Summary File 1 state files contain erroneous data for selected geographic components¹ of Congressional Districts (summary level 500²). Geographic components are portions of the congressional district within specific types of geography, such as "In metropolitan statistical area (MSA)/consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA )" or "In metropolitan statistical area (MSA)/ consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA)-in MSA/CMSA central city." We plan to include the corrected data for the geographic components of Congressional Districts in the Final National Summary File 1, which is scheduled for public release in June 2002.

To summarize, Congressional District data are correct in all SF1 state files for:

• The Congressional District as a whole (summary level 500, geographic component code 00).
• All other Congressional District summary levels having a geographic component code of 00 (summary level 5nn, geographic component code 00).

Congressional District data are in error for:

• Congressional district records having a geographic component code other than 00 (summary level 500, geographic component codes 52-59, 64-71, 84, 89-95).

This note is applicable to the following data products:

• All Summary File 1 (SF1) state files available at the Census Bureau's FTP site.
• SF1 CD-ROMs (ASCII files only).
• Tables available on American FactFinder between June and September 2001. (Geographic components data for Congressional Districts were removed from American FactFinder on September 11, 2001.)

¹ Geographic components and their codes are listed in the Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation, in Chapter 7 (Data Dictionary, Footnote Section, page 7-15).
² Summary level information is available in the Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation, Chapter 4

September 2001

In the Summary File 1 (SF 1) state files, the state geographic component records¹ contain errors in two geographic header fields. These fields are land area² and water area.

These errors appear in the geographic component records for the state (summary level³ 040). Geographic components are portions of the state within specific types of geography, such as "In metropolitan statistical area (MSA)/consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA )" or "In metropolitan statistical area (MSA)/ consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CMSA)-in MSA/CMSA central city."

The corrected data are included in the Advance National Summary File 1, which is scheduled for public release in November 2001.

To summarize, land area and water area are correct for:

• The state as a whole (summary level 040, geographic component code 00).

Land area and water area are in error for:

• State records having a geographic component code other than 00 (summary level 040, geographic components 52-59, 64-79, 84, 89-95).

This note applies to the following data products:

• All SF 1 state files available at the Census Bureau's FTP site.
• SF 1 state file CD-ROMs and DVDs.
• American FactFinder SF 1 detailed tables (geographic identifier for state geographic components).

¹Geographic components and their codes are listed in the Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation in Chapter 7 (Data Dictionary, Footnote Section, page 7-15).
²Land area (AREALAND) and water area (AREAWATR) appear in the geographic header portion of the data. The location is shown in the Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation in Chapter 7

³Complete summary level information is in the Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation in Chapter 4

October 2001

Data for two central city areas in the Summary File 1 (SF 1) state file are in error. These errors are in summary levels 375 and 391. Summary level¹ 375 is the record for the central city portion of a New England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA) within a state. Summary level 391 is a record for the central city portion of a Metropolitan Statistical Area/Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA/CMSA) within a state.

Equivalent records containing the correct data will be part of the Summary File 1 Advance National file. In the Advance National file, the equivalent records will have different summary levels. The correct data for summary level 375 will be in a summary level 372 record; the correct data for summary level 391 will be in a summary level 382 record.
Specifically, in summary level 375 data are correct for:

• All states except Massachusetts.
• All records for Massachusetts except the one record described below.

Data are in error in summary level 375 for:

• Yarmouth town, Massachusetts within the Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA NECMA. All data cells contain 0.

Data are correct in summary level 391 for:

• All records for all states except Massachusetts and New Jersey.
• All records for Massachusetts and New Jersey except the two listed below.

Data are in error in summary level 391 for:

• Yarmouth town, Massachusetts within the Barnstable-Yarmouth, MA MSA. All data cells contain 0.
• Dover township, New Jersey within the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA. All data cells contain 0.

This note applies to the following data products:

• All SF 1 state files available at the Census Bureau's FTP site.
• SF1 State file CD-ROMs and DVDs.
• American FactFinder SF 1 detailed tables.

¹Complete summary level information is available in Census 2000 Summary File 1 Technical Documentation in Chapter 4
October 2001

Final National Summary File 1
Some medians in the Final National Summary File 1 may differ slightly from the medians for the same item that were released in the Advance National Summary File 1 or in the series of state files.

