| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 384
Modernizing the U.S. Census
APPENDIX
L
Allocation Rates
This appendix describes the impact of nonresponse on the quality of the various questions in the 1990 census. Specifically, the following tables show allocation rates—the number of people or households (in terms of percentages) for which a specific question was not answered and a response for the missing value was created. The overall process of creating responses for missing values for census questions is referred to as "imputation," which consists of two major components: (1) allocation, in which missing values for individual items are filled in on the basis of other reported information for the person or household (or from other persons or households nearby with similar characteristics); and (2) substitution, in which all of the information for a person or a household is created (usually referred to as whole person or whole household substitution). Altogether about 1.6 million persons and 750,000 households were substituted in the 1990 census, adding about 0.8 percent to the overall imputation rate. Whole person or whole household substitution applies only to the processing of short-form items; in creating data files of responses to the long form, people or households in the long-form sample for whom no information is available are accounted for by reweighting the remaining sample cases.
Item nonresponse rates and allocation rates serve at least two important purposes: (1) to inform users about the quality of individual items as reflected in the rates and suggest caution in their use; and (2) to alert the Census Bureau to possible problems associated with specific items. The problems may reflect aspects of question wording or design, or respondent reluctance or inability to answer questions in particular areas, among other concerns.
OCR for page 385
Modernizing the U.S. Census
ALLOCATION RATES FOR SHORT-FORM POPULATION ITEMS BY FORM TYPE
Table L.1 shows allocation rates for short-form population items for all household members, blacks, and Hispanics, separately for people receiving the short form ("100%") and people receiving the long form ("sample").1 Rates are also shown for the "worst" 10 percent of census tracts in the country—worst in terms of those having the highest overall rates of allocation.
Tabulating allocation rates for items common to the short and long forms by type of form permits one to understand the impact of census processing and follow-up rules on nonresponse and allocation rates. Census procedures in 1990 called for questionnaires mailed back to processing offices to be reviewed and edited for consistency in reporting of related items and for missing or incomplete responses. Rules were established for determining whether a questionnaire "passed edit" and was moved along for processing, or "failed edit" and was set aside and scheduled for follow-up. For "failed edit" cases, census personnel in the various offices attempted to contact households by telephone, and when this failed or could not be done, they scheduled a field visit by enumerators to obtain the missing or otherwise incomplete information. For cost and other reasons, however, the rules specified that only a sample of "failed edit" short-form cases for which telephone contact was unsuccessful would be scheduled for follow-up. Thus, only 1 in 10 of the short-form questionnaires that failed edit were sent for follow-up, whereas essentially all long forms that failed edit were followed up. As a result, the items on the short form had substantially higher allocation rates than the same items appearing on the long form (see Table L.1).
The impact of this differential treatment of short and long forms (in terms of follow-up) is especially reflected in the allocation rates for Spanish origin overall and for all short-form population items for the worst 10 percent tracts. Thus, the allocation rate for Spanish origin was 10.5 percent of short forms but only 3.4 percent of long forms. The rate for Spanish origin in the worst 10 percent tracts was 19.0 percent of short forms but only 5.4 percent of long forms. Overall, allocation rates for the basic population items—namely age, sex, and race—averaged between 2 and 3 percent of short forms and 1 percent of long forms.
ALLOCATION RATES ON LONG FORMS BY RESPONSE TYPE
Table L.2 shows 1990 allocation rates for selected short-form and long-form population items for people in households that received the long form, by whether the household mailed back the form ("household respondent") or the form was obtained by an enumerator in the follow-up stage of census operations ("enumerator-filled"). (Enumerated-filled forms also include all forms obtained in the list/enumerate areas—see Appendix B.)
With few exceptions, allocation rates are substantially higher for forms obtained
OCR for page 386
Modernizing the U.S. Census
by enumerators than for forms filled out by the household. Household respondent allocation rates, however, are not "pure" rates, in that many partially completed questionnaires were given to enumerators for completion. Thus, the rates are lower than if they had been computed before item nonresponse follow-up. Unfortunately, information is not available on allocation rates before such follow-up. On the other hand, higher allocation rates for enumerator-filled questionnaires should not be unexpected because enumerators deal with reluctant populations, who failed to answer the census initially, perhaps after several attempts by census field personnel to collect the information. These results suggest that follow-up enumerators frequently have limited success in obtaining missing information.
