In the 2010 Census, emergency and transitional shelters were defined as places where people experiencing homelessness stay overnight. Examples include missions; hotels and motels used to shelter people experiencing homelessness; shelters for children who are runaways, neglected or experiencing homelessness; and similar places known to shelter people experiencing homelessness.

The emergency and transitional shelter population is one of many types that make up the total group quarters population. People in emergency and transitional shelters were enumerated in the 2010 Census as part of the Service-Based Enumeration Operation, which also included enumeration at soup kitchens, regularly scheduled mobile food vans and targeted nonsheltered outdoor locations.

The Census Bureau stresses that this special report presents statistics for people enumerated at emergency and transitional shelters only, and should not be misconstrued as a count of the entire population experiencing homelessness. The Census Bureau does not produce or publish a total count of the homeless population. Further, it is important to recognize that there is no standard or agreed upon definition of what constitutes homelessness. Also, people experiencing homelessness can be counted and included in the census through various operations, but those operations do not separately identify, or even collect information to separately identify, people who might be experiencing homelessness.

A list of tables and figures follows:

• Table 1. Total, Group Quarters, and Emergency and Transitional Shelter Populations by Sex and Selected Age Groups: 2010
• Table 2. Total, Group Quarters, and Emergency and Transitional Shelter Populations by Hispanic or Latino Origin and by Race: 2010
• Table 3. The Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population by Sex and Selected Age Groups for the United States, Regions, and States, and for Puerto Rico: 2010
• Table 4. Age and Sex Distribution of the Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population for the United States, Regions, and States, and for Puerto Rico: 2010
• Table 5. Ten Places With the Largest Population in Emergency and Transitional Shelters: 2010
• Table 6. Ten Places with the Largest Percentage of the Group Quarters Population in Emergency and Transitional Shelters: 2010
• Figure 1. The Emergency and Transitional Shelter and Group Quarters Populations by Age and Sex: 2010
• Figure 2. Percentage Distribution of the Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population by State: 2010
• Figure 3. The Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population by Sex for States: 2010
• Figure 4. The Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population by Selected Age Groups for States: 2010
• Figure 5. The Emergency and Transitional Shelter Population by County: 2010

Overall, the total U.S. population increased by 9.7 percent since 2000, however, many multiple-race groups increased by 50 percent or more.

The first time in U.S. history that people were presented with the option to self-identify with more than one race came on the 2000 Census questionnaire. Therefore, the examination of data from the 2000 and 2010 censuses provides the first comparisons on multiple-race combinations in the United States. An effective way to compare the multiple-race data is to examine changes in specific combinations, such as white and black, white and Asian, or black and Asian.

“These comparisons show substantial growth in the multiple-race population, providing detailed insights to how this population has grown and diversified over the past decade,” said Nicholas Jones, chief of the U.S. Census Bureau's Racial Statistics Branch.

Changes in Race Combinations

• Four groups were the largest multiple-race combina¬tions, each exceeding 1 million people in size, white and black (1.8 million), white and “some other race” (1.7 million), white and Asian (1.6 million) and white and American Indian and Alaska Native (1.4 million).
• Since 2000, two multiple-race groups exhibited the most significant changes — the white and black population, which grew more than 1 million and increased by 134 percent; and the white and Asian population, which grew by about 750,000 and increased by 87 percent.

Multiple-Race Populations by State

• There were 16 states where the people who reported more than one race exceeded 200,000 or more. The top three states (California, Texas and New York) each had a multiple-race population of half a million people or more.
• The percentage change in the multiple-race population was 70 percent or greater in nine states — South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Mississippi and South Dakota. Each state, with the exception of South Dakota, was a southern state. The multiple-race population grew by 50 percent or more in 22 additional states.

Multiple-Race Populations by Place

• Among places with populations of 100,000 or more, Urban Honolulu CDP, Hawaii (a census designated place) was the place with the highest proportion of multiple-race whites, multiple-race Asians, and multiple-race Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders. Lansing, Mich., was the place with the highest proportion of multiple-race blacks, and Anchorage, Alaska, was the place with the highest proportion of multiple-race American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Race Definitions

People who responded to the question on race by indicating only one race are referred to as the race-alone population, or the group who reported only one race. For example, people who marked only the “white” category on the census questionnaire constituted the white alone population. This population can be viewed as the minimum number of people reporting white.

