1999 BRFSS
SUMMARY
QUALITY CONTROL
REPORT

BEHAVIORAL RISK FACTOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM
QUALITY CONTROL DOCUMENTATION

	This report provides selected statistical indicators which are monitored in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to detect changes in the quality of the data collection procedures used in states.  The value of these indicators is primarily for individual states to identify changes that may occur in their data collection process over time.  When the indicators are below the objectives, it is appropriate to review data collection procedures and determine whether the procedures are optimal.  When there are no evident procedural deficiencies and the quality indicators are stable, not meeting an objective is not an indication of poor quality.  Similarly, it is useful to look at how the indicators differ between states to assess whether data collection procedures are optimal in all states.  However, quality indicators that rank lower in one state than in another do not necessarily mean the quality of the data collection effort is also lower.

Additional tables of quality control indicators include those in   Section 2 comparing demographic characteristics of BRFSS sample data with that of the population for each state, and Section 3  tables showing non-response rates for selected items from the core and module sections.

RESPONSE RATES

The response rate measures the extent to which interviews were completed from among the telephone numbers selected for the sample.  The higher the response rate, the lower the potential will be for bias in the data.

No definitive formula for response rate estimates exists.  The three estimates that are used for BRFSS provide a combination of monitoring information that is useful for program management.  The formulas for each, translated into BRFSS call disposition codes (see page 7), are as follows:

CASRO:  This response rate formula, developed by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations (CASRO), apportions dispositions with unknown eligibility status (ring-no-answer and busy) to dispositions representing eligible respondents in the same proportion as exists among all calls of known status (all other BRFSS call dispositions).  The resulting estimate reflects telephone sampling efficiency as well as the degree of cooperation among eligibles contacted.

01	
(01+02+07+09) +	(01+02+07+09)	x (04 + 10)	
	(01+02+07+09)+ (03+05+06+08+11)		

AAPOR Cooperation Rate One:  This rate is the number of completes divided by the number of identified households contacted that contain a resident 18 years or older.  The resulting measure reflects the cooperation of identified eligibles and is not affected by differences in telephone sampling efficiency.

01	
01+02+07+08+09+11	

Upper Bound:  The most liberal of response rate formulas, the upper bound calculation includes only refusals, terminations, and completed interviews.  The resulting estimate reflects the cooperation of eligibles contacted and is not affected by differences in telephone sampling efficiency.

01	
01+02+09	

Among Waksberg sampling states, the call-back rules are disregarded during wind-down interviewing (see page 3); therefore, total response rates for an interviewing period will not accurately reflect performance under the call-back rules during regular mode interviewing.  The response rate estimates included in this report have been calculated using only the records dispositioned during regular mode interviewing.

OTHER IMPORTANT QUALITY CONTROL INDICATORS

Survey Efficiency:  The efficiency rate used for BRFSS is the percentage of all numbers called (excluding numbers rejected during Waksberg prescreening) that resulted in completed interviews.  This indicator is directly related to the percent of telephone numbers in the survey area that are assigned to households.  The degree to which interviewers adhere to survey procedures and gain respondent cooperation also affects efficiency.  This percentage should remain static unless there is a change in the phone companies' assignment of phone numbers in the survey area, a change in sampling design, or a substantial change in interviewer performance.

01	
Total Telephone Numbers Used	

Wind-Down:  In order to terminate data collection activities within the allotted time period each month, wind-down procedures (i.e., suspension of the call-back rules) may be necessary with Waksberg sampling.  Wind-down is permitted once 95% of the sample has been completed.  Each interview completed in the wind-down mode should be coded as such.  Generally, if the percentage of wind-down interviews is greater than five percent, the survey supervisor is going into wind-down too early.  The greater the proportion of interviews completed in wind-down mode, the greater the potential for bias in the survey results.
This is because data collected during wind-down are reflective only of those respondents who are easiest to reach.  Respondents who are more difficult to reach may differ significantly from those who are easier to reach.

Refused Interview:  The percentage of refusals of total numbers called in a given interviewing period is an indicator of both interviewer performance and degree of potential bias in the survey data.  Ten percent1 refusals or less is a generally accepted standard. 

Ring-No-Answer:  The percentage of ring-no-answers reflects how many attempts are made and with what time variation on unanswered phone numbers.  The objective for ring-no-answers is 10%1 or less of total numbers called.  States that exceed this percentage may not be following prescribed call-back procedures or may be using this disposition inappropriately as a final disposition for a selected respondent who was not interviewed.

Selected Respondent Not Available During the Interviewing Period:  This disposition is used most often in wind-down and therefore reflects the proportion of calling done during wind-down.  It also reflects the diligence of efforts to contact selected respondents whose availability is limited.  The objective for this disposition is 3%1 or less of total numbers called.  Those states that exceed this percentage may need to extend the number of days they interview during the month.

