Puerto Rico, 1960 to 1970' '

Surviving net migrants Expected population, 1970'

Census population, 1970'

Percent relative error' Age (years ) and aex from Puerto Rico, 1970' 1 [(6)-(5 >]+(}). (1) (2) (•) (5) (')

In I960 In 1970

TOTAL

10 893.0 859.0 +107.7 +108.3 967.3 1,014.2 + 4.9

10 255.1 252.4 + 58.8 +58.6 311.1 308.2 -0.9 20 165.9 164.2 +85.7 +85.3 249.6 257.8 +3.3 30 180.5 176.9 -13.1 -13.0 164.0 194.9 + 18.8 40 143.3 138.3 -11.6 -11.3 126.9 128.2 + 1.0 50 100.5 93.1 -7.6 -7.3 85.8 91.4 +6.5 55 and ove 6b *7.6 33.9 -4.6 -4.1 29.9 33. B + 13.1

MALE

10 446.9 427.7 +46.3 +46.5 474.2 492.6 +3.9

L0 129.2 127.7 + 27. 7 +27.5 155.2 156.6 +0.9 20 81.7 80.6 + 39.1 + 38.8 119.4 123.0 + 3.0 10 91.0 88.6 -7.3 -7.3 81.4 94.0 +15.5 40 73.7 70.5 -7.1 -7.0 63.5 62.2 -2. 1

'.0 50.5 45.9 -4.2 -4.0 41.9 43.0 +2.6 55 and ove 65 20.8 14.5 -1.8 -1.7 12.8 13.8 +7.4

FEMALE

10 446.2 431.2 + 61.5 +61.8 493.1 521.6 +5.8

10 125.9 124.8 + 31.2 +31.1 155.9 151.6 -2.8 20 84.3 83.7 +46.7 +46.5 130.2 134.8 + 3.5 30 89.5 88.3 -5.7 -5.7 82.6 100.8 + 22.1 40 69.7 67.8 -4.4 -4.4 63.4 66.0 +4.2 50 50.0 47.3 -3.4 -3.3 44.0 48.4 +10.1 55 and ove 63 26.8 19.4 -2.8 -2.4 17.0 20.0 +17.3

'Males adjusted to include Armed Forces overseas, 'Derived with 1959-61 and 1967-69 life tables for Puerto Rico. 'Age distribution of net migrants to Puerto Rico, 1965-70, as estimated from 1970 census adjusted to total net migration from Puerto Rican passenger traffic for 1960-65 and 1965-70. *A plus sign denotes net movement into the United States; a minus sign denotes net movement into Puerto Rico. 'Derived from 1960-66 and 1965-70 net migration figures and 1959-61 and 1967-69 Puerto Rican life tables (by sex). *A plus sign denotes a relative net overcount in the 1970 census as compared with the 1960 census; a minus sign denotes a relative net undercount. Base of percent is expected population.

Sources: See text.
34

-14.0

FlGURE 4.

Percent Net Undercount in 1970 for Various Subgroups

of the Hispanic Population as a Function of the

Assumed Ratio of Undercount Rates for the Subgroup

in 1960 to Undercount Rates for the Black-and-Other- Races

Population in 1960

Percent Undercount of Hispanic Subgroup in 1970

O ForeignCL

born Cubans

Puerto Rican Birth or

Parentage

Native of Mexican

Parentage

-12.0

 

1.9 percentWhite undercount | 1970

+8.00.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Note: A plus sign denotes a net overcount.

Ratio to Black-and-Other-Races Undercount in 1960
35

lllustrative estimates of census coverage for the popula

tion of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in 1970 can be

developed, however, by correcting the 1960 census counts

for this population with an assumed set of coverage rates.

For this purpose it was arbitrarily assumed that the coverage

rates for the population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage

in 1960 were the same (for age and sex categories) as those

for the Black -and-other-races population in I960.54 With

this assumption (which implies an overall undercount of 9.0

percent in 1960), the undercount of the population of

Puerto Rican birth or parentage in 1970 would be 3.7 per

cent. This analysis can be carried further to determine the

sensitivity of the 1970 undercount rates to various assump

tions regarding the 1960 undercount rates. Figure 4 shows

the 1970 undercount rates for the population of Puerto

Rican birth or parentage which would result if various

multiples of the 1960 undercount rates (for age and sex

categories) for the Black-and-other-races population are

assumed to apply to the 1960 population of Puerto Rican

birth or parentage. An undercount greater than 0.78 times

that of Blacks-and-other-races in 1960, or 7.1 percent, would

result in a greater undercount of the population of Puerto

Rican birth or parentage in 1970 than that of Whites in 1970

(1.9 percent). An undercount of less than 1.42 times that of

Blacks-and-other-races in 1960, 125 percent, would yield an

54 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Estimates of Coverage of Popu lation by Sex, Race, and Age: Demographic Analysis, PHC(E)-4, op. cit., table 5, set O.

undercount in 1970 of less than the 7.7 percent undercount

of Blacks. Thus, for a fairly wide range of assumed under

count rates in 1960, the undercount rate for the population

of Puerto Rican birth or parentage in 1970 would be inter

mediate between the rates for Whites and Blacks in 1970.

lntercensal Cohort Analysis: Foreign-born Cuban

Population

The availability of 1960 census data on the population of

Cuban birth and lmmigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) data on immigration into the United States from Cuba

between 1960 and 1970 suggests the possibility of calcu

lating some rough estimates of net census errors for the

population of Cuban birth in 1970. This group accounted

for over 80 percent of the population of Cuban origin in the

United States in 1970, so that the estimates can be thought

of as applying approximately to the entire Cuban popula

tion of the United States. Furthermore, because of the large

volume of immigration from Cuba during the 1960's, only

about one-sixth of the 1970 population of Cuban birth lived

in the United States in 1960. Because most of the estimated

population is based on data on immigration during the

decade, the component of the bicensal relative coverage

error arising from error in the 1960 census data is small.

