Geographical mobility
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Geographical mobility

on

  • 433 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
433
Views on SlideShare
432
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://geographyclass2010.blogspot.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Geographical mobility Geographical mobility Document Transcript

  • March 1999 toGeographical Mobility March 2000 Issued May 2001Population Characteristics P20-538Geographical mobility has long been an im- About 43 million Americans moved.portant aspect of American life. This re- Between March 1999 and March 2000, Currentport highlights some of the changes that 43.4 million Americans moved.1 Over half Populationhave occurred in recent years, including (56 percent) of these moves were local Reportsdifferences in the extent of movement, in (within the same county), 20 percent werethe types of movement, in the characteris- between counties in the same state, and By Jason Schachtertics of movers compared with nonmovers, 19 percent were moves to a different state.and in how the population is distributed. Only 4 percent of movers came from abroad.These changes are important to federal,state, and local governments as they planfor needed services and facilities such asschools and hospitals. Geographical mobil-ity data are also used by private industry 1 The estimates in this report are based on responsesas they expand and locate businesses and from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, esti-other services. mates may vary from the actual (population) values be- cause of sampling variation, or other factors. All state- ments made in this report have undergone statisticalAll respondents in the March 2000 Current testing and meet U.S. Census Bureau standards for statis-Population Survey were asked whether they tical accuracy.lived at the same residence1 year earlier. Nonmovers wereliving in the same home at Figure 1.both dates. Movers wereasked for the location of their Percent Distribution of Movers by Type of Move: March 1999 to 2000previous residence. When cur-rent and previous residencesare compared, movers can be From abroadcategorized by whether they 4.0were living in the same or dif-ferent county, state, region, or From awere movers from abroad. different state 19.4Though not true in all cases,we treat these different typesof moves as if they form a dis- From a differenttance continuum. In addition, county, same statemovers can be categorized by 20.3whether they moved within orbetween metropolitan areas,central cities of metropolitan Within theareas, other parts of metropoli- same county 56.2tan areas, or nonmetropolitanareas of the United States. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. Demographic ProgramsUSCENSUSBUREAU U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census BureauHelping You Make Informed Decisions U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 1
  • Table A.Annual Moving Rates by Type of Move: 1990 to 2000(Numbers in thousands) Percent moved Same From different county Mobility period Total, residence Within age 1 (non- Total same Same Different From and older movers) movers Total county state state abroad1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,219 226,831 43,388 16.1 9.0 3.3 3.1 0.61998-1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267,933 225,297 42,636 15.9 9.4 3.1 2.8 0.51997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265,209 222,702 42,507 16.0 10.2 3.0 2.4 0.51996-1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262,976 219,585 43,391 16.5 10.5 3.0 2.4 0.51995-1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260,406 217,868 42,537 16.3 10.3 3.1 2.5 0.51994-19951 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,248 215,931 42,317 16.4 10.8 3.1 2.2 0.31993-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255,774 212,939 42,835 16.7 10.4 3.2 2.6 0.51992-1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252,799 209,700 43,099 17.0 10.7 3.1 2.7 0.61991-1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247,380 204,580 42,800 17.3 10.7 3.2 2.9 0.51990-1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244,884 203,345 41,539 17.0 10.3 3.2 2.9 0.6 1 The primary mobility question in the 1995 survey asked about residence 5 years earlier, not 1 year earlier as in the other survey years.There was an additional question on residence 1 year earlier, but the resulting 1-year data for the 1994-95 period are not comparable withthe data for other years. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, March 1991 to 2000.The overall moving rate has status, and education. Table B little more than twice the movingstayed constant, but people shows mobility rates by many of rate of all people 1 year and oldermoved longer distances. these characteristics. (16 percent). Among adults, as ageOverall moving rates have not increased moving rates decreased,changed substantially over the past 20- to 29-year olds had the at least until very advanced ages:few years, and the 1999-2000 rate highest moving rates. by ages 65 to 84, the rate was onlyis among the lowest rates found 4 percent. Moving rates were About one-third of 20- to 29 year-during the past decade. However, higher for young adults because of olds moved in the previous year, asince 1998, there has been a de-crease in the percentage of movesmade within the same county and a Figure 2.corresponding increase in the per- Moving Rates by Age: March 1999 to 2000centage of moves between coun- (In percent)ties, particularly to counties in dif-ferent states. In 1998, 64 percentof all moves were within the same 35.2county, compared with 56 percent 32.4of all moves in 2000.2 Similarly, in1998, 15 percent of all moves werebetween states, compared with 23.3 22.019 percent of all moves in 2000. 