Line Busy:  This disposition should be infrequent.  The objective is 0.3%1 or less.  A higher percentage than 0.3 may indicate that call-back procedures are not being carefully followed or that this disposition is being used inappropriately as a final disposition for a selected respondent who was not interviewed.

Variation in Cluster Size: Variation in size of clusters in Waksberg-Mitofsky designs is an indirect indicator of how the sampling design was implemented.  Percentages of records with a cluster size of three are shown for states using Waksberg-Mitofsky designs.

Monitoring Capability: BRFSS protocol specifies that systematic, unobtrusive electronic monitoring be a routine and integral part of monthly survey procedures for all interviewers.  Monitoring is considered a valuable tool for training and achieving uniform questionnaire administration, resulting in less bias in the data set.  Monitoring of interviewers can provide quick information on features of the respondent recruitment and questioning process that needs improvement.  Monitoring capability information is shown for all states as of December 1999.

OTHER DATA QUALITY MEASURES

BRFSS is developing a quality profile, which is a compendia of all known information about the quality of the data, including aspects of sampling error, coverage, nonresponse, and other
indicators of quality.  Tables in Section 2 present information on the discrepancy between sample data and population estimates for gender, race, and age.  In these tables, the sample data percentage is based upon data weighted by the variable WT1, composed of number of telephones, size of household, and geographic and density stratification.  The rationale for using the weighted data is that the factors which go into it are deliberate features of the sample design.  Thus, any differences between the raw and WT1 percentages are not considered as bias.

Respondent Sex Distribution:  Survey samples with a respondent sex distribution that differs substantially from the population distribution in the survey area may produce biased estimates of risk factor prevalences.  A distribution substantially skewed toward females relative to the population surveyed (after adjusting for probability of selection due to number of telephone and number of adults in households) suggests that interviewers may not be interviewing randomly selected respondents.

Respondent Age Distribution:  The discrepancy between the percentage in specific age groups in the sample and the corresponding percentage in the population is an indicator of the age bias of the sample.  An age distribution that differs substantially from the population distribution in the survey area may produce biased estimates of risk factor prevalences, particularly since many characteristics of individuals are substantially affected by age.  For example, younger persons tend to be healthier than those who are older.  Such a discrepancy also suggests that interviewers may not be interviewing randomly selected respondents.

Respondent Race Distribution:  Survey samples with a respondent race distribution that differs substantially from the population distribution in the survey area may produce biased estimates of risk factor prevalences.  The discrepancy between the percentage White or Black in the sample and the percentage White or Black in the population is an indicator of racial bias of the sample.  The percentage White in the sample is, however, affected by large interstate differences in the protocol for coding the race of Hispanics.  These differences in protocol significantly affect the percentage White in states with large Hispanic populations and can introduce substantial bias in the race-specific risk factor prevalences for these areas.

Item Nonresponse:  Item non-response rates from completed interviews for selected items from the core questions have been calculated by state, and are shown in Section 3.  The assumption is that these measures are an indication of overall interviewing and/or coding quality. The percentages shown are based upon the number of responses coded as missing or refused.  On the questionnaire, the code 9 is generally listed as refused, but this code may capture some responses that were supposed to be answered, but for some reason were not, and appeared as a blank or other missing value symbol.  These cases have been coded as 9 in order to meet the constraints of processing CATI and editing programs.  It is important to note that any survey will have natural variation over sample sites; therefore, some variation between states is to be expected.  In evaluating possible measurement error stemming from variation in item missing data rates across states, the goal is to identify outliers in the distribution of the indicators.

	BRFSS CALL DISPOSITION CODES

01	Completed interview

02	Refused interview

03	Nonworking number

04	Ring-no-answer

05	Not a private residence

06	No eligible respondent at this number

07	Selected respondent not available during the interviewing period

08	Language barrier

09	Interview terminated within questionnaire

10	Line Busy

11	Respondent unable to communicate due to physical or mental impairment

Interpretation of Summary Statistics
The tables in sections 2 and 3 contain summary statistics useful in assessing data quality. Some of the tables in Section 3 contain Z-scores. Z-scores indicate how many standard deviations values are from the mean, and are one way of assessing the location of a case in a distribution.  Standardization permits comparison of the scores from different distributions (e.g. states).  Observations below the mean have a negative z-score.  As a general guide, z-scores falling outside the -2.0 to 2.0 range can be considered extreme values, and indicate possible problems in the item.