To estimate the expected population of foreign-born

Cubans in 1970, we first estimate the segment that is the

survivors of the foreign-born Cubans enumerated in 1960.

The 1960 census provides only the total number of foreign

Table 14. Immigrants of Cuban Birth, by Type of Admission, for Each Year, 1959-60 to 1969-70

Parolees

(refugees)

Parolees

adjusting

status

Year Immigrants

admitted1

Total (Ending June 30 entrants of year shown) admitted

(1) (2) (3) (4)

Total, 1960-70... 265,052 310,517 2 140,582 3439,746

8,283 (X) (X) 8,283

14,287 3,900 (X) 18,187

16,254 58,630 (X) 74,884

10,587 34,537 (X) 45,124

15,808 5,390 (X) 21,198

19,760 2,322 (X) 22,082

17,355 32,542 (X) 49,897

33,321 44,963 25,752 52,532

99,312 45,136 91,520 52,928

13,751 41,751 6,343 49,159

16,334 41,346 12,208 45,472

X Not applicable.

1 Includes parolees adjusting status after 1967.

Cumulative total through June 30, 1970 as published in 1970 Annual Report of the lmmigration

and Naturalization Service, page 9. Annual figures shown add to 135,823.

3Sum of annual figures shown.

Sources: Columns (l)-(3) —United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Annual

Report , 1960 through 1970, especially table 9.

Column (4) —See text for description of derivation procedure.
36

born Cubans of each sex without any age detail. To deter

mine the survivors of this group for each sex in 1970, the

1960 census totals for males and females were distributed

by age according to the age distribution of persons born

in Puerto Rico shown by the 1960 census and then "aged"

to 1970 with survival rates from the 1959-61 life table for the White population of Florida.ss The resulting totals of

37,400 males and 37,900 females were then redistributed

by age according to the 1970 census age distribution of

foreign-born Cubans who entered the United States prior

to 1960. The effect of errors in the assumptions underlying

these calculations would be small because, as noted earlier,

most foreign-born Cubans in the United States in 1970

entered after 1960. However, the likely effect of the pro

cedure is to increase very slightly the level of the estimated

net undercounts. Cuban immigrants tend to be older than

Puerto Rican immigrants so that, if the true age distribu

tion in 1960 were known, fewer survivors in 1970 would

have been estimated from the 1960 population.

The remaining foreign-born Cubans in the United States

in 1970 represent survivors of three categories of Cuban

arrivals between 1960 and 1970: immigrants with perma

nent status, parolees (refugees) with nonpermanent status,

and parolees who had been in the United States for a

minimum of 2 years and whose nonpermanent status was

subsequently adjusted to permanent status under the 1966

Cuban Refugee Act. (See table 14 for data on immigrants.)

Data for each group had to be treated differently to arrive

at age distributions for them because of the different amount

of information available for each group. INS Annual Reports

provide age distributions in 10-year groups for each sex for

immigrants with permanent status; these data were then

subdivided into 5-year groups by polynomial (cubic) inter

polation. For parolees (refugees), or immigrants with nonpermanent status, the INS reports provide only total annual

figures for 1961 to 1970. Parolees who entered between

1960 and 1966 were assumed to have the same age and sex

distribution as immigrants with permanent status who

entered during the same year. Parolees who entered between

1967 and 1970 were distributed by age and sex according

to the age-sex distribution of parolees who had registered

with Cuban refugee centers in Florida in the late 1960's.

The remaining group of foreign-born Cubans, parolees

who have been accepted for permanent residence, are in

cluded in the age and sex data on permanent immigrants for

the years 1967 through 1970 tabulated by the Immigration

and Naturalization Service. Only the total number of persons

whose status was adjusted, according to year of arrival, is

available. Since these refugees have been included in the age

and sex data for permanent migrants in the year of adjust

ment of status and since they should be added in the year of

arrival, they must be excluded from the INS age-sex data

to avoid double counting. The parolees whose status was

adjusted were assumed to have the same age and sex distri

bution in each year as the permanent Cuban immigrants. The

,sThe majority of Cubans in the United States in 1960 were

lite and lived in Florida. Many were probably long-time residents of the United States. See the next footnote also.

number of Cuban immigrants for each age-sex group in

each year between 1960 and 1970 was finally arrived at by

adding the estimates for parolees with nonpermanent status

for age-sex groups to the statistics for immigrants with

permanent status and subtracting the estimates of parolees

whose status was adjusted.

The expected number of survivors in 1970 of Cuban im

migrants arriving between 1960 and 1970 was approximated

by applying life table survival rates to the annual data on

immigrants. The life tables used were those for the Spanishsurname population of Texas in 1970 previously described.5 6

The survivors in 1970 were then recombined into conven

tional 5-year age groups. Some Cubans (immigrants and

parolees) enter the greater United States through Puerto

Rico and a small number of these remain in Puerto Rico.