The “two or more races” population refers to people who reported more than one of the six race categories, and this term is used in Census Bureau statistics as well as the tables and figures in the report. In the text of the report, we also refer to the “two or more races” population as the group that reported more than one race, or the multiple-race population. For example, people who reported they were both white and black or reported they were both black and Asian would be included in the multiple-race population. There are 57 possible multiple-race combinations involving the five race categories and the category “some other race.” The report presents statistics for each of the 57 multiple-race combinations.

Chicago experienced the largest numeric gain in its downtown area, with a net increase of 48,000 residents over 10 years. New York, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City and Washington also posted large population increases close to city hall. These downtown gains were not universal, however: New Orleans and Baltimore experienced the greatest population declines in their downtown areas (35,000 and slightly more than 10,000, respectively). Two smaller areas in Ohio — Dayton and Toledo — also saw downtown declines of more than 10,000.

These are just some of the findings in the new 2010 Census special report, Patterns of Metropolitan and Micropolitan Population Change: 2000 to 2010. The report uses 2010 Census results to examine contemporary geographic patterns (as well as changes since the 2000 Census) of population density and distribution by race, Hispanic origin, age and sex for metro and micro areas collectively as well as individually. Metro areas contain at least one urbanized area of 50,000 population or more, while micro areas contain at least one urban cluster of less than 50,000, but at least 10,000.

“By including totals for both 2000 and 2010, this report helps us to understand patterns of change for this past decade,” Census Bureau Deputy Director Nancy Potok said. “The report, together with its associated online maps, graphics and statistical tables, provides a detailed view of the nation's centers of population and economic activity.”

A common theme for the non-Hispanic white alone population from 2000 to 2010 was population increases in the central areas of many of the largest principal cities, especially those in the largest metro areas.

“The Washington metro area is a notable example of this pattern,” said Steven Wilson, a co-author of the report. “We see increases in the non-Hispanic white population, in both numeric terms and share of the total population, in many of the District's census tracts in or close to the city's downtown area.”

At the same time, this group's share of the population declined by 10 or more percentage points in many tracts in the surrounding suburbs of Washington, D.C.

These demographic patterns were not uniform across all race and ethnic groups; the black alone population increased in most metro areas outside the area's largest city. In Atlanta, for example, this group's share of the population rose by at least 10 percentage points in wide swaths surrounding the city. For Hispanics, growth was greatest in pockets along principal city perimeters and adjacent territory.

In several sections of the report, census tract data were examined to provide a neighborhood-level perspective on demographic patterns within individual metro areas. Because census tracts often change boundaries from one census to the next, one of the report's innovations was to retabulate 2000 Census data in updated 2010 Census tracts, thereby allowing the calculation of 2000 to 2010 change data by tract. Another feature of the report is the construction of distance bands as measured from city hall. This permits a look at population distribution and density at various distance ranges from a metro area's largest city center.

Along with metro and micro area data for all variables in the report, two online data tools were released: a series of interactive population pyramids showing the age and sex structure of all metro and micro areas in 2000 and 2010, and a set of “distance profiles” of the population for all metro areas. Also, an interactive mapping tool that allows users to see metro and micro area and census tract-level data is now available.

Other highlights:

• More than one in 10 U.S. residents lived in either the New York or Los Angeles metro area in 2010.
• Although metro areas covered only slightly more than one-quarter of the nation's land area, they were home to eight of every 10 people.
• The Hispanic share of the population increased in every U.S. metro area.
• While the non-Hispanic white alone, black alone and Asian alone populations grew faster in metro areas than in micro areas, the reverse was true for Hispanics.
• Next to those who were non-Hispanic white alone, Hispanics were the most populous race or ethnic group in most metro and micro areas in the western half of the U.S., with single-race blacks the largest in most areas in the eastern half.
• Metro area populations were younger (a median of 36.6 years) than the population in either micro areas (39.3 years) or territory outside either of these areas (41.9 years).
• Areas with the highest median ages were either in slow-growing regions like western Pennsylvania, which had past outmigration of the young combined with “aging in place,” or were faster-growing areas in parts of Florida and Arizona that were traditional retiree migration destinations.
• Areas with the lowest median ages included metro areas and micro areas in Utah, southern Idaho and along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The U.S. Census Bureau released research today from its 2010 Census Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment, which provides a comparison of different census questionnaire design strategies for collecting census data on race and Hispanic origin.