	STATUS OF MONITORING SYSTEMS 1999
	December 1999
STATE	AUDIO (Y/N)	CATI DISPLAY(Y/N)		COMMENTS	
AL	Y	N		
AK	Y	Y		
AZ	Y	N		
AR	Y	Y		
CA	Y	Y		
CO	Y	Y		
CT	Y	Y		
DE	Y	Y		
DC	N	N		
FL	Y	N		
GA	Y	Y		
HI	Y	N		
ID	Y	Y		
IL	Y	Y		
IN	Y	Y		
IA	Y	Y		
KS	Y	Y		
KY	Y	N		
LA	Y	Y		
ME	N	Y		
MD	Y	Y		
MA	Y	Y		
MI	Y	Y		
MN	Y	N		
MS	Y	Y		
MO	Y	Y		
MT	Y	N		
NE	Y	Y		
NV	Y	Y		
NH	Y	Y		
NJ	Y	Y		
NM	Y	Y		
NY	Y	Y		
NC	Y	N		
ND	Y	Y		
OH	Y	Y		
OK	N	N		
OR	Y	Y		
PA	Y	Y		
PR	N	N		
RI	Y	Y		
SC	Y	Y		
SD	N	N		
TN	N	N		
TX	Y	Y		
UT	Y	Y		
VT	Y	Y		
VA	Y	Y		
WA	Y	Y		
WV	N	N		
WI	Y	Y		
WY	Y	Y		
TOTALS	45 with audio, 37 with audio and video		