• Discrepancies are extremely rare;
• Discrepancies are due solely to the use of updated versions of the tabulation software with different rounding capabilities.

For further information about rounding methods, see the specific discussion of "Rounding" under DERIVED MEASURES in Appendix B, Definitions of Subject Characteristics in the Summary File 1 Technical Documentation.

October 2002

In Census 2000, during the conversion process of making the race write-in entries on the enumerator-filled questionnaire consistent with those in the mailout/mailback questionnaire, a step was inadvertently omitted. This resulted in an overstatement by about 1 million people reporting more than one race (or about 15 percent of the Two or More Races population). This overstatement almost entirely affects race combinations involving Some Other Race with the five race groups identified by the Office of Management and Budget (White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander). The overstatement does not significantly affect the totals for the Office of Management and Budget race groups reporting a single race (race alone) or the reporting of the single race and at least one other race (race alone or in combination).

March 2005

Alaska: 02
Nelson Lagoon Alaska Native village statistical area (ANVSA) (AIANHH 7025) erroneously contains block 2010, census tract 1 (000100) in Aleutians East census area (01598), Aleutians East Borough (013). This block should have not been coded to any ANVSA (9999). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products. This note applies to American FactFinder (AFF), CD-ROM, and redistricting data downloaded from the FTP site.

Internal Errata ID 02-003 May 2001

California: 06
Los Angeles city (FIPS code 44000) erroneously contains block 1011, census tract 4002.03 (400203) in East San Gabriel Valley CCD (FIPS code 90810), Los Angeles County (FIPS code 037), CA (FIPS code 06). This block should have been coded to the place Balance of East San Gabriel Valley CCD (FIPS code 99999). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products.

This note applies to American FactFinder (AFF), CD-ROM, and redistricting data downloaded from the FTP side.
Internal Errata ID 06-001

May 2001

Lpar

Connecticut: 09
The place record, Balance of Milford town (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains block 2999, census tract 1502 (150200) in Milford town (FIPS code 47535), New Haven County (FIPS code 009), CT (FIPS code 09). This block should have been coded to place Milford city (balance) (FIPS code 47515). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products.

This note applies to American FactFinder (AFF), CD-ROM, and redistricting data downloaded from the FTP site.
Internal Errata ID 09-001

Florida: 12
Yeehaw Junction CDP (FIPS code 78975) in St. Cloud CCD (FIPS code 93029), Osceola County (FIPS code 097), FL (FIPS code 12) should be named Buenaventura Lakes with FIPS code 09415. In 1990, this area was named Buena Ventura Lakes (FIPS code 09415). The area that should have been Yeehaw Junction CDP was erroneously not defined and does not appear in any Census 2000 products.
Internal Errata ID 12-001

May 2001

Georgia: 13
The place record Balance of Athens CCD (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains blocks 2021 and 2023, census tract 1305 (130500) in Athens CCD (FIPS code 90138), Clarke County (FIPS code 059). Both blocks should have been coded to Bogart town (FIPS code 09068).

The place record Balance of Winterville CCD (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains blocks 1008 and 1009, census tract 1406 (140600) in Winterville CCD (93402), Clarke County (FIPS code 059). Both blocks should have been coded to the place Athens-Clarke County (balance) (FIPS code 03440). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products.

This note applies to American FactFinder (AFF), CD-ROM, and redistricting data downloaded from the FTP site.
Internal Errata ID 13-001

May 2001

Nebraska: 31
In the PL 94-171 and Summary File (SF) data products, Cisco CDP (FIPS code 09112) in Lisco precinct (FIPS code 91790), Garden County (FIPS code 069), NE (FIPS code 31) should be named Lisco with FIPS code of 28315.

Internal Errata ID 31-002

May 2001

Tennessee: 47
The place record Balance of Metropolitan Government CCD (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains blocks 1001 and 1008, census tract 171 (017100) in Metropolitan Government CCD (FIPS code 92200), Davidson County (FIPS code 037), TN (FIPS code 47). Both blocks should have been coded to place Nashville-Davidson (balance) (FIPS code 52006). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products.
Internal Errata ID 47-001

May 2001

Wisconsin: 55
The county subdivision of Scott town (FIPS code 72200), in place Balance of Scott town (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains blocks 2048, 2063, and 2064, census tract 203 (020300), Brown County (FIPS code 009), WI (FIPS code 55). These blocks should have been coded to county subdivision and place Pulaski village (FIPS code 65675).