ALLOCATION RATES ON LONG FORMS BY RACE AND GEOGRAPHIC RESIDENCE
Tables L.3 and L.4 show 1990 census allocation rates for selected short-and long-form population and housing items for people or households that received the long form, by race of the household head and type of geographic area of residence, respectively. Tables L.5 and L.6 show the same information for the worst 10 percent census tracts. Also, there are four tables for each of five selected states (Tables L.6-L.26), which show for each state equivalent information to that in Tables L.3-L.6. The five states are California, Illinois, Iowa, New York, and Tennessee. (Allocation rates in comparable race/ethnicity, geographic, and subject detail are available for all 50 states from the Census Bureau.) Overall, the rates shown in the accompanying tables are illustrative of the whole range of rates implicit in all census tabulations and data products.
The results indicate that allocation rates for long-form (sample) items, such as income, education, and employment, are generally higher than rates for the basic short-form (100%) items appearing on the long form. Whereas allocation rates for 100 percent items for the total population (see Table L.3) are between 1 and 3 percent, the rates for many sample items are between 5 and 10 percent, with an occasional item, such as property taxes, having a rate of over 10 percent. And in the worst cases—for example, in the worst 10 percent tracts—allocation rates in excess of 20 percent are not unusual.
The income item is of interest because of its pervasive use in many cross-tabulations and as an overall measure of economic well-being. Unlike the usual allocation rates that indicate the number of people or households (as a percent) for which a missing entry was allocated, the figures for income represent the number of people (as a percent) for whom a specified percentage of their total income was allocated. Thus, referring to Table L.3, one-half of one percent of the total population had less than 10 percent of their income allocated; 11.7 percent had 100 percent of their income allocated; and, adding across the 5 categories, 13.4 percent had some of their income allocated.2
OCR for page 387
Modernizing the U.S. Census
REFERENCE
Citro, C.F., and G. Kalton, eds. 1993 The Future of the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Panel to Evaluate the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NOTES
1
The rates for people receiving the short form include substitutions as well as allocations, which accounts for a fraction of the difference—0.8 percentage points on average—between the short-form and long-form allocation rates for short-form items.
2
In terms of aggregate household income, Census Bureau staff estimate that 19 percent was allocated in the census. By comparison, 20 percent of aggregate household income is allocated in the March Current Population Survey, and 11 percent of total income is allocated in the Survey of Income and Program Participation (Citro and Kalton, 1993: Table 3-6).
OCR for page 388
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.1 Allocation Rates for Short-Form Population Items, 1990 Census, Total Population and Population in Worst 10 Percent Census Tracts, by Type of Form Received: Short-Form (100%) or Long Form (Sample)a
Total
Black Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
Item
100%
Sample
100%
Sample
100%
Sample
U.S. total
Relationship
3.3
1.9
6.1
3.3
5.9
3.5
Sex
1.9
0.9
3.4
1.4
2.6
1.1
Race
2.6
1.1
3.4
1.3
9.4
4.3
Age
3.1
0.9
5.6
1.6
3.9
1.5
Marital status
3.1
1.4
5.9
2.2
5.7
2.7
Spanish origin
10.5
3.4
18.4
5.3
7.8
1.8
Worst 10 percent census tracts
Relationship
8.5
3.8
8.7
4.1
9.8
5.0
Sex
5.1
1.3
5.2
1.4
4.6
1.4
Race
7.8
2.8
5.2
1.6
17.3
8.0
Age
7.9
1.9
8.2
2.1
6.5
2.1
Marital status
8.2
2.8
8.4
2.5
9.5
3.3
Spanish origin
19.0
5.4
23.1
6.8
12.6
2.5
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the ''final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only, excluding people in group quarters. The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
a Allocation rates for short forms include substitutions (see text). The worst 10 percent census tracts are the 10 percent with the highest overall allocation rates among all tracts.