The latter persons must be excluded from the foreign-born

Cuban population in the United States in 1970. The number

of foreign-born Cubans who remained in Puerto Rico was

assumed to be the number of aliens registering with the

Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1970 (20, 665). 5 7

Since no other information is available on these persons,

it was arbitrarily assumed that one-quarter of them entered

the greater United States during the 1960-65 period and the

remainder entered during the 1965-70 period. These persons

were then assigned to age and sex groups in proportion to

all Cuban immigrants arriving during the appropriate time

period. The expected foreign-born Cuban population then

consisted of the survivors of foreign-born Cubans enumerated

in 1960 plus the survivors of Cuban immigrants arriving

between 1960 and 1970 less the number of aliens from Cuba

registering with the Immigration and Naturalization Service

in 1970 in Puerto Rico (table 15). It was assumed that there

was no emigration of foreign-born Cubans.

Comparison of the expected number of foreign-born

Cubans with the census figures appears to imply an esti

mated net undercount of about 3 percent for both sexes,

about 4 percent for males, and about 3 percent for females.

These figures must be treated as rough approximations at

best. Moreover, because of the many broad assumptions

employed in estimating the expected age and sex distri

butions, the estimates of net undercounts according to age,

sex, and period of immigration cannot be treated as even

approximate indications of the extent of error for these

categories.

Several anomalous results in this set of estimates of the

coverage of Cubans in the 1970 census point to specific

5 'The life tables for the Spanish-surname population of Texas in 1970 were the only recent life tables available representing the ex perience of a Hispanic population in the United States. Since most of the Cuban immigrants are young or middle-aged adults and since survival rates for these age groups are high, the results are practically insensitive to any reasonable choice of survival rates. Expectation of life at birth for alternative choices of life tables are:

Male Female Texas, Spanish-surname, 1970-71 68.1 73.4 Florida, White, 1959-61 67.9 75.7 Florida, White, 1969-71 68.2 76.4 Puerto Rico, 1959-61 67.1 71.9 Puerto Rico, 1969-71 69.0 75.2

S,U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1970 Annual Report, Table 35, p. 105. The assumed figure includes 81 aliens of Cuban origin registering in the Virgin Islands.
37

Table 15. Illustrative Estimates of the Percents of Net Census Error for the Population of Cuban Birth, by Sex

and Age and by Sex and Year of Entry into the United States: 1970

(Population In thousands. Base of percent is expected population. A plus sign denotes a net overcount in the census; a minus sign denotes a net undercount. Numbers rounded Independently. Percentages computed from unrounded figures)

Total Male Female

Age and year of immigration Percent net error

Percent net error

Percent net Census Expected Census Expected Census Expected error

AGE

446.0 459.4 -2.9 208.7 2J.8.4 -4.4 237 .3 241.1 -1.6

76.4 74.9 +2.0 38.6 38.5 +0.3 37.8 36.4 +3.7 135.8 135.3 +0.4 62.2 64.3 -3.3 73.6 71.0 +3.7 157.7 173.7 -9.3 76.1 83.3 -8.6 81.5 90.4 -9.8 43.8 44.5 -1.6 19.0 19.7 -3.8 24.8 24.8 +0.2 32.3 30.9 +4.3 12.7 12.5 +1.9 19.5 18.4 +6.0

YEAR OF IMMIGRATION

74.1 75.3 -1.6 35.9 37.4 -4.2 38.2 37.9 +0.9 167.9 161.8 +3.8 81.7 83.1 -1.7 86.2 78.7 +9.5 204.0 222.3 -8.2 91.1 97.8 -6.9 112.9 124.4 -9.3

Source of census figures: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970, Subject Reports, PC(2)-lA, national Origin and language, 1973, table 17, p. 462. Census figures have been adjusted pro rata by age for year of entry not reported.

types of errors in the adjustment procedures. According to

the estimates, children under 15 years of age were over

counted. In the light of our experience that pre-teenage

children are usually undercounted, often substantially, the

results suggest that too few parolees were allocated to this

age group or too many "adjusted" parolees were removed

from it.58 A further difficulty with the estimation procedure

is apparent in the much larger undercounts for ages 35 to 54

than for ages 15 to 34; from our experience with other

populations, we would expect the relative levels of coverage

for these two groups to be reversed or at least more similar.

Again, this result suggests that too few parolees were as

signed to the younger adult ages (for the 1960-66 period,

especially) at the expense of the middle age groups or,

alternatively, too many parolees were assigned to the

younger age group for the 1967-70 period.

Irregularities in the estimates for the various periods of ar

rival suggest further difficulties with the estimation procedure.

The estimated undercounts "in 1970" for foreign-born

Cubans who arrived prior to 1960 represent bicensal relative

net undercounts. Thus, the apparent slight overcount for

females of about 1 percent for this group implies an improve

ment in coverage for the group. For the group arriving in

the 1960-65 period, the estimates are clearly implausible.

The 10-percent overcount for females coupled with a 2-

percent undercount for males for this period suggests some

possible misallocation by sex and/or by time period in

estimating the expected population. This interpretation

is presumably supported by the large apparent undercount

for each sex in the 1965-70 period, in spite of the arbitrary

assignment of most Cubans residing in Puerto Rico to this

period and their exclusion from the expected number. Some

' " More detailed calculations show that most of the shortage in the expected population is in the age group 5-9 and that there is a slight excess in ages 0-4.

of the immigrants assigned to the 1965-70 period should

presumably have been assigned to the earlier period.