The Census Bureau follows federal standards for collecting and presenting data on race and Hispanic origin established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in October 1997. This research tested questionnaire strategies with the goal of increasing the reporting in the race and ethnic categories as defined by OMB, decreasing nonresponse, increasing the accuracy and reliability of the results and eliciting responses for detailed race and ethnic groups.

The results will guide further research on the collection of race and ethnicity throughout the decade, informing OMB and Congress.

“The U.S. Census Bureau is committed to improving the accuracy and the reliability of census results by expanding our understanding of how people identify their race and Hispanic origin,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said.

This research is the largest quantitative effort ever on how people identify their race and ethnicity to start off the planning cycle for the once-a-decade census. The study mailed experimental questionnaires to a sample of 488,604 households during the 2010 Census, reinterviewed respondents and conducted 67 focus groups across the United States and in Puerto Rico with nearly 800 people.

Findings

The study tested several versions of an experimental combined question on race and Hispanic origin (Figure 1). The current OMB classification treats race and Hispanic origin as two separate and distinct concepts. During the 2010 Census, most households received a census form with separate questions for Hispanic origin and race (Figure 2) in accordance with these guidelines. A sample of households received questionnaires with an experimental, combined question.

The results showed that a higher number of individuals were more likely to respond to a combined race and Hispanic origin question than to separate questions. The experimental combined questions had an item nonresponse rate, meaning the percentage of respondents leaving that question blank, of roughly 1 percent, compared to 3.5 percent to 5.7 percent for the race question and 4.1 percent to 5.4 percent for the Hispanic origin question.

The research also aimed to increase reporting in the OMB race and ethnicity categories. The Some Other Race category was created to be a small residual category, but as shown in the 2010 Census, Some Other Race alone was the third largest race group, after White alone and Black alone, with respondents of Hispanic origin comprising the vast majority of all people classified as Some Other Race alone. The population reporting Some Other Race alone was as high as 7.1 percent on the separate race question and roughly 0.2 percent on the combined questions. However, the percent of the population who identified as Hispanic was not significantly different across questionnaires, indicating that the total proportion of Hispanics was not reduced in a combined question approach.

Additionally, another major finding was that removal of the term “Negro” from the “Black, African Am., or Negro” response category did not change the distribution of the black population across the experimental questionnaires. Although Census 2000 results indicated that this term was still relevant to some respondents, this relatively small portion of respondents continues to decrease and, thus, the removal of the term did not have a negative impact on black population estimates.

Other Findings:

• The population reporting two or more responses was significantly larger with a combined question, in general, than with a separate question. Reinterview findings suggest that respondents may have been able to more clearly understand the opportunity to report more than one response in the combined format, thus increasing multiple-response reporting. Alternatively, focus group research suggests that the combined question respondents may have been interpreting the question as asking for race and origin.
• The experimental combined questions included write-in lines for all race groups. For the first time, people who answered “white” and “black” could further specify their origin. As much as 50 percent of people who reported as white gave detail when provided with a write-in line compared with only 1 percent to 2 percent in all other questionnaires. Similarly, of black respondents, more than 76 percent reported detail on each of the experimental combined questionnaires, compared with only 3 percent to 6 percent of all other questionnaires.

  There was a decrease in Asian and Hispanic respondents providing more detailed responses on the combined questions that did not have checkboxes for specific origin groups. Detailed Asian reporting was 96.6 percent or higher on all other questionnaires, but as low as 92.6 percent when no checkboxes were provided. Detailed Hispanic origin reporting was 86.4 percent to 88.9 percent when specific origin checkboxes were provided within the combined question, but was lower on combined questionnaires that did not contain the specific origin checkboxes (77.7 percent to 80 percent). Detailed Hispanic origin reporting on separate questions was 92 percent or higher.

