To maintain the confidentiality required by law (Title 13, United States Code), the Bureau of the Census applies a confidentiality edit to the 1990 census data to assure that published data do not disclose information about specific individuals, households, or housing units. As a result, a small amount of uncertainty is introduced into the estimates of census characteristics. The sample itself provides adequate protection for most areas for which sample data are published since the resulting data are estimates of the actual counts; however, small areas require more protection. The edit is controlled so that the basic structure of the data is preserved.

The confidentiality edit is implemented by selecting a small subset of individual households from the internal sample data files and blanking a subset of the data items on these household records. Responses to those data items were then imputed using the same imputation procedures that were used for nonresponse. A larger subset of households is selected for the confidentiality edit for small areas to provide greater protection for these areas. The editing process is implemented in such a way that the quality and usefulness of the data were preserved.

The objective of the processing operation is to produce a set of data that describes the population as accurately and clearly as possible. To meet this objective, questionnaires were edited during field data collection operations for consistency, completeness, and acceptability. Questionnaires also were reviewed by census clerks for omissions, certain specific inconsistencies, and population coverage. For example, write-in entries such as Dont know or NA were considered unacceptable. For some district offices, the initial edit was automated; however, for the majority of the district offices, it was performed by clerks. As a result of this operation, a telephone or personal visit followup was made to obtain missing information. Potential coverage errors were included in the followup, as well as a sample of questionnaires with omissions and/or inconsistencies. Subsequent to field operations, remaining incomplete or inconsistent information on the questionnaires was assigned using imputation procedures during the final automated edit of the collected data. Imputations, or computer assignments of acceptable codes in place of unacceptable entries or blanks, are needed most often when an entry for a given item is lacking or when the information reported for a person or housing unit on that item is inconsistent with other information for that same person or housing unit. As in previous censuses, the general procedure for changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry for a person or housing unit that was consistent with entries for persons or housing units with similar characteristics. The assignment of acceptable codes in place of blanks or unacceptable entries enhances the usefulness of the data.

Another way in which corrections were made during the computer editing process was through substitution; that is, the assignment of a full set of characteristics for a person or housing unit. When there was an indication that a housing unit was occupied but the questionnaire contained no information for the people within the household or the occupants were not listed on the questionnaire, a previously accepted household was selected as a substitute, and the full set of characteristics for the substitute was duplicated. The assignment of the full set of housing characteristics occurred when there was no housing information available. If the housing unit was determined to be occupied, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed occupied unit. If the housing unit was vacant, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed vacant unit.

Table A. Unadjusted Standard Error for Estimated Totals [Based on a 1-in-6 simple random sample]
Estimated Total	Size of publication area2
	500	1,000	2,500	5,000	10,000	25,000	50,000	100,000	250,000	500,000	1,000,000	5,000,000	10,000,000	25,000,000
50	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16	16
100	20	21	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	22	22
250	25	30	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35
500		35	45	45	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
1,000			55	65	65	70	70	70	70	70	70	70	70	70
2,500				80	95	110	110	110	110	110	110	110	110	110
5000					110	140	150	150	160	160	160	160	160	160
10,000						170	200	210	220	220	220	220	220	220
15,000						170	230	250	270	270	270	270	270	270
25,000							250	310	340	350	350	350	350	350
75,000								310	510	570	590	610	610	610
100,000									550	630	670	700	700	710
250,000										790	970	1 090	1 100	1 100
500,000											1120	1 500	1 540	1 570
1,000,000												2 000	2 120	2 190
5,000,000													3 540	4 470
10,000,000														5 480

The data on ancestry were derived from answers to questionnaire item 13, which was asked of a sample of persons. The question was based on self-identification; the data on ancestry represent self-classification by people according to the ancestry group(s) with which they most closely identify. Ancestry refers to a person's ethnic origin or descent, "roots," or heritage or the place of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestors before their arrival in the United States. Some ethnic identities, such as "Egyptian" or "Polish" can be traced to geographic areas outside the United States, while other ethnicities such as "Pennsylvania Dutch" or "Cajun" evolved in the United States.

The intent of the ancestry question was not to measure the degree of attachment the respondent had to a particular ethnicity. For example, a response of "Irish" might reflect total involvement in an "Irish" community or only a memory of ancestors several generations removed from the individual.

The Census Bureau coded the responses through an automated review, edit, and coding operation. The open-ended write-in ancestry item was coded by subject-matter specialists into a numeric representation using a code list containing over 1,000 categories. The 1990 code list reflects the results of the Census Bureau's own research and consultations with many ethnic experts. Many decisions were made to determine the classification of responses. These decisions affected the grouping of the tabulated data. For example, the "Assyrian" category includes both responses of "Assyrian" and "Chaldean."

The ancestry question allowed respondents to report one or more ancestry groups. While a large number of respondents listed a single ancestry, the majority of answers included more than one ethnic entry. Generally, only the first two responses reported were coded in 1990. If a response was in terms of a dual ancestry, for example, Irish-English, the person was assigned two codes, in this case one for Irish and another for English.

However, in certain cases, multiple responses such as "French Canadian," "Scotch-Irish," "Greek Cypriote," and "Black Dutch" were assigned a single code reflecting their status as unique groups. If a person reported one of these unique groups in addition to another group, for example, "Scotch-Irish English," resulting in three terms, that person received one code for the unique group ("Scotch-Irish") and another one for the remaining group ("English"). If a person reported "English Irish French," only English and Irish were coded. Certain combinations of ancestries where the ancestry group is a part of another, such as "German- Bavarian," the responses were coded as a single ancestry using the smaller group ("Bavarian"). Also, responses such as "Polish-American" or "Italian-American" were coded and tabulated as a single entry ("Polish" or "Italian").

The Census Bureau accepted "American" as a unique ethnicity if it was given alone, with an ambiguous response, or with State names. If the respondent listed any other ethnic identity such as "Italian American," generally the "American" portion of the response was not coded. However, distinct groups such as "American Indian," "Mexican American," and "African American" were coded and identified separately because they represented groups who considered themselves different from those who reported as "Indian," "Mexican," or "African," respectively.

In all tabulations, when respondents provided an unacceptable ethnic identity (for example, an uncodeable or unintelligible response such as "multi-national," "adopted," or "I have no idea"), the answer was included in "Ancestry not reported."

The tabulations on ancestry are presented using two types of data presentations--one used total persons as the base, and the other used total responses as the base. The following are categories shown in the two data presentations: