Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Deriving State-Level Estimates from Three National Surveys: A Statistical Assessment and State Tabulations

Publication Date

Lisa Alecxih and John Corea
The Lewin Group

David Marker
Westat, Inc.


This report was prepared under contract #HHS-100-96-0012 between U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy (DALTCP) and the Lewin Group. For additional information about this subject, you can visit the DALTCP home page at http://aspe.hhs.gov/_/office_specific/daltcp.cfm or contact the office at HHS/ASPE/DALTCP, Room 424E, H.H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20201. The e-mail address is: webmaster.DALTCP@hhs.gov. The Project Officer was William Marton.

The opinions and views expressed in this report are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Health and Human Services, the contractor or any other funding organization.

"

I. INTRODUCTION

This report assesses the statistical issues involved in the production of state-level estimates related to health and welfare issues from three national surveys: the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). With the devolution of many welfare programs from the Federal Government to the states, there is a strong interest in being able to track the health and welfare of the population in each state. This would allow for examination of the effect of various state welfare initiatives that are to be implemented in the next few years.

Section II provides an overview of the relevant statistical issues involved in making state-level estimates from these surveys, including state stratification, nonsampling errors, and precision of the estimates (see Glossary for additional explanation of these and other highlighted statistical terms used in this report). Section III assesses the abilities of the CPS and SIPP surveys to produce four specific estimates, all expressed as percent of the total population: individuals in households with income below the poverty line, individuals receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) individuals covered by employer-provided health insurance, and individuals with a disability. Each estimate is examined for the total population, and also for subpopulations of blacks, Hispanics, children, and the elderly.

The most current publicly available databases for each of the three surveys were examined. For the CPS, the most current data are from the March 1996 survey. For the NHIS the most recent data are for 1994. In 1995, the NHIS sample was completely redesigned, so examining the 1994 data would yield little information on the ability of future years to provide state-level estimates. Thus, while no NHIS data are examined, general discussions of the ability of the NHIS to provide the desired estimates are included.

For SIPP the 1993 panel data are available. Like the NHIS, the SIPP was also redesigned in 1996. The 1996 SIPP is about one-and-a-half times as large as the 1993 SIPP. However, the sample design is broadly the same, so the 1993 SIPP provides some useful indicators of the ability of the 1996 SIPP to produce state-level estimates. In addition to the 1996 SIPP, the Bureau of the Census is continuing to follow the 1992 and 1993 SIPP panels in the newly introduced Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). The SPD will include all of the low-income households from these two SIPP panels, along with a subsample of the panels' other respondents. As shown in Section III, the sample size of each of these surveys severely limits the capability of the surveys to produce state-level estimates, particularly for subpopulations.

All three surveys are multi-stage national probability surveys of households, with questions asked about all or some members of the household. The CPS is a monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households, with a special income-related supplement asked each March. The NHIS is an annual survey of approximately 100,000 individuals in 40,000 households (sample sizes can fluctuate from year to year) with interviews spread out across the entire year. Both of these surveys are redesigned every 10 years to incorporate the latest Decennial Census information. Beginning in 1995, both surveys contain separate strata for each state, separately for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. The SIPP is a panel survey with households interviewed three times a year for multiple years. The 1993 SIPP panel had approximately 21,000 households while the 1996 panel has 35,000 households. Unlike the other two surveys, SIPP strata cross state boundaries.

Finally, Section IV examines alternative approaches to overcome the sample size limitations identified in Section III. These approaches include supplementary state samples, combining data from multiple years of the same survey, combining data from the three surveys, and using indirect model-dependent estimators.

II. STATISTICAL ISSUES

A. Accurate Direct Estimates for Every State

Ideally, the CPS, SIPP, and NHIS would be able to provide direct estimates of adequate precision for every state. Direct estimates are the standard survey design-based estimates, such as the sample mean, traditionally produced by government agencies. They are design-based, as opposed to the indirect estimates that are dependent on statistical models (Schaible et al., 1993). As discussed below, these surveys are not large enough to produce accurate direct estimates for every state.

A key factor in producing direct estimates for states is the need to select the sample from strata that respect state boundaries. When strata cross state boundaries, state estimators must either use respondents from other states to represent part of the desired state, or must make assumptions about the relationships across strata within the state. Both of these procedures are problematic. CPS and NHIS use state boundaries in defining sampling strata; however, SIPP does not use state stratification. A project is currently underway at Westat to produce a methodology that will allow the Bureau of the Census to make state estimates from all waves of SIPP and from the SPD for all states. However, except for the largest states, these estimates will be subject to potentially large variances. The methodology is based on a set of assumptions about the strata within each state, and therefore may produce significant bias in the estimates for any state, even large ones.

It should be noted that the precision of state estimates (i.e., standard errors) obtained for these surveys will vary considerably from state-to-state. This is because precision is directly proportional to the square root of the sample size in the state. Thus, estimates will be twice as precise for a state with four times the sample size (assuming the same underlying distribution in both states). While the CPS and NHIS use state stratification, the states are not all allocated the same sample size. Rather, the allocation of sample size to the states is made with the aim of balancing the precision requirements of both state and national estimates. As a result, there are great disparities in sample size by state. The March 1996 CPS interviewed almost 13,000 persons in California, but less than 1,200 in the District of Columbia. The 1993 SIPP panel has over 6,000 and barely 100 persons in the same two jurisdictions. While the 1996 SIPP panel is appreciably larger, it has similar differences. Thus, the precision of CPS estimates for California is 3.5 times greater than for DC, and for SIPP it is 7.5 times greater.

In considering the use of the CPS, NHIS, and SIPP to produce the desired estimates, it needs to be recognized that the estimates produced by the three surveys will differ. These differences are in part due to the different ways the underlying concepts such as poverty and disability are measured and partly due to the differing data measurement procedures. For example, the estimates of percent of households in poverty differ for SIPP and CPS because of the difference in the methods of data collection (SIPP by repeated interviews, CPS by annual recall), particularly for the income data (Ruggles, 1990). Kalton and Mohadjer (1994) examined the differences in disability rates under the distinct definitions used by the three surveys.

B. Precision of Estimates

It is impossible to define a single level of precision that is necessary for all estimates. The level of precision that is necessary depends on the use of the estimates. Different Federal agencies have different standards for their data. Some have standards that only determine the level of precision for estimates to be used in analyses, while others have standards for precision for publication. For example, the National Center for Health Statistics has a requirement that coefficients of variation (the standard error of an estimate divided by the mean) not exceed 30 percent. The Center reports and interprets the estimates that have at least this level of precision. Less precise estimates may be reported but are not interpreted.

The precision of a direct estimator is a function of two parameters, the standard deviation of the population distribution and the effective sample size. The precision of an estimate for a characteristic that is highly variable in the population will be less than that for a characteristic that is fairly consistent across the population. The variability of the characteristic is measured by the standard deviation. Similarly, a larger effective sample size will provide more accurate estimates than a smaller effective sample size.

When estimating percentages (as for all four variables examined in Section III of this report), the characteristic is dichotomous, a binomial variable (e.g., in poverty, not in poverty). In this case the standard deviation is a simple function of the percentage with the characteristic. The standard deviation is,

Formula: Divisible of P(1.00 - P)

where P is the percentage with the characteristic in the population. The closer the true percentage (e.g., percent in poverty) is to 50 percent, the larger the standard deviation. The closer the percentage is to either 0 or 100 percent, the smaller the standard deviation. For example, the standard deviation when P = 50 percent is 0.50, while the standard deviation when P = 1 percent is 0.10.

The effective sample size is the actual sample size divided by the design effect. The design effect is a factor that reflects the effect on the precision of a survey estimate due to the difference between the sample design actually used to collect the data and a simple random sample of respondents. National in-person household surveys, such as the three considered here, are conducted as stratified, multi-stage, clustered, area-probability surveys. By clustering the sampled households in a limited number of geographic areas, the cost of data collection is significantly reduced. However, respondents in the same cluster are likely to be somewhat similar to one another. As a result, a clustered sample will generally not reflect the entire population as "effectively." Before selecting the sample of clusters, the country is stratified based on characteristics believed to be correlated with the survey variables of greatest interest. This stratification produces more precise survey estimates for targeted domains than an unstratified design. The design effect reflects all aspects of the complex sample design. While the design effect is different for each variable, experience with these surveys indicates that the variables under study will have reasonably similar design effects.

III. ABILITY OF THE THREE NATIONAL SURVEYS TO PRODUCE STATE ESTIMATES

The most current databases for each of the three surveys were examined to assess their ability to provide state-level estimates. For the CPS, the most current data are from the March 1996 survey. For SIPP the 1993 panel data are available.

In future years there will be data from the 1996 SIPP panel and from the SPD. The SPD combines the respondents from the 1992 and 1993 SIPP. However, since only approximately three-quarters of the original respondents to these two waves remain in the SPD, there is a strong potential for bias in some of the estimates produced from this survey. While a larger sample will be available from the 1996 SIPP panel, the basic structure will be similar to the 1993 panel. The new panel assures the inclusion of every state in the survey, but the procedure that was implemented still uses strata that cross state boundaries and does not improve the ability to produce direct estimates for every state. Low-income households have in general been oversampled, resulting in a larger number of poor persons being included in the survey. However, the differential weights resulting from the oversampling may significantly affect the gains in precision that would be expected to result from the oversampling. Thus, it is not possible to make clear generalizations from the 1993 panel to the newer data series based solely on the changes in sample sizes.

Because the most recent NHIS data are for 1993 and the NHIS sample was completely redesigned in 1995, no NHIS data are examined. However, some discussion of the ability of the NHIS to provide the desired estimates is included.

The Bureau of the Census is making plans to introduce the American Community Survey (ACS) beginning around 2002. This survey will collect information from more than one million households annually, using a revised versions of the Census Long Form. If questions of interest to ASPE are included in the ACS, it can be expected to provide more accurate state-level estimates than those described below from the three smaller existing surveys. It is our understanding, however, that it is not certain that this survey will be annual.

A. The Proportion Nationally with the Characteristic

As mentioned in Section II, the accuracy of state-level estimates of proportions is a function of the proportion of the population with the characteristic and the effective sample size. Table 1 shows the proportion of the population in each state estimated by the March 1996 CPS to live below poverty, and the actual sample sizes from which the proportions are estimated. In general, approximately 15 percent of the population are estimated to live in poverty, with approximately double that rate for minorities. The overall rates vary across states, from six percent in New Hampshire to 27 percent in New Mexico. However, many of the state estimates for minorities that differ greatly from the national numbers may be a result of extremely small sample sizes. For example, all state estimates with less than 10 percent or 50 percent or more of their black or Hispanic populations living below the poverty line are based on samples of fewer than 50 minority respondents. The estimate of zero percent of blacks in North Dakota is based on a sample of only two blacks. This demonstrates why great caution is needed before using any state-level estimates. For purposes of this assessment we will use the national proportions, rather than the very unstable state estimates, when calculating precision for each state. For example, rather than using state-specific poverty rates to determine the minimum cell counts for each subpopulation for each state, we use the national poverty rate to determine the threshold applied to each subpopulation across all states. Detailed tables for each of the states are provided in the appendices.

Table 2 provides the national estimates of the proportions with each characteristic based on the CPS and the SIPP. It is important to remember that the estimates reflected in this table do not cover the same time period. These are the values used in the assessment of the surveys' ability to produce accurate state-level estimates.

B. Effective Sample Size

The effective sample size is the sample size from a simple random sample of respondents that would have equivalent precision to that achieved by the complex sample design actually used for the survey. Since standard statistical formulas assume simple random sampling, when using them to estimate the precision of estimates it is important to replace the actual sample size with the effective sample size.

The effective sample size is computed by dividing the actual sample size by a design effect that reflects the effect of the deviations from simple random sampling. Design effects may vary by subgroup (e.g., blacks versus whites) but will generally be fairly consistent across states for each subgroup. This is because in large national surveys, such as the three examined here, a similar sample design, including the number sampled form each PSU, is used in all states. Design effects will also vary by type of question; for example, respondents who live near each other (in the same sampled cluster) are likely to have similar poverty characteristics but are not likely to have similar disability characteristics.

From Westat's experience with these and similar surveys, we have estimated the state-level design effects shown in Table 3 for each of the four characteristics being estimated. National design effects for the CPS are higher than these because they take into account the oversampling of small states by each survey to increase the accuracy of state estimates. This assessment is only examining state estimates, and therefore is only concerned with the survey design within each state.2

Design effects are a function of the average number of completed interviews for the domain of interest that are completed in each cluster. Thus, design effects for subpopulations tend to be smaller than for the entire population, assuming the subpopulations are spread fairly evenly throughout the population. Design effects for children and the elderly may therefore be smaller than those in Table 3. Given that blacks and Hispanics are not evenly distributed across the population, their design effects are not likely to differ from those in the table. For purposes of this assessment, we have assumed that the design effects in the table apply to all subpopulations.

The CPS does no oversampling within states, so there is no additional design effect from differential weighting. (The one exception is that on the March supplement Hispanics are oversampled at twice their normal rate. Given that they represent a small proportion of the total sample, the increase in design effect is not significant.) An absence of oversampling is also true of the 1993 and 1996 SIPP panels. However, the 1996 SPD will oversample low-income populations, resulting in an additional design effect for analyses from that survey. Beginning with the 1995 sample, the NHIS is oversampling blacks and Hispanics, so any analyses of the NHIS will also have to incorporate that design effect. Oversampling in these surveys will also result in larger sample sizes for these subpopulations than would otherwise be observed.

The sample sizes for the 1996 CPS and 1993 SIPP panel vary across states for all of the populations of interest. Table 4 provides the minimum and maximum actual state sample sizes for each survey for each of the populations of interest. These CPS sample sizes are based on respondents to the 1996 March supplement. Sample sizes for the main CPS questionnaire are a little larger since approximately 10 percent of respondents to the main questionnaire do not participate in the supplement, but Hispanic respondents to the previous November's CPS are asked the supplement questions in March. Thus, for questions asked on the main questionnaire (which does not include any of the four questions used in this assessment) the CPS sample sizes will be somewhat larger than used in this assessment. SIPP only asks those under age 70 about work disability, so for this question the minimum and maximum elderly SIPP sizes are 4 and 220. The appendices provide state level detail for sample sizes.

C. Necessary State Sample Sizes

The desired precision of estimates, and therefore the necessary sample size, is a function of the planned use of the estimates. It is therefore impossible to make a general statement on how big a sample is necessary in each state. Instead, it is possible to look at a few illustrative characteristics for each subgroup and examine how often the precision will meet an arbitrary cut-off.

As mentioned earlier, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) tries to ensure that all of its reported values that are analyzed in NCHS reports have a coefficient of variation (cv) less than or equal to 30 percent. Thus, for estimating fairly rare diseases with incidence rates of around 1.0 percent, this rule ensures that the standard error is no greater than 0.30 percentage points, yielding a 95 percent confidence interval of 1.0% ± 0.60%. For proportions closer to 50 percent this rule allows for much larger standard errors. A cv of 30 percent on such an estimate yields a 95 percent confidence interval of 50% ± 30%. Thus, depending on the size of the proportion estimated from the CPS and SIPP, it may be preferable to use different cut-offs for different characteristics.

Table 2 provided the estimated proportions for characteristics in question. The proportion receiving AFDC and the proportion with a work disability (except for the elderly) are both generally around 10 percent or less. For these two characteristics, we used the NCHS rule of a cv not greater than 30 percent. For the other two characteristics and disabled elderly, a smaller cv would be desirable. The estimates for poverty and employer-provided health insurance range from 11 to 60 percent. We chose an arbitrary confidence interval width of less than or equal to ±10 percent on these estimates.

As an alternative, all cut-offs could be specified in terms of standard errors, with larger standard errors acceptable for larger estimated percentages. For example, estimates under 10 percent could have a confidence interval width of ±2 percent, estimates of 20-40 percent a width of ±4 percent, and larger percents a width of ±5 percent. Another alternative for each population and characteristic would be to examine the distribution of standard errors achieved by the existing state samples.

D. Summary Results for the Selected Subgroups and Variables

The estimated proportions in Table 2 are very similar for both the CPS and SIPP. Therefore, the following analyses apply to both surveys. Poverty and health insurance both use the "confidence interval width of ±10 percent or less" rule and are therefore discussed before the two characteristics using the "cv of less than or equal to 30 percent" rule. Please note that the SIPP data combine information for nine states. Therefore, we assessed the 41 states and the District of Columbia for a total of 42 possible "states" from the SIPP.3

Poverty -- The minimum effective sample sizes necessary to achieve a 95 percent confidence interval width of ±10 percent or less for each sample proportion, p, can be calculated by solving the following formula for the effective sample size n. (where P is the population proportion with the characteristic):

Formula: 1.96 into P(1.00-P) over n less than or equal to .10

To convert to the actual sample size, it is necessary to multiply n by the design effect shown in Table 3. For poverty this is 1.3. This leads to a minimum actual number of approximately 70 respondents for the total population, 110 for blacks or Hispanics, 95 children, and 55 elderly. The criteria differ slightly for the SIPP and the CPS. Both are presented in the appendices.

From the CPS, every state meets these minima for the total population, children, and the elderly (Table 5). Only 24 of the states have a sufficient sample for blacks and 19 states for Hispanics. From SIPP, every state assessed meets these minima only for the total population. The minima are also met for blacks in 20 states, Hispanics in 7 states, children in 35 states, and the elderly in 32 states.

Health Insurance -- The minimum actual sizes necessary to achieve a 95 percent confidence interval width of ±10 percent or less for the percentage receiving employer-provided health insurance is approximately 100 respondents for the total population and for each subpopulation. For the CPS, this is achieved for all states for the total population and children. The minimum is also met for blacks in 25 states, Hispanics in 20 states, and the elderly in 50 states. For the SIPP, this is achieved for all assessed states only for the total population. The minimum is also met for blacks in 20 states, Hispanics in 7 states, children in 34 states, and the elderly in 24 states.

AFDC -- The minimum effective sample size necessary to achieve a cv of less than or equal to 30 percent for each proportion, p, can be calculated by solving the following formula for n:

Formula: Divisible of (1.00 - P) over nP less than or equal to .30

Note that on AFDC rates near 10 percent, this cv rule results in confidence intervals of ±6 percent. To convert to the actual sample size, it is necessary to multiply n by the design effect shown in Table 3. For AFDC this is 1.2. For the two surveys this leads to a minimum actual number of between 240 (for the SIPP) and 303 (for the CPS) respondents in a state for the total population and between 73 (for blacks from the SIPP) and 133 (for Hispanics from the CPS) for each of the subgroups. AFDC is generally not available to the elderly and therefore that subgroup is not considered for this characteristic.

From the CPS, every state meets these minima for the total population and children. Only 28 of the states have a sufficient sample for blacks and 16 states for Hispanics. From SIPP, the minima are met for the total population in 35 of the 42 assessed states, blacks in 20 states, Hispanics in 7 states, and children in 35 states.

Work Disability -- The minimum actual sizes necessary to achieve a cv of less than or equal to 30 percent for each proportion with a work disability ranges from 100 to 175 for all populations except the elderly and for children. Given that most children under 18 are not in the work force, their proportion with a work disability is also very small. Thus, while few states have the necessary completed interviews with more than 1,000 children, it is unlikely that such estimates will be necessary.

Given their relatively high frequency of disability, the necessary number of completes for the elderly is only 30. This number of completes is available from all states for the CPS and 24 states for SIPP. However, the resulting cv of 30 percent yields a confidence interval of 27% ± 16%. To achieve a confidence interval on this estimate that is no wider than ±10 percent would require 76 elderly respondents, a level reached in all CPS states other than Alaska, but only in 9 of the assessed SIPP states.

For the remaining populations, a cv of less than or equal to 30 percent requires from 100 to 175 completes. For the CPS, this is achieved for the total population in all states and for 27 states for blacks and 14 states for Hispanics. For the SIPP, a large enough number of completes for the total population is found in all of the assessed states except New Mexico and the District of Columbia, while it is only achieved for blacks in 20 states, and in 6 states for Hispanics.

It is worth noting that the work disability question on the CPS is being redesigned to correspond with the more extensive disability questions planned for the 2000 Census long form. Work disability will still be asked, but other types of disability will also be captured. Once wording for the new questions is finalized, they could be compared against other sources to predict the proportion with that type of disability and, by using the formulas in this section, to estimate the number of states that would support accurate estimates.

E. Generalization of the Ability to Produce Accurate Direct Estimates at the State Level Using a Single Time Period

By examining the results of the previous section and the distribution of sample sizes across the states, it is possible to make some general comments on the ability to produce accurate state estimates from a single time period's data for the CPS and SIPP. Unfortunately, the lack of data from the redesigned NHIS makes it impossible to make statements about that survey, beyond the fact that for many states the NHIS sample sizes are so small that direct estimates from a single time period would be subject to large variability. This assessment has also not taken into consideration the effect that the lack of state-stratification has on SIPP estimates. Research is currently being conducted on how that will affect state estimates. Table 5 summarizes the results found in the previous section. It is important to remember that the actual number of completes in a state is a random variable that will change with each round of data collection. Therefore, the exact numbers shown in Table 5 are only approximations for future survey rounds. This is particularly true for subpopulations. Again, the SIPP data combine information for nine states. Therefore, we assessed the 41 states and the District of Columbia for a total of 42 possible "states."

Given the relatively low precision requirements used in the previous section, it is possible to estimate the proportion of the total population in a state with a characteristic for almost all states from either survey. For the CPS, this is also true for children and, except for Alaska, the elderly. The CPS is only able to support estimates for blacks for about half of the states and 30 to 40 percent of the states for Hispanics, depending upon the measure. Given the smaller sample size of the SIPP, its ability to support such estimates for subpopulations is more limited than the CPS. For children and the elderly, the SIPP can support estimates for the majority of states. For blacks, it can produce estimates that meet these levels of precision for around 20 states and for Hispanics in less than 10 states.