BRFSS Call Dispositions	
Frequency Distribution by State, 1999	
State	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total	
	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	%	No	
AK	2051	7.3%	854	3.1%	18968	67.8%	1427	5.1%	2655	9.5%	63	0.2%	297	1.1%	53	0.2%	2	0.0%	1580	5.6%	34	0.1%	27,984	
AL	2097	16.8%	897	7.2%	5902	47.2%	533	4.3%	1919	15.4%	48	0.4%	659	5.3%	17	0.1%	48	0.4%	251	2.0%	126	1.0%	12,497	
AR	2997	13.1%	2483	10.9%	12113	52.9%	1120	4.9%	3239	14.2%	50	0.2%	460	2.0%	46	0.2%	118	0.5%	112	0.5%	146	0.6%	22,884	
AZ	1744	10.1%	89	0.5%	8949	52.0%	2431	14.1%	2317	13.5%	53	0.3%	1245	7.2%	56	0.3%	0	0.0%	282	1.6%	34	0.2%	17,200	
CA	4304	21.2%	669	3.3%	4708	23.2%	3190	15.7%	4152	20.5%	1719	8.5%	975	4.8%	167	0.8%	276	1.4%	55	0.3%	61	0.3%	20,276	
CO	3053	15.7%	897	4.6%	9765	50.1%	585	3.0%	4266	21.9%	171	0.9%	571	2.9%	34	0.2%	3	0.0%	33	0.2%	118	0.6%	19,496	
CT	3517	17.3%	2406	11.8%	8637	42.5%	1979	9.7%	3051	15.0%	25	0.1%	426	2.1%	187	0.9%	49	0.2%	5	0.0%	53	0.3%	20,335	
DC	1267	7.1%	504	2.8%	8509	47.6%	2611	14.6%	4282	23.9%	24	0.1%	479	2.7%	96	0.5%	4	0.0%	69	0.4%	46	0.3%	17,891	
DE	2561	13.9%	1417	7.7%	9204	49.9%	1944	10.5%	2694	14.6%	319	1.7%	166	0.9%	50	0.3%	59	0.3%	3	0.0%	33	0.2%	18,450	
FL	5177	10.5%	5744	11.6%	20222	40.8%	4422	8.9%	10119	20.4%	866	1.7%	1569	3.2%	270	0.5%	122	0.2%	432	0.9%	582	1.2%	49,525	
GA	2273	13.9%	1237	7.5%	7624	46.5%	1057	6.4%	3118	19.0%	81	0.5%	526	3.2%	109	0.7%	39	0.2%	145	0.9%	187	1.1%	16,396	
HI	2156	21.2%	989	9.7%	4859	47.9%	898	8.9%	139	1.4%	283	2.8%	322	3.2%	288	2.8%	33	0.3%	38	0.4%	141	1.4%	10,146	
IA	3618	11.8%	890	2.9%	20052	65.2%	1249	4.1%	3209	10.4%	11	0.0%	1206	3.9%	68	0.2%	11	0.0%	29	0.1%	404	1.3%	30,747	
ID	4955	16.3%	3280	10.8%	14938	49.1%	1567	5.2%	4474	14.7%	51	0.2%	576	1.9%	143	0.5%	191	0.6%	111	0.4%	117	0.4%	30,403	
IL	2910	12.0%	1947	8.0%	13743	56.8%	441	1.8%	4235	17.5%	111	0.5%	509	2.1%	113	0.5%	22	0.1%	0	0.0%	164	0.7%	24,195	
IN	2443	17.1%	1882	13.1%	5903	41.2%	923	6.4%	2631	18.4%	72	0.5%	240	1.7%	0	0.0%	41	0.3%	114	0.8%	70	0.5%	14,319	
KS	3878	13.6%	1031	3.6%	18764	65.7%	1352	4.7%	2691	9.4%	69	0.2%	662	2.3%	42	0.1%	0	0.0%	7	0.0%	54	0.2%	28,550	
KY	7543	17.3%	1992	4.6%	26478	60.7%	1037	2.4%	4191	9.6%	98	0.2%	1714	3.9%	44	0.1%	30	0.1%	29	0.1%	494	1.1%	43,650	
LA	1670	15.3%	703	6.4%	5116	46.7%	702	6.4%	1928	17.6%	65	0.6%	532	4.9%	41	0.4%	21	0.2%	48	0.4%	122	1.1%	10,948	
MA	5024	13.8%	4190	11.5%	14937	40.9%	4856	13.3%	5600	15.3%	50	0.1%	765	2.1%	545	1.5%	138	0.4%	287	0.8%	112	0.3%	36,504	
MD	3959	16.7%	1757	7.4%	10806	45.7%	1557	6.6%	2646	11.2%	467	2.0%	1994	8.4%	122	0.5%	33	0.1%	164	0.7%	145	0.6%	23,650	
ME	1673	13.9%	167	1.4%	7113	59.3%	563	4.7%	1458	12.2%	327	2.7%	576	4.8%	20	0.2%	4	0.0%	36	0.3%	63	0.5%	12,000	
MI	2522	14.1%	2234	12.4%	7340	40.9%	1521	8.5%	3263	18.2%	177	1.0%	568	3.2%	64	0.4%	46	0.3%	91	0.5%	123	0.7%	17,949	
MN	5340	39.1%	340	2.5%	4215	30.8%	1094	8.0%	1757	12.9%	153	1.1%	521	3.8%	76	0.6%	19	0.1%	47	0.3%	111	0.8%	13,673	
MO	4277	14.2%	1922	6.4%	17896	59.4%	1261	4.2%	3632	12.0%	69	0.2%	618	2.1%	22	0.1%	89	0.3%	190	0.6%	166	0.6%	30,142	
MS	2180	18.6%	749	6.4%	5812	49.7%	520	4.4%	1832	15.7%	44	0.4%	310	2.6%	15	0.1%	35	0.3%	37	0.3%	166	1.4%	11,700	
MT	1798	15.2%	353	3.0%	7535	63.6%	437	3.7%	1346	11.4%	51	0.4%	198	1.7%	7	0.1%	10	0.1%	29	0.2%	84	0.7%	11,848	
NC	2445	18.5%	806	6.1%	6064	45.9%	854	6.5%	2218	16.8%	69	0.5%	481	3.6%	47	0.4%	10	0.1%	161	1.2%	44	0.3%	13,199	
ND	1981	13.3%	334	2.2%	10619	71.4%	513	3.4%	1128	7.6%	36	0.2%	206	1.4%	10	0.1%	4	0.0%	17	0.1%	31	0.2%	14,879	
NE	2824	10.9%	801	3.1%	16495	63.7%	1776	6.9%	3046	11.8%	48	0.2%	428	1.7%	79	0.3%	4	0.0%	304	1.2%	94	0.4%	25,899	
NH	1248	11.7%	865	8.1%	5936	55.5%	614	5.7%	1229	11.5%	87	0.8%	294	2.7%	12	0.1%	28	0.3%	337	3.1%	50	0.5%	10,700	
NJ	2822	11.6%	2280	9.4%	10238	42.0%	3753	15.4%	4175	17.1%	75	0.3%	562	2.3%	248	1.0%	65	0.3%	83	0.3%	50	0.2%	24,351	
NM	3488	17.6%	1109	5.6%	9868	49.9%	1228	6.2%	3118	15.8%	93	0.5%	545	2.8%	13	0.1%	62	0.3%	150	0.8%	113	0.6%	19,787	
NV	2187	16.6%	646	4.9%	5224	39.7%	1749	13.3%	2453	18.6%	144	1.1%	203	1.5%	203	1.5%	0	0.0%	169	1.3%	176	1.3%	13,154	
NY	2650	13.8%	2109	11.0%	8163	42.7%	2080	10.9%	3160	16.5%	19	0.1%	412	2.2%	399	2.1%	71	0.4%	24	0.1%	49	0.3%	19,136	
OH	1638	13.8%	746	6.3%	5438	45.9%	1009	8.5%	2112	17.8%	17	0.1%	616	5.2%	22	0.2%	24	0.2%	163	1.4%	65	0.5%	11,850	
OK	2968	14.4%	1549	7.5%	12308	59.6%	1205	5.8%	2090	10.1%	148	0.7%	250	1.2%	10	0.0%	22	0.1%	57	0.3%	35	0.2%	20,642	
OR	1808	11.6%	1878	12.1%	7453	48.0%	853	5.5%	2994	19.3%	20	0.1%	291	1.9%	32	0.2%	78	0.5%	75	0.5%	61	0.4%	15,543	
PA	3559	15.7%	2464	10.9%	10149	44.9%	2318	10.3%	3311	14.7%	19	0.1%	458	2.0%	85	0.4%	54	0.2%	111	0.5%	72	0.3%	22,600	
PR	3052	24.8%	259	2.1%	5153	41.9%	1169	9.5%	1763	14.3%	12	0.1%	633	5.1%	22	0.2%	1	0.0%	75	0.6%	172	1.4%	12,311	
RI	4003	19.5%	2953	14.4%	7432	36.2%	2182	10.6%	2990	14.6%	27	0.1%	473	2.3%	235	1.1%	95	0.5%	51	0.2%	95	0.5%	20,536	
SC	3468	15.0%	2269	9.8%	11286	48.7%	2055	8.9%	3224	13.9%	25	0.1%	513	2.2%	36	0.2%	100	0.4%	75	0.3%	118	0.5%	23,169	
SD	4151	12.8%	1127	3.5%	23014	71.1%	853	2.6%	2584	8.0%	52	0.2%	380	1.2%	28	0.1%	19	0.1%	83	0.3%	79	0.2%	32,370	
TN	3015	28.1%	1343	12.5%	2937	27.3%	1828	17.0%	1236	11.5%	42	0.4%	128	1.2%	21	0.2%	7	0.1%	91	0.8%	96	0.9%	10,744	
TX	4990	11.6%	5929	13.8%	18955	44.2%	3046	7.1%	7544	17.6%	90	0.2%	1485	3.5%	91	0.2%	305	0.7%	246	0.6%	205	0.5%	42,886	
UT	3195	15.3%	616	3.0%	12054	57.9%	1059	5.1%	2131	10.2%	50	0.2%	574	2.8%	84	0.4%	14	0.1%	974	4.7%	67	0.3%	20,818	
VA	3502	18.9%	1765	9.5%	7326	39.4%	1109	6.0%	3092	16.6%	100	0.5%	837	4.5%	227	1.2%	1	0.0%	404	2.2%	214	1.2%	18,577	
VT	3163	11.9%	1072	4.0%	18027	68.1%	1460	5.5%	2230	8.4%	42	0.2%	327	1.2%	16	0.1%	48	0.2%	22	0.1%	65	0.2%	26,472	
WA	3608	18.9%	2168	11.4%	6549	34.3%	1517	8.0%	3469	18.2%	356	1.9%	566	3.0%	194	1.0%	104	0.5%	423	2.2%	114	0.6%	19,068	
WI	2177	19.1%	1098	9.6%	5143	45.2%	548	4.8%	2024	17.8%	112	1.0%	125	1.1%	0	0.0%	33	0.3%	57	0.5%	68	0.6%	11,385	
WV	2589	23.2%	796	7.1%	5187	46.5%	571	5.1%	1428	12.8%	29	0.3%	349	3.1%	1	0.0%	12	0.1%	60	0.5%	128	1.1%	11,150	
WY	2403	18.4%	1186	9.1%	6074	46.5%	733	5.6%	2147	16.4%	36	0.3%	282	2.2%	20	0.2%	55	0.4%	61	0.5%	66	0.5%	13,063	
Cum	159921		79791		537200		77359		153740		7265		30102		4830		2659		8497		6283		1,067,647	
Med	2939		1118		8573		1216.5		2692.5		64		511		48.5		33		79		95.5		19,102	

