USER NOTES
User notes supply file purchasers with additional or corrected
information which becomes available after the technical documentation or
files are prepared. They are issued in a numbered series and automatically
mailed to all users who purchase technical documentation from the Census
Bureau. Other users may obtain them by subscribing to the user note
series. Contact Customer Services (301-763-4100) for subscription
information.
Each user note has a cover sheet which should be filed following this
page. Technical documentation replacement pages will follow the cover
sheet. These pages are to be filed in their proper location and the
original pages destroyed. Replacement pages can be readily identified,
because they have the user note date on the lower outside portion of each
page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3,
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES
USER NOTE 1
Age Reporting--Review of detailed 1990 information indicated that
respondents tended to provide their age as of the date of completion of the
questionnaire, not their age as of April 1, 1990. In addition, there may
have been a tendency for respondents to round up their age if they were
close to having a birthday. It is likely that approximately 10 percent of
persons in most age groups are actually 1 year younger. For most single
years of age, the misstatements are largely offsetting. The problem is
most
pronounced at age 0 because persons lost to age 1 may not have been fully
offset by the inclusion of babies born after April 1, 1990 and because
there may have been more rounding up to age 1 to avoid reporting age as 0
years. (Age in completed months was not collected for infants under age
1.)
The reporting of age 1 year older than age on April 1, 1990 is likely to
have been greater in areas where the census data were collected later in
1990. The magnitude of this problem was much less in the three previous
censuses where age was typically derived from respondent data on year of
birth and quarter of birth. (For more information on the design of the age
question, see the discussion on comparability under "Age" in appendix B.)
June 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES
USER NOTE 2
Clarification of Differences Between 100-Percent Counts and Sample
Estimates--Estimated population and housing unit totals based on
tabulations from only the sample questionnaires (sample tabulations) may
differ from the official counts as tabulated from every census
questionnaire (100-percent tabulations). Such differences result, in part,
because the sample tabulations are based on information from a sample of
households rather than from all households (sampling error). Differences
also can occur because the interview situation (length of questionnaire,
effect of the interviewer, and so forth) and the processing rules differ
somewhat between the 100-percent and sample tabulations. These types of
differences are reflected in what is called nonsampling error. (For a more
detailed description of nonsampling error, see Appendix C, "Accuracy of
the Data," in the technical documentation for Summary Tape File 3.)
The 100-percent data are the official counts and should be used as the
source of information on items collected on the 100-percent questionnaire,
such as race, Hispanic origin, age, and number of rooms in housing. This
is especially appropriate when the primary focus is on counts of the
population or housing units for small areas such as census tracts, block
groups, and for American Indian and Alaska Native areas. For estimates of
counts of persons and housing units by characteristics asked only on a
sample basis (such as education, labor force status, income, and source of
water), the sample estimates should be used within the context of the error
associated with them.
Many users are interested in tabulations of items collected on the
sample cross-classified by items collected on a 100-percent basis such as
age, race, gender, Hispanic origin, and housing units by tenure. Given the
way the weights were applied during sample tabulations, generally there is
exact agreement between sample estimates and 100-percent counts for total
population and total housing units for most geographic areas. At the state
and higher levels, we also would expect that sample estimates and 100-
percent counts for population by race, age, gender, and Hispanic origin and
for housing units by tenure, number of rooms, and so on, would be
reasonably similar and, in some cases, the same. At smaller geographic
levels, including census tract, there is still general agreement between
100-percent counts and sample estimates of total population or housing
units. At smaller geographic levels, however, there will be expected
differences between sample estimates and 100-percent counts for population
by race, age, gender, and Hispanic origin and for housing units by tenure,
number of rooms, and so on. In these cases, users may want to consider
using derived measures (mean, median, and so on) or percent distributions.
Whether using absolute numbers or derived measures for small population
groups and for a small number of housing units in small geographic areas,
users should be cautioned that the sampling error associated with these
data may be large.
Even though the differences between sample estimates and 100-percent
counts for these categories are generally small, the differences for the
American Indian as well as the Hispanic origin populations are relatively
larger than for other groups. The following provides some explanation for
these differences.
State-level sample estimates of the number of American Indians are
generally higher than the corresponding 100-percent counts. It appears the
differences are primarily the result of proportionately higher reporting of
"Cherokee" tribe on sample questionnaires. This phenomenon occurs
primarily in off-reservation areas. The reasons for the greater reporting
of Cherokee on sample forms are not fully known at this time. The Census
Bureau will do research to provide more information on this phenomenon.