If other characteristics of interest to ASPE are contained in the core CPS interview, it would be possible to increase the sample size in each state significantly by combining data from different months of the survey. (CPS respondents are interviewed in four successive months, then dropped for eight months, then interviewed again for the following four months.) Even when this is true, the respondents in a given state are generally all from just a few primary sampling units (PSUs). This results in state-level standard error estimates that are quite unstable. To accurately estimate the accuracy of the estimates, it would be necessary to use some form of generalized variance function model that smoothes precision estimates derived from the different states.

In terms of specific states, the 1996 CPS permits analyses of all of the selected characteristics for the subgroups examined at the specified precision criteria for eight states - California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The SIPP permits analyses for six states -- California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. The binding constraint for the data for a number of states is the sample size for Hispanics. If the selected characteristics for Hispanics are not included in assessing which states meet all of the criteria, 16 states are added for the CPS and three states are added for the SIPP. For the SIPP, work disability among those aged 65 to 69 also caused several states to fail to meet all of the criteria. Table 6 and the two maps (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2) provide summary information regarding the number of criteria met for the states. The appendices provide state level detail for each of the selected characteristics and criteria.

It is important to repeat that the precision requirements used in Table 5 and Table 6 are quite arbitrary. If narrower confidence intervals are desired, the number of states meeting the cut-off will obviously be reduced.

  TABLE 1. Percent Living in Poverty and Actual Sample Size by State, March 1996 CPS  
  Percent Living in Poverty Actual Sample Size
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total     Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 41% 25% 11% 21% 507 23 1,190 1,720
Alaska 21% 8% 7% 8% 64 48 1,405 1,517
Arizona 49% 31% 12% 18% 64 747 1,325 2,136
Arkansas 38% 32% 12% 17% 254 23 1,483 1,760
California 30% 34% 11% 19% 677 5,601 6,626 12,904
Colorado 28% 25% 7% 10% 55 311 1,418 1,784
Connecticut 32% 48% 4% 11% 102 187 1,016 1,305
Delaware 16% 28% 10% 11% 208 61 982 1,251
District of Columbia   31% 21% 9% 25% 761 80 320 1,161
Florida 36% 29% 11% 18% 772 1,599 4,169 6,540
Georgia 23% 20% 9% 14% 593 63 1,432 2,088
Hawaii 6% 17% 14% 13% 44 52 1,286 1,382
Idaho 0% 43% 13% 15% 12 207 1,623 1,842
Illinois 41% 19% 8% 14% 785 767 3,806 5,358
Indiana 23% 17% 10% 11% 91 46 1,461 1,598
Iowa 28% 11% 12% 13% 41 40 1,577 1,658
Kansas 21% 26% 11% 12% 99 89 1,447 1,635
Kentucky 44% 8% 14% 16% 108 20 1,465 1,593
Louisiana 41% 28% 13% 22% 458 45 1,152 1,655
Maine 0% 31% 12% 12% 3 7 1,278 1,288
Maryland 24% 26% 6% 12% 369 68 1,049 1,486
Massachusetts 31% 49% 8% 11% 168 215 2,498 2,881
Michigan 34% 32% 9% 13% 542 126 3,663 4,331
Minnesota 33% 39% 8% 10% 41 60 1,678 1,779
Mississippi 43% 50% 14% 26% 621 19 977 1,617
Missouri 26% 16% 10% 12% 128 40 1,316 1,484
Montana 32% 30% 16% 16% 6 41 1,660 1,707
Nebraska 31% 28% 10% 11% 51 89 1,537 1,677
Nevada 31% 29% 8% 13% 78 291 1,110 1,479
New Hampshire 0% 18% 6% 6% 7 20 1,202 1,229
New Jersey 18% 27% 6% 9% 363 677 2,965 4,005
New Mexico 37% 35% 22% 27% 24 1,206 1,137 2,367
New York 35% 41% 9% 18% 1,128 1,907 5,781 8,816
North Carolina 31% 39% 9% 14% 575 85 2,256 2,916
North Dakota 0% 21% 13% 13% 2 22 1,535 1,559
Ohio 33% 25% 10% 13% 530 104 4,040 4,674
Oklahoma 44% 24% 15% 18% 142 75 1,614 1,831
Oregon 14% 32% 11% 13% 16 138 1,455 1,609
Pennsylvania 39% 36% 10% 13% 526 214 4,673 5,413
Rhode Island 21% 35% 10% 12% 43 130 1,156 1,329
South Carolina 41% 50% 11% 21% 445 16 911 1,372
South Dakota 42% 7% 15% 15% 14 13 1,748 1,775
Tennessee 29% 25% 15% 18% 273 23 1,306 1,602
Texas 24% 36% 10% 19% 553 3,209 3,721 7,483
Utah 22% 42% 7% 10% 11 188 1,718 1,917
Vermont 0% 51% 11% 11% 3 10 1,261 1,274
Virginia 14% 16% 11% 12% 355 80 1,375 1,810
Washington 19% 33% 13% 14% 46 85 1,467 1,598
West Virginia 55% 0% 18% 18% 27 14 1,683 1,724
Wisconsin 49% 48% 8% 11% 92 49 1,769 1,910
Wyoming 6% 4% 11% 13% 16 131 1,500 1,647
 
United States 32% 33% 10% 15%   12,893     19,361     98,222     130,476  
TABLE 2. National Estimates of the Proportions with each Characteristic Based on the CPS and the SIPP
  Variable   Total  
(%)
  Black  
(%)
  Hispanic  
(%)
  Children  
(%)
  Elderly  
(%)
1996 CPS Income below poverty 15 32 33 24 11
Receiving AFDC 4 13 9 11 0
Employer-provided health insurance   60 45 39 59 35
Work disability 8 10 6 0 27
1993 SIPP   Income below poverty 17 34 35 26 13
Receiving AFDC 5 15 13 12 0
Employer-provided health insurance 59 46 39 56 39
Work disability 7 9 6 1 27
  1. The SIPP only asks work disability questions of individuals under age 70. Therefore, for the percentage of elderly with a work related disability, these estimates reflect only those between the ages of 65 and 69.
  TABLE 3. Estimated State-Level Design Effects for the CPS and SIPP  
Characteristic   Design Effect  
Income below poverty 1.3
Receiving AFDC 1.2
Employer-provided health insurance   1.1
Work disability 1.0
  TABLE 4. Minimum and Maximum State Sample Sizes for Populations of Interest from the 1996 CPS and 1993 SIPP  
  Total Black Hispanic Children Elderly
CPS Minimum 1,161 (DC) 2 (ND) 7 (ME) 276 (DC) 59 (AK)
Maximum     12,904 (CA)     1,128 (NY)     5,601 (CA)     4,046 (CA)     1,212 (CA)  
SIPP    Minimum 104 (DC) 0 (*) 0 (*) 25 (DC) 14 (*)
Maximum 6,454 (CA) 435 (TX) 1,752 (CA) 1,990 (CA) 685 (CA)
* Multiple states.
TABLE 5. Number of States with the Sufficient Number of Completes to Provide Estimates of the Desired Level of Precision for Four Characteristics from the 1996 CPS and 1993 SIPP
  Variable   Total     Black     Hispanic     Children     Elderly  
CPS Income below poverty 51 24 19 51 51
Receiving AFDC 51 28 16 51 N/A
Employer-provided health insurance   51 25 20 51 50
Work disability 51 27 14 N/A 50
# of States Meeting Criteria for:
   All 4 characteristics 51 24 14 N/A N/A
   Only 3 characteristics -- 1 2 51 50
   Only 2 characteristics -- 2 3 -- --
   Only 1 characteristic -- 1 1 -- 1
   No characteristics 11 23 31 -- --
SIPPa Income below poverty 42 20 7 35 32
Receiving AFDC 35 20 7 35 N/A
Employer-provided health insurance   42 20 7 34 24
Work disability 40 20 6 N/A 9b
# of States Meeting Criteria for:
   All 4 characteristics 35 20 6 N/A N/A
   Only 3 characteristics 5 -- 1 34 9
   Only 2 characteristics 2 -- -- 1 15
   Only 1 characteristic -- -- -- -- 8
   No characteristics -- 22 35 7 10
  1. SIPP does not provide separate state identifiers for nine states. Therefore the maximum number of state that could meet the desired criteria is 42.
  2. The SIPP only provides a measure of work disability among the elderly for persons age 65 to 69. Therefore, we evaluated this variable in SIPP only for these ages. The criteria used was a confidence interval of 95 percent.
TABLE 6. Number of Selected Characteristics and Subgroup Combinations States Meeta
  March 1996 CPF 1993 SIPPb
  All Groups  
Max=18
  Excluding Hispanics  
Max=14
  All Groups  
Max=18
  Excluding Hispanics  
Max=14
Alabama 14 14 12 12
Alaska 8 8 NA NA
Arizona 14 10 12 9
Arkansas 14 14 7 7
California 18 14 18 14
Colorado 14 10 7 7
Connecticut 15 12 9 9
Delaware 14 14 3 3
District of Columbia   14 14 2 2
Florida 18 14 18 14
Georgia 14 14 13 13
Hawaii 10 10 3 3
Idaho 14 10 NA NA
Illinois 18 14 18 14
Indiana 10 10 13 13
Iowa 10 10 NA NA
Kansas 12 12 9 9
Kentucky 13 13 8 8
Louisiana 14 14 12 12
Maine 10 10 NA NA
Maryland 14 14 13 13
Massachusetts 18 14 9 9
Michigan 16 14 13 13
Minnesota 10 10 9 9
Mississippi 14 14 12 12
Missouri 14 14 13 13
Montana 10 10 NA NA
Nebraska 10 10 7 7
Nevada 14 10 3 3
New Hampshire 10 10 3 3
New Jersey 18 14 18 14
New Mexico 14 10 2 2
New York 18 14 18 14
North Carolina 14 14 14 14
North Dakota 10 10 NA NA
Ohio 15 14 14 14
Oklahoma 14 14 9 9
Oregon 13 10 9 9
Pennsylvania 18 14 14 14
Rhode Island 12 10 3 3
South Carolina 14 14 12 12
South Dakota 10 10 NA NA
Tennessee 14 14 13 13
Texas 18 14 18 14
Utah 14 10 7 7
Vermont 10 10 NA NA
Virginia 14 14 13 13
Washington 10 10 9 9
West Virginia 10 10 8 8
Wisconsin 11 11 8 8
Wyoming 12 10 NA NA
  1. The nine states for which the SIPP does not provide individual identifiers are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
  2. The maximum number of combinations for all groups evaluated is 18 (three characteristics each for the elderly and children and four characteristics each for the total population, blacks and Hispanics). Removing Hispanics results in 14 combinations.
EXHIBIT 1. Number of Estimates for Each State from CPS Data
State Map: Always (All 18) - (8); All but Hispanic (All 14 w/o Hispanic, but not all 18) - (16); Frequently (More than 10, but not all) - (13); Rarely (10 or less) - (14)
EXHIBIT 2. Number of Estimates for Each State from SIPP Data
State Map: Always (All 18) - (6); All but Hispanic (All 14 w/o Hispanic, but not all 18) - (3); Frequently (more than 10, but not all) - (12); Rarely (Less than 10) - (21); Not available - (9)

IV. OTHER APPROACHES

There are a variety of procedures that could be followed to increase the number of states for which estimates with a desired level of accuracy can be achieved. These procedures include supplementing the national samples with state samples, combining data from multiple rounds of the same survey, combining data from the three surveys, and the use of indirect model-dependent estimators. The pros and cons of each of these procedures are discussed briefly in the following sections.

A. Supplement the State Samples

We identified three methods of increasing state sample sizes. Each requires advanced planning and additional funding, but, if designed correctly, would permit direct estimation for states with insufficient samples in the current surveys. States could be offered the opportunity to pay the incremental cost of additional data collection in their state.

1. Increase Existing Samples

The most straightforward procedure is to increase the sample sizes for existing surveys in the states, which currently have insufficient sample sizes. (Given the increased interest resulting from devolution in measuring outcomes at the state level, ASPE could also encourage the sponsoring agencies to put more emphasis on state sample sizes in future survey redesigns.)

These additional interviews would most likely be collected from the same primary sampling units (PSUs) currently used by the national survey. This avoids the significant additional costs associated with listing and interviewing in new PSUs. The Bureau of the Census (which conducts the data collection for these three surveys) may place additional restrictions on the within-PSU locations of the supplemental interviews in order to respect their complex rules that attempt to minimize the chance of respondents being interviewed for multiple Census surveys. For most states, this means that the data would continue to be collected from only a few parts of the state. For characteristics that vary significantly from one part of the state to another, point estimates, and their estimated precision, will both be subject to considerable variability. For example, in California, the proportion of the population that is Hispanic drops significantly as one moves from the southern to northern parts of the state. If states were willing to absorb the additional costs, it might be possible to work out an arrangement with the Bureau of the Census whereby additional PSUs could be included in the sample to improve the precision of the estimates.

2. Dual Frame Approach

Alternatively, state sample sizes can be increased using a dual-frame approach. Such a procedure would most likely involve a separate telephone survey that would ask (hopefully) identical questions as those posed in the in-person surveys. (Mail surveys of the general population tend to have response rates that are too low for Government surveys.) These telephone interviews would not be restricted to the PSUs of the in-person survey, rather they could be spread across the entire state. Sirken and Marker (1993) examined the possibility of combining the NHIS with state-level telephone surveys of various sizes. The telephone supplement would obviously be restricted to households with telephones. While only 5 percent of the United States population live in houses without telephones, the rate can be above 15 percent in some states. Many characteristics of interest to the Government are very different for households with and without telephones (Thornberry and Massey, 1986). In such cases, a decision would have to be made as to whether to use an unbiased estimator that weights households separately by whether or not they have a telephone, or a biased estimator with smaller variance that disregards this factor.

3. Add Questions to National Immunization Survey

A third procedure is to add questions to other existing Government surveys, for example, the National Immunization Survey (NIS). The NIS is a telephone survey that screens 900,000 households per year across the entire country to locate children aged 19-35 months and find out about their immunization rates (Ezzati-Rice et al., 1995). If the need for state estimates can be satisfied by the addition of a few questions, it may be economical to try and add them to the NIS screener. The incremental cost of including the few questions is likely to be much less than any attempt to conduct separate supplementary surveys. However, just like with the other dual-frame approaches described above, the extra households obtained from the NIS would be limited to those with telephones, requiring special weighting to retain unbiased estimates. Also, if many additional questions need to be asked, it is unlikely that the NIS or any other survey would be willing to include them in its questionnaire. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) has conducted a pilot test for a State and Local Area Integrated Telephone Survey (SLAITS). SLAITS collects additional information from households screened for the NIS to produce state or local estimates. This June, NCHS plans to conduct another pilot SLAITS that will collect information of interest to ASPE for two states.

In general, the three surveys examined in this report have made great efforts to minimize nonsampling errors (e.g., Jabine et al., 1990). The questions used by the Bureau of the Census have been carefully pretested and the interviewers received detailed training. Given the common procedures used throughout the country for these surveys, nonsampling errors that do exist are likely to be similar across all states, rather than concentrated in a few. States with few PSUs, however, may be subject to interviewer effects because usually a single interviewer is assigned to a PSU. Nonsampling errors may be a more important issue when comparing, or combining, estimates from these three surveys with other surveys conducted by individual states subject to a distinct set of quality controls.

B. Combining Data from Multiple Rounds of the Same Survey

A relatively inexpensive method for improving the accuracy of state estimates is to combine data from multiple years of the same survey. The precision of estimates isn't quite doubled when two years of data are combined, since the sample will typically make use of the same PSUs. This additional clustering will somewhat limit the gains in precision that would otherwise be expected.

With SIPP it is also important to assure that different panels are used in different years, rather than asking the same respondent the same question at two time periods. For questions that appear in the CPS core questionnaire, it is possible to carefully combine samples across months as well as years, but one must take into account the complex pattern CPS uses for re-interviewing respondents. The NHIS uses the same questionnaire throughout the year, so an entire year's interviews can be used.

Another issue in combining data across years is that the question of interest must be asked in each year. Many interesting questions appear on NHIS supplements or SIPP topical modules that are not asked every year. Also, combining multiple years limits how quickly the estimates can detect changes over time. Thus, this procedure may not be ideal if one is interested in measuring the affect of policy changes such as welfare reform.

C. Combining Data from Two or More Surveys

An alternative approach is to use the data from two or more surveys to produce a combined estimate. Unbiased estimates can be produced for each state from the CPS and NHIS. State weights are being produced for SIPP that will hopefully have minimal bias. These can be combined to produce a single estimator. While there are a number of methods for producing such a combined estimator, the most logical procedure is to weight the three estimators in inverse proportion to their mean square errors. This gives greatest strength to the estimate from the survey with the most precise estimate for that state.

For specific characteristics of interest, there may be surveys other than the CPS, SIPP, and NHIS that collect the desired information. For example, Westat is currently collecting the National Survey of America's Families for the Urban Institute in 14 states and the remainder of the country. This study will be redone at the end of the decade to measure the change with devolution of programs to the states.

When combining data from multiple surveys it is very important to examine nonsampling errors. Data from one survey may not be asked in quite the same manner as another survey, or may only be asked of a subset of the population. For example, definitions of disability are not exactly consistent across the three surveys (Kalton and Mohadjer, 1994). The sequence in which questions are asked can also affect the survey estimates. Also, work disability questions are asked of all elderly on the CPS, but only for those under age 70 on SIPP. Income definitions can vary dramatically from one survey to another, for example, by whether or not, and how, they attempt to include non-cash income. The CPS asks for income for an entire year, while SIPP combines reported income from multiple interviews covering one year. On the NHIS, many questions are only asked of a single member of the household, while others are asked for all household members. Each survey has its own rules regarding proxy respondents as well. If proxy responses are allowed the response rates will be higher, but an additional possible source of bias is introduced.

D. Possible Indirect Model-Dependent Estimators

The vast majority of Federal statistics are produced using direct estimates. In some situations, the Government finds it necessary to produce indirect estimates of characteristics for which there are insufficient data at the desired level of aggregation. Schaible et al. (1993) discuss eight current Federal Government programs that use indirect estimators. Two of these programs involve income estimation (state, metropolitan area, and county per capita income estimation by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and median income for four-person families by state by the Bureau of the Census), and another uses the NHIS (model-based state estimates).

Fay's (1993) write-up of the Bureau of the Census' estimates of median family income describes how indirect estimators are used to determine inter-censal eligibility for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Multivariate regression estimators combine data from the most recent census, the most recent March supplement to the CPS, and BEA data on per capita income.

Malec's (1993) write-up of model-based estimates from NHIS describes how state disability estimates have been published from the NHIS three times, always using indirect estimators. These estimators have involved synthetic estimation, ratio and regression adjustments, and composite estimation. It then describes an ongoing effort to produce estimates of physician visits in the last year using a Bayesian hierarchical approach.

Malec also mentions two other efforts to improve the NHIS' ability to produce state-level estimates. Elston, Koch, and Weissert (1990) used a regression model to stabilize the subgroup means used in synthetic estimates of disability rates. Marker (1995) and Marker and Waksberg (1994) placed a Bayesian prior distribution on the subgroup means to improve synthetic estimates of number of doctor visits in the past year and of self-reported poor health.

Some of these indirect estimators make use of a variety of administrative records maintained by government agencies. For example, the Bureau of the Census has recently developed sub-state poverty estimates that incorporate food stamp and IRS records. To be useful, such administrative records must be available for all states.

An advantage of indirect estimators is that sometimes when it is impossible to accurately produce estimates for individual states, it is still possible to develop useful models that describe the differences observed across a set of states. Thus, if groups of states implement similar programs it may be possible to model the effect of different types of programs, even while not being able to make accurate state-level estimates.

A limitation on the current use of indirect estimators for measuring the effect of the devolution of programs is that the only data that can be used in developing the models is pre-devolution. Models are much better at predicting the future in a steady-state environment. Thus, the utility of indirect estimators may increase in the future as states have a few year's experience implementing their new programs.

There are a wide range of indirect estimators that could be examined for producing state-level estimates. It would be very important for ASPE to evaluate any models that are used to produce indirect estimates, including determining measures of accuracy for these estimators.

V. IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Given the relatively low precision requirements used in the previous section, it is possible to estimate the proportion of the total population in a state with a characteristic for almost all states from either survey. For the CPS, this is also true for children and, except for Alaska, the elderly. The CPS is only able to support estimates for blacks for about half of the states, and for Hispanics in 30 to 40 percent of the states. Given the smaller sample size of the SIPP, its ability to support such estimates for subpopulations is more limited than the CPS. For children and the elderly, the SIPP can support estimates for the majority of states. It can produce estimates for blacks that meet the specified levels of precision for about 20 states and for Hispanics in less than 10 states.

The 1996 CPS permits analyses of all of the selected characteristics for the subgroups examined at the specified levels of precision for eight states -- California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The SIPP permits analyses for six states -- California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. The binding constraint for the data for a number of states is the sample size for Hispanics. If the selected characteristics for Hispanics are not included in assessing which states meet all of the criteria, 16 states are added for the CPS and three states are added for the SIPP. For the SIPP, work disability among those aged 65 to 69 also caused several states to fail to meet all of the criteria.

It is important to repeat that these precision requirements, used in this document are quite arbitrary. If more precise estimates are desired, the number of states meeting the cut-off will obviously be reduced.

We also examined a variety of approaches that could be used to improve state-level estimates. These include supplementing the state samples for states with insufficient samples; combining data from multiple rounds of the same survey; combining data from the three surveys; and using indirect model-dependent estimators.

For several reasons, it may be misleading, or even counterproductive, to require an estimate to meet a standard level of precision to be considered useful. First, using a standard may create the illusion that estimates just meeting the standard are error free, and those that fall just below the standard are entirely uninformative. Second, decision makers often have little choice but to use the best information available, even if it is poor, and an estimate that has "substandard" precision may be the best available. Third, estimates that have low precision can sometimes be usefully combined with other imprecise information to obtain more useful results. The most obvious way to combine imprecise estimates is to combine two separate estimates of the same statistic from different surveys or different rounds of the same survey, as we discussed in Section IV.B and Section IV.C. An alternative method is to use econometric modeling to understand the variable's determinants rather than measuring the variable itself.4

To illustrate this last point, consider an analysis of state poverty rates for children using survey-based state time series on the estimated child poverty rate. For smaller states, much of the variation in the estimates over time will be due to measurement imprecision, and the individual estimates for these states would be of little interest in themselves. Nonetheless, the data series for all states can provide information to the modeling effort, which would focus on understanding how various state-level factors (demographic, economic, and program) affect child poverty rates. This effort would improve our understanding of how specific program changes affect child poverty even if we cannot precisely determine how a specific change in a specific state affected that state's child poverty rate.

