This report is the first of the series on the Hispanic Origin population in the United States to show data for persons, families, and households for "Whites who are not of Hispanic origin" as an alternative to "Not of Hispanic origin" used in previous reports. Although officially this category is known as "White, not of Hispanic origin", we will use "non-Hispanic White" or "White not Hispanic” interchangeably to improve readability. Many researchers outside the Census Bureau already use "non-Hispanic White" as the comparison group with Hispanics. We will continue to show data for persons, families, and households "Not of Hispanic origin" in the detailed tables for those interested in statistical continuity.

Persons who are white but not of Hispanic origin are identified by cross-tabulating the responses to the race and ethnic origin questions. The Census Bureau collects race and Hispanic origin in separate questions in the CPS. To obtain race data, the interviewer asked "What is the race of each person in this household?" The interviewer showed the respondent(s) a flashcard with four choices (see appendix D). The respondent(s) selected one category for each household member from the following list: 1. White; 2. Black; 3. American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo; or 4. Asian and Pacific Islander (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Hawaiian, Guamanian, Samoan, other Asian). Although there was no category for "Other Race," interviewers accepted that answer when the respondent was unable to choose among the other categories. The Census Bureau derives Hispanic origin from answers to the question "What is the origin or descent of each person in this household?" The interviewer showed the respondents a flashcard with 20 choices (see Appendix D). The Hispanic origin population consists of those respondents who selected one of the seven "Hispanic" categories (Mexican-American, Chicano, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central and South American, and Other Hispanic).

Table B-1 shows the March 1992 civilian non-institutional population of the United States cross-classified by race and ethnic origin (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Based on the race question, about 84 percent of the total population was White, 13 percent Black, 1 percent American Indian, 3 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, and about one half of one percent Other race. Based on the Hispanic origin question, nearly 9 percent (22 million) of the total population was Hispanic. Almost all Hispanics

were in the White race category (about 95 percent), about 2 percent were in the Black category, and the remaining 2 percent were in the other race categories.1 Among non-Hispanics 83 percent were White, 14 percent Black, and about 4 percent were one of the other

races.

A study of alternative comparisons groups shows that the presence of Blacks and other numerically smaller race groups in the "Not of Hispanic origin" category tends to understate the difference between Hispanics and majority population. Table B-2 shows four examples drawn from tables 1-4. It shows that the difference in the unemployment rate between Hispanic and non-Hispanic males was about 4 percentage points (12.2 percent and 8.5 percent) compared to about 5 percentage points if we use the rate for non-Hispanic White males (12.2 percent and 7.5 percent). The difference in the proportion of persons with earnings below $10,000, between Hispanic and non-Hispanics was about 8 percentage points (32.5 percent and 23.9 percent respectively) compared to about 10 percentage points if we use non-Hispanic White persons (32.5 percent and 22.4 percent). The differences in the proportion of female headed households with no husband present, between Hispanic and non-Hispanic households was about 8 percentage points (19.8 percent and 11.7 percent respectively) compared to about 11 percentage points if we use the proportion of white nonHispanic female headed households with no husband present, (19.8 percent and 8.7 percent). Finally, the difference in the proportion of poor families between Hispanic and Non-Hispanic families was about 16 percentage points (26.5 percent and 10.2 percent respectively) compared to about 19 percentage points if we use the non-Hispanic White families (26.5 percent and 7.1 percent). Though some of these differences appear relatively small, they are statistically significant.

For a more detailed discussion of issues involving race-ethnic cross-classifications, the reader is directed to Series P-23, No. 182, Exploring Alternative Comparison Groups in Current Population Surveys.

'The difference between the proportion of Black Hispanics and other race Hispanics is not statistically significant.

SOURCE OF DATA

Most estimates in this report come from data obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS) in March of 1992. The Bureau of the Census conducts the survey every month, although this report uses only March data for its estimates. Also, some estimates come from 1980 and 1990 decennial census data. The March survey uses two sets of questions, the basic CPS and the supplement.

Basic CPS. The basic CPS collects primarily labor force data about the civilian noninstitutional population. Interviewers ask questions concerning labor force participation about each member 15 years old and over in every sample household.

The present CPS sample was selected from the 1980 decennial census files with coverage in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The sample is continually updated to account for new residential construction. It is located in 729 areas comprising 1,973 counties, independent cities, and minor civil divisions. About 60,000 occupied housing units are eligible for interview every month. Interviewers are unable to obtain interviews at about 2,600 of these units because the occupants are not found at home after repeated calls or are unavailable for some other reason.

Since the introduction of the CPS, the Bureau of the Census has redesigned the CPS sample several times to improve the quality and reliability of the data and to satisfy changing data needs. The most recent changes were completely implemented in July 1985.

The following table summarizes changes in the CPS designs for the years for which data appear in this report.

Description of the March Current Population
Survey

March Supplement. In addition to the basic CPS questions, interviewers asked supplementary questions in March about the economic situation of persons and families for the previous year.

To obtain more reliable data for the Hispanic origin population, the March CPS sample was increased by about 2,500 eligible housing units, interviewed the previous November, that contained at least one sample person of Hispanic origin. In addition, the sample included persons in the Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post.