BRFSS UPPER BOUND RESPONSE RATE ESTIMATES*
BY STATE, 1995-1999
State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	
	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	
AK	80.0	75.3	74.4	68.2	70.6	
AL	79.9	80.6	75.2	69.4	68.9	
AR	76.0	73.1	78.7	74.5	53.5	
AZ	73.6	81.9	92.6	95.4	95.1	
CA	70.3	66.9	64.6	83.0	82.0	
CO	86.1	83.2	76.2	79.2	77.2	
CT	78.9	77.7	74.5	65.5	58.9	
DC		82.1	82.1	76.9	71.4	
DE	89.8	85.1	80.2	73.2	63.4	
FL	77.1	70.0	64.7	45.4	46.9	
GA	83.4	93.5	86.7	60.6	64.0	
HI	82.2		74.8	73.3	67.8	
IA	86.9	85.7	86.9	84.0	80.1	
ID	76.0	69.8	69.8	68.0	58.8	
IL	73.2	54.1	64.0	62.1	59.6	
IN	86.5	82.5	74.3	57.7	56.0	
KS	89.9	92.5	92.2	88.3	79.0	
KY	87.1	84.1	86.6	80.6	78.9	
LA	77.4	74.6	77.1	76.7	69.8	
MA	69.1	68.2	67.0	59.0	53.7	
MD	75.7	60.1	65.4	74.6	68.9	
ME	83.8	78.2	82.7	87.3	90.7	
MI	80.1	63.6	62.3	59.4	52.5	
MN	92.9	89.0	92.1	92.8	93.7	
MO	68.6	68.6	81.6	73.4	68.0	
MS	85.3	81.2	79.5	71.8	73.5	
MT	88.7	88.6	86.2	86.6	83.2	
NC	86.8	81.8	78.2	76.2	75.0	
ND	95.0	94.4	92.4	88.6	85.4	
NE	80.4	83.7	77.6	78.6	77.8	
NH	78.7	77.3	73.9	74.0	58.3	
NJ	86.7	76.5	73.9	61.9	54.6	
NM	60.5	69.5	76.2	75.6	74.9	
NV	90.4	87.1	86.1	79.1	77.2	
NY	72.4	62.3	67.1	62.2	54.9	
OH	81.4	83.2	76.8	69.4	68.0	
OK	79.2	78.5	79.0	70.0	65.4	
OR	67.9	67.1	64.1	53.7	48.0	
PA	69.0	78.0	73.4	63.6	58.6	
PR				89.4	92.1	
RI	76.9	70.6	70.6	63.7	56.8	
SC	83.9	75.9	85.6	68.6	59.4	
SD	89.0	86.1	80.1	79.6	78.4	
TN	79.7	75.0	72.2	66.8	70.5	
TX	75.6	74.0	67.3	50.5	44.5	
UT	87.4	88.3	87.0	84.1	83.5	
VA	75.9	76.4	75.8	73.6	66.5	
VT	89.3	87.4	86.8	79.6	73.9	
WA	72.0	66.4	65.6	60.6	61.4	
WI	74.5	72.5	73.2	71.8	65.8	
WV	85.0	81.2	78.2	76.9	76.2	
WY	79.5	77.9	74.9	71.1	65.9	
MEDIAN	80.0	78.0	76.2	73.4	68.4	
MAX	95.0	94.4	92.6	95.4	95.1	
MIN	60.5	54.1	62.3	45.4	44.5	
*Excluding wind-down records	Revised:  6/28/00	