In sum, the use of the statistic must be considered in combination with the level of precision to determine the validity of an estimate. This observation lends itself to "rules of thumb" for different types of analyses, but precludes ironclad standards.

VI. REFERENCES

Elston, J.M.; Koch, G.G.; and Weissert, W.G. (1990), "Regression-Adjusted Small Area Estimates of Functional Dependency in the Noninstitutionalized American Population Age 65 and Over." American Journal of Public Health, 81, p 335-43.

Ezzati-Rice, T.M.; Zell, E.R.; Battaglia, M.P.; Ching, P.L.Y.H.; and Wright, R.A. (1995), "The Design of the National Immunization Survey." Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association, p 668-72.

Fay, R.E.; Nelson, C.T.; and Litow, L. (1993), "Estimation of Median Income for 4-Person Families by State." In Statistical Policy Working Paper 21: Indirect Estimators in Federal Programs, Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget, p 9-1 to 9-17.

Jabine, T.B. King, K.E., and Petronoi. R.J. (1990), "Survey of Income and Program Participation: Quality Profile." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Kalton, G. and Mohadjer, L. (1994), "Planning and Developing a Protocol for the Medical Evaluation Study, Subtask 3 Report: Sample Design Options." Submitted to the Social Security Administration Office of Research and Statistics.

Malec, D. (1993), "Model-Based State Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey." In Statistical Policy Working Paper 21: Indirect Estimators in Federal Programs, Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget, p 8-1 to 8-25.

Marker, D.A. (1995) "Small Area Estimation: A Bayesian Perspective." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.

Marker, D.A. and Waksberg, J. (1994) "Small Area Estimation for the U.S. National Health Interview Survey." Statistics in Transition, 1:6, p 747-68.

Ruggles, P. (1990), Drawing the Line. The Urban Institute Press, Washington DC.

Schaible, W.L.; Fay, R.E.; Gonzalez, J.F.; Hazen, L; Iwig, W.C.; Long, J.F.; Malec, D.J.; and Tupek, A.R. (1993) Statistical Policy Working Paper 21: Indirect Estimators in Federal Programs, Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, Office of Management and Budget.

Sirken, M.G. and Marker, D.A. (1993), "Dual frame sample surveys based on NHIS and state RDD surveys." Proceedings of the 1993 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics.

Thornberry, O. and Massey, J. (1986), In Telephone Survey Methodology, Biemer et al. editors, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Tobin, J. (1994) "Poverty in Relation to Macroeconomic Trends, Cycles, and Policies," in S.H. Danziger, G.D. Sandefur, and D.H. Weinberg (eds.), Confronting Poverty: Prescriptions for Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 147-167.

VII. GLOSSARY

Bias -- The difference between the sample statistic and the population statistic caused by factors other than random error. If a sample statistic is biased, then repeating the survey many times would produce a distribution of sample statistics that would be centered around something other than the population value for the statistic. Thus, a biased sample statistic would have a tendency to be either too small or too large as an estimate of the population statistic. One common source of bias in all surveys occurs when the nonrespondents have different characteristics from the respondents.

Cluster -- A naturally occurring unit like a school (which has many classrooms, students, and teachers). Other clusters include universities, hospitals, cities, states, Census blocks, and living quarters. The clusters are randomly selected, and all members, or a random sample, of the selected cluster are included in the sample.

Coefficient of variation -- The standard error of an estimate divided by the mean.

Composite estimation -- Use of an estimator that is a weighted average of two other estimators. Frequently a composite is constructed from a direct sample-based estimator and a model-based estimator.

Confidence interval -- A range of values used to predict the location of the true population parameter. The probability of the true parameter values falling within the intervals is specified.

Design effect -- The sampling variance of the actual complex design used to select a sample divided by the sampling variance of a simple random sample of the same size. This measure reflects the effect on the precision of a survey estimate due to the difference between the sample design actually used to collect data and a simple random sample.

Effective sample size -- The actual sample size divided by the design effect that reflects the effect of the deviations from simple random sampling.

Estimator (biased, unbiased) -- A random variable used to estimate the value of a population parameter from sample data. Its value depends on the particular sample involved. If the expected value of the estimator over all possible samples is equal to the quantity it estimates, the estimator is unbiased. If it does not, it is biased.

Mean square error -- Measure of accuracy computed by squaring the individual errors (error is the difference between an actual value in a dataset and its expected value) and taking the mean of these squared values.

Multi-stage probability sample -- A sample drawn in successive stages. The population is first divided into primary groups (called primary sampling units or PSUs), some of which are selected (for example, with a probability proportional to their population size). Selected PSUs are then divided into clusters (e.g., of blocks), from which a sample (e.g., of households) is drawn.

Nonsampling error -- The discrepancy between a sample statistic and the true population parameter that results from factors other than the sampling process. Common sources of nonsampling errors include noncoverage of certain subpopulations, questionnaire wording, and recall errors.

Panel survey -- A survey that follows a given sample of individuals over time, thus providing multiple observations on each individual in the sample.

Precision -- The precision is the inverse of the amount of random error in an estimate. It indicates how close an estimate is likely to be to the true population value (see standard error).

Primary sampling unit (PSU) -- Groups selected as the first stage of a multi-stage sample. For example, for the CPS sample, the United States is divided into approximately 1,900 geographic areas, or PSUs, of which 729 are selected for the sample.

Ratio adjustment -- Potentially biased indirect state-level estimates can be ratio adjusted to regional totals so that the sum across states matches regional estimates. This eliminates bias at the regional level and attempts to remove bias from the state-level indirect estimator.

Sampling error -- The discrepancy between a sample statistic and the true population parameter that results from the sampling process. Sampling error can have a random component (sampling variance) and fixed component (bias).

Sampling variance -- Random error (discrepancy between a sample statistic and the true population parameter) that arises because a random process is used to select the survey sample. If the sampling process is repeated several times, a different group of respondents would be selected each time and the sample distributions of answers to the survey questions would be somewhat different in each sample.

Standard deviation -- Common measure of dispersion or spread of data about the mean.

Standard error -- The most commonly used measure of the precision of an estimate. A gauge of how close an estimate is likely to be to the population value in the absence of any bias.

Strata, State stratification -- Stratification is a sampling method whereby the population is divided into subgroups (or "strata"), based on characteristics believed to be correlated with the survey variables of greatest interest, and a sample is then selected from each subgroup. Stratification produces survey estimates of a desired precision within the chosen subgroups, which cannot be assured with an unstratified design. State stratified samples will allow for unbiased state-level estimates and estimates of precision.

Synthetic estimates -- A class of model-dependent estimates generally formed by dividing the population into subgroups (e.g., by age/race/sex) and assuming that national estimates for each subgroup can be applied to the local populations.

NOTES

  1. AFDC has now been replaced by Transitional Assistance for Needy Families. This report refers to AFDC since all existing data from these three surveys reports on this program.

  2. National design effects are also higher than state-level design effects for the NHIS.

  3. The nine states for which the SIPP does not provide individual identifiers are: Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

  4. Nobel laureate James Tobin has applied this methodology in an analysis of the relationship between business cycles and adult poverty rates (Tobin, 1994).

APPENDIX A: CPS Tables

TABLE A-1. States Meeting Preceision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
March 1996 CPS
  Total Population
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   65 303 101 125  
Alabama X X X X 4
Alaska X X X X 4
Arizona X X X X 4
Arkansas X X X X 4
California X X X X 4
Colorado X X X X 4
Connecticut X X X X 4
Delaware X X X X 4
District of Columbia X X X X 4
Florida X X X X 4
Georgia X X X X 4
Hawaii X X X X 4
Idaho X X X X 4
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana X X X X 4
Iowa X X X X 4
Kansas X X X X 4
Kentucky X X X X 4
Louisiana X X X X 4
Maine X X X X 4
Maryland X X X X 4
Massachusetts X X X X 4
Michigan X X X X 4
Minnesota X X X X 4
Mississippi X X X X 4
Missouri X X X X 4
Montana X X X X 4
Nebraska X X X X 4
Nevada X X X X 4
New Hampshire X X X X 4
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico X X X X 4
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina X X X X 4
North Dakota X X X X 4
Ohio X X X X 4
Oklahoma X X X X 4
Oregon X X X X 4
Pennsylvania X X X X 4
Rhode Island X X X X 4
South Carolina X X X X 4
South Dakota X X X X 4
Tennessee X X X X 4
Texas X X X X 4
Utah X X X X 4
Vermont X X X X 4
Virginia X X X X 4
Washington X X X X 4
West Virginia X X X X 4
Wisconsin X X X X 4
Wyoming X X X X 4
 
United States 51 51 51 51  
TABLE A-1. States Meeting Preceision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
March 1996 CPS
  Under Age 18
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=3)
Criteria for Cell Count   91 113 103  
Alabama X X X 3
Alaska X X X 3
Arizona X X X 3
Arkansas X X X 3
California X X X 3
Colorado X X X 3
Connecticut X X X 3
Delaware X X X 3
District of Columbia   X X X 3
Florida X X X 3
Georgia X X X 3
Hawaii X X X 3
Idaho X X X 3
Illinois X X X 3
Indiana X X X 3
Iowa X X X 3
Kansas X X X 3
Kentucky X X X 3
Louisiana X X X 3
Maine X X X 3
Maryland X X X 3
Massachusetts X X X 3
Michigan X X X 3
Minnesota X X X 3
Mississippi X X X 3
Missouri X X X 3
Montana X X X 3
Nebraska X X X 3
Nevada X X X 3
New Hampshire X X X 3
New Jersey X X X 3
New Mexico X X X 3
New York X X X 3
North Carolina X X X 3
North Dakota X X X 3
Ohio X X X 3
Oklahoma X X X 3
Oregon X X X 3
Pennsylvania X X X 3
Rhode Island X X X 3
South Carolina X X X 3
South Dakota X X X 3
Tennessee X X X 3
Texas X X X 3
Utah X X X 3
Vermont X X X 3
Virginia X X X 3
Washington X X X 3
West Virginia X X X 3
Wisconsin X X X 3
Wyoming X X X 3
 
United States 51 51 51  
TABLE A-1. States Meeting Preceision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
March 1996 CPS
  Age 65 and Over
  Poverty     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=3)
Criteria for Cell Count   48 96 77  
Alabama X X X 3
Alaska X     1
Arizona X X X 3
Arkansas X X X 3
California X X X 3
Colorado X X X 3
Connecticut X X X 3
Delaware X X X 3
District of Columbia X X X 3
Florida X X X 3
Georgia X X X 3
Hawaii X X X 3
Idaho X X X 3
Illinois X X X 3
Indiana X X X 3
Iowa X X X 3
Kansas X X X 3
Kentucky X X X 3
Louisiana X X X 3
Maine X X X 3
Maryland X X X 3
Massachusetts X X X 3
Michigan X X X 3
Minnesota X X X 3
Mississippi X X X 3
Missouri X X X 3
Montana X X X 3
Nebraska X X X 3
Nevada X X X 3
New Hampshire X X X 3
New Jersey X X X 3
New Mexico X X X 3
New York X X X 3
North Carolina X X X 3
North Dakota X X X 3
Ohio X X X 3
Oklahoma X X X 3
Oregon X X X 3
Pennsylvania X X X 3
Rhode Island X X X 3
South Carolina X X X 3
South Dakota X X X 3
Tennessee X X X 3
Texas X X X 3
Utah X X X 3
Vermont X X X 3
Virginia X X X 3
Washington X X X 3
West Virginia X X X 3
Wisconsin X X X 3
Wyoming X X X 3
 
United States 51 50 50  
TABLE A-1. States Meeting Preceision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
March 1996 CPS
  Black
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   109 92 105 97  
Alabama X X X X 4
Alaska         -
Arizona         -
Arkansas X X X X 4
California X X X X 4
Colorado         -
Connecticut   X   X 2
Delaware X X X X 4
District of Columbia   X X X X 4
Florida X X X X 4
Georgia X X X X 4
Hawaii         -
Idaho         -
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana         -
Iowa         -
Kansas   X   X 2
Kentucky   X X X 3
Louisiana X X X X 4
Maine         -4
Maryland X X X X 4
Massachusetts X X X X 4
Michigan X X X X 4
Minnesota         -
Mississippi X X X X 4
Missouri X X X X 4
Montana         -
Nebraska         -
Nevada         -
New Hampshire         -
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico         -
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina X X X X 4
North Dakota         -
Ohio X X X X 4
Oklahoma X X X X 4
Oregon         -
Pennsylvania X X X X 4
Rhode Island         -
South Carolina X X X X 4
South Dakota         -
Tennessee X X X X 4
Texas X X X X 4
Utah         -
Vermont         -
Virginia X X X X 4
Washington         -
West Virginia         -
Wisconsin   X     1
Wyoming         -
 
United States 24 28 25 27  
TABLE A-1. States Meeting Preceision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
March 1996 CPS
  Hispanic
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   111 133 101 188  
Alabama         -
Alaska         -
Arizona X X X X 4
Arkansas         -
California X X X X 4
Colorado X X X X 4
Connecticut X X X   3
Delaware         -
District of Columbia           -
Florida X X X X 4
Georgia         -
Hawaii         -
Idaho X X X X 4
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana         -
Iowa         -
Kansas         -
Kentucky         -
Louisiana         -
Maine         -
Maryland         -
Massachusetts X X X X 4
Michigan X   X   2
Minnesota         -
Mississippi         -
Missouri         -
Montana         -
Nebraska         -
Nevada X X X X 4
New Hampshire         -
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico X X X X 4
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina         -
North Dakota         -
Ohio     X   1
Oklahoma         -
Oregon X X X   3
Pennsylvania X X X X 4
Rhode Island X   X   2
South Carolina         -
South Dakota         -
Tennessee         -
Texas X X X X 4
Utah X X X X 4
Vermont         -
Virginia         -
Washington         -
West Virginia         -
Wisconsin         -
Wyoming X   X   2
 
United States 19 16 20 14  
TABLE A-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Race
  Family Income Less than 100% of the Poverty Level
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 41% 25% 11% 21%
Alaska 21% 8% 7% 8%
Arizona 49% 31% 12% 18%
Arkansas 38% 32% 12% 17%
California 30% 34% 11% 19%
Colorado 28% 25% 7% 10%
Connecticut 32% 48% 4% 11%
Delaware 16% 28% 10% 11%
District of Columbia   31% 21% 9% 25%
Florida 36% 29% 11% 18%
Georgia 23% 20% 9% 14%
Hawaii 6% 17% 14% 13%
Idaho 0% 43% 13% 15%
Illinois 41% 19% 8% 14%
Indiana 23% 17% 10% 11%
Iowa 28% 11% 12% 13%
Kansas 21% 26% 11% 12%
Kentucky 44% 8% 14% 16%
Louisiana 41% 28% 13% 22%
Maine 0% 31% 12% 12%
Maryland 24% 26% 6% 12%
Massachusetts 31% 49% 8% 11%
Michigan 34% 32% 9% 13%
Minnesota 33% 39% 8% 10%
Mississippi 43% 50% 14% 26%
Missouri 26% 16% 10% 12%
Montana 32% 30% 16% 16%
Nebraska 31% 28% 10% 11%
Nevada 31% 29% 8% 13%
New Hampshire 0% 18% 6% 6%
New Jersey 18% 27% 6% 9%
New Mexico 37% 35% 22% 27%
New York 35% 41% 9% 18%
North Carolina 31% 39% 9% 14%
North Dakota 0% 21% 13% 13%
Ohio 33% 25% 10% 13%
Oklahoma 44% 24% 15% 18%
Oregon 14% 32% 11% 13%
Pennsylvania 39% 36% 10% 13%
Rhode Island 21% 35% 10% 12%
South Carolina 41% 50% 11% 21%
South Dakota 42% 7% 15% 15%
Tennessee 29% 25% 15% 18%
Texas 24% 36% 10% 19%
Utah 22% 42% 7% 10%
Vermont 0% 51% 11% 11%
Virginia 14% 16% 11% 12%
Washington 19% 33% 13% 14%
West Virginia 55% 0% 18% 18%
Wisconsin 49% 48% 8% 11%
Wyoming 6% 43% 11% 13%
 
United States 32% 33% 10% 15%
TABLE A-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Race
  Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 3% 0% 0% 1%
Alaska 4% 0% 1% 1%
Arizona 9% 1% 1% 1%
Arkansas 3% 0% 0% 1%
California 5% 3% 1% 2%
Colorado 5% 3% 0% 1%
Connecticut 4% 13% 0% 2%
Delaware 1% 3% 1% 1%
District of Columbia   5% 1% 0% 4%
Florida 4% 2% 1% 1%
Georgia 3% 0% 1% 1%
Hawaii 2% 0% 1% 1%
Idaho 0% 2% 1% 1%
Illinois 6% 1% 1% 2%
Indiana 4% 0% 1% 1%
Iowa 10% 0% 1% 1%
Kansas 2% 2% 1% 1%
Kentucky 5% 0% 1% 2%
Louisiana 3% 0% 0% 1%
Maine 0% 19% 1% 1%
Maryland 3% 0% 0% 1%
Massachusetts 3% 9% 1% 1%
Michigan 6% 4% 1% 2%
Minnesota 5% 4% 1% 1%
Mississippi 6% 0% 1% 3%
Missouri 3% 0% 1% 1%
Montana 0% 3% 2% 2%
Nebraska 8% 5% 1% 1%
Nevada 2% 1% 0% 1%
New Hampshire 0% 5% 1% 1%
New Jersey 2% 3% 0% 1%
New Mexico 9% 3% 1% 2%
New York 5% 6% 1% 2%
North Carolina 3% 1% 1% 1%
North Dakota 0% 0% 1% 1%
Ohio 5% 3% 1% 1%
Oklahoma 6% 1% 1% 1%
Oregon 4% 3% 2% 2%
Pennsylvania 4% 2% 0% 1%
Rhode Island 2% 4% 1% 1%
South Carolina 4% 0% 1% 2%
South Dakota 0% 0% 1% 1%
Tennessee 3% 4% 1% 1%
Texas 4% 2% 0% 1%
Utah 0% 1% 0% 0%
Vermont 0% 0% 1% 1%
Virginia 1% 0% 1% 1%
Washington 2% 1% 2% 2%
West Virginia 4% 0% 2% 2%
Wisconsin 6% 6% 1% 1%
Wyoming 0% 3% 1% 2%
 
United States 4% 3% 1% 1%
TABLE A-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Race
  All Persons Receiving AFDC
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 9% 0% 1% 4%
Alaska 11% 0% 4% 4%
Arizona 35% 4% 2% 3%
Arkansas 10% 0% 1% 2%
California 16% 10% 4% 6%
Colorado 13% 10% 1% 2%
Connecticut 17% 37% 1% 6%
Delaware 3% 18% 2% 3%
District of Columbia   15% 2% 0% 11%
Florida 12% 6% 2% 4%
Georgia 10% 0% 1% 4%
Hawaii 12% 0% 3% 3%
Idaho 0% 12% 3% 3%
Illinois 22% 6% 2% 6%
Indiana 8% 0% 3% 3%
Iowa 36% 0% 2% 3%
Kansas 5% 7% 3% 3%
Kentucky 17% 8% 3% 4%
Louisiana 12% 3% 1% 4%
Maine 0% 19% 2% 2%
Maryland 9% 0% 1% 3%
Massachusetts 11% 28% 2% 4%
Michigan 19% 17% 3% 5%
Minnesota 28% 16% 2% 3%
Mississippi 16% 0% 2% 7%
Missouri 8% 0% 1% 2%
Montana 0% 12% 4% 5%
Nebraska 24% 13% 2% 3%
Nevada 9% 2% 1% 2%
New Hampshire 0% 14% 2% 2%
New Jersey 5% 9% 1% 2%
New Mexico 23% 9% 4% 6%
New York 12% 18% 1% 5%
North Carolina 10% 4% 1% 3%
North Dakota 0% 0% 1% 1%
Ohio 17% 8% 3% 5%
Oklahoma 22% 8% 2% 4%
Oregon 14% 9% 5% 5%
Pennsylvania 12% 9% 1% 3%
Rhode Island 7% 13% 2% 3%
South Carolina 12% 0% 1% 5%
South Dakota 1% 0% 3% 3%
Tennessee 9% 4% 2% 4%
Texas 11% 6% 1% 4%
Utah 0% 6% 1% 1%
Vermont 0% 51% 4% 4%
Virginia 5% 0% 2% 2%
Washington 13% 6% 5% 5%
West Virginia 12% 0% 5% 5%
Wisconsin 27% 17% 2% 3%
Wyoming 0% 7% 3% 3%
 