OCR for page 389
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.2 Allocation Rates for Selected Population Items, 1990 Census, for People Receiving the Long Form, by Type of Response: Household Respondent vs. Enumerator-Filled
Item
Household Respondenta
Enumerator-Filledb
Relationship
1.7
2.3
Sex
0.9
0.8
Race
1.0
1.5
Age
0.8
1.2
Marital status
1.5
1.1
Spanish origin
4.2
1.8
Place of birth
4.3
7.1
Education level
3.8
6.1
English ability
3.8
7.4
Veteran status
4.0
7.0
Work disability
8.3
8.0
Mobility disability
4.7
6.4
Self-care
3.5
6.7
Employment status
3.0
6.2
Place of work
9.0
12.7
Occupation
7.9
12.5
Income (100% allocated)c
9.1
19.1
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category They cover the household population only. Rates by type of response have not previously been tabulated or published.
a Also includes partially completed questionnaires given to enumerators for follow-up for incomplete entries.
b Includes long forms obtained by enumerators in the follow-up stage of census operations from households that failed to mail back their form; also includes all long forms obtained in the list/enumerate areas in which households in the sample were asked to respond at the time of the enumerators visit (see Appendix B).
c Rate is percent of people with 100 percent of their total income allocated (all other rates are percent of people with the item allocated).
OCR for page 390
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.3 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, U.S., by Race/Ethnicity, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)
Item
Total (242,050)
White Non-Hispanic (183,680)
Black Non-Hispanic (28,065)
Hispanic (21,415)
Asian Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic (6,848)
American Indian Non-Hispanic (1,811)
100 percent population items
Relationship
1.90
1.47
3.28
3.50
2.65
2.55
Sex
0.85
0.72
1.40
1.09
1.05
1.71
Race
1.14
0.74
1.26
4.33
1.14
1.22
Age
0.91
0.73
1.59
1.45
1.12
1.49
Marital status
1.40
1.11
2.22
2.68
1.66
1.78
Spanish origin
3.36
3.26
5.31
1.75
2.85
4.50
100 percent housing items
Rooms
0.44
0.41
0.60
0.52
0.42
0.64
Tenure
1.43
1.37
1.74
1.67
1.19
1.67
Value
3.24
3.17
4.37
2.98
2.09
5.11
Rent
1.28
1.22
1.73
1.03
0.86
1.47
Sample housing items
Complete plumbing
1.70
1.67
2.00
1.69
1.48
2.03
Complete kitchen
1.74
1.72
2.02
1.72
1.48
2.09
Heating fuel
2.86
2.67
3.83
3.45
3.00
4.50
Condominium
3.35
3.09
4.43
4.41
4.36
4.04
Electric cost
5.49
4.95
8.98
6.39
5.24
6.90
Property taxes
12.11
11.06
22.03
15.89
13.57
15.93
OCR for page 391
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample population items
Place of birth
5.06
4.03
9.95
7.43
4.97
5.94
Education level
4.47
3.64
7.63
7.34
5.14
5.44
English ability
4.76
3.68
8.32
9.01
6.41
6.19
Veteran status
4.78
3.97
8.56
7.43
5.11
5.78
Work disability
8.35
7.77
11.54
9.90
7.71
9.02
Mobility disability
5.15
4.50
8.15
7.10
5.73
5.63
Self-care disability
5.80
5.15
8.87
7.74
6.34
6.08
Employment status
3.82
2.93
7.96
6.68
4.51
4.78
Place of work
9.96
8.40
16.49
16.23
13.39
12.28
Occupation
9.14
7.92
15.25
12.93
9.63
10.43
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.63
0.63
0.70
0.61
0.54
0.55
Income: 10-19%
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.09
Income: 20-49%
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.16
0.13
0.28
Income: 50-99%
0.73
0.74
0.87
0.55
0.50
0.99
Income: 100%
11.72
10.10
20.34
15.87
11.19
13.51