BRFSS AAPOR COOPERATION RATE ONE*
BY STATE, 1995-1999
State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	
	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	
AK	64.5	63.0	60.2	58.6	62.3	
AL	74.4	71.1	61.9	55.2	54.6	
AR	65.7	63.2	67.7	69.6	48.0	
AZ	65.7	75.0	83.6	68.2	55.1	
CA	57.7	55.3	51.1	65.6	66.7	
CO	76.5	75.1	67.8	65.9	65.3	
CT	67.5	64.1	62.9	62.5	53.0	
DC		61.9	66.2	60.6	52.9	
DE	77.6	74.0	70.4	66.7	59.8	
FL	55.0	58.9	51.8	38.3	38.5	
GA	81.3	91.4	80.7	52.9	52.0	
HI	50.9		52.4	57.6	54.9	
IA	75.4	76.5	70.0	64.4	58.4	
ID	71.0	62.0	60.1	60.2	53.5	
IL	56.7	46.1	46.8	52.4	51.4	
IN	79.2	73.7	63.2	55.0	52.2	
KS	81.3	85.0	85.3	77.7	68.4	
KY	71.5	66.4	70.9	64.7	63.8	
LA	70.6	65.5	66.2	63.5	54.1	
MA	62.7	59.2	53.4	55.1	46.6	
MD	66.3	55.1	62.2	56.3	49.4	
ME	71.1	67.8	65.9	68.0	66.8	
MI	57.8	55.8	50.5	49.1	45.4	
MN	82.3	81.3	83.8	83.6	83.9	
MO	61.3	60.5	55.9	59.5	60.3	
MS	73.0	71.5	69.3	64.3	63.1	
MT	76.8	76.5	74.3	75.0	73.4	
NC	71.4	71.1	66.4	65.2	63.8	
ND	83.3	86.3	82.5	80.2	77.2	
NE	71.4	74.1	65.8	66.8	66.8	
NH	64.5	63.9	56.0	51.5	50.0	
NJ	84.6	57.7	55.5	57.9	46.8	
NM	55.5	65.0	67.8	67.2	65.4	
NV	79.8	78.0	72.1	59.9	64.0	
NY	53.1	47.4	50.0	56.3	46.6	
OH	71.0	75.1	61.7	55.4	52.7	
OK	73.8	72.2	72.1	65.4	61.4	
OR	56.1	56.5	54.4	46.5	43.6	
PA	66.5	65.5	62.3	61.8	53.2	
PR				80.9	73.7	
RI	69.9	61.4	57.2	59.8	51.0	
SC	79.9	71.6	73.2	66.6	53.3	
SD	82.3	79.4	73.0	73.3	71.8	
TN	73.6	68.6	65.2	62.5	67.1	
TX	63.7	61.5	56.6	42.9	38.4	
UT	76.4	80.8	74.1	71.4	70.2	
VA	62.5	59.9	59.0	60.2	53.5	
VT	81.0	76.2	75.7	77.4	67.4	
WA	63.1	55.3	54.2	50.1	53.4	
WI	72.4	69.8	70.5	68.8	62.2	
WV	77.3	72.4	66.0	65.4	66.8	
WY	71.7	70.5	65.5	64.2	59.9	
MEDIAN	71.3	68.2	65.8	63.0	56.7	
MAX	84.6	91.4	85.3	83.6	83.9	
MIN	50.9	46.1	46.8	38.3	38.4	
*Excluding wind-down records	Revised:  6/28/00	