United States 13% 9% 2% 4%
TABLE A-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Race
  Employer Provided Health Insurance
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 43% 64% 60% 59%
Alaska 58% 50% 62% 62%
Arizona 44% 42% 59% 54%
Arkansas 40% 52% 59% 55%
California 43% 37% 61% 53%
Colorado 50% 54% 69% 66%
Connecticut 56% 35% 76% 70%
Delaware 60% 53% 70% 67%
District of Columbia   48% 45% 73% 54%
Florida 41% 40% 57% 52%
Georgia 44% 44% 68% 60%
Hawaii 31% 45% 63% 62%
Idaho 31% 40% 62% 60%
Illinois 46% 62% 71% 66%
Indiana 52% 54% 69% 68%
Iowa 41% 53% 62% 61%
Kansas 48% 52% 60% 59%
Kentucky 42% 85% 61% 60%
Louisiana 29% 35% 57% 48%
Maine 73% 59% 64% 64%
Maryland 54% 52% 71% 66%
Massachusetts 53% 30% 70% 67%
Michigan 48% 47% 74% 71%
Minnesota 28% 51% 67% 66%
Mississippi 40% 59% 61% 53%
Missouri 53% 38% 65% 63%
Montana 17% 43% 53% 52%
Nebraska 45% 49% 63% 62%
Nevada 46% 43% 68% 63%
New Hampshire 28% 68% 71% 71%
New Jersey 60% 47% 70% 66%
New Mexico 47% 37% 48% 44%
New York 44% 35% 68% 60%
North Carolina 43% 23% 65% 60%
North Dakota 100% 31% 56% 56%
Ohio 49% 63% 69% 67%
Oklahoma 26% 44% 55% 52%
Oregon 72% 45% 64% 63%
Pennsylvania 43% 43% 69% 66%
Rhode Island 49% 22% 65% 62%
South Carolina 48% 15% 63% 58%
South Dakota 45% 65% 59% 59%
Tennessee 46% 32% 60% 57%
Texas 48% 36% 64% 54%
Utah 78% 41% 72% 70%
Vermont 100% 29% 64% 64%
Virginia 55% 52% 64% 62%
Washington 56% 22% 64% 62%
West Virginia 25% 49% 59% 59%
Wisconsin 36% 40% 75% 72%
Wyoming 31% 26% 59% 57%
 
United States 45% 39% 66% 60%
TABLE A-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Race
  Work Disability
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 15% 0% 10% 11%
Alaska 3% 9% 4% 4%
Arizona 7% 4% 9% 7%
Arkansas 13% 0% 13% 13%
California 12% 4% 8% 7%
Colorado 7% 5% 7% 7%
Connecticut 7% 7% 5% 5%
Delaware 7% 4% 7% 7%
District of Columbia   11% 5% 6% 10%
Florida 9% 8% 9% 9%
Georgia 11% 1% 9% 10%
Hawaii 5% 10% 4% 4%
Idaho 0% 4% 10% 10%
Illinois 7% 5% 7% 7%
Indiana 12% 13% 8% 8%
Iowa 2% 8% 7% 7%
Kansas 5% 8% 9% 9%
Kentucky 11% 4% 15% 14%
Louisiana 13% 8% 9% 10%
Maine 27% 12% 8% 9%
Maryland 10% 3% 6% 7%
Massachusetts 9% 11% 8% 8%
Michigan 13% 9% 8% 9%
Minnesota 5% 5% 6% 6%
Mississippi 10% 5% 10% 10%
Missouri 14% 6% 6% 7%
Montana 0% 7% 10% 10%
Nebraska 13% 9% 7% 7%
Nevada 14% 3% 9% 8%
New Hampshire 28% 14% 9% 9%
New Jersey 8% 6% 6% 6%
New Mexico 6% 9% 9% 9%
New York 9% 7% 8% 8%
North Carolina 11% 3% 10% 10%
North Dakota 0% 0% 6% 6%
Ohio 13% 10% 8% 9%
Oklahoma 8% 8% 9% 8%
Oregon 10% 5% 9% 9%
Pennsylvania 13% 10% 9% 9%
Rhode Island 2% 12% 10% 10%
South Carolina 8% 0% 8% 8%
South Dakota 14% 7% 8% 8%
Tennessee 12% 15% 10% 10%
Texas 9% 6% 8% 8%
Utah 0% 3% 6% 6%
Vermont 0% 14% 7% 7%
Virginia 10% 2% 10% 9%
Washington 8% 3% 9% 9%
West Virginia 14% 8% 14% 14%
Wisconsin 8% 5% 6% 6%
Wyoming 6% 9% 8% 8%
 
United States 10% 6% 8% 8%
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Total
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 507 23 1,190 1,720
Alaska 64 48 1,405 1,517
Arizona 64 747 1,325 2,136
Arkansas 254 23 1,483 1,760
California 677 5,601 6,626 12,904
Colorado 55 311 1,418 1,784
Connecticut 102 187 1,016 1,305
Delaware 208 61 982 1,251
District of Columbia   761 80 320 1,161
Florida 772 1,599 4,169 6,540
Georgia 593 63 1,432 2,088
Hawaii 44 52 1,286 1,382
Idaho 12 207 1,623 1,842
Illinois 785 767 3,806 5,358
Indiana 91 46 1,461 1,598
Iowa 41 40 1,577 1,658
Kansas 99 89 1,447 1,635
Kentucky 108 20 1,465 1,593
Louisiana 458 45 1,152 1,655
Maine 3 7 1,278 1,288
Maryland 369 68 1,049 1,486
Massachusetts 168 215 2,498 2,881
Michigan 542 126 3,663 4,331
Minnesota 41 60 1,678 1,779
Mississippi 621 19 977 1,617
Missouri 128 40 1,316 1,484
Montana 6 41 1,660 1,707
Nebraska 51 89 1,537 1,677
Nevada 78 291 1,110 1,479
New Hampshire 7 20 1,202 1,229
New Jersey 363 677 2,965 4,005
New Mexico 24 1,206 1,137 2,367
New York 1,128 1,907 5,781 8,816
North Carolina 575 85 2,256 2,916
North Dakota 2 22 1,535 1,559
Ohio 530 104 4,040 4,674
Oklahoma 142 75 1,614 1,831
Oregon 16 138 1,455 1,609
Pennsylvania 526 214 4,673 5,413
Rhode Island 43 130 1,156 1,329
South Carolina 445 16 911 1,372
South Dakota 14 13 1,748 1,775
Tennessee 273 23 1,306 1,602
Texas 553 3,209 3,721 7,483
Utah 11 188 1,718 1,917
Vermont 3 10 1,261 1,274
Virginia 355 80 1,375 1,810
Washington 46 85 1,467 1,598
West Virginia 27 14 1,683 1,724
Wisconsin 92 49 1,769 1,910
Wyoming 16 131 1,500 1,647
 
United States 12,893 19,361 98,222 130,476
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Family Income Less than 100% of the Poverty Level
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 212 5 126 343
Alaska 13 4 95 112
Arizona 31 227 159 417
Arkansas 94 6 178 278
California 202 1,954 712 2,868
Colorado 16 68 91 175
Connecticut 30 85 46 161
Delaware 35 14 96 145
District of Columbia   239 16 28 283
Florida 276 444 479 1,199
Georgia 143 11 128 282
Hawaii 3 9 172 184
Idaho - 90 214 304
Illinois 328 152 289 769
Indiana 21 8 143 172
Iowa 12 4 192 208
Kansas 20 26 160 206
Kentucky 48 1 206 255
Louisiana 201 13 144 358
Maine - 2 153 155
Maryland 91 17 62 170
Massachusetts 52 109 199 360
Michigan 183 36 338 557
Minnesota 11 24 139 174
Mississippi 271 10 138 419
Missouri 32 5 133 170
Montana 2 12 254 268
Nebraska 16 23 157 196
Nevada 25 76 94 195
New Hampshire - 4 75 79
New Jersey 65 171 164 400
New Mexico 9 406 235 650
New York 401 769 560 1,730
North Carolina 186 31 198 415
North Dakota - 3 192 195
Ohio 174 33 383 590
Oklahoma 63 17 241 321
Oregon 3 46 162 211
Pennsylvania 207 82 418 707
Rhode Island 8 45 116 169
South Carolina 182 7 97 286
South Dakota 6 1 316 323
Tennessee 81 5 179 265
Texas 132 1,144 360 1,636
Utah 2 63 119 184
Vermont - 3 134 137
Virginia 52 16 148 216
Washington 9 25 198 232
West Virginia 14 - 298 312
Wisconsin 43 20 141 204
Wyoming 1 51 167 219
 
United States 4,245 6,393 10,226 20,864
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 15 - 5 20
Alaska 2 - 19 21
Arizona 5 8 8 21
Arkansas 7 - 6 13
California 30 180 93 303
Colorado 3 10 4 17
Connecticut 4 23 3 30
Delaware 2 1 6 9
District of Columbia   40 1 1 42
Florida 28 23 30 81
Georgia 16 - 7 23
Hawaii 1 - 15 16
Idaho - 5 18 23
Illinois 48 12 29 89
Indiana 4 - 13 17
Iowa 4 - 14 18
Kansas 2 2 16 20
Kentucky 5 - 17 22
Louisiana 17 - 2 19
Maine - 1 11 12
Maryland 11 - 4 15
Massachusetts 5 20 21 46
Michigan 36 5 34 75
Minnesota 2 3 15 20
Mississippi 35 - 6 41
Missouri 3 - 7 10
Montana - 1 26 27
Nebraska 4 5 9 18
Nevada 2 2 4 8
New Hampshire - 1 11 12
New Jersey 7 20 14 41
New Mexico 2 32 12 46
New York 50 114 30 194
North Carolina 18 1 11 30
North Dakota - - 9 9
Ohio 25 4 42 71
Oklahoma 8 1 12 21
Oregon 1 5 22 28
Pennsylvania 21 6 22 49
Rhode Island 1 6 8 15
South Carolina 17 - 5 22
South Dakota - - 21 21
Tennessee 7 1 11 19
Texas 23 58 13 94
Utah - 2 5 7
Vermont - - 16 16
Virginia 5 - 8 13
Washington 1 1 31 33
West Virginia 1 - 28 29
Wisconsin 6 3 12 21
Wyoming - 2 20 22
 
United States 524 559 806 1,889
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  All Persons Receiving AFDC
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 47 - 11 58
Alaska 7 - 57 64
Arizona 22 28 22 72
Arkansas 24 - 14 38
California 98 580 247 925
Colorado 8 33 10 51
Connecticut 15 67 8 90
Delaware 7 7 19 33
District of Columbia   116 2 1 119
Florida 94 80 77 251
Georgia 59 - 16 75
Hawaii 6 - 37 43
Idaho - 21 44 65
Illinois 173 46 82 301
Indiana 8 - 39 47
Iowa 16 - 35 51
Kansas 5 6 45 56
Kentucky 18 1 40 59
Louisiana 59 1 7 67
Maine - 1 21 22
Maryland 35 - 9 44
Massachusetts 20 59 55 134
Michigan 108 16 105 229
Minnesota 11 10 35 56
Mississippi 103 - 15 118
Missouri 11 - 19 30
Montana - 5 67 72
Nebraska 13 11 27 51
Nevada 7 5 10 22
New Hampshire - 3 28 31
New Jersey 19 66 34 119
New Mexico 5 101 42 148
New York 133 345 79 557
North Carolina 57 4 22 83
North Dakota - - 22 22
Ohio 87 11 133 231
Oklahoma 30 6 31 67
Oregon 3 13 68 84
Pennsylvania 67 20 62 149
Rhode Island 3 17 21 41
South Carolina 52 - 13 65
South Dakota 1 - 67 68
Tennessee 23 1 30 54
Texas 62 190 34 286
Utah - 7 17 24
Vermont - 3 47 50
Virginia 16 - 21 37
Washington 6 6 73 85
West Virginia 3 - 86 89
Wisconsin 24 8 30 62
Wyoming - 5 47 52
 
United States 1,681 1,785 2,181 5,647
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Employer Provided Health Insurance
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 223 15 785 1,023
Alaska 38 24 884 946
Arizona 29 327 779 1,135
Arkansas 98 15 869 982
California 305 2,084 4,004 6,393
Colorado 27 171 980 1,178
Connecticut 56 67 775 898
Delaware 129 34 683 846
District of Columbia   376 36 232 644
Florida 318 672 2,384 3,374
Georgia 269 27 979 1,275
Hawaii 13 24 822 859
Idaho 4 81 1,008 1,093
Illinois 371 477 2,767 3,615
Indiana 48 26 1,009 1,083
Iowa 16 24 974 1,014
Kansas 48 45 873 966
Kentucky 48 17 898 963
Louisiana 135 17 663 815
Maine 2 4 815 821
Maryland 200 34 745 979
Massachusetts 88 66 1,745 1,899
Michigan 264 66 2,779 3,109
Minnesota 12 30 1,127 1,169
Mississippi 244 11 596 851
Missouri 67 17 848 932
Montana 1 20 878 899
Nebraska 23 42 955 1,020
Nevada 35 141 757 933
New Hampshire 2 14 855 871
New Jersey 220 339 2,069 2,628
New Mexico 11 473 570 1,054
New York 516 688 3,943 5,147
North Carolina 260 24 1,479 1,763
North Dakota 2 7 868 877
Ohio 271 65 2,813 3,149
Oklahoma 42 34 892 968
Oregon 11 61 941 1,013
Pennsylvania 232 94 3,290 3,616
Rhode Island 22 32 749 803
South Carolina 214 3 578 795
South Dakota 6 9 978 993
Tennessee 132 8 789 929
Texas 264 1,188 2,396 3,848
Utah 9 94 1,255 1,358
Vermont 3 4 807 814
Virginia 195 38 888 1,121
Washington 26 21 942 989
West Virginia 8 7 1,001 1,016
Wisconsin 34 22 1,324 1,380
Wyoming 5 39 892 936
 
United States 5,972 7,878 63,932 77,782
TABLE A-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Work Disability
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 78 - 121 199
Alaska 2 4 56 62
Arizona 4 26 111 141
Arkansas 33 - 203 236
California 74 216 516 806
Colorado 4 17 100 121
Connecticut 7 12 49 68
Delaware 15 3 70 88
District of Columbia   87 3 22 112
Florida 69 121 369 559
Georgia 59 1 134 194
Hawaii 3 6 51 60
Idaho - 8 167 175
Illinois 59 35 272 366
Indiana 14 5 113 132
Iowa 1 2 114 117
Kansas 5 7 134 146
Kentucky 12 1 212 225
Louisiana 59 3 103 165
Maine 1 1 109 111
Maryland 36 2 61 99
Massachusetts 15 23 187 225
Michigan 74 12 292 378
Minnesota 2 2 110 114
Mississippi 60 1 103 164
Missouri 18 2 87 107
Montana - 3 170 173
Nebraska 6 8 107 121
Nevada 11 8 97 116
New Hampshire 2 3 110 115
New Jersey 31 36 188 255
New Mexico 2 120 102 224
New York 100 130 445 675
North Carolina 59 3 220 282
North Dakota - - 86 86
Ohio 73 10 307 390
Oklahoma 11 6 139 156
Oregon 2 8 134 144
Pennsylvania 68 22 405 495
Rhode Island 1 15 120 136
South Carolina 35 - 77 112
South Dakota 2 1 151 154
Tennessee 33 4 135 172
Texas 54 209 304 567
Utah - 7 111 118
Vermont - 2 88 90
Virginia 36 2 130 168
Washington 3 3 137 143
West Virginia 5 1 224 230
Wisconsin 6 3 116 125
Wyoming 1 11 117 129
 
United States 1,332 1,128 8,086 10,546
TABLE A-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  Family Income Less than 100% of the Poverty Level
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 29% 18% 15% 21%
Alaska 10% 7% 3% 8%
Arizona 29% 15% 9% 18%
Arkansas 26% 12% 18% 17%
California 29% 16% 10% 19%
Colorado 13% 8% 5% 10%
Connecticut 20% 7% 7% 11%
Delaware 18% 8% 15% 11%
District of Columbia   44% 20% 18% 25%
Florida 30% 15% 12% 18%
Georgia 19% 11% 17% 14%
Hawaii 20% 10% 14% 13%
Idaho 22% 14% 7% 15%
Illinois 26% 10% 8% 14%
Indiana 17% 9% 6% 11%
Iowa 19% 11% 7% 13%
Kansas 16% 11% 10% 12%
Kentucky 25% 14% 11% 16%
Louisiana 35% 18% 14% 22%
Maine 16% 10% 13% 12%
Maryland 19% 9% 10% 12%
Massachusetts 18% 10% 8% 11%
Michigan 20% 10% 9% 13%
Minnesota 12% 8% 11% 10%
Mississippi 41% 21% 14% 26%
Missouri 18% 11% 4% 12%
Montana 25% 14% 11% 16%
Nebraska 15% 9% 11% 11%
Nevada 18% 12% 6% 13%
New Hampshire 6% 5% 11% 6%
New Jersey 13% 8% 10% 9%
New Mexico 40% 22% 15% 27%
New York 28% 14% 12% 18%
North Carolina 25% 11% 12% 14%
North Dakota 16% 11% 11% 13%
Ohio 22% 9% 8% 13%
Oklahoma 26% 15% 15% 18%
Oregon 21% 10% 5% 13%
Pennsylvania 20% 11% 11% 13%
Rhode Island 17% 10% 10% 12%
South Carolina 34% 15% 22% 21%
South Dakota 22% 12% 13% 15%
Tennessee 28% 13% 15% 18%
Texas 28% 16% 16% 19%
Utah 12% 9% 6% 10%
Vermont 18% 8% 11% 11%
Virginia 18% 9% 11% 12%
Washington 21% 13% 6% 14%
West Virginia 31% 16% 10% 18%
Wisconsin 18% 8% 8% 11%
Wyoming 17% 11% 12% 13%
 
United States 24% 12% 11% 15%
TABLE A-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 0% 2% 0% 1%
Alaska 1% 2% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 2% 0% 1%
Arkansas 0% 1% 0% 1%
California 0% 3% 0% 2%
Colorado 0% 1% 0% 1%
Connecticut 0% 3% 0% 2%
Delaware 0% 1% 0% 1%
District of Columbia   0% 6% 1% 4%
Florida 0% 2% 0% 1%
Georgia 0% 2% 0% 1%
Hawaii 0% 2% 0% 1%
Idaho 0% 2% 0% 1%
Illinois 0% 3% 0% 2%
Indiana 0% 2% 0% 1%
Iowa 0% 2% 1% 1%
Kansas 0% 2% 0% 1%
Kentucky 0% 2% 0% 2%
Louisiana 0% 2% 0% 1%
Maine 0% 1% 0% 1%
Maryland 0% 2% 0% 1%
Massachusetts 0% 2% 0% 1%
Michigan 0% 3% 0% 2%
Minnesota 0% 2% 0% 1%
Mississippi 0% 4% 0% 3%
Missouri 0% 1% 0% 1%
Montana 0% 3% 0% 2%
Nebraska 0% 2% 0% 1%
Nevada 0% 1% 0% 1%
New Hampshire 0% 2% 0% 1%
New Jersey 0% 1% 0% 1%
New Mexico 0% 3% 0% 2%
New York 0% 3% 0% 2%
North Carolina 0% 2% 0% 1%
North Dakota 0% 1% 0% 1%
Ohio 0% 2% 0% 1%
Oklahoma 0% 2% 0% 1%
Oregon 0% 3% 0% 2%
Pennsylvania 0% 1% 0% 1%
Rhode Island 0% 2% 0% 1%
South Carolina 0% 3% 0% 2%
South Dakota 0% 2% 0% 1%
Tennessee 0% 2% 0% 1%
Texas 0% 2% 0% 1%
Utah 0% 1% 0% 0%
Vermont 0% 2% 0% 1%
Virginia 0% 1% 0% 1%
Washington 0% 3% 0% 2%
West Virginia 0% 3% 1% 2%
Wisconsin 0% 2% 0% 1%
Wyoming 0% 2% 0% 2%
 
United States 0% 2% 0% 1%
TABLE A-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  All Persons Receiving AFDC
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 9% 2% 0% 4%
Alaska 9% 2% 0% 4%
Arizona 8% 2% 0% 3%
Arkansas 6% 1% 0% 2%
California 15% 3% 0% 6%
Colorado 6% 1% 0% 2%
Connecticut 14% 3% 0% 6%
Delaware 7% 1% 0% 3%
District of Columbia   30% 6% 1% 11%
Florida 12% 2% 0% 4%
Georgia 10% 2% 0% 4%
Hawaii 8% 2% 0% 3%
Idaho 7% 2% 0% 3%
Illinois 16% 3% 0% 6%
Indiana 7% 2% 0% 3%
Iowa 7% 2% 1% 3%
Kansas 8% 2% 0% 3%
Kentucky 8% 2% 0% 4%
Louisiana 12% 2% 0% 4%
Maine 4% 1% 0% 2%
Maryland 8% 2% 0% 3%
Massachusetts 11% 2% 0% 4%
Michigan 12% 3% 0% 5%
Minnesota 7% 2% 0% 3%
Mississippi 16% 4% 0% 7%
Missouri 6% 1% 0% 2%
Montana 11% 3% 0% 5%
Nebraska 6% 2% 0% 3%
Nevada 4% 1% 0% 2%
New Hampshire 6% 2% 0% 2%
New Jersey 6% 1% 0% 2%
New Mexico 13% 3% 0% 6%
New York 13% 3% 0% 5%
North Carolina 8% 2% 0% 3%
North Dakota 3% 1% 0% 1%
Ohio 13% 2% 0% 5%
Oklahoma 10% 2% 0% 4%
Oregon 13% 3% 0% 5%
Pennsylvania 7% 1% 0% 3%
Rhode Island 7% 2% 0% 3%
South Carolina 12% 3% 0% 5%
South Dakota 7% 2% 0% 3%
Tennessee 9% 2% 0% 4%
Texas 8% 2% 0% 4%
Utah 3% 1% 0% 1%
Vermont 9% 2% 0% 4%
Virginia 6% 1% 0% 2%
Washington 12% 3% 0% 5%
West Virginia 15% 3% 1% 5%
Wisconsin 8% 2% 0% 3%
Wyoming 7% 2% 0% 2%
 