The estimates of census coverage in 1970 for foreignborn Cubans shown in table 15 can be improved by correct

ing the 1960 census counts for coverage errors. However,

since coverage estimates for this population are not available

for 1960, it was arbitrarily assumed for illustrative purposes

that the 1960 undercount rates (for age and sex categories)

for the Black -and-other-races population also applied to the

foreign-born Cuban population. With this assumption (im

plying an undercount of 9.7 percent in 1960), the resulting

estimated overall undercount rate of foreign-born Cubans

in 1970 would be about 4.6 percent, or 6.7 percent for

males and 2.7 percent for females. Unlike the population

of Puerto Rican birth or parentage, the estimated under

count for foreign-born Cubans in 1970 is not very sensitive

to the assumed coverage rates in 1960. If the 1960 rates

are assumed to be twice those for Blacks-and-other races

(or 20.3 percent), the estimated overall undercount rate in

1970 for foreign-born Cubans would increase to only 6.8

percent (figure 4). This lack of sensitivity to the assumed

1960 coverage rates can be attributed to the fact that

about five-sixths of the foreign-born Cuban population in

1970 entered the United States after 1960.

It is useful to stress a few points about these calculations.

The reliability of coverage estimates depends strongly on the

reliability of the data and assumptions on which the esti

mates are based. Since the estimates of coverage for foreignborn Cubans in the 1970 census derived by analytic tech

niques are based largely on rather inadequate data and

untested assumptions, they are only rough estimates at best.

Consequently, the estimates, particularly those for age-sex

categories, should be used with extreme caution. This exer

cise may be viewed as illustrative of some of the problems

in estimating census coverage from deficient and limited

data.
38

Intercensal Cohort Analysis: Native Population of

Mexican Parentage

Data on the native population of Mexican parentage from

both the 1960 and 1970 censuses can be employed to

prepare estimates of bicensal relative coverage error for this

group by means of intercensal cohort analysis. If the 1960

census counts are not corrected for underenumeration and if

the survivors in 1970 of the 1960 population account for all

of the expected 1970 population (that is, if the expected

population relates only to ages 10 and over in 1970), the

differences between the expected and census populations in

1970 represent the differences between the errors in the

1970 counts and the errors in the 1960 counts for the

cohorts already born by 1960 (that is, the bicensal relative

error) rather than net undercounts in 1970 as such.

Problems in dealing with immigration, such as those

encountered in the analysis of data on Cubans and Puerto

Ricans, are avoided, or at least reduced, by restricting the

analysis to natives. Since the net movement of natives into or

out of the country between 1960 and 1970 was probably

quite small, the net migration component was ignored in the

present calculations. Mainly for this reason, intercensal

cohort analysis is much simpler for natives of Mexican

parentage than for the foreign-born Cuban population or the

population of Puerto Rican birth or parentage.

The 1960 census counts of natives of Mexican parentage

were published only in broad age groups for each sex. They

were first subdivided into 5-year age groups on the basis of

the age distribution of the White Spanish-surname population

of Mexican parentage residing in the five Southwestern States

in 1960. The expected population in 1970 was then derived

by applying 10-year (time interval) survival rates from the

life table for the Spanish-surname population of Texas in

1970 to the 1960 census population. Finally, the expected

population in 1970 was compared with the 1970 census

counts. As previously stated, no allowance was made for

civilian immigration or emigration during the decade. Both

the 1960 and 1970 populations were adjusted to include

male members of the Armed Forces overseas.

One possible inference to be drawn from the intercensal

cohort analysis for the native population of Mexican parent

age is that coverage of this group improved between the two

censuses by about 6 percent for each sex (table 16). Much of

this apparent improvement in coverage occurred in only a

few cohorts. Coverage of the cohorts aged 10—19 and over

70 in 1970 (aged 0-9 and over 60 in 1960) appears to have

improved by over 20 percent between 1960 and 1970. These

apparent coverage gains are so large that they cast doubt on

the validity of the basic data. One likely source of error in

the figures is misreporting of nativity by respondents for

themselves and members of their households; e.g., in 1970,

some persons born in Mexico who entered the country

illegally may have reported a place of birth in the United

States in order to legitimate their illegal presence in the

United States or to bolster claims to American citizenship.

Other potential sources of error are possible bias on the part

of the Census Bureau in allocating nativity for persons who

did not report place of birth and the omission of an

allowance for net migration during the 1960-70 decade.

Table 16. Estimates of Bicensal Relative Error for the Native Population of Mexican Parentage,

by Sex: 1960-1970

(Population in thousands)

Male

Percent relative error' t(3)-(2H»(2)= (4)

Female

Percent Age (years) Census1 , relat lve 1960 Expected population, 2

1970

Census 1 ,

I960 Census 1 ,

1960

Expected population, 1

1970

Census 1 ,

1970 error' l(7)-(6>]»(6)» (1) (2) (3) (5) (6) (7) (8)

In 1960 In 1970

582.9 558.0 593.1 +6.3 581.3 564.9 601.9 +6.5

to 14 72.4 71.8 88.6 +23.5 69.5 69.0 86.1 +24.8 to 19 64.8 64.4 76.2 +18.3 63.8 63.5 75.2 +18.4 64.3 63.6 62.3 -2.0 62.4 62.0 62.0 -0.1 58.1 57.2 54.1 -5.3 58.9 58.4 55.5 -5 .0

to 34 53.4 52.2 57.9 +11.0 53.5 52.9 58.6 +10.7 to 39 6! .3 59.5 62.8 +5.5 61.7 60.9 65.4 +7.5 68.4 66.0 66.6 +0.8 70.4 69.0 68.2 -1.1