Note: The allocation rates are based on a special run of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. Rates were tabulated separately for Hisp anic and non-Hispanic groups. Thus, all racial/ethnic groups are mutually exclusive in that the racial categories shown cover "non-Spanish" only (e.g., white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, etc.). For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
OCR for page 392
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.4 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, U.S. by Selected Geography, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)
Item
Central Cities of Large MSAs (75,065)
Balance of Large MSAs (71,180)
Central Cities of Small MSAs (20,975)
Balance of Small MSAs (20,621)
Non-MSAs, Urban (19,742)
Non-MSAs, Rural (34,466)
100 percent population items
Relationship
2.35
1.68
1.84
1.71
1.62
1.71
Sex
0.92
0.78
0.81
0.83
0.82
0.87
Race
1.46
0.96
1.05
0.96
0.97
1.08
Age
1.13
0.76
0.83
0.76
0.84
0.92
Marital status
1.59
1.29
1.44
1.33
1.27
1.31
Spanish origin
3.61
2.96
3.60
3.32
3.61
3.39
100 percent housing items
Rooms
0.48
0.38
0.42
0.41
0.44
0.50
Tenure
1.39
1.38
1.30
1.57
1.28
1.72
Value
2.99
2.64
2.88
3.63
3.36
4.63
Rent
1.35
1.12
1.13
1.23
1.23
1.64
Sample housing items
Complete plumbing
1.60
1.53
1.42
1.72
1.59
2.54
Complete kitchen
1.64
1.56
1.47
1.76
1.64
2.60
Heating fuel
2.91
2.39
2.37
2.83
2.63
4.22
Condominium
3.48
3.02
3.06
3.19
3.32
4.02
Electric cost
6.17
4.81
5.07
5.00
5.30
6.04
Property taxes
13.47
10.82
12.21
11.33
11.07
13.41
OCR for page 393
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample population items
Place of birth
6.66
4.18
4.36
4.14
4.17
4.88
Education level
5.58
3.87
3.82
3.82
3.71
4.52
English ability
6.10
4.00
4.04
4.02
3.95
4.78
Veteran status
5.92
4.04
4.25
4.13
4.13
4.87
Work disability
9.25
7.55
7.61
7.91
7.68
9.13
Mobility disability
6.22
4.71
4.52
4.56
4.22
4.94
Self-care disability
6.93
5.42
5.14
5.19
4.77
5.45
Employment status
5.34
3.15
3.26
2.99
3.08
3.12
Place of work
11.53
8.98
8.30
9.15
9.55
10.35
Occupation
10.79
7.80
8.02
8.13
8.14
10.28
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.61
0.59
0.60
0.67
0.64
0.76
Income: 10-19%
0.08
0.07
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.11
Income: 20-49%
0.23
0.21
0.28
0.26
0.33
0.34
Income: 50-99%
0.67
0.62
0.80
0.74
0.88
0.97
Income: 100%
13.54
10.30
10.64
10.69
10.78
12.43
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area. Large MSAs are those with 500,000 or more population.
OCR for page 394
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.5 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Worst 10 Percent Census Tracts, by Race/Ethnicity, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)a
Item
Total (20,037)
White Non-Hispanic (5,505)
Black Non-Hispanic (9,810)
Hispanic (3,894)
Asian Pacific
Non-Hispanic (627)
American Islander Non-Hispanic (152)
Indian
100 percent population items
Relationship
3.75
2.14
4.12
4.97
3.82
5.70
Sex
1.31
0.96
1.44
1.36
1.45
4.22
Race
2.75
1.10
1.62
7.98
1.47
3.56
Age
1.90
1.39
2.06
2.10
1.77
4.48
Marital status
2.38
1.45
2.52
3.27
2.04
4.37
Spanish origin
5.40
4.86
6.84
2.46
4.46
12.04
100 percent housing items
Rooms
0.72
0.64
0.76
0.74
0.68
2.13
Tenure
1.86
1.59
1.99
2.07
1.52
3.60
Value
5.04
4.56
5.40
5.18
4.24
9.32
Rent
1.85
1.61
2.18
1.46
1.14
3.84
Sample housing items
Complete plumbing
2.17
1.87
2.32
2.38
1.95
3.56
Complete kitchen
2.18
1.91
2.32
2.39
1.92
3.33
Heating fuel
4.29
3.63
4.45
5.23
4.30
7.69
Condominium
4.72
3.87
4.98
5.72
5.61
6.35
Electric cost
9.02
6.42
10.98
9.27
7.22
10.17
Property taxes
20.22
14.36
25.55
20.88
18.18