United States 11% 2% 0% 4%
TABLE A-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  Employer Provided Health Insurance
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 61% 64% 35% 59%
Alaska 59% 64% 42% 62%
Arizona 49% 60% 33% 54%
Arkansas 54% 63% 24% 55%
California 50% 58% 30% 53%
Colorado 70% 68% 42% 66%
Connecticut 70% 77% 45% 70%
Delaware 64% 73% 44% 67%
District of Columbia   35% 62% 48% 54%
Florida 49% 59% 31% 52%
Georgia 62% 64% 32% 60%
Hawaii 59% 68% 36% 62%
Idaho 62% 64% 39% 60%
Illinois 63% 74% 37% 66%
Indiana 68% 74% 39% 68%
Iowa 61% 70% 18% 61%
Kansas 61% 65% 22% 59%
Kentucky 56% 65% 44% 60%
Louisiana 41% 54% 32% 48%
Maine 62% 70% 42% 64%
Maryland 64% 70% 47% 66%
Massachusetts 68% 73% 34% 67%
Michigan 69% 77% 43% 71%
Minnesota 67% 73% 23% 66%
Mississippi 46% 61% 30% 53%
Missouri 62% 67% 43% 63%
Montana 54% 58% 27% 52%
Nebraska 67% 69% 19% 62%
Nevada 63% 68% 38% 63%
New Hampshire 76% 74% 40% 71%
New Jersey 70% 71% 38% 66%
New Mexico 38% 50% 28% 44%
New York 57% 65% 42% 60%
North Carolina 55% 67% 32% 60%
North Dakota 62% 62% 17% 56%
Ohio 67% 72% 42% 67%
Oklahoma 49% 58% 36% 52%
Oregon 63% 69% 33% 63%
Pennsylvania 68% 72% 37% 66%
Rhode Island 66% 70% 27% 62%
South Carolina 52% 66% 25% 58%
South Dakota 65% 64% 23% 59%
Tennessee 55% 63% 28% 57%
Texas 51% 59% 27% 54%
Utah 70% 73% 55% 70%
Vermont 63% 70% 26% 64%
Virginia 57% 67% 42% 62%
Washington 60% 67% 40% 62%
West Virginia 53% 64% 48% 59%
Wisconsin 69% 79% 43% 72%
Wyoming 58% 61% 26% 57%
 
United States 59% 66% 35% 60%
TABLE A-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  Work Disability
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 0% 10% 38% 11%
Alaska 0% 6% 16% 4%
Arizona 0% 6% 28% 7%
Arkansas 1% 13% 43% 13%
California 0% 7% 23% 7%
Colorado 1% 7% 24% 7%
Connecticut 0% 4% 17% 5%
Delaware 0% 7% 23% 7%
District of Columbia   0% 10% 30% 10%
Florida 0% 9% 22% 9%
Georgia 0% 10% 34% 10%
Hawaii 0% 4% 13% 4%
Idaho 0% 8% 37% 10%
Illinois 1% 6% 26% 7%
Indiana 0% 7% 27% 8%
Iowa 0% 6% 26% 7%
Kansas 0% 8% 31% 9%
Kentucky 0% 13% 45% 14%
Louisiana 0% 10% 33% 10%
Maine 0% 9% 24% 9%
Maryland 0% 7% 21% 7%
Massachusetts 0% 8% 21% 8%
Michigan 0% 8% 31% 9%
Minnesota 0% 5% 30% 6%
Mississippi 0% 10% 35% 10%
Missouri 0% 6% 26% 7%
Montana 0% 9% 30% 10%
Nebraska 0% 6% 25% 7%
Nevada 1% 7% 27% 8%
New Hampshire 0% 7% 40% 9%
New Jersey 0% 6% 21% 6%
New Mexico 0% 10% 38% 9%
New York 0% 7% 24% 8%
North Carolina 0% 8% 34% 10%
North Dakota 1% 4% 22% 6%
Ohio 0% 9% 26% 9%
Oklahoma 0% 8% 26% 8%
Oregon 0% 9% 29% 9%
Pennsylvania 0% 9% 27% 9%
Rhode Island 1% 11% 22% 10%
South Carolina 0% 9% 25% 8%
South Dakota 1% 8% 27% 8%
Tennessee 0% 10% 41% 10%
Texas 0% 7% 34% 8%
Utah 1% 6% 28% 6%
Vermont 0% 6% 31% 7%
Virginia 1% 10% 26% 9%
Washington 0% 9% 32% 9%
West Virginia 0% 12% 35% 14%
Wisconsin 0% 7% 23% 6%
Wyoming 0% 8% 32% 8%
 
United States 0% 8% 27% 8%
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Total
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 485 976 259 1,720
Alaska 541 917 59 1,517
Arizona 648 1,244 244 2,136
Arkansas 469 1,048 243 1,760
California 4,046 7,646 1,212 12,904
Colorado 506 1,142 136 1,784
Connecticut 370 751 184 1,305
Delaware 324 783 144 1,251
District of Columbia   276 739 146 1,161
Florida 1,662 3,799 1,079 6,540
Georgia 583 1,273 232 2,088
Hawaii 358 861 163 1,382
Idaho 545 1,081 216 1,842
Illinois 1,519 3,218 621 5,358
Indiana 425 947 226 1,598
Iowa 491 952 215 1,658
Kansas 464 961 210 1,635
Kentucky 430 953 210 1,593
Louisiana 487 982 186 1,655
Maine 328 795 165 1,288
Maryland 399 909 178 1,486
Massachusetts 734 1,792 355 2,881
Michigan 1,241 2,566 524 4,331
Minnesota 516 1,067 196 1,779
Mississippi 489 937 191 1,617
Missouri 377 908 199 1,484
Montana 441 1,016 250 1,707
Nebraska 481 970 226 1,677
Nevada 402 899 178 1,479
New Hampshire 312 765 152 1,229
New Jersey 1,042 2,433 530 4,005
New Mexico 776 1,355 236 2,367
New York 2,426 5,272 1,118 8,816
North Carolina 681 1,842 393 2,916
North Dakota 443 906 210 1,559
Ohio 1,275 2,792 607 4,674
Oklahoma 485 1,089 257 1,831
Oregon 429 989 191 1,609
Pennsylvania 1,414 3,202 797 5,413
Rhode Island 327 783 219 1,329
South Carolina 401 815 156 1,372
South Dakota 520 1,016 239 1,775
Tennessee 441 979 182 1,602
Texas 2,316 4,477 690 7,483
Utah 690 1,053 174 1,917
Vermont 371 768 135 1,274
Virginia 423 1,166 221 1,810
Washington 419 1,016 163 1,598
West Virginia 402 1,039 283 1,724
Wisconsin 556 1,160 194 1,910
Wyoming 505 994 148 1,647
 
United States 36,691 78,043 15,742 130,476
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Family Income Less than 100% of the Poverty Level
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 133 168 42 343
Alaska 49 60 3 112
Arizona 198 195 24 417
Arkansas 114 118 46 278
California 1,331 1,397 140 2,868
Colorado 74 94 7 175
Connecticut 84 63 14 161
Delaware 59 65 21 145
District of Columbia   113 143 27 283
Florida 493 573 133 1,199
Georgia 109 132 41 282
Hawaii 72 89 23 184
Idaho 128 161 15 304
Illinois 381 338 50 769
Indiana 72 86 14 172
Iowa 92 101 15 208
Kansas 79 106 21 206
Kentucky 107 125 23 255
Louisiana 161 169 28 358
Maine 54 79 22 155
Maryland 74 77 19 170
Massachusetts 146 184 30 360
Michigan 249 262 46 557
Minnesota 66 86 22 174
Mississippi 198 193 28 419
Missouri 68 94 8 170
Montana 105 136 27 268
Nebraska 74 95 27 196
Nevada 73 111 11 195
New Hampshire 20 40 19 79
New Jersey 146 200 54 400
New Mexico 310 302 38 650
New York 740 843 147 1,730
North Carolina 167 200 48 415
North Dakota 71 101 23 195
Ohio 281 262 47 590
Oklahoma 122 158 41 321
Oregon 95 105 11 211
Pennsylvania 289 333 85 707
Rhode Island 60 85 24 169
South Carolina 132 119 35 286
South Dakota 142 147 34 323
Tennessee 110 127 28 265
Texas 706 806 124 1,636
Utah 79 96 9 184
Vermont 64 58 15 137
Virginia 80 112 24 216
Washington 91 131 10 232
West Virginia 120 163 29 312
Wisconsin 99 89 16 204
Wyoming 89 111 19 219
 
United States 8,969 10,088 1,807 20,864
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama - 20 - 20
Alaska 3 18 - 21
Arizona - 21 - 21
Arkansas - 13 - 13
California 14 288 1 303
Colorado - 17 - 17
Connecticut 1 29 - 30
Delaware - 9 - 9
District of Columbia   1 40 1 42
Florida 3 78 - 81
Georgia - 23 - 23
Hawaii - 16 - 16
Idaho - 23 - 23
Illinois 1 88 - 89
Indiana - 17 - 17
Iowa - 17 1 18
Kansas - 20 - 20
Kentucky 1 21 - 22
Louisiana 1 18 - 19
Maine 2 10 - 12
Maryland - 14 1 15
Massachusetts - 45 1 46
Michigan 3 72 - 75
Minnesota - 20 - 20
Mississippi - 41 - 41
Missouri - 10 - 10
Montana 1 26 - 27
Nebraska - 18 - 18
Nevada - 8 - 8
New Hampshire - 12 - 12
New Jersey - 41 - 41
New Mexico - 46 - 46
New York 9 185 - 194
North Carolina - 30 - 30
North Dakota - 8 1 9
Ohio 2 68 1 71
Oklahoma - 21 - 21
Oregon 1 26 1 28
Pennsylvania 2 47 - 49
Rhode Island - 15 - 15
South Carolina 1 21 - 22
South Dakota - 20 1 21
Tennessee 1 18 - 19
Texas 7 87 - 94
Utah 1 6 - 7
Vermont - 16 - 16
Virginia - 12 1 13
Washington - 33 - 33
West Virginia - 28 1 29
Wisconsin - 21 - 21
Wyoming 2 20 - 22
 
United States 57 1,821 11 1,889
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  All Persons Receiving AFDC
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 38 20 - 58
Alaska 46 18 - 64
Arizona 51 21 - 72
Arkansas 25 13 - 38
California 636 288 1 925
Colorado 34 17 - 51
Connecticut 61 29 - 90
Delaware 24 9 - 33
District of Columbia   78 40 1 119
Florida 173 78 - 251
Georgia 52 23 - 75
Hawaii 27 16 - 43
Idaho 42 23 - 65
Illinois 213 88 - 301
Indiana 30 17 - 47
Iowa 33 17 1 51
Kansas 36 20 - 56
Kentucky 38 21 - 59
Louisiana 49 18 - 67
Maine 12 10 - 22
Maryland 29 14 1 44
Massachusetts 88 45 1 134
Michigan 157 72 - 229
Minnesota 36 20 - 56
Mississippi 77 41 - 118
Missouri 20 10 - 30
Montana 46 26 - 72
Nebraska 33 18 - 51
Nevada 14 8 - 22
New Hampshire 19 12 - 31
New Jersey 78 41 - 119
New Mexico 102 46 - 148
New York 372 185 - 557
North Carolina 53 30 - 83
North Dakota 13 8 1 22
Ohio 162 68 1 231
Oklahoma 46 21 - 67
Oregon 57 26 1 84
Pennsylvania 102 47 - 149
Rhode Island 26 15 - 41
South Carolina 44 21 - 65
South Dakota 47 20 1 68
Tennessee 36 18 - 54
Texas 199 87 - 286
Utah 18 6 - 24
Vermont 34 16 - 50
Virginia 24 12 1 37
Washington 52 33 - 85
West Virginia 60 28 1 89
Wisconsin 41 21 - 62
Wyoming 32 20 - 52
 
United States 3,815 1,821 11 5,647
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Employer Provided Health Insurance
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 299 636 88 1,023
Alaska 320 603 23 946
Arizona 312 744 79 1,135
Arkansas 259 668 55 982
California 1,855 4,199 339 6,393
Colorado 342 779 57 1,178
Connecticut 246 570 82 898
Delaware 205 577 64 846
District of Columbia   100 472 72 644
Florida 821 2,230 323 3,374
Georgia 368 832 75 1,275
Hawaii 210 590 59 859
Idaho 331 681 81 1,093
Illinois 981 2,401 233 3,615
Indiana 290 707 86 1,083
Iowa 304 672 38 1,014
Kansas 284 637 45 966
Kentucky 241 631 91 963
Louisiana 204 550 61 815
Maine 202 552 67 821
Maryland 254 642 83 979
Massachusetts 484 1,296 119 1,899
Michigan 866 1,990 253 3,109
Minnesota 343 784 42 1,169
Mississippi 225 573 53 851
Missouri 232 617 83 932
Montana 243 588 68 899
Nebraska 314 665 41 1,020
Nevada 250 615 68 933
New Hampshire 236 573 62 871
New Jersey 713 1,716 199 2,628
New Mexico 301 685 68 1,054
New York 1,323 3,360 464 5,147
North Carolina 373 1,263 127 1,763
North Dakota 277 565 35 877
Ohio 858 2,024 267 3,149
Oklahoma 239 637 92 968
Oregon 268 681 64 1,013
Pennsylvania 971 2,349 296 3,616
Rhode Island 208 537 58 803
South Carolina 212 544 39 795
South Dakota 308 628 57 993
Tennessee 251 625 53 929
Texas 1,122 2,552 174 3,848
Utah 493 768 97 1,358
Vermont 235 544 35 814
Virginia 239 788 94 1,121
Washington 250 676 63 989
West Virginia 212 667 137 1,016
Wisconsin 386 913 81 1,380
Wyoming 285 613 38 936
 
United States 21,145 51,209 5,428 77,782
TABLE A-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the March 1996 CPS for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Work Disability
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 2 98 99 199
Alaska - 54 8 62
Arizona 2 71 68 141
Arkansas 3 128 105 236
California 9 503 294 806
Colorado 5 83 33 121
Connecticut 1 36 31 68
Delaware 1 55 32 88
District of Columbia   - 67 45 112
Florida 4 313 242 559
Georgia 2 114 78 194
Hawaii 1 37 22 60
Idaho 1 91 83 175
Illinois 8 194 164 366
Indiana 1 69 62 132
Iowa 1 60 56 117
Kansas 1 78 67 146
Kentucky 2 127 96 225
Louisiana 2 102 61 165
Maine - 71 40 111
Maryland 1 62 36 99
Massachusetts 1 148 76 225
Michigan 6 202 170 378
Minnesota - 54 60 114
Mississippi 2 94 68 164
Missouri 1 54 52 107
Montana 1 96 76 173
Nebraska 1 60 60 121
Nevada 3 63 50 116
New Hampshire 1 55 59 115
New Jersey 3 136 116 255
New Mexico - 131 93 224
New York 11 397 267 675
North Carolina 1 148 133 282
North Dakota 2 40 44 86
Ohio 5 230 155 390
Oklahoma 1 87 68 156
Oregon - 89 55 144
Pennsylvania 6 268 221 495
Rhode Island 2 85 49 136
South Carolina 2 71 39 112
South Dakota 2 85 67 154
Tennessee - 97 75 172
Texas 7 330 230 567
Utah 4 64 50 118
Vermont 1 48 41 90
Virginia 2 110 56 168
Washington 2 89 52 143
West Virginia 1 130 99 230
Wisconsin 2 78 45 125
Wyoming 1 78 50 129
 
United States 118 6,030 4,398 10,546

APPENDIX B: SIPP Tables

TABLE B-1. States Meeting Precision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
1993 SIPP
  Total Population
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   70 242 102 141  
Alabama X X X X 4
Arizona X X X X 4
Arkansas X X X X 4
California X X X X 4
Colorado X X X X 4
Connecticut X X X X 4
Delaware X   X X 4
District of Columbia   X   X   3
Florida X X X X 2
Georgia X X X X 4
Hawaii X   X X 3
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana X X X X 4
Kansas X X X X 4
Kentucky X X X X 4
Louisiana X X X X 4
Maryland X X X X 4
Massachusetts X X X X 4
Michigan X X X X 4
Minnesota X X X X 4
Mississippi X X X X 4
Missouri X X X X 4
Nebraska X X X X 4
Nevada X   X X 3
New Hampshire X   X X 3
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico X   X   2
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina X X X X 4
Ohio X X X X 4
Oklahoma X X X X 4
Oregon X X X X 4
Pennsylvania X X X X 4
Rhode Island X   X X 3
South Carolina X X X X 4
Tennessee X X X X 4
Texas X X X X 4
Utah X X X X 4
Virginia X X X X 4
Washington X X X X 4
West Virginia X X X X 4
Wisconsin X X X X 4
ME, VT          
IA, ND, SD          
AK, ID, MT, WY          
 
United States 42 35 42 40  
TABLE B-1. States Meeting Precision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
1993 SIPP
  Under Age 18
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=3)
Criteria for Cell Count   95 95 104  
Alabama X X X 3
Arizona X X X 3
Arkansas X X X 3
California X X X 3
Colorado X X X 3
Connecticut X X X 3
Delaware       -
District of Columbia         -
Florida X X X 3
Georgia X X X 3
Hawaii       -
Illinois X X X 3
Indiana X X X 3
Kansas X X X 3
Kentucky X X X 3
Louisiana X X X 3
Maryland X X X 3
Massachusetts X X X 3
Michigan X X X 3
Minnesota X X X 3
Mississippi X X X 3
Missouri X X X 3
Nebraska X X   2
Nevada       -
New Hampshire       -
New Jersey X X X 3
New Mexico       -
New York X X X 3
North Carolina X X X 3
Ohio X X X 3
Oklahoma X X X 3
Oregon X X X 3
Pennsylvania X X X 3
Rhode Island       -
South Carolina X X X 3
Tennessee X X X 3
Texas X X X 3
Utah X X X 3
Virginia X X X 3
Washington X X X 3
West Virginia X X X 3
Wisconsin X X X 3
ME, VT        
IA, ND, SD        
AK, ID, MT, WY        
 
United States 35 35 34  
TABLE B-1. States Meeting Precision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
1993 SIPP
  Age 65 and Over
  Poverty     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=3)
Criteria for Cell Count   56 100 30  
Alabama X   X 2
Arizona X X X 3
Arkansas       -
California X X X 3
Colorado       -
Connecticut X X   2
Delaware       -
District of Columbia         -
Florida X X X 3
Georgia X X X 3
Hawaii       -
Illinois X X X 3
Indiana X X X 3
Kansas X X   2
Kentucky X     1
Louisiana X     1
Maryland X X X 3
Massachusetts X X X 3
Michigan X X X 3
Minnesota X X X 3
Mississippi X     1
Missouri X X X 3
Nebraska X     1
Nevada       -
New Hampshire       -
New Jersey X X X 3
New Mexico       -
New York X X X 3
North Carolina X X X 3
Ohio X X X 3
Oklahoma X X   2
Oregon X X X 3
Pennsylvania X X X 3
Rhode Island       -
South Carolina X   X 2
Tennessee X X X 3
Texas X X X 3
Utah       -
Virginia X X X 3
Washington X X X 3
West Virginia X     1
Wisconsin X   X 2
ME, VT        
IA, ND, SD        
AK, ID, MT, WY        
 
United States 32 24 24  
TABLE B-1. States Meeting Precision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
1993 SIPP
  Black
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   113 73 105 115  
Alabama X X X X 4
Arizona         -
Arkansas         -
California X X X X 4
Colorado         -
Connecticut         -
Delaware         -
District of Columbia           -
Florida X X X X 4
Georgia X X X X 4
Hawaii         -
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana X X X X 4
Kansas         -
Kentucky         -
Louisiana X X X X 4
Maryland X X X X 4
Massachusetts         -
Michigan X X X X 4
Minnesota         -
Mississippi X X X X 4
Missouri X X X X 4
Nebraska         -
Nevada         -
New Hampshire         -
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico         -
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina X X X X 4
Ohio X X X X 4
Oklahoma         -
Oregon         -
Pennsylvania X X X X 4
Rhode Island         -
South Carolina X X X X 4
Tennessee X X X X 4
Texas X X X X 4
Utah         -
Virginia X X X X 4
Washington         -
West Virginia         -
Wisconsin         -
ME, VT          
IA, ND, SD          
AK, ID, MT, WY          
 
United States 20 20 20 20  
TABLE B-1. States Meeting Precision Criteria
States Meeting Precision Criteria for Selected Characteristics
1993 SIPP
  Hispanic
  Poverty     AFDC     Employer Ins.     Work Disab.     # Criteria Met  
(Max=4)
Criteria for Cell Count   113 93 100 174  
Alabama         -
Arizona X X X   3
Arkansas         -
California X X X X 4
Colorado         -
Connecticut         -
Delaware         -
District of Columbia           -
Florida X X X X 4
Georgia         -
Hawaii         -
Illinois X X X X 4
Indiana         -
Kansas         -
Kentucky         -
Louisiana         -
Maryland         -
Massachusetts         -
Michigan         -
Minnesota         -
Mississippi         -
Missouri         -
Nebraska         -
Nevada         -
New Hampshire         -
New Jersey X X X X 4
New Mexico         -
New York X X X X 4
North Carolina         -
Ohio         -
Oklahoma         -
Oregon         -
Pennsylvania         -
Rhode Island         -
South Carolina         -
Tennessee         -
Texas X X X X 4
Utah         -
Virginia         -
Washington         -
West Virginia         -
Wisconsin         -
ME, VT          
IA, ND, SD          
AK, ID, MT, WY          
 
United States 7 7 7 6  
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Family Income Less than 100% of the Poverty Level  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 36% 22% 15% 19%
Arizona 58% 42% 16% 22%
Arkansas 56% 0% 24% 28%
California 36% 33% 14% 21%
Colorado 17% 22% 12% 14%
Connecticut 24% 37% 10% 13%
Delaware 31% 0% 11% 15%
District of Columbia   28% 50% 0% 25%
Florida 31% 26% 14% 18%
Georgia 34% 27% 14% 19%
Hawaii 100% 0% 3% 5%
Illinois 32% 21% 8% 13%
Indiana 35% 35% 12% 15%
Kansas 42% 7% 12% 14%
Kentucky 50% 10% 16% 17%
Louisiana 41% 30% 20% 26%
Maryland 13% 10% 6% 8%
Massachusetts 27% 74% 12% 17%
Michigan 33% 42% 10% 15%
Minnesota 24% 81% 11% 12%
Mississippi 44% 0% 17% 26%
Missouri 30% 11% 12% 15%
Nebraska 0% 0% 8% 8%
Nevada 47% 30% 8% 17%
New Hampshire - - 9% 9%
New Jersey 38% 41% 6% 14%
New Mexico 47% 9% 20% 19%
New York 34% 43% 13% 19%
North Carolina 27% 44% 10% 14%
Ohio 33% 45% 11% 14%
Oklahoma 46% 52% 18% 21%
Oregon 74% 44% 14% 16%
Pennsylvania 26% 40% 12% 14%
Rhode Island 9% 0% 8% 8%
South Carolina 45% 27% 9% 21%
Tennessee 44% 56% 14% 19%
Texas 40% 39% 13% 23%
Utah 0% 16% 12% 13%
Virginia 29% 19% 9% 14%
Washington 54% 39% 15% 17%
West Virginia 0% 68% 22% 22%
Wisconsin 53% 0% 6% 9%
ME, VT - - 13% 13%
IA, ND, SD 81% 31% 10% 11%
AK, ID, MT, WY 10% 0% 12% 11%
 