51.4 49.2 50.2 +1.9 54.2 52.7 52.0 -1.4 to 54 31.7 29.8 28;5 -4.4 32.5 31.2 30.9 -1.0 20.9 18.9 18.5 -1.9 20.1 18.8 19.1 +1.4 13.2 11.2 11.3 +0.6 12.6 11.4 11.3 -0.9 9.0 7.1 7.6 +6.5 8.7 7.5 7.3 -1.8 5.1 3.6 4.2 +17.4 4.9 3.8 4.7 +25.1 .. 75 8.8 3.6 4.4 +23.1 8.3 3.9 5.6 +46.4

Adjusted to include Armed Forces overseas. 'Derived by applying life table survival rates for 1970 Spanish-surname population of Texas to 1960 census counts. 'Percentages computed from unrounded figures. Base of percent is expected population. A plus sifm denotes a relative net overcount in the 197i1 census as compared with the I960 census; a minus sign denotes a relative net undercount.

Source of census figures: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1970. Subject Reports, PC(2)-lA, National Origin and Language, 1973, table 10, p. 70. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960, Subject Reports, PC(2)-lA, Nativity and Parentage, 1963, tabic 9, p. 32.
39

The patterns of the relative coverage errors for the cohorts

aged 20 to 69 in 1970 (10 to 59 in 1960) are indicative of

certain types of coverage problems in the censuses even

though the magnitude of the absolute coverage errors in

1970 cannot be ascertained. The relative overcount of males

at ages 65-69 in 1970 suggests possible age missstatement in

1970 on the part of individuals who had not actually turned

65. The relative undercounts at ages 20 to 29 for both sexes,

coupled with large relative overcounts at ages 30 to 39,

suggest that the cohorts aged 20 to 29 in 1970 (as well as the

cohorts aged 20 to 29 in 1960) had worse coverage than the

adjacent age groups. For the remaining cohorts (males aged

40 to 64 in 1970, except 50 to 54; females aged 40 to 69)

the relative coverage errors are quite small, possibly smaller

than the sampling error of the census data; this pattern

indicates stability in census coverage over time.

As previously noted, to derive absolute measures of

coverage error for the native population of Mexican parent

age by intercensal cohort analysis, it is necessary to correct

the 1960 census counts for coverage errors. No direct

measures of census coverage in 1960 are available for this

population so that it is not possible to produce definitive

coverage estimates for it in 1970. However, illustrative

estimates of coverage error in 1970 can be derived by

assuming the level of coverage errors for 1960. lf it is

assumed, for example, that coverage rates by age and sex for

the native population of Mexican parentage in 1960 were the

same as the rates for Black -and-other-races population in

1960 (implying an overall undercount rate of 9.2 percent),

then the overall net underenumeration for natives of Mexican

parentage in 1970 (aged 10 years and over) would be 3.4

percent.

The sensitivity of this result to varying assumptions for

1960 can be tested by assuming that various multiples of the

Black-and-other-races coverage rates in 1960 apply to the

1960 native population of Mexican parentage. According to

figure 4, the 1970 undercount rate for natives of Mexican

parentage would exceed that for Whites (1.9 percent) if the

1960 undercount rates were greater than 0.84 times those of

the Black-and-other-races population in 1960, or 7.7 percent

overall. On the other hand, if the 1960 undercount rates for

natives of Mexican parentage were less than 1.41 times those

of the Black-and-other-races population, or 12.9 percent

overall, then the undercount rate for natives of Mexican

parentage in 1970 would be less than 7.7 percent, the

undercount rate for Blacks in 1970. Thus, for a fairly wide

range of assumed coverage rates in 1960, the undercount for

natives of Mexican parentage falls between that for Whites

and that for Blacks.

These illustrative estimates are subject to the several types

of errors discussed earlier as well as the possibility that the

pattern and level of coverage rates in 1960 for natives of

Mexican parentage differed considerably from those of the

Black-and-other-races population. Perhaps the only

definitive statement that can be made on the basis of this

analysis is that the coverage of natives of Mexican parentage

probably improved by about 6 percent between 1960 and

1970.

Stable Population Models

Stable population models have been widely used in the

evaluation of census data. Stable population models are

theoretical, unchanging age distributions which result from

and correspond to specific rates of population growth and

specific schedules of fertility and mortality. Given the rate of

growth of a population and its mortality level, for example,

it is possible to specify its age distribution under certain

conditions. The stable population model assumes unchanging

fertility and mortality and the absence of net immigration

over a long period. Under these circumstances the stable age

distribution corresponding to the observed growth rate and

the observed fertility and mortality rates may be taken to

represent the true age distribution for purposes of evaluating

the enumerated age distribution. The Hispanic population

does not conform to this model, however, viewed from any

aspect, now or in the past. Another type of population

model, the quasi-stable model, assumes constant fertility,

slowly declining mortality, and the absence of net immigra

tion; this model also does not fit the case of the Hispanic

population.

These model age distributions essentially correct for errors

of age reporting; they correct for coverage errors to only a

minimal extent. This inference follows from the fact that

stable population analysis does not in itself provide for an

alternative total for a population, only for an alternative age

distribution. Coverage estimates made for specific age-sex

groups, using these or similar models, are likely to be very

much in error.