BRFSS CASRO RESPONSE RATE ESTIMATES*
BY STATE, 1995-1999
State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	
	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	
AK	68.4	62.9	59.5	50.1	57.1	
AL	68.3	69.1	59.6	53.5	53.1	
AR	65.7	62.5	65.9	65.0	46.8	
AZ	65.1	67.1	72.5	59.6	47.7	
CA	52.3	47.9	48.2	57.2	58.1	
CO	77.4	74.4	62.5	66.2	65.3	
CT	65.1	60.4	60.7	56.6	49.6	
DC		64.1	67.8	60.9	47.8	
DE	68.3	63.5	59.8	60.9	54.5	
FL	54.6	55.8	49.4	32.5	37.0	
GA	77.6	87.1	76.8	49.0	51.7	
HI	48.6		41.3	55.2	55.9	
IA	73.3	74.9	69.4	66.2	60.6	
ID	66.8	59.6	59.0	59.4	52.0	
IL	61.6	45.6	44.2	53.6	53.0	
IN	78.9	73.2	62.8	52.4	49.2	
KS	73.6	77.5	75.1	75.1	66.3	
KY	72.6	65.5	69.6	64.9	65.2	
LA	67.3	62.7	63.8	54.8	53.2	
MA	60.4	56.6	50.4	49.8	42.7	
MD	60.9	54.6	54.9	54.4	47.4	
ME	70.2	66.0	66.1	66.9	65.7	
MI	56.0	54.6	49.6	48.1	42.7	
MN	78.1	73.6	77.9	75.7	80.8	
MO	59.1	59.5	54.2	52.0	59.0	
MS	75.4	71.3	67.4	61.6	63.4	
MT	77.5	76.5	72.6	68.9	73.2	
NC	69.2	59.3	64.4	61.7	60.3	
ND	84.5	85.6	79.3	73.4	75.7	
NE	67.5	68.0	61.6	56.9	64.0	
NH	59.5	59.3	51.4	42.5	46.7	
NJ	66.9	52.4	51.0	50.7	41.5	
NM	52.5	61.2	62.5	65.1	62.4	
NV	77.4	75.9	71.8	59.9	61.5	
NY	60.2	50.6	51.6	52.2	45.0	
OH	69.5	74.4	61.7	51.9	48.8	
OK	76.2	72.8	72.3	60.7	58.2	
OR	56.9	55.4	53.1	45.6	41.9	
PA	64.1	61.8	58.2	56.4	48.6	
PR			88.9	76.7	69.5	
RI	68.7	59.4	54.7	55.5	47.4	
SC	74.5	60.9	58.8	59.2	49.6	
SD	81.2	76.8	70.0	65.0	71.0	
TN	68.7	62.5	60.1	50.1	60.1	
TX	60.2	52.8	45.7	41.2	36.2	
UT	78.5	77.6	71.9	61.8	65.5	
VA	62.3	61.2	59.6	60.2	52.7	
VT	74.5	71.6	71.5	73.2	64.8	
WA	61.4	53.7	52.3	49.3	50.3	
WI	71.9	69.6	69.7	67.0	60.0	
WV	77.5	71.8	65.9	58.9	65.2	
WY	69.2	67.7	63.4	62.1	57.5	
MEDIAN	68.4	63.2	61.7	59.1	55.2	
MAX	84.5	87.1	79.3	76.7	80.8	
MIN	48.6	45.6	41.3	32.5	36.2	
*Excluding wind-down records	Revised: 6/28/00	