For the Hispanic origin population, sample estimates at the state level
are generally lower than the corresponding 100-percent counts. The
majority of difference is caused by the 100-percent and sample processing
of the Hispanic question on the sample questionnaire when the respondent
did not mark any response category. When processing the sample, we used
written entries in race or Hispanic origin as well as responses to ques-
tions only asked on the sample, such as ancestry and place of birth. These
procedures led to a lower proportion of persons being assigned as Hispanic
in sample processing than were assigned during 100-percent processing. The
Census Bureau will evaluate the effectiveness of the 100-percent and sample
procedures.
As we have done in previous censuses, we will evaluate the quality of the
data and make this information available to data users. In the meanwhile,
both 100-percent and sample data serve very important purposes and,
therefore, should be used within the limitations of the sampling and
nonsampling errors.
June 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3,
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES
USER NOTE 3
Hispanic Origin Code List--The three-digit numerical codes used during
processing to identify FOSDIC circles for the categories of Hispanic origin
in questionnaire item 7 differ slightly from those codes shown in appendix
I of the technical documentation for Summary Tape Files 3 and 4 and various
Subject Summary Tape Files. The data presented for Hispanic origin were
unaffected by this difference. The codes used during processing of the
Hispanic origin categories are shown.
000, 006-199 NOT SPANISH/HISPANIC
001, 210-220 MEXICAN
002, 261-270 PUERTO RICAN
003, 271-274 CUBAN
004, 290-999 OTHER SPANISH/HISPANIC
July 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3,
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES
USER NOTE 4
Poverty Status in 1989--A minor error has been detected in the
determination of poverty status for persons and families in the 1990
census. For families with a householder or spouse under the age of 18, an
incorrect poverty threshold was used to determine poverty status. This
resulted in the misclassification of 720 families in the United States and
6 families in both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as either poor
or not poor. Due to the small number of families affected, no correction
has been applied. Weighted estimates of affected cases are listed below by
State.
Families misclassified as: Poor Not Net difference in
Poor number poor
United States, excluding Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands 388 332 -56
Alabama 11 2 -9
Alaska 7 0 -7
Arizona 15 0 -15
Arkansas 0 0 0
California 62 75 13
Colorado 9 0 -9
Connecticut 0 7 7
Delaware 0 0 0
District of Columbia 0 0 0
Florida 22 21 -1
Georgia 25 0 -25
Hawaii 0 0 0
Idaho 12 0 -12
Illinois 3 0 -3
Indiana 4 0 -4
Iowa 6 0 -6
Kansas 0 9 9
Kentucky 25 22 -3
Louisiana 17 11 -6
Maine 0 0 0
Maryland 0 3 3
Massachusetts 0 25 25
Michigan 7 2 -5
Minnesota 0 0 0
Mississippi 4 0 -4
Missouri 5 0 -5
Montana 3 0 -3
Nebraska 0 0 0
Nevada 0 0 0
New Hampshire 0 0 0
New Jersey 0 15 15
New Mexico 0 0 0
New York 4 49 45
North Carolina 0 22 22
North Dakota 0 0 0
Ohio 0 13 13
Oklahoma 6 15 9
Oregon 0 0 0
Pennsylvania 30 0 -30
Rhode Island 0 0 0
South Carolina 10 0 -10
South Dakota 0 0 0
Tennessee 2 3 1
Texas 65 18 -47
Utah 0 18 18
Vermont 0 0 0
Virginia 8 2 -6
Washington 7 0 -7
West Virginia 5 0 -5
Wisconsin 6 0 -6
Wyoming 8 0 -8
Puerto Rico 0 5 5
Virgin Islands 0 1 1
June 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 3,
PERSONS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES
USER NOTE 5
In matrix HB5 of the documentation, some householders in owner-occupied or
renter-occupied housing units reported the year moved into the unit as a
date that was earlier than the year the householder reported as entering
the country. This error occurred because some respondents misreported
either the year the householder moved into unit or the year of entry. This
error was not corrected during the computer editing process. (For more
information on non-sampling error, see appendix C.)
July 1993
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document maintained on the UC Berkeley Digital Library Sunsite
revised 12/5/97