21.28
OCR for page 427
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
7.19
4.36
8.82
1.90
10.72
13.71
Education level
5.85
3.87
7.00
2.50
8.45
16.67
English ability
6.73
4.51
8.10
0.00
9.85
10.11
Veteran status
6.25
4.73
7.36
0.00
10.66
0.00
Work disability
8.99
7.74
9.88
7.53
11.04
7.45
Mobility disability
5.83
4.70
6.58
2.28
11.79
0.00
Self-care disability
6.47
5.43
7.18
2.28
11.79
0.00
Employment status
5.50
3.57
6.78
1.88
14.18
5.59
Place of work
12.97
8.14
17.10
16.26
26.28
11.39
Occupation
11.92
8.72
14.36
13.35
19.49
5.22
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.65
0.47
0.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
Income: (10-19%)
0.08
0.04
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
Income: (20-49%)
0.28
0.25
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
Income: (50-99%)
0.86
0.61
1.05
0.00
0.98
0.00
Income: 100%
16.79
12.79
19.62
12.66
19.90
4.97
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. Rates were tabulated separately for Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups. Thus, all racial/ethnic groups are mutually exclusive in that the racial categories shown cover "non-Spanish" only (e.g., white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, etc.). For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
a The worst 10 percent census tracts are the 10 percent with the highest overall rates of allocation among all tracts for the country as a whole. The universe here is those tracts that fall in Tennessee.
OCR for page 428
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.22 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Worst 10 Percent Census Tracts Nationally, Tennessee Portion, by Selected Geography, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)a
Items
Central Cities of Large MSAs (99)
Balance of Large MSAs (4)
Central Cities of Small MSAs (12)
Balance of Small MSAs ( )
Non-MSAs, Urban ( )
Non-MSAs, Rural (1)
100 Percent Population Items
Relationship
2.26
1.88
2.32
1.13
Sex
1.08
0.86
1.13
1.13
Race
1.03
1.13
1.41
1.13
Age
1.61
3.55
1.59
2.12
Marital status
2.06
1.40
2.15
9.05
Spanish origin
4.49
3.87
6.97
1.13
100 Percent Housing Items
Rooms
0.43
0.53
0.39
0.00
Tenure
1.11
0.26
0.94
0.00
Value
4.98
1.69
3.04
19.05
Rent
1.34
4.35
0.21
7.14
Sample Housing Items
Complete plumbing
1.93
1.40
2.70
5.16
Complete kitchen
1.79
1.40
3.14
6.35
Heating fuel
4.08
3.15
4.01
7.54
Condominium
4.32
2.71
6.51
7.54
Electric cost
8.56
10.25
8.85
9.13
Property taxes
21.45
19.90
20.21
11.32
OCR for page 429
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
7.02
11.26
7.49
4.95
Education level
5.77
8.03
5.77
6.75
English ability
6.54
9.68
7.43
5.32
Veteran status
6.23
8.37
5.81
7.31
Work disability
8.88
10.92
9.14
13.24
Mobility disability
5.92
8.36
4.38
6.53
Self-care disability
6.48
10.29
5.30
7.49
Employment status
5.48
10.60
4.56
1.19
Place of work
12.61
20.47
12.83
13.36
Occupation
11.74
16.50
11.89
10.29
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.48
0.31
1.91
3.45
Income: (10-19%)
0.08
0.00
0.05
0.00
Income: (20-49%)
0.30
0.00
0.17
0.00
Income: (50-99%)
0.77
0.39
1.74
0.00
Income: 100%
16.62
21.95
16.57
20.35
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the ''final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area. Large MSAs are those with 500,000 or more population.
a The worst 10 percent census tracts are the 10 percent with the highest overall rates of allocation among all tracts for the country as a whole. The universe here is those tracts that fall in Tennessee.
OCR for page 430
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.23 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Illinois by Race/Ethnicity, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)
Items
Total (11,145)
White Non-Hispanic (8,360)
Black Non-Hispanic (1,622)
Hispanic (866)
Asian Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic (270)
American Indian Non-Hispanic (20)
100 Percent Population Items
Relationship
1.80
1.34
3.27
3.39
2.27
2.03
Sex
0.80
0.72
1.11
0.93
1.00
1.37
Race
1.01
0.62
1.27
4.34
0.72
1.32
Age
0.88
0.67
1.63
1.44
1.01
0.69
Marital status
1.22
0.97
1.83
2.41
1.29
1.04
Spanish origin
3.37
3.26
5.19
1.40
2.28
4.43
100 Percent Housing Items
Rooms
0.41
0.36
0.70
0.50
0.45
0.08
Tenure
1.23
1.14
1.72
1.46
1.09
0.65
Value
3.22
3.12
4.48
3.35
2.17
3.99
Rent
1.38
1.19
2.15
1.08
0.66
1.40
Sample Housing Items
Complete plumbing
1.36
1.33
1.65
1.34
0.82
1.61
Complete kitchen
1.42
1.40
1.70
1.38
0.92
1.18
Heating fuel
2.30
2.10
3.47
2.60
1.83
3.26
Condominium
2.86
2.58
4.06
3.97
3.53
3.60
Electric cost
5.66
4.89
10.03
6.87
4.72
6.21
Property taxes
9.00
8.07
19.71
12.83
9.25
10.83
OCR for page 431
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
5.01
3.65
10.93
7.44
3.76
5.55
Education level
4.36
3.30
8.44
7.34
3.66
5.49
English ability
4.57
3.25
9.13
9.09
5.14
5.53
Veteran status
4.48
3.43
9.22
7.29
3.88
5.62
Work disability
8.03
7.36
11.72
9.08
6.09
9.47
Mobility disability
5.13
4.32
8.88
7.03
4.35
5.38
Self-care disability
5.80
4.99
9.58
7.57
5.13
5.96
Employment status
3.72
2.49
9.29
6.82
3.06
4.22
Place of work
9.55
7.89
16.78
16.59
10.63
11.86
Occupation
9.12
7.55
17.09
13.15
7.28
8.73
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.64
0.65
0.59
0.63
0.60
0.97
Income: (10-19%)
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.05
Income: (20-49%)
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.11
0.12
0.28
Income: (50-99%)
0.71
0.71
0.85
0.47
0.50
0.97
Income: 100%
12.02
9.70
22.84
17.48
9.80
13.91
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special run of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. Rates were tabulated separately for Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups. Thus, all racial/ethnic groups are mutually exclusive in that the racial categories shown cover "non-Spanish" only (e.g., white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, etc.). For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
OCR for page 432
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.24 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Illinois by Selected Geography, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)
Items
Central Cities of Large MSAs (3,370)
Balance of Large MSAs (4,410)
Central Cities of Small MSAs (753)
Balance of Small MSAs (718)
Non-MSAs, Urban (846)
Non-MSAs, Rural (1,048)
100 Percent Population Items
Relationship
2.54
1.54
1.51
1.35
1.37
1.43
Sex
0.88
0.75
0.79
0.76
0.79
0.81
Race
1.63
0.75
0.75
0.68
0.72
0.79
Age
1.28
0.69
0.88
0.66
0.74
0.67
Marital status
1.44
1.17
1.16
1.00
0.98
1.08
Spanish origin
3.80
2.84
3.64
3.47
3.91
3.55
100 Percent Housing Items
Rooms
0.52
0.32
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.44
Tenure
1.32
1.17
1.14
1.20
1.12
1.31
Value
4.01
2.45
2.65
3.54
3.45
4.64
Rent
1.48
1.20
1.38
1.40
1.31
1.54
Sample Housing Items
Complete plumbing
1.23
1.11
0.97
1.60
1.01
3.28
Complete kitchen
1.25
1.18
0.97
1.62
1.13
3.45
Heating fuel
2.77
1.66
1.74
2.25
1.75
4.35
Condominium
3.12
2.55
2.56
2.70
2.30
4.16
Electric cost
6.81
4.40
5.74
6.12
5.67
6.70
Property taxes
11.43