Comparison With Aggregate Administrative Record

Data

Another possibility for obtaining coverage estimates for the

Hispanic population involves comparing counts from a set or

sets of administrative records according to one of the

identifiers with counts from the census. The records must be

complete or must be adjusted for incomplete coverage, and

the Hispanic identifier must be the same for the adminis

trative records as for the census. A further requirement is

that the records be national in scope or, if restricted to a

particular geographic area, contain valid addresses as of the

census day. We have not been able to identify any such sets

of administrative records for use in estimating the coverage

of the Hispanic population in the 1970 census.

The Hispanic identifier which could prove to be most useful

for exploiting administrative records is Spanish surname. It is

a quite objective criterion, compared with Spanish origin and

similar subjective criteria. Furthermore, the use of Spanish

surname does not require that persons identify themselves as

Hispanic upon entry into the record system; that is, it is not

necessary for the agency which created the record system to

have included identification of individuals as Hispanic in its

original objectives. The major drawback of the Spanishsurname identifier is that the list of names, as now

constituted, has not proven successful in identifying the

Hispanic population outside the five Southwestern States.59

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical Paper No. 38, op. cit.
40

Research is now in progress which could result in the

development of a list of Spanish surnames for use in

identifying Hispanic persons in administrative record files

and in the census for the entire country. (See section, "Plans

for Evaluation Studies in 1980".)

The Social Security Administration/Internal Revenue

Service files could prove to be quite useful for estimating the

coverage of the Hispanic population even though, at present,

neither the application form for a Social Security number

nor the other record forms of the SSA or the IRS contain

explicit information identifying Hispanic persons. One

approach to the problem would involve matching a sample of

persons with Spanish surnames in the SSA/IRS files to the

census for 1970. However, this procedure is costly and

complex and is not now practicable for 1970.

CONCLUSION

Development of definitive estimates of coverage of the

Hispanic population in the 1970 census has not proved to be

feasible at this time, on the basis of any of the techniques

discussed in the preceding sections. However, some very

general indications of coverage levels and patterns have been

identified. The general measures of errors in the age and sex

data of the Hispanic population suggest that the coverage

level of the Hispanic population in 1970 falls between that of

the White and Black populations.60 Furthermore, defi6 "The only direct evidence currently available regarding the coverage of the Hispanic population comes from coverage studies conducted in conjunction with two pretests for the 1980 census. The evidence from these studies is not inconsistent with the hypothesis

ciencies in certain age and sex groups are apparent. For

example, Hispanic males are not enumerated as completely as

females; undercoverage of young adults, particularly males, is

relatively high; and there are notable reporting problems

among the elderly. Estimates of coverage for three nationalorigin subgroups of the Hispanic population—foreign-born

Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and the native population of Mexican

parentage—strongly suggest that coverage for these groups

taken separately and in combination (constituting less than

two-fifths of the reported population of Spanish origin in

1970) falls between that of the White and Black populations.

However, in view of the lack of appropriate data, specific

estimates of coverage for the entire Hispanic population in

1970 would have to be based on a large number of invented

assumptions of questionable validity. Such estimates could

possibly be worthless and even very misleading.

6 "-Continued that undercoverage of the Hispanic population is intermediate between that of Whites and Blacks. The available results relate to coverage of housing units, however, so that the figures may not reflect the relative levels of coverage of population closely. In the coverage studies conducted following the censuses of Travis County, Texas and Camden, New Jersey, each taken in 1976, enumeration districts (ED's) were designated as either Spanish (i.e., over 30 percent of the residents were of Spanish origin) or non-Spanish and a sample of blocks was chosen from each group. In Travis County, there was no significant difference (at a 95-percent confidence level) between miss rates for housing units in Spanish areas (1.6 percent) and non-Spanish areas (0.6 percent). In Camden, the miss rate for housing units in Spanish areas (1.0 percent) was significantly lower than in non- Spanish areas (1.7 percent). (Camden's non-Hispanic population in 1976 was 48.3 percent Black.) These results are from T.W. Harahush and I. Fernandez, "The Coverage of Housing Units—Results from Two Census Pretests," Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 1978, American Statistical Association.
Prospects for Measuring the Coverage of the Hispanic Population

PROSPECTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DATA

Our attempt to apply techniques of demographic analysis to

estimate the coverage of the Hispanic population in the 1970

census has disclosed two areas in need of improvement

before this approach can be expected to yield accurate

estimates of census coverage for the Hispanic population or

its subgroups. These are (1) a precise and consistent

definition of the Hispanic population and (2) data from

non-census sources, such as vital statistics, immigration data,

and administrative record data, which are consistent with the

census definition. These problems may continue to plague

efforts to evaluate coverage of the Hispanic population in the

1980 census. For the 1980 census, the Bureau of the Census plans to

use a completely self-designating or subjective method of

defining the Hispanic population. A person will be classified

as Hispanic if he or she chooses a Hispanic category in

response to the question on Hispanic origin or descent which

is to appear on the 100-percent census questionnaire.

Inasmuch as data on Hispanic origin or descent are also

available from the 1970 census, the Census Bureau will have

data on the Hispanic population based on an essentially

common general definition for the last two censuses.61 Even

so, derivation of coverage estimates for the Hispanic popu

lation by the demographic method will continue to be

difficult because of possible differences between these and

other (non-census) figures on the Hispanic population

resulting from shifts in the identification of individuals as

Hispanic or non-Hispanic.

A division of the total "error" into the coverage and

response components may be attempted through match

studies in 1980. We are concerned, however, that the attempt

may not result in reliable estimates of the components.

Match studies may also be used to provide estimates of gross

and net response error for the Hispanic population in 1980.

