USER NOTES
User notes supply file purchasers with additional or corrected infor-
mation 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.
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 need to be filed in their proper location and the
original pages destroyed. Replacement pages can be readily identified,
since they have the user note date on the lower outside portion of each
page.
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 12, EMPLOYMENT STATUS
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.)
February 1994
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 12, EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
WORK EXPERIENCE, AND VETERAN STATUS
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 phe-
nomenon 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 questions 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.
February 1994
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 12, EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
WORK EXPERIENCE, AND VETERAN STATUS
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
February 1994
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990:
SUBJECT SUMMARY TAPE FILE 12, EMPLOYMENT STATUS,
WORK EXPERIENCE, AND VETERAN STATUS
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
Poor in 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
February 1994