18.1 15.3 14.8CHARACTERISTICS OFMOVERS 9.3Moving rates differ by characteris- 7.0 4.3 4.7tics like age, race, Hispanic origin,income, housing tenure, marital 1-4 5-9 10-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-84 85+ 2 These proportions can be calculated from AgeTable A by dividing the percent moved for thetype of move (e.g. within the same county) by Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.the total percent moved.2 U.S. Census Bureau
  • Table B.Geographical Mobility by Selected Characteristics: March 1999 to 2000(Numbers in thousands) Percent moved Same From different county Selected characteristics residence Within (non- Total same Same Different From Total movers) movers Total county state state abroad Total, age 1 and older . . . . . . . . . 270,219 226,831 43,388 16.1 9.0 3.3 3.1 0.6Age1 to 4 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,740 12,075 3,665 23.3 14.1 4.4 4.0 0.85 to 9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,379 16,685 3,694 18.1 11.0 3.2 3.3 0.710 to 19 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,430 34,226 6,204 15.3 8.6 3.0 3.1 0.720 to 24 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,441 11,942 6,499 35.2 20.4 7.1 6.2 1.625 to 29 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,268 12,358 5,910 32.4 18.0 7.1 6.0 1.330 to 34 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,518 15,216 4,302 22.0 12.4 4.6 4.0 1.135 to 44 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,805 38,178 6,627 14.8 8.3 3.0 3.0 0.645 to 54 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,631 33,211 3,420 9.3 4.9 2.1 1.9 0.455 to 64 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,387 21,744 1,643 7.0 3.4 1.5 1.9 0.265 to 84 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,482 28,205 1,277 4.3 2.2 0.9 1.1 0.185 years and older. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,140 2,992 148 4.7 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.1SexMale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131,969 110,396 21,573 16.3 9.1 3.4 3.2 0.7Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,250 116,435 21,815 15.8 8.9 3.2 3.1 0.6Race and Hispanic originWhite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221,703 187,810 33,893 15.3 8.5 3.2 3.0 0.6 Non-Hispanic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191,197 163,595 27,602 14.4 7.8 3.3 3.1 0.4Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,948 28,226 6,722 19.2 11.7 3.5 3.6 0.5Asian and Pacific Islander . . . . . . . . . . 10,779 8,577 2,202 20.4 10.5 3.4 3.6 3.0Hispanic (of any race) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,103 25,347 6,756 21.0 13.3 3.1 2.7 2.0NativityNative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241,867 204,777 37,090 15.3 8.8 3.2 3.1 0.2Foreign born (naturalized and non U.S. citizen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,352 22,054 6,298 22.2 11.1 3.4 3.2 4.4Poverty status (in 1999)Below poverty level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,100 23,229 8,871 27.6 16.8 4.6 4.4 1.9100 percent to 149 percent above poverty leve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,637 19,410 5,227 21.2 13.1 3.5 3.9 0.7Above 149 percent of poverty level . . 213,482 184,192 29,290 13.7 7.4 3.0 2.8 0.5Housing tenureOwner-occupied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,408 172,258 17,150 9.1 5.0 2.1 1.7 0.3Renter-occupied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,811 54,573 26,238 32.5 18.6 5.9 6.4 1.6Household type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In married-couple family households . 176,427 155,022 21,405 12.1 6.4 2.5 2.6 0.7In other households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,792 71,809 21,983 23.4 14.0 4.7 4.1 0.6Household income (in 1999)Less than $25,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,680 50,228 13,452 21.1 12.9 3.6 3.6 1.1$25,000 to $49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75,986 62,624 13,362 17.6 10.4 3.3 3.3 0.6$50,000 to $99,999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,674 78,031 11,643 13.0 6.7 3.1 2.8 0.4$100,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,879 35,948 4,931 12.1 5.6 3.0 2.8 0.7Marital status (age 16 and older)Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,182 43,316 12,866 22.9 12.9 4.9 4.2 1.0Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,719 101,871 13,848 12.0 6.3 2.6 2.6 0.6Divorced or separated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,282 19,293 4,989 20.5 12.5 4.0 3.8 0.3Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,662 12,718 944 6.9 3.8 1.5 1.5 0.2Education (age 25 and older) . . . . . .Not a high school graduate . . . . . . . . . 27,853 24,221 3,632 13.0 7.9 2.5 2.0 0.7High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,086 50,934 7,152 12.3 7.0 2.4 2.5 0.4Some college or Associate degree . . . 44,445 38,394 6,051 13.6 7.6 3.1 2.6 0.3Bachelor’s degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,840 25,259 4,581 15.4 7.4 3.6 3.5 0.8Graduate degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,006 13,094 1,912 12.7 5.6 2.7 3.5 1.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.U.S. Census Bureau 3