United States 34% 35% 12% 17%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, January  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 3% 0% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 4% 1% 1%
Arkansas 5% 0% 1% 1%
California 6% 3% 2% 3%
Colorado 1% 4% 1% 1%
Connecticut 4% 13% 1% 2%
Delaware 5% 0% 2% 2%
District of Columbia   10% 0% 0% 7%
Florida 3% 2% 1% 1%
Georgia 5% 3% 1% 2%
Hawaii 0% 0% 1% 1%
Illinois 6% 3% 0% 2%
Indiana 4% 4% 1% 1%
Kansas 0% 0% 1% 0%
Kentucky 11% 5% 1% 2%
Louisiana 4% 3% 1% 2%
Maryland 3% 0% 0% 1%
Massachusetts 3% 15% 1% 2%
Michigan 9% 3% 1% 3%
Minnesota 14% 10% 1% 1%
Mississippi 4% 0% 1% 2%
Missouri 4% 0% 1% 1%
Nebraska 0% 0% 0% 0%
Nevada 0% 0% 2% 1%
New Hampshire - - 0% 0%
New Jersey 5% 5% 0% 1%
New Mexico 0% 3% 0% 1%
New York 5% 7% 1% 2%
North Carolina 4% 2% 1% 1%
Ohio 6% 11% 1% 2%
Oklahoma 0% 2% 1% 1%
Oregon 17% 6% 1% 2%
Pennsylvania 6% 7% 1% 1%
Rhode Island 0% 0% 1% 1%
South Carolina 5% 2% 0% 2%
Tennessee 8% 0% 1% 2%
Texas 3% 2% 0% 1%
Utah 0% 0% 1% 1%
Virginia 2% 2% 0% 1%
Washington 0% 0% 1% 1%
West Virginia 0% 0% 2% 2%
Wisconsin 13% 0% 1% 1%
ME, VT - - 3% 3%
IA, ND, SD 11% 0% 1% 1%
AK, ID, MT, WY 0% 5% 1% 1%
 
United States 5% 4% 1% 2%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, January  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 6% 0% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 13% 2% 4%
Arkansas 17% 0% 3% 5%
California 23% 13% 6% 9%
Colorado 6% 13% 2% 3%
Connecticut 11% 31% 2% 4%
Delaware 15% 0% 5% 7%
District of Columbia   26% 0% 0% 17%
Florida 9% 6% 2% 4%
Georgia 14% 9% 3% 6%
Hawaii 0% 0% 2% 2%
Illinois 20% 15% 1% 5%
Indiana 20% 25% 3% 6%
Kansas 11% 0% 1% 2%
Kentucky 24% 11% 3% 4%
Louisiana 12% 9% 3% 6%
Maryland 7% 0% 1% 2%
Massachusetts 8% 44% 4% 7%
Michigan 27% 13% 4% 8%
Minnesota 50% 69% 3% 5%
Mississippi 13% 0% 2% 6%
Missouri 17% 11% 3% 5%
Nebraska 0% 0% 1% 1%
Nevada 0% 0% 4% 3%
New Hampshire - - 0% 0%
New Jersey 16% 19% 1% 5%
New Mexico 0% 6% 0% 1%
New York 13% 22% 2% 6%
North Carolina 13% 7% 1% 4%
Ohio 20% 29% 3% 5%
Oklahoma 46% 14% 3% 4%
Oregon 74% 6% 4% 5%
Pennsylvania 18% 20% 2% 4%
Rhode Island 0% 0% 2% 2%
South Carolina 13% 2% 2% 5%
Tennessee 25% 0% 2% 6%
Texas 10% 7% 1% 3%
Utah 0% 0% 3% 3%
Virginia 5% 5% 1% 2%
Washington 5% 0% 4% 4%
West Virginia 0% 0% 7% 7%
Wisconsin 47% 0% 1% 4%
ME, VT - - 8% 8%
IA, ND, SD 81% 31% 3% 4%
AK, ID, MT, WY 0% 16% 3% 3%
 
United States 15% 13% 3% 5%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, January  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 44% 17% 60% 56%
Arizona 54% 41% 54% 51%
Arkansas 29% 10% 51% 47%
California 44% 38% 55% 50%
Colorado 48% 44% 61% 58%
Connecticut 59% 46% 70% 67%
Delaware 62% 45% 64% 63%
District of Columbia   47% 41% 90% 55%
Florida 55% 35% 54% 51%
Georgia 33% 35% 60% 53%
Hawaii 0% 68% 79% 77%
Illinois 46% 57% 74% 68%
Indiana 41% 27% 64% 61%
Kansas 69% 70% 48% 50%
Kentucky 50% 5% 62% 60%
Louisiana 28% 48% 56% 48%
Maryland 70% 70% 72% 72%
Massachusetts 63% 28% 71% 68%
Michigan 47% 45% 74% 68%
Minnesota 19% 24% 68% 67%
Mississippi 32% 100% 50% 44%
Missouri 40% 77% 65% 62%
Nebraska 100% 0% 53% 52%
Nevada 34% 56% 56% 53%
New Hampshire - - 69% 69%
New Jersey 48% 41% 69% 64%
New Mexico 53% 58% 61% 59%
New York 48% 35% 66% 60%
North Carolina 46% 43% 65% 61%
Ohio 52% 41% 69% 67%
Oklahoma 54% 21% 60% 57%
Oregon 18% 27% 62% 61%
Pennsylvania 53% 44% 69% 67%
Rhode Island 67% 52% 70% 69%
South Carolina 40% 64% 74% 62%
Tennessee 40% 79% 57% 55%
Texas 49% 36% 63% 55%
Utah 100% 80% 69% 70%
Virginia 49% 44% 65% 61%
Washington 23% 41% 61% 59%
West Virginia 100% 32% 53% 53%
Wisconsin 29% 70% 70% 68%
ME, VT - - 61% 61%
IA, ND, SD 0% 36% 61% 60%
AK, ID, MT, WY 56% 11% 61% 59%
 
United States 46% 39% 64% 59%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
  Work Disability, January
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 7% 3% 9% 8%
Arizona 28% 8% 7% 7%
Arkansas 13% 0% 10% 11%
California 8% 5% 7% 7%
Colorado 9% 10% 9% 9%
Connecticut 5% 0% 5% 5%
Delaware 5% 0% 5% 5%
District of Columbia   15% 5% 16% 14%
Florida 6% 7% 8% 7%
Georgia 11% 12% 9% 10%
Hawaii 0% 0% 5% 5%
Illinois 8% 2% 5% 5%
Indiana 5% 5% 5% 5%
Kansas 9% 0% 5% 5%
Kentucky 17% 10% 9% 10%
Louisiana 12% 6% 11% 11%
Maryland 6% 6% 6% 6%
Massachusetts 3% 5% 6% 6%
Michigan 11% 9% 7% 7%
Minnesota 14% 10% 7% 7%
Mississippi 8% 0% 10% 9%
Missouri 13% 0% 8% 8%
Nebraska 0% 0% 3% 3%
Nevada 6% 0% 7% 6%
New Hampshire - - 4% 4%
New Jersey 7% 7% 4% 5%
New Mexico 42% 15% 6% 11%
New York 9% 5% 6% 6%
North Carolina 9% 0% 9% 9%
Ohio 7% 6% 9% 9%
Oklahoma 0% 2% 9% 9%
Oregon 0% 0% 10% 10%
Pennsylvania 7% 12% 7% 7%
Rhode Island 8% 0% 13% 12%
South Carolina 9% 5% 8% 8%
Tennessee 11% 0% 13% 13%
Texas 7% 7% 6% 6%
Utah 9% 9% 7% 7%
Virginia 12% 3% 6% 7%
Washington 18% 24% 9% 10%
West Virginia 9% 0% 9% 9%
Wisconsin 15% 9% 8% 9%
ME, VT - - 6% 6%
IA, ND, SD 0% 0% 7% 7%
AK, ID, MT, WY 17% 6% 8% 8%
 
United States 9% 6% 7% 7%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 3% 0% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 5% 1% 2%
Arkansas 5% 0% 1% 2%
California 7% 4% 2% 3%
Colorado 4% 4% 1% 1%
Connecticut 6% 13% 1% 2%
Delaware 5% 0% 2% 2%
District of Columbia   10% 0% 0% 7%
Florida 5% 3% 1% 2%
Georgia 5% 3% 2% 3%
Hawaii 0% 0% 1% 1%
Illinois 8% 3% 1% 2%
Indiana 7% 4% 2% 2%
Kansas 0% 0% 1% 1%
Kentucky 11% 5% 1% 2%
Louisiana 4% 3% 1% 2%
Maryland 5% 3% 0% 2%
Massachusetts 6% 17% 2% 3%
Michigan 11% 10% 2% 4%
Minnesota 14% 10% 1% 2%
Mississippi 4% 0% 1% 2%
Missouri 6% 0% 1% 2%
Nebraska 0% 0% 0% 0%
Nevada 0% 0% 2% 1%
New Hampshire - - 1% 1%
New Jersey 5% 6% 1% 2%
New Mexico 0% 3% 1% 1%
New York 6% 8% 1% 3%
North Carolina 6% 4% 1% 2%
Ohio 8% 12% 1% 2%
Oklahoma 0% 2% 2% 2%
Oregon 17% 11% 2% 2%
Pennsylvania 8% 7% 1% 2%
Rhode Island 0% 0% 2% 2%
South Carolina 7% 4% 0% 3%
Tennessee 9% 0% 1% 2%
Texas 6% 2% 1% 2%
Utah 0% 0% 1% 1%
Virginia 3% 2% 0% 1%
Washington 0% 2% 3% 3%
West Virginia 0% 0% 2% 2%
Wisconsin 13% 0% 1% 2%
ME, VT - - 3% 3%
IA, ND, SD 21% 0% 2% 2%
AK, ID, MT, WY 0% 11% 1% 1%
 
United States 6% 5% 1% 2%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 8% 0% 1% 2%
Arizona 0% 18% 3% 6%
Arkansas 17% 0% 5% 6%
California 25% 17% 8% 11%
Colorado 8% 15% 3% 4%
Connecticut 15% 31% 3% 6%
Delaware 18% 0% 6% 8%
District of Columbia   26% 0% 0% 17%
Florida 15% 7% 3% 5%
Georgia 16% 9% 5% 8%
Hawaii 0% 0% 9% 8%
Illinois 25% 15% 2% 7%
Indiana 25% 25% 5% 7%
Kansas 11% 0% 4% 4%
Kentucky 24% 11% 5% 6%
Louisiana 16% 9% 4% 7%
Maryland 12% 10% 1% 5%
Massachusetts 16% 52% 5% 9%
Michigan 30% 31% 5% 10%
Minnesota 50% 76% 4% 6%
Mississippi 16% 0% 2% 7%
Missouri 21% 11% 4% 6%
Nebraska 0% 0% 1% 1%
Nevada 0% 0% 4% 3%
New Hampshire - - 2% 2%
New Jersey 16% 25% 1% 6%
New Mexico 0% 6% 5% 5%
New York 17% 27% 3% 8%
North Carolina 18% 15% 2% 6%
Ohio 24% 35% 3% 6%
Oklahoma 46% 14% 5% 6%
Oregon 74% 11% 5% 6%
Pennsylvania 23% 25% 2% 5%
Rhode Island 0% 0% 3% 3%
South Carolina 20% 8% 2% 8%
Tennessee 30% 0% 3% 7%
Texas 17% 9% 2% 6%
Utah 0% 0% 5% 4%
Virginia 10% 5% 1% 3%
Washington 5% 14% 9% 9%
West Virginia 0% 35% 8% 8%
Wisconsin 47% 0% 2% 5%
ME, VT - - 8% 8%
IA, ND, SD 81% 31% 5% 6%
AK, ID, MT, WY 0% 22% 3% 4%
 
United States 19% 16% 4% 7%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 57% 63% 73% 69%
Arizona 54% 46% 67% 62%
Arkansas 31% 70% 60% 56%
California 52% 48% 66% 61%
Colorado 55% 55% 71% 68%
Connecticut 67% 55% 77% 75%
Delaware 62% 100% 80% 78%
District of Columbia   60% 50% 97% 66%
Florida 68% 50% 64% 62%
Georgia 50% 43% 71% 65%
Hawaii 0% 0% 0% 0%
Illinois 55% 69% 82% 77%
Indiana 55% 32% 74% 71%
Kansas 69% 78% 61% 61%
Kentucky 63% 43% 72% 71%
Louisiana 39% 48% 68% 60%
Maryland 77% 92% 83% 82%
Massachusetts 68% 31% 78% 75%
Michigan 61% 45% 81% 77%
Minnesota 37% 24% 73% 72%
Mississippi 44% 100% 58% 53%
Missouri 55% 89% 72% 70%
Nebraska 100% 100% 69% 69%
Nevada 47% 95% 68% 67%
New Hampshire - - 76% 76%
New Jersey 56% 47% 78% 72%
New Mexico 53% 58% 67% 64%
New York 57% 48% 73% 68%
North Carolina 56% 49% 77% 72%
Ohio 66% 46% 79% 77%
Oklahoma 54% 46% 67% 65%
Oregon 18% 38% 69% 68%
Pennsylvania 63% 46% 76% 74%
Rhode Island 67% 52% 77% 76%
South Carolina 53% 70% 85% 74%
Tennessee 46% 79% 64% 62%
Texas 60% 46% 72% 64%
Utah 100% 80% 77% 77%
Virginia 57% 53% 77% 71%
Washington 35% 41% 70% 68%
West Virginia 100% 32% 59% 59%
Wisconsin 31% 70% 80% 77%
ME, VT - - 70% 70%
IA, ND, SD 0% 36% 69% 68%
AK, ID, MT, WY 56% 49% 72% 71%
 
United States 56% 49% 72% 68%
TABLE B-2. Weighted Percent by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percentage with Characteristics by Race
    Work Disability, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 8% 3% 11% 10%
Arizona 38% 10% 11% 11%
Arkansas 17% 0% 13% 14%
California 10% 7% 10% 9%
Colorado 11% 12% 12% 12%
Connecticut 7% 0% 8% 8%
Delaware 5% 0% 8% 7%
District of Columbia   19% 5% 16% 16%
Florida 8% 9% 9% 9%
Georgia 14% 14% 12% 12%
Hawaii 0% 36% 6% 6%
Illinois 10% 5% 7% 7%
Indiana 8% 5% 7% 7%
Kansas 9% 0% 7% 7%
Kentucky 17% 10% 11% 11%
Louisiana 14% 6% 14% 14%
Maryland 8% 8% 8% 8%
Massachusetts 3% 8% 8% 8%
Michigan 13% 11% 8% 9%
Minnesota 14% 10% 10% 10%
Mississippi 9% 0% 12% 11%
Missouri 14% 0% 11% 11%
Nebraska 0% 0% 4% 4%
Nevada 6% 5% 11% 10%
New Hampshire - - 7% 7%
New Jersey 8% 8% 7% 7%
New Mexico 42% 15% 10% 13%
New York 11% 7% 8% 8%
North Carolina 12% 4% 11% 11%
Ohio 11% 9% 11% 11%
Oklahoma 0% 8% 13% 12%
Oregon 0% 6% 14% 14%
Pennsylvania 9% 15% 10% 10%
Rhode Island 16% 0% 14% 14%
South Carolina 10% 5% 11% 10%
Tennessee 12% 6% 15% 15%
Texas 8% 10% 8% 9%
Utah 0% 9% 7% 7%
Virginia 13% 3% 8% 8%
Washington 34% 24% 12% 13%
West Virginia 0% 0% 10% 10%
Wisconsin 17% 9% 10% 11%
ME, VT - - 8% 8%
IA, ND, SD 0% 0% 10% 9%
AK, ID, MT, WY 17% 11% 12% 12%
 
United States 11% 8% 10% 10%
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Total
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 141 26 561 728
Arizona 12 173 632 817
Arkansas 54 8 353 415
California 358 1,752 4,344 6,454
Colorado 57 65 520 642
Connecticut 65 32 536 633
Delaware 37 11 167 215
District of Columbia   63 15 26 104
Florida 224 425 1,947 2,596
Georgia 327 69 1,078 1,474
Hawaii 3 3 166 172
Illinois 341 186 2,029 2,556
Indiana 136 22 1,226 1,384
Kansas 21 12 602 635
Kentucky 26 15 614 655
Louisiana 200 32 623 855
Maryland 222 36 643 901
Massachusetts 31 82 1,157 1,270
Michigan 292 67 1,590 1,949
Minnesota 8 18 1,252 1,278
Mississippi 201 1 485 687
Missouri 122 9 992 1,123
Nebraska 2 1 348 351
Nevada 28 16 132 176
New Hampshire - - 159 159
New Jersey 178 204 1,351 1,733
New Mexico 7 29 84 120
New York 427 418 2,705 3,550
North Carolina 279 44 1,179 1,502
Ohio 139 79 1,844 2,062
Oklahoma 5 50 631 686
Oregon 11 18 796 825
Pennsylvania 155 83 2,108 2,346
Rhode Island 13 2 177 192
South Carolina 224 48 512 784
Tennessee 132 12 810 954
Texas 435 878 2,167 3,480
Utah 2 20 335 357
Virginia 203 57 849 1,109
Washington 33 34 895 962
West Virginia 1 3 461 465
Wisconsin 49 12 790 851
ME, VT - - 415 415
IA, ND, SD 10 9 778 797
AK, ID, MT, WY 11 19 546 576
 
United States 5,285 5,095 41,615 51,995
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Family Income Less than 100% of Poverty Level  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 51 6 85 142
Arizona 7 72 101 180
Arkansas 32 - 83 115
California 127 592 627 1,346
Colorado 10 14 63 87
Connecticut 15 12 52 79
Delaware 13 - 18 31
District of Columbia   19 9 - 28
Florida 72 107 260 439
Georgia 115 20 148 283
Hawaii 3 - 5 8
Illinois 114 39 157 310
Indiana 51 8 151 210
Kansas 9 1 75 85
Kentucky 13 2 97 112
Louisiana 79 8 125 212
Maryland 33 3 37 73
Massachusetts 9 62 139 210
Michigan 103 27 160 290
Minnesota 2 15 135 152
Mississippi 88 - 84 172
Missouri 39 1 120 160
Nebraska - - 29 29
Nevada 12 5 11 28
New Hampshire - - 14 14
New Jersey 69 86 91 246
New Mexico 3 3 17 23
New York 139 184 346 669
North Carolina 77 19 116 212
Ohio 47 37 197 281
Oklahoma 3 27 118 148
Oregon 8 8 116 132
Pennsylvania 40 34 252 326
Rhode Island 1 - 13 14
South Carolina 104 14 47 165
Tennessee 59 7 111 177
Texas 181 350 293 824
Utah - 2 41 43
Virginia 62 12 77 151
Washington 17 15 130 162
West Virginia - 2 102 104
Wisconsin 26 - 46 72
ME, VT - - 55 55
IA, ND, SD 8 3 78 89
AK, ID, MT, WY 1 - 66 67
 
United States 1,861 1,806 5,088 8,755
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 4 - - 4
Arizona - 7 4 11
Arkansas 3 - 2 5
California 23 58 86 167
Colorado 1 2 3 6
Connecticut 3 4 4 11
Delaware 2 - 3 5
District of Columbia   6 - - 6
Florida 6 9 14 29
Georgia 15 2 12 29
Hawaii - - 1 1
Illinois 20 7 8 35
Indiana 7 1 12 20
Kansas - - 3 3
Kentucky 3 1 7 11
Louisiana 7 1 8 16
Maryland 6 - 2 8
Massachusetts 1 12 17 30
Michigan 27 2 22 51
Minnesota 1 2 14 17
Mississippi 7 - 4 11
Missouri 6 - 7 13
Nebraska - - 1 1
Nevada - - 2 2
New Hampshire - - - -
New Jersey 8 10 5 23
New Mexico - 1 - 1
New York 20 29 21 70
North Carolina 11 1 7 19
Ohio 8 9 17 34
Oklahoma - 1 8 9
Oregon 2 1 10 13
Pennsylvania 8 6 13 27
Rhode Island - - 2 2
South Carolina 11 1 2 14
Tennessee 10 - 6 16
Texas 14 16 8 38
Utah - - 2 2
Virginia 5 1 2 8
Washington - - 15 15
West Virginia - - 9 9
Wisconsin 6 - 4 10
ME, VT - - 11 11
IA, ND, SD 1 - 9 10
AK, ID, MT, WY - 1 8 6
 
United States 252 185 392 829
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    All Persons Receiving AFDC  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 9 - - 9
Arizona - 22 14 36
Arkansas 10 - 9 19
California 86 232 290 608
Colorado 4 7 10 21
Connecticut 8 10 11 29
Delaware 7 - 8 15
District of Columbia   17 - - 17
Florida 20 30 46 96
Georgia 48 7 37 92
Hawaii - - 3 3
Illinois 70 30 20 120
Indiana 31 6 42 79
Kansas 2 - 8 10
Kentucky 7 2 20 29
Louisiana 23 3 21 47
Maryland 17 - 4 21
Massachusetts 3 38 55 96
Michigan 84 10 63 157
Minnesota 4 13 42 59
Mississippi 25 - 12 37
Missouri 24 1 25 50
Nebraska - - 3 3
Nevada - - 5 5
New Hampshire - - - -
New Jersey 30 42 13 85
New Mexico - 2 - 2
New York 61 94 68 223
North Carolina 40 3 15 58
Ohio 28 25 54 107
Oklahoma 3 7 17 27
Oregon 8 1 33 42
Pennsylvania 29 16 44 89
Rhode Island - - 5 5
South Carolina 30 1 10 41
Tennessee 33 - 18 51
Texas 45 61 20 126
Utah - - 12 12
Virginia 13 3 4 20
Washington 2 - 42 44
West Virginia - - 32 32
Wisconsin 23 - 12 35
ME, VT - - 33 33
IA, ND, SD 8 3 23 34
AK, ID, MT, WY - 3 14 17
 