They are likely to show that response variability accounts for

a substantial portion of the measured error. Thus, although

self-designated Spanish origin or descent may be an appro

priate choice as the primary identifier of the Hispanic

population, it will present difficulties in evaluating coverage

in 1980.

* 1 The question on Spanish origin has been revised for the 1980 census, from the 1970 census question, "Is this person's origin or descent . . .?" to read "Is this person of Spanish/Hispanic origin or descent?" This new format is expected to reduce errors caused by misunderstanding of the question and to produce more consistent data.

Demographic data independent of the census corre

sponding to the concept of Hispanic origin or descent will be

needed in order to evaluate the census figures on the

Hispanic population in 1980 by the demographic method.

Vital statistics and immigration data following this concept

over a long period will be required. One method of obtaining

the requisite vital statistics is simply to ask a question about

Spanish origin or descent on the birth and death certificates.

The National Center for Health Statistics has proposed to the

States that they modify their birth and death certificates to

secure information on Spanish origin. So far, 18 States,

generally those with the largest numbers of persons of

Spanish origin, have agreed to secure such information. The

first data to be tabulated from these new certificates will

relate to 1978 and may become available in 1980. Data are

needed for the other States and for a long period a years,

however, if they are to be useful for coverage evaluation.

Although such data would not be strictly comparable to

census data because the concept is subjective and the (same or

different) respondent would not necessarily have provided

the same information for the census and the birth or death

certificates, they may be sufficiently consistent to serve as a

rough basis for census evaluation in the coming years for at

least some portion of the Hispanic population.

Another possibility for obtaining vital statistics on the

Hispanic population—one which does not involve any modifi

cation of the present birth and death certificates— is the

coding of birth and death certificates according to Spanish

surnames. Coding of Spanish surnames has the distinct

advantage that it is relatively objective and can be applied

retrospectively, making it possible to produce a series of

consistent data for a number of years. These data could then

be used to evaluate the census coverage of the Spanishsurname population in the younger ages in 1980.62 This

procedure would have a number of drawbacks; these arise

primarily from the lack of correspondence between Hispanic

origin and Spanish surname as identifiers, as noted earlier.

Moreover, estimates of the completeness of birth registration

for this group are lacking.

Any application of the component method to the

estimation of the coverage of the Spanish-surname popu

lation would require, in addition to the appropriate vital

statistics, national data on net immigration or regional data

* 2 At this time (April 1979), it appears unlikely that Spanish sur name will be coded outside the five Southwestern States in the 1980 census.

41
42

on net in-migration (e.g., State-of-birth data classified by age)

for the five Southwestern States for the Spanish-surname

population. Calculating coverage estimates for the entire

United States with national data would alleviate this

problem, but the problem of applying the present Spanishsurname list to the census data and the vital statistics for

areas outside the Southwest would remain.

Coding of Spanish surnames could also be done (perhaps

on a sample basis) for some sets of administrative records,

such as Social Security summary earnings files, Medicare

enrollments, or IRS tax returns for 1980. It would then be

possible to compare the aggregate census figures for persons

with Spanish surnames resident in the five Southwestern

States or in the United States with similar figures from the

Medicare files or the Social Security files. Aggregate com

parison with tabulations from the Social Security summary

earnings files has severe limitations, however, resulting prin

cipally from omissions from and duplications in the files. The

coded records could be used more effectively in a matching

study, which does not depend on the completeness of the

file. For example, a sample of persons with Spanish surnames

in the SSA/IRS files could be matched to the 1980 census

records to evaluate the coverage of selected age groups in the

Hispanic population.

In any application involving the use of a list of Spanish

surnames to identify the Hispanic population, the many

problems associated with this identifier, previously discussed,

must be overcome. Research at the Census Bureau is now

under way in an attempt to resolve some of these problems.

Refining the Census Bureau's list so that it could serve as a

standard list for use by the National Center for Health

Statistics, the Social Security Administration, and the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as by the

Census Bureau, is one goal of the research. The refined list

may aid in the tabulation of the births and deaths of the

Hispanic population and in the calculation of the corre

sponding birth and death rates, as well as in directly

measuring coverage by such techniques as a case-by-case

match with Social Security files. The research is also

proceeding in the direction of adapting the list, or devising a

second one, for use in identifying the Spanish-surname

population outside the southwest.63

Representatives of the Census Bureau and the Social

Security Administration have been collaboratively exploring

the issues involved in securing Social Security data classified

by Spanish ancestry. The Census Bureau has received a

tabulation of a 1 -percent sample of persons included in the

Social Security file and has attempted to identify those

persons with Spanish surnames as a test of the feasibility of

making this classification in 1980. The Census Bureau has

" 1 The basic data for this research is a 20-percent sample of all Social Security records. From this file, it is possible to tabulate the frequency of occurence of every surname (Spanish and non-Spanish) in each State. Spanish surnames can then be identified on the basis of geographic (distributional) criteria as well as the usual linguistic and genealogical criteria. For a more detailed discussion of the research on Spanish surnames, see D.L. Word, J.S. Passel, B.O. Causey, and E.W. Fernandez, "Determining a List of Spanish Surnames by Analysis of Geographical Distributions," unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Regional Demographic Group, San Antonio, Texas, October 1978.

also indicated to the Social Security Administration its

interest in having the application form tor a Social Security

number revised to include identification of Spanish origin or

descent.