The county subdivision of Pittsfield town (FIPS code 63075), in place Balance of Pittsfield town (FIPS code 99999) erroneously contains block 2049, census tract 203 (020300), Brown County (FIPS code 009). This block should have been coded to county subdivision and place Pulaski village (FIPS code 65675). This is incorrect in both the PL 94-171 data products and Summary File (SF) data products.
Internal Errata ID 55-001

May 2001Tpar

Chapter 5. List of Tables (Matrices)
The total number of data cells for matrices PCT16, PCT17, and PCT17A through PCT17I was incorrectly stated in Chapter 5, List of Tables (Matrices). The correct total number of data cells is as follows:

Table (matrix)	Total number of data cells
PCT16	52
PCT17	75
PCT17A-PCT17I	75

Chapter 6. Summary Table Outlines
"Emergency and transitional shelters (701-702)" was inadvertently included in matrices PCT16, PCT17, and PCT17A through PCT17I of Chapter 6, Summary Table Outlines. This line is now deleted.

June 2001

The telephone number for Customer Services, U.S. Census Bureau has changed. The new number is 301-763-INFO (4636). Pages 1-3, 2-4, A-21, E-1, E-4, E-7, and F-1 were replaced to reflect this change.

Chapter 6, Table (Matrix) Outlines



Table (matrix) cell counts and codes were corrected on the following pages:

PCT16 - cell count was changed to [52]

"Other noninstitutional group quarters" - codes were changed to (604, 701-706, 904-905, 909, 911)

PCT17- cell count was changed to [75] "Other noninstitutional group quarters" - codes were changed to (604, 701-706, 801-810, 900-906, 908-909, 911)

PCT17A through PCT17I - cell count was changed to [75]



"Other noninstitutional group quarters" - codes were changed to (604, 701-706, 801-810, 900-906, 908-909, 911)
Chapter 7, Data Dictionary Table (Matrix) Section



"Related child-Con.," inadvertently included the data dictionary reference name, segment, and MAX size.

"In households-Con.," inadvertently included the data dictionary reference name, segment, and MAX size.

The data in the following matrices include 1 or 2 expressed decimals as shown below:

P13.	1 expressed decimal
P13A. -P13I.	1 expressed decimal
P17.	2 expressed decimals
P17A. - P17I.	2 expressed decimals
P33.	2 expressed decimals
P33A. - P3I.	2 expressed decimals
H12.	2 expressed decimals
H12A. -H12I.	2 expressed decimals

July 2001

This user update is described on our Web site (www.census.gov) as:

Technical Note on Same-Sex Unmarried Partner Data From the 1990 and 2000 Censuses

The release of data in the SF 1 files from the 2000 census has brought with it a number of analyses documenting change that has occurred since the last census was conducted in 1990. While many of the variables and processes between the two censuses are comparable, some are not, and direct comparison of some estimates may lead to misleading conclusions. This note discusses one such topic, that of "unmarried partners," and advises that for some analyses - those involving unmarried same-sex partners - direct comparison of the 1990 and 2000 estimates is not substantively valid.

The household relationship item in both the 1990 and the 2000 censuses offered many ways of identifying how other people in the household were related to the householder (the person in whose name the house is owned or rented). Categories included ""spouse"", child or other relative of the householder, housemate/roommate, roomer/boarder, and unmarried partner. In all circumstances, the respondent was asked to choose the category that best represented how other members of the household were related to the householder.

In both censuses, the "spouse" and "unmarried partner" response categories were defined and asked the same way. However, there were important differences in data processing that mean that some of the data are not comparable, limiting the usefulness of comparisons of the number of same-sex unmarried partners between these two censuses.

In both censuses, if a person was identified as the "spouse" of the householder and was the same sex as the householder, the "spouse" response was flagged for further review and allocation, that is, assignment of a value other than that originally reported, based on other data on the form. In 1990, the edit and allocation procedures did not allow same-sex "spouse" combinations to occur, thus resulting in the allocation of one of these two items in order to achieve editing consistency among the responses.
Processing steps were changed for Census 2000 for households that contained same-sex "spouses." If the person with the "spouse" category was the same sex as the householder and if neither person had their sex previously allocated, a relationship response of "spouse" was allocated as an "unmarried partner" response. Since marital status was no longer on the short form, its given value could not be considered (or modified) in this allocation procedure as it had been in 1990.