7.33
8.35
9.56
7.61
12.82
OCR for page 433
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
8.07
3.33
3.96
3.72
3.36
5.23
Education level
6.51
3.13
3.39
3.38
3.11
5.00
English ability
7.08
3.20
3.54
3.37
3.17
5.03
Veteran status
6.58
3.26
3.57
3.56
3.29
5.23
Work disability
9.30
6.67
6.95
7.77
7.42
11.23
Mobility disability
6.76
4.28
4.18
4.45
3.75
5.72
Self-care disability
7.39
5.00
4.80
5.10
4.37
6.38
Employment status
6.38
2.57
2.96
2.45
2.47
2.42
Place of work
12.30
8.00
7.86
9.02
8.44
10.98
Occupation
12.56
6.92
7.68
8.21
7.47
11.30
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.55
0.62
0.65
0.66
0.72
0.96
Income: (10-19%)
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.13
Income: (20-49%)
0.23
0.21
0.30
0.24
0.36
0.40
Income: (50-99%)
0.68
0.58
0.78
0.78
0.83
1.18
Income: 100%
16.20
9.72
10.78
10.75
10.03
11.65
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area. Large MSAs are those with 500,000 or more population.
OCR for page 434
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.25 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Worst 10 Percent Census Tracts Nationally, Illinois Portion, by Race/Ethnicity, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)a
Items
Total (1,752)
White Non-Hispanic (382)
Black Non-Hispanic (1,042)
Hispanic (286)
Asian Pacific Islander Non-Hispanic (37)
American Indian Non-Hispanic (3)
100 Percent Population Items
Relationship
3.24
1.79
3.51
4.21
2.76
2.68
Sex
1.03
0.87
1.11
0.93
1.07
1.73
Race
2.02
0.72
1.44
6.06
0.69
2.27
Age
1.65
1.14
1.81
1.75
1.93
0.66
Marital status
1.82
1.03
1.91
2.61
1.00
0.85
Spanish origin
4.89
4.27
6.01
1.64
4.31
7.62
100 Percent Housing Items
Rooms
0.70
0.53
0.84
0.52
0.49
0.00
Tenure
1.66
1.24
1.93
1.56
1.15
0.93
Value
4.90
4.42
5.38
4.35
2.86
5.52
Rent
1.85
1.18
2.39
1.14
0.68
1.43
Sample Housing Items
Complete plumbing
1.52
0.97
1.80
1.75
0.86
0.00
Complete kitchen
1.53
1.01
1.84
1.62
0.34
0.00
Heating fuel
3.34
2.82
3.68
3.29
2.39
3.80
Condominium
3.77
2.60
4.28
4.32
4.43
1.69
Electric cost
8.77
5.19
10.87
8.73
5.45
7.09
Property taxes
16.39
9.51
20.98
18.08
12.13
4.26
OCR for page 435
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
10.50
5.93
12.47
10.06
5.67
9.83
Education level
8.26
4.33
9.55
9.30
5.67
10.19
English ability
9.14
4.44
10.33
11.63
7.59
9.85
Veteran status
8.54
4.63
10.17
9.35
5.63
8.58
Work disability
11.28
8.10
12.80
11.34
7.98
12.95
Mobility disability
8.42
5.08
9.82
9.05
5.50
9.72
Self-care disability
9.10
5.73
10.57
9.48
6.22
9.68
Employment status
8.64
4.18
10.58
9.26
5.53
7.89
Place of work
15.73
8.44
18.51
20.47
13.30
19.23
Occupation
16.18
9.49
19.36
17.63
9.65
17.43
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.59
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.35
2.22
Income: (10-19%)
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.00
Income: (20-49%)
0.27
0.32
0.29
0.14
0.20
0.00
Income: (50-99%)
0.81
0.75
0.90
0.60
0.40
1.90
Income: 100%
20.54
11.39
24.67
21.17
12.61
20.12
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. Rates were tabulated separately for Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups. Thus, all racial/ethnic groups are mutually exclusive in that the racial categories shown cover "non-Spanish" only (e.g., white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, etc.). For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
a The worst 10 percent census tracts are the 10 percent with the highest overall rates of allocation among all tracts for the country as a whole. The universe here is those tracts that fall in Illinois.