• There was no change in how people reported within the Asian, Other Pacific Islander, and Hispanic origin examples when different examples were used.

“The findings from this research provide promising strategies to address the challenges and complexities of race and Hispanic origin measurement and reporting issues in our rapidly diversifying society,” Groves said. “This is another step in an ongoing discussion about how we can better understand the changing diversity of our nation. The results will guide upcoming research as the Census Bureau looks toward the 2020 Census.”

Next Steps

These findings will serve as the basis for further research and for a wider discussion among statistical agencies.

For more detailed information on the research and its results, view the report online:
http://www.census.gov/2010census/news/press-kits/aqe/aqe.html

Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream

The post-enumeration survey, called “Census Coverage Measurement,” measures the coverage of the nation's household population (excluding the 8.0 million people in “group quarters,” such as nursing homes or college dorms). It surveys a sample of the 300.7 million people living in housing units and then matches the responses to the census, resulting in estimates of error.

The 2000 Census had an estimated net overcount of 0.49 percent and the 1990 Census had a net undercount of 1.61 percent.

“On this one evaluation — the net undercount of the total population — this was an outstanding census,” Census Bureau Director Robert Groves said. “When this fact is added to prior positive evaluations, the American public can be proud of the 2010 Census their participation made possible.”

Components of Coverage

The Census Bureau also released estimates of the components of coverage: the number of correct census records, erroneous enumerations and omissions.

The Census Bureau estimates that among the 300.7 million people who live in housing units, about 94.7 percent were counted correctly, about 3.3 percent were counted erroneously, 1.6 percent provided only a census count and had their demographic characteristics imputed, or statistically inserted, and 0.4 percent needed more extensive imputation after all census follow-up efforts were attempted. Among those erroneously counted, about 84.9 percent were duplicates, while the remainder were incorrectly counted for another reason, such as people who died before Census Day (April 1, 2010), who were born after Census Day or were fictitious census records.

The Census Bureau estimated 16.0 million omissions in the census. Omissions include people missed in the census and people whose census records could not be verified in the post-enumeration survey because they did not answer enough of the demographic characteristic questions in the census. Of the 16.0 million omissions, about 6.0 million were likely counted in the census but couldn't be verified in the post-enumeration survey.

Variation by Characteristics

As with previous censuses, the coverage of the population varied across demographic characteristics.

The 2010 Census undercounted renters by 1.1 percent, showing no significant change compared with 2000. Homeowners were overcounted in both the 2000 and 2010 censuses. However, the 2010 Census reduced the net overcount for homeowners from 1.2 percent to 0.6 percent. Renters were more likely to be duplicated than owners and twice as likely to have all of their characteristics imputed.

As with prior censuses, coverage varied by race and Hispanic origin. The 2010 Census overcounted the non-Hispanic white alone population by 0.8 percent, not statistically different from an overcount of 1.1 percent in 2000.

The 2010 Census undercounted 2.1 percent of the black population, which was not statistically different from a 1.8 percent undercount in 2000. In 2010, 1.5 percent of the Hispanic population was undercounted. In 2000, the estimated undercount of 0.7 percent was not statistically different from zero. The difference between the two censuses was also not statistically significant.

The Census Bureau did not measure a statistically significant undercount for the Asian or for the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations in 2010 (at 0.1 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). These estimates were also not statistically different from the results measured in 2000 (a 0.8 percent overcount and a 2.1 percent undercount, respectively).

Coverage of the American Indian and Alaska Native population varied by geography. American Indians and Alaska Natives living on reservations were undercounted by 4.9 percent, compared with a 0.9 percent overcount in 2000. The net error for American Indians not living on reservations was not statistically different from zero in 2010 or 2000.

Men 18 to 29 and 30 to 49 were undercounted in 2010, while women 30 to 49 were overcounted, a pattern consistent with 2000. The estimated overcount of women 18 to 29 was not statistically significant.