Data allocation is a standard statistical practice that is followed by most data collection agencies. Data on the relationship item (as other items) were subject to allocation in the census, as they are in virtually all Census Bureau surveys. In 1990, the marital status item was available on the 100 percent (short) form and aided in both the evaluation of the consistency of responses between the householder and the "spouse," and in the subsequent allocation procedure. The 1990 procedure allocated responses via a statistical model that distributed allocated responses from answers given by respondents in a proximate geographic area. This procedure used key demographic data from the census form, including marital status, as stratifying factors to provide a reasonable distribution of allocated responses. This procedure, while ensuring that no same-sex "spouse" response could be subsequently allocated, produced a set of allocated responses that could have included an "unmarried partner" response as well as any other response that was consistent with the age/sex/marital status profile of the respondent. This would include being allocated as a sibling or a relative, for example, or if the age differences were far enough apart (15 or more years), even a parent or child of the householder.

Three principal factors affected our decision to take this approach for Census 2000.

1. Same-sex "spouse" responses were flagged as invalid to comply with the 1996 Federal Defense of Marriage Act (H.R. 3396) passed by the 104th Congress. This act instructs all federal agencies only to recognize opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of enacting any agency programs. In order for Census Bureau data to be consistent with this act and the data requirements of other federal agencies, same-sex "spouse" responses were invalidated. The legislation defines marriage and "spouse" as follows:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation or interpretation of the various administrative Bureau's and agencies of the United States, the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife."

In order for the Census Bureau to be consistent with this act and the data requirements of other federal agencies, same-sex "spouse" responses were invalidated.
2. The second issue was statistical in nature. The principal basis of any good statistical allocation routine rests on the selection of the stratifying or input factors to provide a good statistical model. Without marital status data on the 100 percent form in Census 2000, the allocation routine would be relatively weak. Since many partners are roughly the same age, a statistical routine without marital status as one of its factors would have likely resulted in an overestimate of adult siblings or relatives, as the majority of people living in households are relatives, and this is the population from which we would draw our allocated responses. Additionally, if the same-sex partners were more than 15 years difference in age, the statistical routine would have likely allocated the invalidated "spouse" response as either a "child" or "parent" of the householder, as these types of relatives predominate in households in this age range of differences. This was an unacceptable outcome, as it would actually destroy the intent of the original "spouse" response, which clearly indicated a nonparental type of relationship. It should be noted that the "spouse" response on the form is assumed to be deliberate - not accidental - as it was the first response category on the question and was not placed between other possible response categories that may have been meant to be marked, such as housemates or roomers.

3. The third factor took into consideration that couples in long term same-sex relationships may consider themselves as "married partners" and thus respond as such on the census form. In addition, at the time of writing the editing program for Census 2000, there were several challenges in the courts concerning the legality of same-sex marriages. Clearly, we could not ignore the fact that same-sex spouse responses were going to be recorded during Census 2000. In light of these social and legal aspects - and the lack of a key variable in the statistical allocation routine (marital status) - the assignment of same-sex "married" couples to the same-sex "unmarried partner" category was the procedure chosen for the editing process. We were adverse to a randomized allocation of these responses after people had clearly marked a close relationship preference on the census form.

As a result of these changes in the processing routine, estimates of same-sex unmarried partners are not comparable between the 1990 and 2000 census. We believe 2000 census estimates of this category are better estimates than those produced in 1990. It should also be noted that estimates of opposite-sex unmarried partners, however, were not affected by these editing procedures and changes and are comparable between the two censuses. For further information on this topic, please contact the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch on 301-457-2416.