  • their relatively higher frequency of Table C.life course events (such as mar- Moving Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin and Age: March 1999 to 2000riage, child birth, or a new job). (In percent)White non-Hispanics were less White Asian and Hispanicmobile than other racial and Age non- Pacific (of any Hispanic Black Islander race)ethnic groups.3 1 to 9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 25.6 23.7 23.1White non-Hispanics had the lowest 10 to 19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 18.5 16.9 19.9moving rate (14 percent). Hispan- 20 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 31.1 36.4 34.4ics (of any race) and Asians and 30 to 39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 21.3 23.9 20.8 40 to 49 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 15.6 13.8 14.4Pacific Islanders had the highest 50 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 7.8 10.9 11.1overall moving rates (about 20 per- 65 to 84 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 4.8 8.5 8.0cent), closely followed by Blacks 85 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4.6 8.7 8.3 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 19.2 20.4 21.0(19 percent). Among people who Standardized mobility rate. . . . . . . . . . *14.4 17.1 18.4 18.1moved, Hispanics and Blacks weremost likely to have moved within *Standardized by age, White non-Hispanic as reference category.the same county (63 and 61 per- Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.cent, respectively), while Whitenon-Hispanics were most likely to Single and divorced people affluent than those living in renter-have made intercounty and inter- were more likely to move than occupied units.state moves (44 percent).4 Asians married people.and Pacific Islanders and Hispanics Among those 16 years and older, Lower-income groups werewere much more likely than Blacks single and divorced or separated more likely to move thanor White non-Hispanics to have people were most likely to have higher-income groups.come to the United States from moved, followed by married People living in households in lower-abroad. people. Widowed people were income categories were more likely least likely to have moved. Age to move than those in higher-incomeTable C shows that some of the could explain some of this varia- categories: 21 percent for incomesmobility difference between White tion, particularly the higher moving under $25,000, compared withnon-Hispanics and other racial and rates of those never married and 12 percent for incomes overethnic groups can be attributed to the lower rates of widowed people. $100,000. Some of this disparityage. For example, Hispanic mov- People living in married-couple may reflect differences ining rates were higher than White family households were less likely homeownership patterns, particu-non-Hispanics in most age catego- to have moved than those living in larly the higher proportion of rentersries. However, standardized over- other types of households. among households with low incomes.all moving rates show that even ifthe Hispanic population had the One-third of renters moved. Additionally, those living in house-same age distribution as the White holds with income less thannon-Hispanic population, the mov- Nearly one-third of people living in $50,000 were more likely thaning rate would still have been renter-occupied housing units in those with higher incomes to movehigher for Hispanics (18 percent March 2000 moved in the previous short distances (about 60 percentcompared with 14 percent). year, compared with only 1 in 11 and 50 percent, respectively). people living in owner-occupied Some of these differences could be housing units.5 Housing tenure is explained by factors like educa- closely related to age, race, His- tional differences, differences in panic origin, and income. Those reasons for moving, and potentially living in owner-occupied housing higher costs associated with mak- 3 Data for the American Indian and Alaska units are more likely to be older,Native population are not shown in this report ing longer distance moves.because of the small sample size in the Current White non-Hispanic and morePopulation Survey. Based on the March 2000 Moving rates differ by the povertyCurrent Population Survey, 3 percent of the 5 As is the case with all characteristics on theBlack population and 2 percent of the Asian Current Population Survey, housing tenure is status of individuals. Those with in-and Pacific Islander Population are also of His- measured at the time of the survey in March come below the poverty level werepanic origin. 2000; tenure before the move is not ascer- 4 See footnote 2. tained.4 U.S. Census Bureau