“While the overall coverage of the census was exemplary, the traditional hard-to-count groups, like renters, were counted less well,” Groves said. “Because ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately live in hard-to-count circumstances, they too were undercounted relative to the majority population.”

Other Findings

• The post-enumeration survey did not measure a statistically significant undercount or overcount in the population or housing units for any state.
• The survey did not measure a statistically significant undercount or overcount for the population in any counties or places of 100,000 or more.
• The 2010 Census undercounted housing units, mostly because of an undercount of vacant units. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant undercount or overcount of occupied housing units.
• As a whole, erroneous enumerations and imputations were lower among people who mailed back a census form, compared with those counted by a door-to-door census taker. Additionally, responses mailed back earlier in the process were generally less likely to have erroneous enumerations than those mailed later.
• Among people counted door-to-door by a census taker, responses from a household member were more accurate than those from proxies, such as neighbors or landlords who provided information when a householder could not be reached or refused to participate in the census.

“We'll use these coverage estimates to build a better 2020 Census,” Groves said. “The 2010 Census used a variety of operations to improve coverage of the population. We now have measures of their success, which will inform cost-quality tradeoff decisions for the 2020 Census.”

The post-enumeration survey is one of three types of indicators that measure the quality of a census. The others consist of process indicators, which measure the quality of census operations and data collection, and comparisons to other methods of estimating population size. Each type of quality indicator has its own strengths and weaknesses as a measurement tool. For example, the estimates from the post-enumeration survey have sampling error and are susceptible to violations of the underlying statistical assumptions.

Following the news conference, there will be a technical briefing about coverage measurement, which will include Census Bureau staff and other experts in the field. Members of the media are invited to attend.

When:
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
10 to 11 a.m. (EDT) - News Conference
1 to 4:30 p.m. (EDT) - Technical Briefing

Who:
Robert Groves, director, U.S. Census Bureau
Pat Cantwell, assistant division chief, Sampling and Estimation, Decennial Statistical Studies Division,
  U.S. Census Bureau

Where:
George Washington University
City View Room
Elliott School of International Affairs, 7th Floor
1957 E St. NW
Washington, DC 20052

Members of the media viewing the news conference online may ask questions by dialing in. (Please dial-in early to allow time for the operator to place you in the call.)

Dial-in number: 888-989-4394
Participant passcode: CCM
Note: Stay on the line until operator asks for the passcode. Do not key in passcode.

The entire event will be broadcast live on the Census Bureau's Ustream channel at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/us-census-bureau.

Please RSVP by 5 p.m. (EDT), Monday, May 21 to the Public Information Office at 301-763-3030 or to <pio@census.gov>.

If closed captioning is required: <http://livewrite.nccsite.com/view/cb522a>

Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream.

The event will consist of a simultaneous audio conference and online presentation. A question-and-answer session will follow the presentation. We suggest participants log in and call in early.

When:
Thursday, May 17, 11 a.m. (EDT)

Who:
Pat Cantwell, assistant division chief, Sampling and Estimation
  Decennial Statistical Studies Division, U.S. Census Bureau

Details:
Audio conference ― access information
Toll free number: 888-989-4394
Participant passcode: PRECCM
Note: Stay on the line until operator asks for the passcode. Do not key in passcode.

Online presentation ― access information
Please login early, as some setup is required.
URL: https://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join/
Conference number: PW5892295
Audience passcode: PRECCM

If closed captioning is required: <http://livewrite.nccsite.com/view/cb0517>.

Follow @uscensusbureau on Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube and Ustream.

Overall, 1.2 million people, or 0.4 percent of all people in the United States, identified as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (NHPI), either alone or in combination with one or more races. This population grew by 40 percent from 2000 to 2010. Those who reported being Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone totaled 540,000, an increase of 35 percent from 2000 to 2010. The multiple-race Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population, as well as both the alone and alone-or-in-combination populations, all grew at a faster rate than the total U.S. population, which increased by 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010.