United States 852 672 1,217 2,741
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Employer Provided Health Insurance  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 67 5 341 413
Arizona 7 73 339 419
Arkansas 15 1 180 196
California 158 659 2,389 3,206
Colorado 26 30 321 377
Connecticut 41 15 376 432
Delaware 21 5 109 135
District of Columbia   30 5 23 58
Florida 121 152 1,053 1,326
Georgia 108 25 652 785
Hawaii - 2 132 134
Illinois 156 106 1,501 1,763
Indiana 56 6 792 854
Kansas 14 8 290 312
Kentucky 13 1 380 394
Louisiana 62 15 349 426
Maryland 151 27 467 645
Massachusetts 20 22 834 876
Michigan 136 31 1,173 1,340
Minnesota 2 4 856 862
Mississippi 66 1 239 306
Missouri 51 7 642 700
Nebraska 2 - 184 186
Nevada 10 8 75 93
New Hampshire - - 111 111
New Jersey 86 83 944 1,113
New Mexico 4 17 51 72
New York 215 150 1,791 2,156
North Carolina 124 18 779 921
Ohio 70 33 1,292 1,395
Oklahoma 2 10 380 392
Oregon 2 5 496 503
Pennsylvania 83 36 1,453 1,572
Rhode Island 9 1 125 135
South Carolina 90 30 377 497
Tennessee 53 9 457 519
Texas 208 312 1,364 1,884
Utah 2 17 231 250
Virginia 97 24 552 673
Washington 9 13 548 570
West Virginia 1 1 245 247
Wisconsin 15 9 560 584
ME, VT - - 257 257
IA, ND, SD - 3 477 480
AK, ID, MT, WY 6 2 334 342
 
United States 2,409 1,981 26,521 30,911
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Work Disability
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 8 1 49 58
Arizona 3 13 41 57
Arkansas 8 - 37 45
California 28 88 306 422
Colorado 5 6 47 58
Connecticut 3 - 28 31
Delaware 2 - 8 10
District of Columbia   9 1 4 14
Florida 12 27 146 185
Georgia 34 6 97 137
Hawaii - - 8 8
Illinois 29 5 94 128
Indiana 7 1 64 72
Kansas 2 - 30 32
Kentucky 4 1 57 62
Louisiana 25 2 66 93
Maryland 13 2 39 54
Massachusetts 1 4 69 74
Michigan 31 6 103 140
Minnesota 1 2 85 88
Mississippi 16 - 49 65
Missouri 15 - 78 93
Nebraska - - 11 11
Nevada 2 - 9 11
New Hampshire - - 6 6
New Jersey 12 14 60 86
New Mexico 3 3 5 11
New York 32 21 161 214
North Carolina 24 - 107 131
Ohio 11 5 162 178
Oklahoma - 1 58 59
Oregon - - 77 77
Pennsylvania 11 10 144 165
Rhode Island 1 - 22 23
South Carolina 22 2 40 64
Tennessee 15 - 106 121
Texas 31 61 124 216
Utah - 2 22 24
Virginia 22 2 46 70
Washington 6 8 69 83
West Virginia - - 43 43
Wisconsin 7 1 60 68
ME, VT - - 24 24
IA, ND, SD - - 57 57
AK, ID, MT, WY 2 1 41 44
 
United States 457 296 2,959 3,712
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 5 - 2 7
Arizona - 9 6 15
Arkansas 3 - 4 7
California 24 79 107 210
Colorado 2 2 4 8
Connecticut 4 4 5 13
Delaware 2 - 3 5
District of Columbia   6 - - 6
Florida 10 12 18 40
Georgia 18 2 16 36
Hawaii - - 2 2
Illinois 27 7 15 49
Indiana 10 1 19 30
Kansas - - 7 7
Kentucky 3 1 9 13
Louisiana 8 1 9 18
Maryland 11 1 3 15
Massachusetts 2 14 19 35
Michigan 31 7 27 65
Minnesota 1 2 18 21
Mississippi 7 - 4 11
Missouri 8 - 12 20
Nebraska - - 1 1
Nevada - - 2 2
New Hampshire - - 2 2
New Jersey 8 12 7 27
New Mexico - 1 1 2
New York 26 36 29 91
North Carolina 16 2 10 28
Ohio 10 10 20 40
Oklahoma - 1 10 11
Oregon 2 2 14 18
Pennsylvania 12 6 16 34
Rhode Island - - 3 3
South Carolina 16 2 2 20
Tennessee 12 - 7 19
Texas 24 23 17 64
Utah - - 3 3
Virginia 7 1 2 10
Washington - 1 25 26
West Virginia - - 11 11
Wisconsin 6 - 6 12
ME, VT - - 12 12
IA, ND, SD 2 - 13 15
AK, ID, MT, WY - 2 6 8
 
United States 323 241 528 1,092
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 11 - 4 15
Arizona - 32 19 51
Arkansas 10 - 16 26
California 93 301 371 765
Colorado 5 8 14 27
Connecticut 11 10 16 37
Delaware 8 - 9 17
District of Columbia   17 - - 17
Florida 33 36 60 129
Georgia 55 7 52 114
Hawaii - - 14 14
Illinois 90 32 46 168
Indiana 38 6 58 102
Kansas 2 - 23 25
Kentucky 7 2 28 37
Louisiana 30 3 27 60
Maryland 29 3 8 40
Massachusetts 6 44 64 114
Michigan 94 21 81 196
Minnesota 4 14 53 71
Mississippi 30 - 12 42
Missouri 29 1 38 68
Nebraska - - 3 3
Nevada - - 5 5
New Hampshire - - 3 3
New Jersey 30 54 16 100
New Mexico - 2 4 6
New York 81 120 87 288
North Carolina 54 7 22 83
Ohio 33 29 61 123
Oklahoma 3 7 31 41
Oregon 8 2 44 54
Pennsylvania 37 20 56 113
Rhode Island - - 6 6
South Carolina 47 4 10 61
Tennessee 40 - 22 62
Texas 74 87 56 217
Utah - - 16 16
Virginia 25 3 7 35
Washington 2 6 72 80
West Virginia - 1 39 40
Wisconsin 23 - 17 40
ME, VT - - 35 35
IA, ND, SD 8 3 35 46
AK, ID, MT, WY - 4 20 24
 
United States 1,067 869 1,680 3,616
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 82 17 412 511
Arizona 7 82 422 511
Arkansas 16 6 211 233
California 189 834 2,862 3,885
Colorado 30 38 369 437
Connecticut 45 18 416 479
Delaware 21 11 135 167
District of Columbia   38 6 25 69
Florida 150 213 1,247 1,610
Georgia 162 30 771 963
Hawaii 3 3 148 154
Illinois 187 129 1,662 1,978
Indiana 72 7 911 990
Kansas 14 9 364 387
Kentucky 16 7 440 463
Louisiana 84 15 424 523
Maryland 169 33 533 735
Massachusetts 21 24 912 957
Michigan 173 31 1,298 1,502
Minnesota 3 4 920 927
Mississippi 88 1 278 367
Missouri 66 8 713 787
Nebraska 2 1 240 243
Nevada 14 15 90 119
New Hampshire - - 122 122
New Jersey 98 97 1,059 1,254
New Mexico 4 17 56 77
New York 253 199 1,995 2,447
North Carolina 148 21 905 1,074
Ohio 89 36 1,464 1,589
Oklahoma 2 22 421 445
Oregon 2 7 550 559
Pennsylvania 96 38 1,612 1,746
Rhode Island 9 1 137 147
South Carolina 118 33 436 587
Tennessee 60 9 518 587
Texas 257 399 1,556 2,212
Utah 2 17 256 275
Virginia 112 30 649 791
Washington 12 13 635 660
West Virginia 1 1 274 276
Wisconsin 16 9 634 659
ME, VT - - 292 292
IA, ND, SD - 3 536 539
AK, ID, MT, WY 6 9 394 409
 
United States 2,937 2,503 30,304 35,744
TABLE B-3. Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Race
    Work Disability, in 1 or more months  
  Black     Hispanic     Other     Total  
Alabama 9 1 57 67
Arizona 4 17 68 89
Arkansas 10 - 48 58
California 36 112 415 563
Colorado 6 7 59 72
Connecticut 4 - 42 46
Delaware 2 - 14 16
District of Columbia   11 1 4 16
Florida 17 35 180 232
Georgia 46 7 125 178
Hawaii - 1 10 11
Illinois 35 10 128 173
Indiana 12 1 88 101
Kansas 2 - 42 44
Kentucky 4 1 67 72
Louisiana 29 2 85 116
Maryland 19 3 49 71
Massachusetts 1 6 92 99
Michigan 37 7 130 174
Minnesota 1 2 124 127
Mississippi 19 - 58 77
Missouri 16 - 107 123
Nebraska - - 15 15
Nevada 2 1 14 17
New Hampshire - - 11 11
New Jersey 14 17 92 123
New Mexico 3 3 8 14
New York 40 27 218 285
North Carolina 31 2 127 160
Ohio 16 7 202 225
Oklahoma - 4 78 82
Oregon - 1 109 110
Pennsylvania 14 12 197 223
Rhode Island 2 - 25 27
South Carolina 24 2 55 81
Tennessee 17 1 126 144
Texas 39 93 178 310
Utah - 2 22 24
Virginia 23 2 63 88
Washington 10 8 99 117
West Virginia - - 48 48
Wisconsin 8 1 77 86
ME, VT - - 34 34
IA, ND, SD - - 76 76
AK, ID, MT, WY 2 2 60 64
 
United States 565 398 3,926 4,889
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Family Income Less than 100% of Poverty Level  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 32% 16% 14% 19%
Arizona 33% 19% 15% 22%
Arkansas 36% 25% 22% 28%
California 32% 17% 10% 21%
Colorado 19% 12% 8% 14%
Connecticut 22% 10% 12% 13%
Delaware 20% 12% 17% 15%
District of Columbia   54% 20% 0% 25%
Florida 24% 16% 12% 18%
Georgia 27% 15% 24% 19%
Hawaii 12% 4% 0% 5%
Illinois 20% 9% 12% 13%
Indiana 26% 11% 9% 15%
Kansas 20% 12% 9% 14%
Kentucky 28% 13% 19% 17%
Louisiana 34% 23% 16% 26%
Maryland 10% 8% 5% 8%
Massachusetts 25% 14% 14% 17%
Michigan 23% 13% 9% 15%
Minnesota 17% 9% 16% 12%
Mississippi 34% 21% 28% 26%
Missouri 22% 11% 14% 15%
Nebraska 9% 6% 11% 8%
Nevada 22% 17% 0% 17%
New Hampshire - - 8% 9%
New Jersey 21% 12% 11% 14%
New Mexico 27% 19% 0% 19%
New York 29% 16% 14% 19%
North Carolina 22% 11% 18% 14%
Ohio 21% 11% 11% 14%
Oklahoma 33% 18% 13% 21%
Oregon 23% 13% 12% 16%
Pennsylvania 23% 10% 13% 14%
Rhode Island 4% 8% 15% 8%
South Carolina 32% 16% 25% 21%
Tennessee 29% 15% 19% 19%
Texas 34% 19% 17% 23%
Utah 16% 11% 4% 13%
Virginia 17% 12% 15% 14%
Washington 24% 15% 9% 17%
West Virginia 36% 19% 11% 22%
Wisconsin 17% 6% 7% 9%
ME, VT - - 5% 13%
IA, ND, SD 18% 10% 4% 11%
AK, ID, MT, WY 12% 9% 20% 11%
 
United States 26% 14% 13% 17%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 0% 1% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 2% 0% 1%
Arkansas 0% 2% 0% 1%
California 0% 4% 0% 3%
Colorado 0% 2% 0% 1%
Connecticut 0% 3% 0% 2%
Delaware 0% 4% 0% 2%
District of Columbia   0% 10% 0% 7%
Florida 0% 2% 0% 1%
Georgia 0% 3% 0% 2%
Hawaii 0% 1% 0% 1%
Illinois 0% 2% 0% 2%
Indiana 0% 2% 0% 1%
Kansas 0% 1% 0% 0%
Kentucky 0% 3% 0% 2%
Louisiana 0% 3% 0% 2%
Maryland 0% 1% 0% 1%
Massachusetts 0% 4% 0% 2%
Michigan 0% 5% 0% 3%
Minnesota 0% 2% 0% 1%
Mississippi 0% 3% 0% 2%
Missouri 0% 2% 0% 1%
Nebraska 0% 1% 0% 0%
Nevada 0% 2% 0% 1%
New Hampshire - - 0% 0%
New Jersey 0% 2% 0% 1%
New Mexico 2% 0% 0% 1%
New York 0% 3% 0% 2%
North Carolina 0% 2% 0% 1%
Ohio 0% 3% 0% 2%
Oklahoma 0% 2% 0% 1%
Oregon 0% 2% 1% 2%
Pennsylvania 0% 2% 0% 1%
Rhode Island 0% 2% 0% 1%
South Carolina 0% 3% 0% 2%
Tennessee 0% 3% 0% 2%
Texas 0% 2% 0% 1%
Utah 0% 1% 0% 1%
Virginia 0% 1% 1% 1%
Washington 0% 2% 0% 1%
West Virginia 0% 3% 0% 2%
Wisconsin 0% 2% 0% 1%
ME, VT - - 0% 3%
IA, ND, SD 0% 2% 0% 1%
AK, ID, MT, WY 1% 1% 0% 1%
 
United States 0% 3% 0% 2%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 3% 1% 0% 1%
Arizona 11% 2% 0% 4%
Arkansas 10% 3% 0% 5%
California 20% 5% 1% 9%
Colorado 9% 2% 0% 3%
Connecticut 13% 3% 0% 4%
Delaware 16% 5% 0% 7%
District of Columbia   41% 11% 0% 17%
Florida 10% 2% 0% 4%
Georgia 14% 4% 0% 6%
Hawaii 2% 2% 0% 2%
Illinois 12% 3% 0% 5%
Indiana 14% 3% 0% 6%
Kansas 5% 1% 0% 2%
Kentucky 11% 3% 0% 4%
Louisiana 11% 4% 0% 6%
Maryland 5% 2% 0% 2%
Massachusetts 18% 4% 0% 7%
Michigan 17% 5% 0% 8%
Minnesota 12% 3% 0% 5%
Mississippi 13% 3% 0% 6%
Missouri 12% 2% 0% 5%
Nebraska 2% 1% 0% 1%
Nevada 6% 2% 0% 3%
New Hampshire - - 0% 0%
New Jersey 13% 2% 0% 5%
New Mexico 5% 0% 0% 1%
New York 14% 4% 0% 6%
North Carolina 11% 2% 0% 4%
Ohio 13% 3% 0% 5%
Oklahoma 10% 2% 0% 4%
Oregon 11% 3% 1% 5%
Pennsylvania 9% 2% 0% 4%
Rhode Island 5% 2% 0% 2%
South Carolina 11% 3% 0% 5%
Tennessee 16% 3% 0% 6%
Texas 8% 2% 0% 3%
Utah 5% 2% 0% 3%
Virginia 4% 1% 1% 2%
Washington 8% 3% 0% 4%
West Virginia 17% 4% 0% 7%
Wisconsin 12% 2% 0% 4%
ME, VT - - 0% 8%
IA, ND, SD 10% 3% 0% 4%
AK, ID, MT, WY 6% 2% 0% 3%
 
United States 12% 3% 0% 5%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 46% 61% 42% 56%
Arizona 46% 56% 38% 51%
Arkansas 46% 50% 38% 47%
California 43% 56% 34% 50%
Colorado 55% 62% 33% 58%
Connecticut 68% 73% 45% 67%
Delaware 54% 70% 50% 63%
District of Columbia   38% 59% 67% 55%
Florida 48% 56% 33% 51%
Georgia 51% 57% 29% 53%
Hawaii 80% 80% 66% 77%
Illinois 67% 73% 42% 68%
Indiana 57% 67% 41% 61%
Kansas 49% 58% 21% 50%
Kentucky 61% 63% 40% 60%
Louisiana 49% 52% 27% 48%
Maryland 73% 73% 62% 72%
Massachusetts 67% 74% 38% 68%
Michigan 66% 71% 53% 68%
Minnesota 73% 73% 30% 67%
Mississippi 35% 54% 16% 44%
Missouri 61% 68% 36% 62%
Nebraska 54% 60% 26% 52%
Nevada 53% 57% 18% 53%
New Hampshire - - 57% 69%
New Jersey 62% 70% 38% 64%
New Mexico 52% 65% 49% 59%
New York 55% 65% 48% 60%
North Carolina 58% 67% 35% 61%
Ohio 64% 72% 48% 67%
Oklahoma 56% 64% 30% 57%
Oregon 60% 64% 43% 61%
Pennsylvania 63% 73% 48% 67%
Rhode Island 75% 75% 29% 69%
South Carolina 56% 68% 40% 62%
Tennessee 54% 60% 32% 55%
Texas 51% 59% 35% 55%
Utah 71% 73% 45% 70%
Virginia 57% 64% 47% 61%
Washington 59% 64% 35% 59%
West Virginia 48% 57% 43% 53%
Wisconsin 74% 70% 38% 68%
ME, VT - - 36% 61%
IA, ND, SD 65% 66% 30% 60%
AK, ID, MT, WY 61% 65% 28% 59%
 
United States 56% 64% 39% 59%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
  Work Disability, January
  <18     18-64     65-69     Total  
Alabama 3% 10% 39% 8%
Arizona 1% 10% 22% 7%
Arkansas 0% 16% 19% 11%
California 0% 10% 25% 7%
Colorado 0% 12% 62% 9%
Connecticut 2% 7% 14% 5%
Delaware 0% 6% 24% 5%
District of Columbia   5% 18% 13% 14%
Florida 0% 10% 24% 7%
Georgia 1% 13% 43% 10%
Hawaii 0% 6% 12% 5%
Illinois 1% 7% 11% 5%
Indiana 0% 7% 21% 5%
Kansas 1% 7% 25% 5%
Kentucky 0% 13% 42% 10%
Louisiana 1% 16% 39% 11%
Maryland 0% 8% 27% 6%
Massachusetts 0% 8% 19% 6%
Michigan 1% 10% 24% 7%
Minnesota 0% 10% 23% 7%
Mississippi 0% 13% 36% 9%
Missouri 2% 10% 44% 8%
Nebraska 0% 5% 17% 3%
Nevada 2% 7% 35% 6%
New Hampshire - - 0% 4%
New Jersey 0% 7% 16% 5%
New Mexico 7% 12% 30% 11%
New York 1% 9% 19% 6%
North Carolina 0% 12% 27% 9%
Ohio 1% 13% 21% 9%
Oklahoma 1% 12% 43% 9%
Oregon 0% 13% 34% 10%
Pennsylvania 0% 9% 32% 7%
Rhode Island 0% 18% 14% 12%
South Carolina 0% 11% 32% 8%
Tennessee 1% 16% 46% 13%
Texas 0% 8% 31% 6%
Utah 1% 12% 18% 7%
Virginia 0% 9% 35% 7%
Washington 1% 13% 35% 10%
West Virginia 2% 12% 34% 9%
Wisconsin 0% 11% 27% 9%
ME, VT - - 17% 6%
IA, ND, SD 1% 10% 23% 7%
AK, ID, MT, WY 1% 11% 34% 8%
 
United States 1% 10% 27% 7%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 0% 2% 0% 1%
Arizona 0% 3% 0% 2%
Arkansas 0% 3% 0% 2%
California 0% 5% 0% 3%
Colorado 0% 2% 0% 1%
Connecticut 0% 3% 0% 2%
Delaware 0% 4% 0% 2%
District of Columbia   0% 10% 0% 7%
Florida 0% 3% 0% 2%
Georgia 0% 4% 2% 3%
Hawaii 0% 2% 0% 1%
Illinois 0% 3% 0% 2%
Indiana 1% 3% 0% 2%
Kansas 0% 2% 0% 1%
Kentucky 0% 3% 0% 2%
Louisiana 0% 4% 0% 2%
Maryland 0% 3% 0% 2%
Massachusetts 0% 4% 0% 3%
Michigan 0% 6% 0% 4%
Minnesota 0% 3% 0% 2%
Mississippi 0% 3% 0% 2%
Missouri 0% 3% 0% 2%
Nebraska 0% 1% 0% 0%
Nevada 0% 2% 0% 1%
New Hampshire - - 0% 1%
New Jersey 0% 3% 0% 2%
New Mexico 2% 1% 0% 1%
New York 0% 4% 0% 3%
North Carolina 1% 3% 0% 2%
Ohio 0% 3% 0% 2%
Oklahoma 0% 3% 0% 2%
Oregon 0% 3% 1% 2%
Pennsylvania 0% 2% 0% 2%
Rhode Island 0% 3% 0% 2%
South Carolina 0% 4% 0% 3%
Tennessee 0% 4% 0% 2%
Texas 0% 3% 0% 2%
Utah 0% 2% 0% 1%
Virginia 0% 1% 1% 1%
Washington 0% 5% 0% 3%
West Virginia 0% 4% 0% 2%
Wisconsin 0% 2% 0% 2%
ME, VT - - 0% 3%
IA, ND, SD 0% 3% 0% 2%
AK, ID, MT, WY 1% 2% 0% 1%
 