The number of illegal aliens in the United States is a

subject which has received a great deal of attention in

bureaucratic, political, professional, and popular writings and

discussions. The range of the available estimates for recent

years is quite large, from 1 to 12 million, and the methods

used to derive the estimates are quite varied, ranging from

conjecture based on enforcement data64 to statistical

inference based on comparison of time series of aggregate

administrative data,6* triple-system match studies,66 and

demographic analyses of survey data at various dates.''7 A

direct survey has also been undertaken.6 8 The analytical

research to date does suggest that the number of illegal aliens

in the country and the net flow are far less than the highest

conjectural estimates.''''

In a further attempt to apply demographic analysis to the

estimation of the number of illegal aliens in the country, the

Census Bureau has undertaken an analysis of trends in

age-sex -cause-specific death rates for the group of States in

which illegal aliens are believed to be numerous. This analysis

also suggests that the number of illegal aliens in the country

is probably not as large as the highest conjectural estimates

and that large increases in the net flow of illegal aliens have

not occurred since 1970. 70

To date, this and other research projects have not yielded

any definitive or preferred estimate of the net flow or

current population of illegal aliens. The question as to how

many illegal aliens are in the country remains open.

"4Lesko Associates, Final Report: Basic Data and Guidance Required to Implement a Major Illegal Alien Study During Fiscal Year 1976. prepared for the Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Washington, D.C., October 1975.6 * Alexander Korns, "Coverage Issues Raised by Comparisons Between CPS and Establishment Employment," Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 1977: Part I, American Statistical Associa tion, 1978. pp. 60-69. "Clarise Lancaster, and Frederick J. Scheuren, "Counting the Uncountable Illegals: Some Initial Statistical Speculations Employing Capture-Recapture Techniques," Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 1977: Part I, American Statistical Association, 1978, pp. 530-535. "David M. Heer, "What is the Annual Net Flow of Undocu mented Mexican Immigrants to the U.S.?", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Atlanta, Georgia. April 13-15, 1978. J. A. Reyes Associates, The Survey Design for a Residential Survey of Illegal Aliens, report submitted to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, September 5, 1977. See also Statement of Robert Warren, pp. 704-706, in Immigration to the United States, Hearings before the Select Committee on Population, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, Second Session, April 4-7, 1978, No. 5.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1978. "* Select Committee on Population, U.S. House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, Second Session, Legal and Illegal Immigration to the United States, Serial C, December 1978. See also Immigration to the United States, op. cit. and Charles B. Keely, "Counting the Un countable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens in the United States." Population and Development Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1977,

pp. 473-482.

"'J. Gregory Robinson, "Esfimating the Approximate Size of the Illegal Alien Population in the United States by the Comparative Trend Analysis of Age-Specific Death Rates", paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Phila delphia, Pennsylvania, April 26-28, 1979.
43

PLANS FOR EVALUATION STUDIES IN 1980

Plans for the evaluation of the coverage of the population in

the 1980 census are still being formulated. These plans

envisage an effort to evaluate the coverage of the Hispanic

population of the United States, States, and possibly

constituent geographic areas. It is planned to apply the

various techniques of demographic analysis considered here

for 1970 as well as extensions and adaptations of them that

the data permit. The scope of this approach will necessarily

remain limited, however. In spite of the steps being taken to

expand the range of Hispanic data, particularly vital sta

tistics, these will be of little utility for 1980 since generally

the States are only beginning to collect data on births and

deaths of Hispanic persons.

At present, principal consideration is being given to the

conduct of a post-enumeration survey (PES), the results of

which would be matched to the census records on a

case-by-case basis. Individuals would be identified as of

Spanish origin or descent in the post-enumeration survey and

this determination would establish their identification as

Hispanic for the purposes of the study. It is quite possible

that the census-PES match study will provide satisfactory

estimates of coverage for the Hispanic population at most for

the United States as a whole and that other methods will be

required to produce estimates for the major political sub

divisions of the United States.

Information from the match study on the variation in the

coverage rates of the Hispanic population according to

socioeconomic characteristics for the United States may be

employed in a synthetic or regression design, in combination

with census data on the geographic and socioeconomic

distribution of the Hispanic population, to prepare estimates

of coverage for the Hispanic population of the major political

subdivisions of the United States. Coverage rates according to

socioeconomic characteristics for the general U.S. population

may permit the calculation of coverage rates for the Spanish

population in the United States as a whole in the event that

satisfactory Hispanic coverage rates for the United States are

not available from the match study.

A further match of the post-enumeration survey with the

Social Security /Medicare/1 RS files on the basis of Spanish

surname is being considered. The results of such a study

could be used to adjust the original census-PES estimate of

coverage for understatement, that is, to allow for groups

which tend to be omitted from censuses and surveys.

Presumably the administrative files include a representation

of persons living in units that were omitted from the census

or improperly reported as vacant and persons whom house

holders carelessly or deliberately excluded from census

reports. Hopefully, this device will serve to encompass the

measurement of illegal aliens of Hispanic origin, even though

this group cannot be identified separately.

Given the uncertainties of the triple-system matching

scheme, the response variability in the definition of the

Hispanic population, and the deficiencies in the various

non-census data sources, it is not clear at this time whether

reliable estimates of coverage of the Hispanic population can

be developed nationally or at any subordinate geographic

level for 1980. A major effort will be made to do so,

however.
Superintendent

of Documents FIRST-CLASS MAIL U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

OfficialBusiness

Penalty for Private Use, $300

POSTAGE&FEES PAID

CENSUS

PERMIT NO. G–58