July 2001

Chapter 4, Summary Level Sequence Chart
The following summary levels were corrected on the following pages:
Advance National Summary File 1
060 was changed to-060 State-County-County Subdivision
070 was changed to-070 State-County-County Subdivision-Place/Remainder

Final National Summary File 1
060 was changed to-060 State-County-County Subdivision
070 was changed to-070 State-County-County Subdivision-Place/Remainder

August 2001

Alaskan Athabascan

The following corrections were made to the spelling of Alaskan Athabascan:

Chapter 6, Summary Table Outlines

Matrix PCT1 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan
Matrix PCT2 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan
Matrix PCT3 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan
Chapter 7, Data Dictionary
Matrix PCT1 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan
Matrix PCT2 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan
Matrix PCT3 Alaska Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan

Appendix B, Definitions of Subject Characteristics
Alaskan Athabaskan was changed to Alaskan Athabascan

Appendix G, Code Lists
Oregon Athabaskan was changed to Oregon Athabascan

In October 2001, the technical documentation note below was issued. However, the number of data items for file 33 was incorrectly stated. The correct number of data items for file 33 is 228. Chapter 2, How to Use This File was replaced to reflect the change in Figure 2-2, File/Table Segmentation.
Appendix A, Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts, Minor Civil Divisions
The following paragraphs were added to the description of Minor Civil Divisions:

In eight MCD states (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Dakota) the MCD townships serve as general-purpose local governments but do not have the ability to perform all the governmental functions as incorporated places. This category also includes the counties in American Samoa. Missouri is exceptional in that it has a minority of townships that serve as general-purpose governments (the majority of townships in Missouri fall into the category described below).

In the remaining eight MCD states (Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia), the counties containing precincts in Illinois and Nebraska, the townships in Williamson County, Illinois, and the majority of townships in Missouri, the MCDs are geographic subdivisions of the counties, and are not governmental units. The MCDs in Puerto Rico and the Island Areas (except American Samoa) also fall into this classification.
Chapter 2, How to Use This File
The number of data items in Figure 2-2, File/Table Segmentation was incorrectly stated. The correct number of data items for files 04, 15, 33, 34, 35, and 36 follows.

File name	Number of data items
04	149
15	196
33	225
34	225
35	225
36	75

Chapter 6, Summary Table Outlines
American Indian and Alaska Native tribe codes were corrected for matrices PCT1, PCT2, and PCT3. Pages 6-59 through 6-62 were replaced.

October 2001

Table P26F
The universe for table P26F was corrected to add the word "race." It was corrected from "Universe: Households with a householder who is Some other alone" to "Universe: Households with a householder who is Some other race alone" in both Chapter 6, Summary Table Outlines and Chapter 7, Data Dictionary.

October 2001

Appendix A, Census Geographic Terms and Concepts
The first paragraph in the Area Measurement section stated that to convert square kilometers to square miles, divide by 2.58999. This paragraph was replaced as the correct number to divide by is 2.589988.

February 2002

Appendix B, Definitions of Subject Characteristics
The last sentence in the section "Two or more races" was deleted as follows: "Additionally, in some data products, data showing characteristics of the population by race for people reporting the four most commonly reported race combinations will be shown without a population threshold."

June 2002

Chapter 4, Summary Level Sequence Chart
Tthe Final National File was replaced because summary level 276 was incorrectly aligned with summary level 275.

August 2002

Chapter 1, Abstract
The National Files (Advance and Final) section under "Geographic Content" erroneously states that the files provide summaries for county subdivisions of 10,000 or more population and places of 10,000 or more population. However, the Summary Level Sequence Chart (Chapter 4) correctly indicates that the SF 1 National Files provide summaries for all county subdivisions and places, not just those of 10,000 or more population.

August 2002

Chapter 4. Summary Level Sequence Chart
The summary level sequence chart (Chapter 4) in the Summary File 1 technical documentation was corrected for Congressional Districts (summary level 500). The geographic components for Congressional Districts are now listed correctly as "00" for the state summary files and "00, 52-59, 64-71, 84, and 89-95" for the final national summary file.

September 2002

Chapter 7. Data Dictionary

The Internet addresses listed in footnote 7, for Summary File 1 were corrected as follows:

General information about FIPS can be found on the Internet at: http://geonames.usgs.gov/

The actual codes assigned to the many FIPS 55 entities can be found at: http://geonames.usgs.gov/fips55.html.

April 2003

In the Race section of the Code List appendix, the tribes with codes F49-F52 were incorrectly listed under the tribal grouping "Monacan." These tribes should have appeared under the tribal grouping "Mono" as shown below:

Monacan
F48	Monacan Indian Nation
Mono
F49	Mono
F50	North Fork Rancheria
F51	Cold Springs Rancheria
F52	Big Sandy Rancheria

September 2003