Estimation Procedure. This survey's estimation procedure inflates weighted sample results to independent estimates of the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States by age, sex, race and Hispanic/nonHispanic categories. The independent estimates were based on statistics from decennial censuses of population; statistics on births, deaths, immigration and emigration; and statistics on the size of the Armed Forces. The independent population estimates used for 1981 (1980 for income estimates) to present were based on updates to controls established by the 1980 decennial census. Before 1981, independent population estimates from the most recent decennial census were used. For more details on the change in independent estimates, see the section entitled "Introduction of 1980 Census Population Controls" in an earlier report (Series P-60, No. 133). The estimation procedure for the March supplement included a further adjustment so husband and wife of a household received the same weight.

The estimates in this report for 1982 and later also employ a revised survey weighting procedure for persons of Hispanic origin. In previous years, weighted sample results were inflated to independent estimates of the noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race. There was no specific control of the survey estimates for the Hispanic population. Since then, the Bureau of the Census developed independent population controls for the Hispanic population by sex and detailed age groups. Revised weighting procedures incorporate these new controls. The independent population estimates include some, but not all, undocumented immigrants.

ACCURACY OF THE ESTIMATES

Since the CPS estimates come from a sample, they may differ from figures from a complete census using

the same questionnaires, instructions, and enumerators. A sample survey estimate has two possible types of error: sampling and nonsampling. The accuracy of an estimate depends on both types of error, but the full extent of the nonsampling error is unknown. Consequently, one should be particularly careful when interpreting results based on a relatively small number of cases or on small differences between estimates. The standard errors for CPS estimates primarily indicate the magnitude of sampling error. They also partially measure the effect of some nonsampling errors in responses and enumeration, but do not measure systematic biases in the data. (Bias is the average over all possible samples of the differences between the sample estimates and the desired value.)

Nonsampling Variability. There are several sources of nonsampling errors including the following: inability to obtain information about all cases in the sample; definitional difficulties; differences in the interpretation of questions; respondents' inability or unwillingness to provide correct information; respondents inability to recall information; errors made in data collection such as in recording or coding the data; errors made in processing the data; errors made in estimating values for missing data; and failure to represent all units with the sample (undercoverage).

CPS undercoverage results from missed housing units and missed persons within sample households. Compared with the level of the 1980 decennial census, overall CPS undercoverage is about 7 percent. CPS undercoverage varies with age, sex, and race. Generally, undercoverage is larger for males than for females and larger for Blacks and other races combined than for Whites. As previously described, ratio estimation to independent age-sex-race-Hispanic population controls partially corrects for the bias due to undercoverage. However, biases exist in the estimates to the extent that missed persons in missed households or missed persons in interviewed households have different characteristics from those of interviewed persons in the same age-sex-race-Hispanic group. Furthermore, the independent population controls have not been adjusted for undercoverage in the 1980 census.

For additional information on nonsampling error including the possible impact on CPS data when known, refer to Statistical Policy Working Paper 3, An Error Profile: Employment as Measured by the Current Population Survey, Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978 and Technical Paper 40, The Current Population Survey: Design and Methodology, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Comparability of Data. Data obtained from the CPS and other sources are not entirely comparable. This results from differences in interviewer training and experience and in differing survey processes. This is an

example of nonsampling variability not reflected in the standard errors. Use caution when comparing results from different sources.

Caution should also be used when comparing estimates in this report, which reflect 1980 census-based population controls, with estimates for 1980 (1979 for income estimates) and earlier years, which reflect 1970 census-based population controls. This change in population controls had relatively little impact on summary measures such as means, medians, and percentage distributions, but did have a significant impact on levels. For example, use of 1980 based population controls results in about a 2-percent increase in the civilian noninstitutional population and in the number of families and households. Thus, estimates of levels for data collected in 1981 and later years will differ from those for earlier years by more than what could be attributed to actual changes in the population. These differences could be disproportionately greater for certain subpopulation groups than for the total population.

Since no independent population control totals for persons of Hispanic origin were used before 1982, compare Hispanic estimates over time cautiously.

Note When Using Small Estimates. Summary measures (such as medians and percentage distributions) are shown only when the base is 75,000 or greater. Because of the large standard errors involved, summary measures would probably not reveal useful information when computed on a smaller base. However, estimated numbers are shown even though the relative standard errors of these numbers are larger than those for corresponding percentages. These smaller estimates permit combinations of the categories to suit data users' needs. These estimates may not be reliable for the interpretation of small differences. For instance, even a small amount of nonsampling error can cause a borderline difference to appear significant or not, thus distorting a seemingly valid hypothesis test.

Sampling Variability. Sampling variability is variation that occurred by chance because a sample was surveyed rather than the entire population. Standard errors, as calculated by methods described later in "Standard Errors and Their Use," are primarily measures of sampling variability, although they may include some nonsampling error.

Standard Errors and Their Use. A number of approximations are required to derive, at a moderate cost, standard errors applicable to all the estimates in this report. Instead of providing an individual standard error for each estimate, generalized sets of standard errors are provided for various types of characteristics. Thus, the tables show levels of magnitude of standard errors rather than the precise standard errors.