United States 0% 3% 0% 2%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 5% 2% 0% 2%
Arizona 14% 4% 0% 6%
Arkansas 14% 4% 0% 6%
California 24% 7% 10% 11%
Colorado 10% 2% 0% 4%
Connecticut 17% 3% 0% 6%
Delaware 20% 5% 0% 8%
District of Columbia   41% 11% 0% 17%
Florida 13% 3% 0% 5%
Georgia 16% 4% 2% 8%
Hawaii 10% 10% 0% 8%
Illinois 16% 4% 0% 7%
Indiana 18% 4% 0% 7%
Kansas 10% 2% 0% 4%
Kentucky 13% 4% 0% 6%
Louisiana 15% 5% 0% 7%
Maryland 9% 4% 0% 5%
Massachusetts 22% 5% 0% 9%
Michigan 21% 7% 0% 10%
Minnesota 13% 4% 0% 6%
Mississippi 16% 3% 0% 7%
Missouri 16% 3% 0% 6%
Nebraska 2% 1% 0% 1%
Nevada 6% 2% 0% 3%
New Hampshire - - 0% 2%
New Jersey 15% 3% 0% 6%
New Mexico 14% 1% 0% 5%
New York 18% 5% 0% 8%
North Carolina 15% 3% 0% 6%
Ohio 15% 4% 0% 6%
Oklahoma 16% 3% 0% 6%
Oregon 13% 5% 1% 6%
Pennsylvania 12% 3% 0% 5%
Rhode Island 5% 3% 0% 3%
South Carolina 17% 5% 0% 8%
Tennessee 19% 4% 0% 7%
Texas 13% 4% 0% 6%
Utah 7% 3% 0% 4%
Virginia 8% 1% 1% 3%
Washington 17% 6% 0% 9%
West Virginia 19% 5% 0% 8%
Wisconsin 13% 3% 0% 5%
ME, VT - - 0% 8%
IA, ND, SD 13% 5% 0% 6%
AK, ID, MT, WY 9% 2% 0% 4%
 
United States 16% 4% 0% 7%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 63% 74% 54% 69%
Arizona 56% 67% 52% 62%
Arkansas 52% 59% 53% 56%
California 52% 68% 44% 61%
Colorado 61% 74% 40% 68%
Connecticut 74% 81% 54% 75%
Delaware 75% 83% 57% 78%
District of Columbia   41% 71% 87% 66%
Florida 62% 67% 42% 62%
Georgia 62% 70% 39% 65%
Hawaii 91% 92% 79% 90%
Illinois 75% 82% 53% 77%
Indiana 66% 76% 57% 71%
Kansas 65% 69% 30% 61%
Kentucky 70% 75% 47% 71%
Louisiana 63% 62% 38% 60%
Maryland 80% 84% 69% 82%
Massachusetts 72% 81% 45% 75%
Michigan 72% 80% 68% 77%
Minnesota 75% 80% 32% 72%
Mississippi 47% 63% 20% 53%
Missouri 67% 78% 40% 70%
Nebraska 77% 79% 30% 69%
Nevada 68% 73% 29% 67%
New Hampshire - - 69% 76%
New Jersey 69% 78% 47% 72%
New Mexico 52% 68% 69% 64%
New York 63% 73% 55% 68%
North Carolina 70% 78% 43% 72%
Ohio 73% 81% 61% 77%
Oklahoma 62% 72% 39% 65%
Oregon 62% 73% 51% 68%
Pennsylvania 69% 81% 56% 74%
Rhode Island 79% 83% 29% 76%
South Carolina 67% 80% 51% 74%
Tennessee 60% 69% 36% 62%
Texas 58% 70% 46% 64%
Utah 78% 80% 58% 77%
Virginia 70% 75% 55% 71%
Washington 67% 73% 43% 68%
West Virginia 55% 64% 46% 59%
Wisconsin 78% 82% 45% 77%
ME, VT - - 40% 70%
IA, ND, SD 71% 75% 33% 68%
AK, ID, MT, WY 78% 76% 29% 71%
 
United States 65% 74% 48% 69%
TABLE B-4. Weighted Percent by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Percent with Characteristics by Age
    Work Disability, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 3% 12% 13% 10%
Arizona 2% 16% 10% 11%
Arkansas 1% 21% 9% 14%
California 1% 13% 11% 9%
Colorado 1% 16% 20% 12%
Connecticut 2% 10% 5% 8%
Delaware 0% 8% 16% 7%
District of Columbia   5% 21% 12% 16%
Florida 1% 12% 9% 9%
Georgia 1% 17% 19% 12%
Hawaii 0% 8% 7% 6%
Illinois 2% 10% 5% 7%
Indiana 1% 10% 8% 7%
Kansas 1% 10% 8% 7%
Kentucky 1% 14% 16% 11%
Louisiana 1% 20% 13% 14%
Maryland 0% 10% 16% 8%
Massachusetts 0% 11% 8% 8%
Michigan 1% 13% 9% 9%
Minnesota 1% 14% 9% 10%
Mississippi 1% 16% 11 11%
Missouri 2% 14% 14% 11%
Nebraska 1% 6% 3% 4%
Nevada 2% 13% 11% 10%
New Hampshire - - 0% 7%
New Jersey 0% 10% 8% 7%
New Mexico 7% 16% 14% 13%
New York 1% 11% 8% 8%
North Carolina 0% 14% 16% 11%
Ohio 1% 16% 8% 11%
Oklahoma 2% 16% 14% 12%
Oregon 1% 19% 13% 14%
Pennsylvania 1% 12% 14% 10%
Rhode Island 0% 20% 9% 14%
South Carolina 0% 13% 19% 10%
Tennessee 1% 19% 19% 15%
Texas 0% 12% 15% 9%
Utah 1% 12% 4% 7%
Virginia 0% 11% 15% 8%
Washington 2% 19% 17% 13%
West Virginia 2% 13% 13% 10%
Wisconsin 1% 14% 11% 11%
ME, VT - - 11% 8%
IA, ND, SD 1% 13% 7% 9%
AK, ID, MT, WY 1% 17% 12% 12%
 
United States 1% 13% 11% 10%
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Totals
  <18     18-64     65+     65-69 only     Total  
Alabama 177 460 91 31 728
Arizona 233 476 108 34 817
Arkansas 117 245 53 15 415
California 1,990 3,779 685 220 6,454
Colorado 189 402 51 17 642
Connecticut 144 389 100 28 633
Delaware 56 130 29 9 215
District of Columbia   25 65 14 7 104
Florida 636 1,566 394 123 2,596
Georgia 458 892 124 47 1,474
Hawaii 38 104 30 8 172
Illinois 744 1,528 284 94 2,556
Indiana 410 808 166 43 1,384
Kansas 177 348 110 29 635
Kentucky 156 423 76 24 655
Louisiana 273 483 99 29 855
Maryland 228 571 102 43 901
Massachusetts 346 777 147 52 1,270
Michigan 587 1,177 185 60 1,949
Minnesota 343 760 175 50 1,278
Mississippi 208 395 84 25 687
Missouri 311 641 171 53 1,123
Nebraska 101 184 66 13 351
Nevada 49 110 17 6 176
New Hampshire 44 101 14 4 159
New Jersey 494 1,023 216 77 1,733
New Mexico 36 68 16 7 120
New York 950 2,141 459 157 3,550
North Carolina 375 939 188 79 1,502
Ohio 554 1,251 257 80 2,062
Oklahoma 183 402 101 26 686
Oregon 229 486 110 38 825
Pennsylvania 641 1,372 333 114 2,346
Rhode Island 48 122 22 7 192
South Carolina 240 481 63 31 784
Tennessee 230 567 157 53 954
Texas 1,060 2,081 339 118 3,480
Utah 149 177 31 7 357
Virginia 313 692 104 40 1,109
Washington 278 567 117 46 962
West Virginia 127 260 78 26 465
Wisconsin 214 540 97 39 851
ME, VT 121 259 35 12 415
IA, ND, SD 199 472 126 30 797
AK, ID, MT, WY 173 336 67 18 576
 
United States 14,654 31,050 6,291 2,069 51,995
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Family Income Less than 100% of Poverty Level  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 57 72 13 142
Arizona 76 89 15 180
Arkansas 41 62 12 115
California 642 636 68 1,346
Colorado 35 48 4 87
Connecticut 31 37 11 79
Delaware 11 15 5 31
District of Columbia   14 14 - 28
Florida 155 237 47 439
Georgia 121 131 31 283
Hawaii 4 4 - 8
Illinois 139 137 34 310
Indiana 103 91 16 210
Kansas 35 40 10 85
Kentucky 43 54 15 112
Louisiana 90 106 16 212
Maryland 24 43 6 73
Massachusetts 85 105 20 210
Michigan 132 142 16 290
Minnesota 60 66 26 152
Mississippi 68 81 23 172
Missouri 67 69 24 160
Nebraska 10 12 7 29
Nevada 11 17 - 28
New Hampshire 4 9 1 14
New Jersey 103 120 23 246
New Mexico 9 14 - 23
New York 274 342 53 669
North Carolina 81 96 35 212
Ohio 117 136 28 281
Oklahoma 61 73 14 148
Oregon 56 62 14 132
Pennsylvania 142 140 44 326
Rhode Island 2 9 3 14
South Carolina 74 75 16 165
Tennessee 64 84 29 177
Texas 368 398 58 824
Utah 24 18 1 43
Virginia 55 79 17 151
Washington 69 85 8 162
West Virginia 47 48 9 104
Wisconsin 34 31 7 72
ME, VT 18 35 2 55
IA, ND, SD 35 48 6 89
AK, ID, MT, WY 21 32 14 67
 
United States 3,712 4,242 801 8,755
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama - 4 - 4
Arizona - 11 - 11
Arkansas - 5 - 5
California 1 164 2 167
Colorado - 6 - 6
Connecticut - 11 - 11
Delaware - 5 - 5
District of Columbia   - 6 - 6
Florida - 29 - 29
Georgia - 29 - 29
Hawaii - 1 - 1
Illinois 1 34 - 35
Indiana - 20 - 20
Kansas - 3 - 3
Kentucky - 11 - 11
Louisiana - 16 - 16
Maryland - 8 - 8
Massachusetts - 30 - 30
Michigan - 51 - 51
Minnesota - 17 - 17
Mississippi 1 10 - 11
Missouri - 13 - 13
Nebraska - 1 - 1
Nevada - 2 - 2
New Hampshire - 23 - 23
New Jersey 1 - - 1
New Mexico - 69 1 70
New York 1 18 - 19
North Carolina 2 32 - 34
Ohio - 9 - 9
Oklahoma - 12 1 13
Oregon 1 25 1 27
Pennsylvania - 2 - 2
Rhode Island - 14 - 14
South Carolina - 16 - 16
Tennessee - 38 - 38
Texas - 2 - 2
Utah - 7 1 8
Virginia - 15 - 15
Washington - 9 - 9
West Virginia - 10 - 10
Wisconsin - 11 - 11
ME, VT - 10 - 10
IA, ND, SD 1 5 - 6
AK, ID, MT, WY - - - -
 
United States 9 814 6 829
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 5 4 - 9
Arizona 25 11 - 36
Arkansas 12 7 - 19
California 390 214 4 608
Colorado 15 6 - 21
Connecticut 18 11 - 29
Delaware 9 6 - 15
District of Columbia   10 7 - 17
Florida 63 33 - 96
Georgia 61 31 - 92
Hawaii 1 2 - 3
Illinois 84 36 - 120
Indiana 57 22 - 79
Kansas 7 3 - 10
Kentucky 17 12 - 29
Louisiana 29 18 - 47
Maryland 11 10 - 21
Massachusetts 62 34 - 96
Michigan 96 61 - 157
Minnesota 38 21 - 59
Mississippi 26 11 - 37
Missouri 35 15 - 50
Nebraska 2 1 - 3
Nevada 3 2 - 5
New Hampshire 60 25 - 85
New Jersey 2 - - 2
New Mexico 135 87 1 223
New York 39 19 - 58
North Carolina 71 36 - 107
Ohio 18 9 - 27
Oklahoma 25 16 1 42
Oregon 59 29 1 89
Pennsylvania 3 2 - 5
Rhode Island 25 16 - 41
South Carolina 35 16 - 51
Tennessee 85 41 - 126
Texas 8 4 - 12
Utah 12 7 1 20
Virginia 26 18 - 44
Washington 22 10 - 32
West Virginia 24 11 - 35
Wisconsin 19 14 - 33
ME, VT 19 15 - 34
IA, ND, SD 11 6 - 17
AK, ID, MT, WY - - - -
 
United States 1,774 959 8 2,741
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, January  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 84 289 40 413
Arizona 108 270 41 419
Arkansas 54 123 19 196
California 858 2,115 233 3,206
Colorado 106 254 17 377
Connecticut 97 290 45 432
Delaware 30 90 15 135
District of Columbia   9 40 9 58
Florida 311 888 127 1,326
Georgia 232 516 37 785
Hawaii 31 83 20 134
Illinois 508 1,135 120 1,763
Indiana 237 548 69 854
Kansas 87 202 23 312
Kentucky 95 268 31 394
Louisiana 139 259 28 426
Maryland 164 418 63 645
Massachusetts 235 584 57 876
Michigan 386 854 100 1,340
Minnesota 250 559 53 862
Mississippi 77 216 13 306
Missouri 192 448 60 700
Nebraska 55 114 17 186
Nevada 26 64 3 93
New Hampshire 35 68 8 111
New Jersey 308 720 85 1,113
New Mexico 19 45 8 72
New York 522 1,406 228 2,156
North Carolina 216 638 67 921
Ohio 361 912 122 1,395
Oklahoma 104 258 30 392
Oregon 137 318 48 503
Pennsylvania 407 1,003 162 1,572
Rhode Island 36 92 7 135
South Carolina 137 334 26 497
Tennessee 123 347 49 519
Texas 529 1,233 122 1,884
Utah 106 130 14 250
Virginia 177 447 49 673
Washington 161 367 42 570
West Virginia 61 152 34 247
Wisconsin 160 387 37 584
ME, VT 74 170 13 257
IA, ND, SD 127 316 37 480
AK, ID, MT, WY 105 218 19 342
 
United States 8,276 20,188 2,447 30,911
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Work Disability, January
  <18     18-64     65-69     Total  
Alabama 4 42 12 58
Arizona 1 49 7 57
Arkansas - 42 3 45
California 5 363 54 422
Colorado - 48 10 58
Connecticut 2 25 4 31
Delaware - 8 2 10
District of Columbia   1 12 1 14
Florida 3 152 30 185
Georgia 4 113 20 137
Hawaii - 7 1 8
Illinois 5 113 10 128
Indiana 2 61 9 72
Kansas 2 23 7 32
Kentucky 1 51 10 62
Louisiana 3 79 11 93
Maryland - 43 11 54
Massachusetts - 64 10 74
Michigan 6 119 15 140
Minnesota 1 75 12 88
Mississippi 1 55 9 65
Missouri 5 64 24 93
Nebraska - 9 2 11
Nevada 1 8 2 11
New Hampshire 1 5 - 6
New Jersey 1 72 13 86
New Mexico 2 7 2 11
New York 5 182 27 214
North Carolina 1 107 23 131
Ohio 3 158 17 178
Oklahoma 1 47 11 59
Oregon - 64 13 77
Pennsylvania 2 126 37 165
Rhode Island - 22 1 23
South Carolina - 54 10 64
Tennessee 2 94 25 121
Texas 3 177 36 216
Utah 1 22 1 24
Virginia - 57 13 70
Washington 2 67 14 83
West Virginia 2 32 9 43
Wisconsin - 58 10 68
ME, VT - 22 2 24
IA, ND, SD 1 49 7 57
AK, ID, MT, WY 1 37 6 11
 
United States 75 3,084 553 3,712
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Persons Age 15+ Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama - 7 - 7
Arizona - 15 - 15
Arkansas - 7 - 7
California 4 204 2 210
Colorado - 8 - 8
Connecticut - 13 - 13
Delaware - 5 - 5
District of Columbia   - 6 - 6
Florida - 40 - 40
Georgia - 34 2 36
Hawaii - 2 - 2
Illinois 1 48 - 49
Indiana 2 28 - 30
Kansas - 7 - 7
Kentucky - 13 - 13
Louisiana - 18 - 18
Maryland - 15 - 15
Massachusetts - 35 - 35
Michigan - 65 - 65
Minnesota - 21 - 21
Mississippi 1 10 - 11
Missouri 1 19 - 20
Nebraska - 1 - 1
Nevada - 2 - 2
New Hampshire - 2 - 2
New Jersey - 27 - 27
New Mexico 1 1 - 2
New York - 90 1 91
North Carolina 3 25 - 28
Ohio 2 38 - 40
Oklahoma - 11 - 11
Oregon - 17 1 18
Pennsylvania 1 32 1 34
Rhode Island - 3 - 3
South Carolina - 20 - 20
Tennessee - 19 - 19
Texas 1 63 - 64
Utah - 3 - 3
Virginia - 9 1 10
Washington - 26 - 26
West Virginia - 11 - 11
Wisconsin - 12 - 12
ME, VT - 12 - 12
IA, ND, SD - 15 - 15
AK, ID, MT, WY 2 6 - 8
 
United States 19 1,065 8 1,092
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    All Persons Receiving AFDC, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 8 7 - 15
Arizona 3 18 - 51
Arkansas 16 10 - 26
California 482 278 5 765
Colorado 18 9 - 27
Connecticut 24 13 - 37
Delaware 11 6 - 17
District of Columbia   10 7 - 17
Florida 80 49 - 129
Georgia 74 38 2 114
Hawaii 4 10 - 14
Illinois 112 56 - 168
Indiana 71 31 - 102
Kansas 17 8 - 25
Kentucky 21 16 - 37
Louisiana 39 21 - 60
Maryland 20 20 - 40
Massachusetts 74 40 - 114
Michigan 120 76 - 196
Minnesota 43 28 - 71
Mississippi 30 12 - 42
Missouri 47 21 - 68
Nebraska 2 1 - 3
Nevada 3 2 - 5
New Hampshire 1 2 - 3
New Jersey 68 32 - 100
New Mexico 5 1 - 6
New York 172 115 1 288
North Carolina 56 27 - 83
Ohio 79 44 - 123
Oklahoma 28 13 - 41
Oregon 31 22 1 54
Pennsylvania 74 38 1 113
Rhode Island 3 3 - 6
South Carolina 38 23 - 61
Tennessee 41 21 - 62
Texas 138 79 - 217
Utah 11 5 - 16
Virginia 25 9 1 35
Washington 47 33 - 80
West Virginia 25 15 - 40
Wisconsin 26 14 - 40
ME, VT 21 14 - 35
IA, ND, SD 25 21 - 46
AK, ID, MT, WY 16 8 - 24
 
United States 2,289 1,316 11 3,616
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Employer Provided Health Insurance, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65+     Total  
Alabama 114 346 51 511
Arizona 131 324 56 511
Arkansas 61 145 27 233
California 1,027 2,556 302 3,885
Colorado 116 300 21 437
Connecticut 107 318 54 479
Delaware 42 108 17 167
District of Columbia   10 47 12 69
Florida 396 1,055 159 1,610
Georgia 286 628 49 963
Hawaii 35 95 24 154
Illinois 562 1,265 151 1,978
Indiana 271 624 95 990
Kansas 114 240 33 387
Kentucky 109 318 36 463
Louisiana 176 309 38 523
Maryland 182 483 70 735
Massachusetts 251 638 68 957
Michigan 425 952 125 1,502
Minnesota 260 610 57 927
Mississippi 100 250 17 367
Missouri 212 507 68 787
Nebraska 78 145 20 243
Nevada 33 81 5 119
New Hampshire 35 77 10 122
New Jersey 343 808 103 1,254
New Mexico 19 47 11 77
New York 595 1,587 265 2,447
North Carolina 260 732 82 1,074
Ohio 407 1,025 157 1,589
Oklahoma 115 291 39 445
Oregon 141 361 57 559
Pennsylvania 446 1,112 188 1,746
Rhode Island 38 102 7 147
South Carolina 163 391 33 587
Tennessee 138 394 55 587
Texas 610 1,443 159 2,212
Utah 115 142 18 275
Virginia 217 517 57 791
Washington 187 421 52 660
West Virginia 69 171 36 276
Wisconsin 169 447 43 659
ME, VT 85 193 14 292
IA, ND, SD 141 357 41 539
AK, ID, MT, WY 134 255 20 409
 
United States 9,525 23,217 3,002 35,744
TABLE B-5. Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
  Tabulations of the 1993 SIPP for Selected Characteristics  
Unweighted Cell Counts by Age
    Work Disability, in 1 or more months  
  <18     18-64     65-69     Total  
Alabama 4 51 12 67
Arizona 4 75 10 89
Arkansas 1 52 5 58
California 12 472 79 563
Colorado 1 61 10 72
Connecticut 3 38 5 46
Delaware - 11 5 16
District of Columbia   1 13 2 16
Florida 4 191 37 232
Georgia 4 150 24 178
Hawaii - 9 2 11
Illinois 11 148 14 173
Indiana 3 85 13 101
Kansas 2 33 9 44
Kentucky 2 58 12 72
Louisiana 3 100 13 116
Maryland - 56 15 71
Massachusetts 1 86 12 99
Michigan 7 149 18 174
Minnesota 3 108 16 127
Mississippi 2 66 9 77
Missouri 7 91 25 123
Nebraska 1 12 2 15
Nevada 1 14 2 17
New Hampshire 2 9 - 11
New Jersey 2 103 18 123
New Mexico 2 10 2 14
New York 8 241 36 285
North Carolina 1 128 31 160
Ohio 6 197 22 225
Oklahoma 4 64 14 82
Oregon 2 93 15 110
Pennsylvania 3 169 51 223
Rhode Island - 25 2 27
South Carolina - 69 12 81
Tennessee 3 111 30 144
Texas 5 256 49 310
Utah 1 22 1 24
Virginia - 74 14 88
Washington 5 94 18 117
West Virginia 3 35 10 48
Wisconsin 1 75 10 86
ME, VT - 30 4 34
IA, ND, SD 1 65 40 76
AK, ID, MT, WY 1 55 8 64
 
United States 127 4,054 708 4,889