OCR for page 436
Modernizing the U.S. Census
TABLE L.26 Allocation Rates for Selected Items, Worst 10 Percent Census Tracts Nationally, Illinois Portion, by Selected Geography, 1990 Census (number of persons in thousands)a
Items
Central Cities of Large MSAs (1,503)
Balance of Large MSAs (139)
Central Cities of Small MSAs (87)
Balance of Small MSAs (10)
Non-MSAs, Urban (10)
Non-MSAs, Rural (2)
100 Percent Population Items
Relationship
3.31
3.10
2.39
2.29
1.97
1.75
Sex
1.02
1.15
1.14
1.33
1.04
0.77
Race
2.16
1.41
1.05
1.15
0.55
0.26
Age
1.70
1.35
1.32
1.51
1.25
0.00
Marital status
1.80
2.09
1.81
2.18
1.22
0.21
Spanish origin
5.00
4.17
4.52
3.84
2.15
1.88
100 Percent Housing Items
Rooms
0.70
0.80
0.62
0.30
0.78
0.51
Tenure
1.65
1.79
1.82
0.22
1.53
1.18
Value
5.13
3.87
3.66
5.26
6.47
0.00
Rent
1.81
2.64
1.86
2.17
1.32
0.52
Sample Housing Items
Complete plumbing
1.52
1.44
1.64
1.24
1.21
1.35
Complete kitchen
1.54
1.48
1.40
2.61
0.73
0.84
Heating fuel
3.45
2.65
3.02
2.77
1.50
1.94
Condominium
3.79
3.54
3.80
3.10
3.60
5.14
Electric cost
8.93
8.37
7.86
7.61
3.88
1.10
Property taxes
17.19
14.98
11.95
11.90
9.28
9.01
OCR for page 437
Modernizing the U.S. Census
Sample Population Items
Place of birth
11.12
6.83
6.80
5.75
6.56
7.68
Education level
8.62
6.67
5.51
5.79
4.40
4.99
English ability
9.56
7.23
6.04
5.55
4.97
4.37
Veteran status
8.91
6.65
5.80
6.50
5.50
5.57
Work disability
11.55
10.12
9.05
12.44
6.82
6.15
Mobility disability
8.76
6.89
5.45
7.29
6.25
5.11
Self-care disability
9.41
7.87
6.15
7.72
6.64
5.64
Employment status
9.07
6.59
5.46
5.71
5.10
3.34
Place of work
16.19
14.14
10.69
14.05
20.10
7.49
Occupation
16.90
12.58
11.45
13.90
11.36
7.78
Income: > 0-9% allocated
0.58
0.63
0.73
0.82
0.52
0.63
Income: (10-19%)
0.08
0.09
0.21
0.08
0.00
0.00
Income: (20-49%)
0.26
0.34
0.33
0.16
0.25
0.00
Income: (50-99%)
0.80
0.75
1.08
1.51
0.56
0.48
Income: 100%
21.18
17.34
16.16
16.09
15.10
9.16
Note: These allocation rates are based on a special tabulation of the 1990 census files and reflect the "final" disposition of each census item or category. They cover the household population only. In the case of housing items, they refer to occupied units. For income, the allocation rates refer to the percent of people for whom a specified percentage of their income was allocated (e.g., greater than zero to 9%, 10-19%, etc.). The rates shown here may differ from rates shown in other tables of this report or in census publications because of differences in universe or category definitions (e.g., whether the universe is all people or just household members) and because of differences between final and preliminary rates.
MSA: Metropolitan Statistical Area. Large MSAs are those with 500,000 or more population.
a The worst 10 percent census tracts are the 10 percent with the highest overall rates of allocation among all tracts for the country as a whole. The universe here is those tracts that fall in Illinois.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
selected items
Items in cart [4]