  • net gain of 227,000 people for the Figure 3. South were statistically significant Region-to-Region Migration: March 1999 to 2000 for the 1999-2000 year. (Numbers in thousands) Nonmetropolitan areas had Moved to Midwest Moved to Northeast net internal migration close to zero. Moved to West 416 Nonmetropolitan areas as a whole 432 had about equal numbers of 223 internal inmigrants and 183 204 83 outmigrants during the year — 108 72 127 1.9 million people compared with West Northeast South Moved from West Midwest South 2.0 million, as shown in Table D. Northeast South Midwest Moved from These numbers are not statistically Moved from Moved to South different. 489 405 364 Within metropolitan areas, central cities had net outmigration, while the population outside central cities had net inmigration. Northeast Midwest West Metropolitan areas outside central Moved from cities were the most frequent desti- Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000. nation among movers within and between metropolitan areas. Al- though metropolitan areas as amore likely to have moved (28 per- educated people move longer dis- whole had about equal numbers ofcent) than those with income tances for better paying jobs. inmigrants and outmigrants, cen-150 percent above the poverty level tral cities of metropolitan areas fol-or higher (14 percent). Also, those REGIONAL MOVEMENTS lowed the migration pattern foundwith income below the poverty level throughout the 1990s: continued Interstate migration, along with dif-were more likely to have made a net migration loss. Between 1999 ferences in rates of natural increaseshort-distance move (about 61 per- and 2000, 6.9 million people (births minus deaths), changes thecent) than those in the higher in- moved out of central cities, while distribution of the populationcome group (about 54 percent). 3.7 million moved in, resulting in a among regions of the country. In net loss due to internal migration recent decades, more people havePeople of different education of 3.2 million people. moved from North to South than inlevels had similar moving the opposite direction, and thisrates. Movers from abroad added trend continued. Figure 3 showsThere were only small differences population to the West and the flows of migrants among the helped offset net internalin moving rates by education, rang- four major regions of the United migration losses for theing from 12 percent of those with States between 1999 and 2000. Northeast.only a high school education to15 percent of those with a Between March of 1999 and 2000, Only the Northeast had a netbachelor’s degree. However, mov- the CPS estimates that 1.75 million loss in population because ofers with a bachelor’s degree were people moved to the United States internal migration.more likely to have moved longer from abroad. Two-thirds of these As found throughout the 1990s, movers were foreign-born and notdistances: 47 percent made an in- more people moved from the United States citizens (1.2 million),tercounty move compared with Northeast than to it from other re- while the other third were civilian34 percent of those with less than gions of the country. Of all the re- citizens (600,000). Most moversa high school education. This dif- gions, only the net loss of 252,000ference could indicate that better people for the Northeast and theU.S. Census Bureau 5
  • Table D.Annual Internal Migration by Region and Type of Residence, March 1999 to 2000 andAnnual Net International Migration by Region, July 1, 1998 to July 1, 1999(Numbers in thousands) Estimate for July 1, 1998 to Estimates from the Current Population July 1, 1999 Survey for March 1999 to March 2000 based on administrative Geographic area records4 Internal migration Movers Net Net internal from international Inmigrants Outmigrants migration abroad3 migrationRegion Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,106 3,106 - 1,745 852Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 615 *–252 292 184Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 722 640 82 238 99South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,258 1,031 *227 612 244West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 763 820 –57 604 325Type of residence Total2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,951 3,951 - 1,745 (NA)Metropolitan areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,044 1,907 137 1,639 (NA) Central cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,670 6,928 *–3,258 845 (NA) Outside central cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,376 3,981 *3,395 794 (NA)Nonmetropolitan areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,907 2,044 –137 106 (NA) NA Not available. *The net migration flows are significantly different from zero. 1 There were 3,106,000 internal migrants who moved from one region to another. 2 There were 3,951,000 internal migrants who moved from metropolitan areas to nonmetropolitan areas or vice-versa. 3 These numbers from the CPS include both temporary and permament movers to the United States, among the civilian U.S. population.See text for more details. 4 These numbers are derived independently by the Population Estimates Program and are not directly comparable to the CPS. See textfor more details. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000, and Population Estimates Program.from abroad (1.2 million) came to based on data from the Immigra- net migration. While the West didthe South and West. tion and Naturalization Service and not experience a significant gain in the 1990 decennial census; an esti- population from domestic migra-The CPS does not collect data on mate of emigration from the United tion, it did grow when net interna-the number of people who move States based on data from the tional migration is included. Al-away from the United States, and 1980 and 1990 censuses; and net though the Northeast still had athus it is not possible to use the movement between Puerto Rico significant loss of people, this lossCPS to estimate net international and the United States. was mitigated by net internationalmigration. However, the Census migration.Bureau does provide independently These estimates based on adminis-derived estimates for net interna- trative records indicate that SOURCE OF DATAtional migration using administra- 852,000 more people came to thetive records and other data. The United States from abroad than left Most estimates in this report comecomponents of net international between July 1 of 1998 and 1999, from data collected in March 2000migration include: legal immigra- the latest year for which these esti- by the CPS. The CPS is a monthlytion to the United States as re- mates are available. Combining national survey of about 50,000ported by the Immigration and these estimates by region with re- households, representative of the ci-Naturalization Service; refugee data gional net domestic migration fig- vilian noninstitutional population offrom the Office of Refugee Resettle- ures suggests that all regions ex- the United States. Some estimatesment; an estimate of net undocu- cept the Northeast showed are based on data collected by themented immigration from abroad, significant population gains from CPS in earlier years. The Census6 U.S. Census Bureau
  • Bureau conducts the CPS every present when people who are $24.50 payable to Commerce-month but collects the data on resi- missed in the survey differ from Census-88-00-9010, to the U.S. De-dential mobility only in March. those interviewed in ways other partment of Commerce, Census Bu- than the categories used in weight- reau, P Box 277943, Atlanta, GA .O.ACCURACY OF ESTIMATES ing (age, race, sex, and Hispanic 30384-7943, or call the Population origin). All of these considerations Division’s Statistical Information Of-Statistics from sample surveys are affect comparisons across different fice on 301-457-2422. A copy ofsubject to sampling and nonsam- surveys or data sources. these tabulations will be made avail-pling error. All comparisons pre- able to any existing Current Popula-sented in this report have taken For further information on statisti- tion Report P20 subscriber withoutsampling error into account and cal standards and the computation charge, provided that the request ismeet the Census Bureau’s stan- and use of standard errors, contact made within 3 months of the issuedards for statistical significance. Alfred Meier, Demographic Statisti- date of this report.Nonsampling errors in surveys may cal Methods Division, atbe attributed to a variety of 301-457-4220 or on the Internet atsources, such as how the survey CONTACTS Alfred.G.Meier@census.gov.was designed, how respondents in- Statistical Information Staffterpret questions, how able and pop@census.gov MORE INFORMATIONwilling respondents are to provide 301-457-2422correct answers, and how accu- A set of detailed tabulations consist-rately answers are coded and clas- ing of 30 tables from the 2000 Jason Schachtersified. The Census Bureau employs March CPS shows more detailed jason.p.schachter@census.govquality control procedures through- characteristics of movers and 301-457-2454out the production process — in- nonmovers by type of move for thecluding the overall design of sur- United States and the regions. The USER COMMENTSveys, testing the wording of electronic version of these tables is The Census Bureau welcomes thequestions, reviewing the work of available on the Internet at the Cen- comments and advice of users ofinterviewers and coders, and statis- sus Bureau’s World Wide Web site our data and reports. If you havetical review of reports. (www.census.gov). Once on the site, any suggestions or comments, go to “Subjects A to Z,” then click on please write to:The CPS employs ratio estimation, “M,” and finally on “Migration.”whereby sample estimates are ad- Chief, Population Divisionjusted to independent estimates of An abbreviated paper version of the U.S. Census Bureauthe national population by age, tables (without the race and geo- Washington, DC 20233race, sex, and Hispanic origin. graphic repeats) is available as PPL-This weighting partially corrects for 144 for $24.50. To receive a paper or send e-mail to:bias due to undercoverage, but copy, send a request for “PPL-144, pop@census.govhow it affects different variables in Geographical Mobility: March 1999the survey is not precisely known. to March 2000,” along with a checkMoreover, biases may also be or money order in the amount ofU.S. Census Bureau 7