More than half live in Hawaii and California

More than half (52 percent) of the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone-or-in-combination population lived in just two states, Hawaii (356,000) and California (286,000). The states with the next largest NHPI populations in 2010 were Washington (70,000), Texas (48,000), Florida (40,000), Utah (37,000), New York (36,000), Nevada (33,000), Oregon (26,000) and Arizona (25,000). Together, these 10 states represented more than three-fourths (78 percent) of the NHPI alone-or-in-combination population in the United States.

South experienced fastest growth

The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone-or-in-combination population grew in every region between 2000 and 2010, experiencing the fastest growth in the South. The NHPI population grew by 66 percent in the South, by 37 percent in both the Midwest and West, and by 29 percent in the Northeast.

Fastest growth occurred in Southern and Western states

The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone-or-in-combination population grew in every state between 2000 and 2010, with the fastest growth in Southern states and in Western states. Fourteen states in the South experienced a growth greater than 50 percent in their NHPI population (Arkansas, Alabama, Delaware, North Carolina, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, Oklahoma, Maryland, South Carolina, Virginia and Louisiana). In addition, the NHPI alone-or-in-combination population grew by 68 percent in the District of Columbia.

In the West, the NHPI alone-or-in-combination population grew by at least 50 percent in 10 states (Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Montana and New Mexico). Seven states in the Midwest (Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Ohio) and one state in the Northeast (Vermont) experienced a growth greater than 50 percent in their NHPI alone-or-in-combination populations.

Native Hawaiian, Samoan, and Guamanian or Chamorro largest detailed NHPI groups

In the 2010 Census, Native Hawaiian was the largest detailed NHPI group, numbering more than one-half million (527,077). There were 156,146 people who reported Native Hawaiian alone, and an additional 370,931 people who reported Native Hawaiian in combination with one or more other races and/or detailed NHPI groups. Samoan was the second largest detailed NHPI group with 109,637 reporting Samoan alone and an additional 74,803 reporting Samoan in combination with one or more other races and/or detailed NHPI groups. This sums to 184,440 people who reported Samoan alone or in any combination. There were 147,798 people who reported Guamanian or Chamorro either alone (88,310) or in any combination (59,488).

Chuukese fastest growing group

Although Native Hawaiians, Samoans and Guamanians or Chamorros were the largest detailed Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone or in any combination groups, they grew at slower rates than many of the smaller detailed NHPI groups. Over the decade, the Chuukese population showed the largest percent increase. The Chuukese population in 2010 was more than six times larger than reported in 2000, increasing from less than 700 to more than 4,000.

Guamanian or Chamorro, Marshallese and Fijian increased in share of NHPI population

The Guamanian or Chamorro alone-or-in-any-combination population had the largest increase in their share of the NHPI population. Over the decade, the Guamanian or Chamorro population increased from 11 percent to 12 percent. The Marshallese alone-or-in-any-combination population more than tripled in size between 2000 and 2010, increasing from less than 7,000 to more than 22,000. The Marshallese population's share of the NHPI population increased by 1.1 percentage points (nearly 16,000 people). Fijians alone or in any combination also increased in their share of the NHPI population (up 1.1 percentage points) with a growth of nearly 19,000 people.

Guamanian or Chamorro population more geographically dispersed

Overall, the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population was concentrated in the West, yet some detailed NHPI groups were more geographically dispersed than others. Fijians were the most geographically concentrated in one state, with three-quarters of the Fijian population living in California alone. More than half of all Native Hawaiians lived in Hawaii and almost two-thirds of Tongans lived in California and Utah. Conversely, the Guamanian or Chamorro population was the most geographically dispersed with more than half living in states other than the top three states (California, Washington and Texas) with the largest Guamanian or Chamorro populations.

Race Definitions

People who reported only one race on their 2010 Census questionnaire are referred to as the race “alone” population. For example, respondents who marked only a Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander category or categories would be included in the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone population. This population can be viewed as the minimum number of people reporting Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.

Individuals who chose more than one of the six race category options on the 2010 Census form are referred to as the race "in combination" population. One way to define the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is to combine those respondents who reported Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone with those who reported Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander in combination with one or more other races. Another way to think of the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone-or-in-combination population is as the total number of people who reported Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, whether or not they reported any other races.