BRFSS EFFICIENCY RATES
BY STATE, 1995-1999
State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	
	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	Rate	
AK	22.4	23.7	23.3	13.6	7.3	
AL	40.6	37.0	28.8	18.6	16.8	
AR	35.6	19.8	20.0	15.8	13.1	
AZ	31.5	32.2	32.1	14.8	10.1	
CA	31.5	33.6	30.5	19.9	21.2	
CO	29.0	28.6	29.3	18.1	15.7	
CT	26.3	20.1	20.2	17.9	17.3	
DC		19.1	22.6	9.2	7.1	
DE	38.8	34.0	29.5	18.0	13.9	
FL	30.3	26.3	23.5	14.8	10.5	
GA	38.2	46.3	40.5	18.5	13.9	
HI	17.9		32.4	40.6	21.2	
IA	41.1	40.0	38.8	13.8	11.8	
ID	31.5	28.4	24.5	18.8	16.3	
IL	23.6	21.9	21.2	20.3	12.0	
IN	41.6	37.2	26.4	19.3	17.1	
KS	54.3	59.7	59.7	16.3	13.6	
KY	35.4	29.0	33.1	23.6	17.3	
LA	33.6	30.0	27.6	25.9	15.3	
MA	25.1	23.3	17.4	15.8	13.8	
MD	27.5	27.3	25.3	20.5	16.7	
ME	35.4	33.2	32.3	15.3	13.9	
MI	10.4	19.1	17.9	16.0	14.1	
MN	34.5	33.4	34.7	36.8	39.1	
MO	22.7	24.6	23.5	24.6	14.2	
MS	42.5	35.2	35.9	23.0	18.6	
MT	36.0	34.8	31.0	30.9	15.2	
NC	30.7	27.8	27.7	19.5	18.5	
ND	43.6	43.2	38.4	34.7	13.3	
NE	19.3	17.7	19.1	26.8	10.9	
NH	26.4	26.3	24.0	21.2	11.7	
NJ	45.5	16.9	19.5	15.0	11.6	
NM	24.9	27.0	29.3	18.9	17.6	
NV	58.8	54.9	24.9	14.3	16.6	
NY	24.0	21.2	22.7	15.7	13.8	
OH	29.7	28.6	25.8	16.7	13.8	
OK	30.0	25.6	32.4	17.3	14.4	
OR	25.9	21.9	19.8	13.7	11.6	
PA	32.2	20.2	22.6	19.1	15.7	
PR				32.8	24.8	
RI	29.6	25.9	21.9	18.1	19.5	
SC	30.4	26.1	21.7	16.5	15.0	
SD	39.5	37.5	33.5	31.0	12.8	
TN	35.3	30.2	24.7	25.0	28.1	
TX	31.0	30.4	25.5	13.7	11.6	
UT	33.3	34.1	31.3	29.3	15.3	
VA	33.6	18.7	20.1	20.2	18.9	
VT	35.0	19.0	21.1	14.7	11.9	
WA	37.9	22.8	24.4	18.5	18.9	
WI	27.0	24.6	23.1	21.8	19.1	
WV	42.5	41.3	35.9	33.9	23.2	
WY	27.6	29.4	24.9	20.1	18.4	
MEDIAN	31.5	28.1	25.3	18.7	15.1	
MAX	58.8	59.7	59.7	40.6	39.1	
MIN	10.4	16.9	17.4	9.2	7.1	
	Revised:  6/28/00	

BRFSS WINDDOWN RATES
BY STATE, 1995-1999
WAKSBERG STATES ONLY
State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	
MN	3.1	1.6	2.0	2.0	1.3	
TN	6.7	7.7	7.1	9.5	6.6	

TABLE 1: PERCENTAGE OF RECORDS WITH A CLUSTER SIZE OF THREE,
WAKSBERG STATES, 1995-1999

State	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	MEAN	
Minnesota	97.3%	93.6%	99.6%	99.9%	100.0%	98.1%	
Tennessee	100.0%	99.7%	99.5%	97.3%	99.6%	99.2%	

TABLE 2: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE FEMALE BETWEEN THE WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA
AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1995-1999

STATE	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	MEAN	
Tennessee 	3.9	7.2	11.0	12.0	11.9	9.2	
Kentucky 	6.5	7.8	8.5	8.5	9.5	8.2	
District of Columbia 	.	5.0	7.2	6.4	9.3	7.0	
Illinois 	5.5	6.3	5.4	3.2	8.5	5.8	
New Hampshire 	4.6	4.0	7.5	6.6	8.4	6.2	
Puerto Rico 	.	5.4	2.5	7.1	7.9	5.7	
Delaware 	8.0	7.1	7.0	5.1	7.7	7.0	
Connecticut 	3.6	7.3	6.5	5.8	7.6	6.2	
Kansas 	2.1	3.9	7.1	7.9	7.5	5.7	
Arizona 	9.1	5.2	-0.2	5.1	7.3	5.3	
New Jersey 	12.6	3.3	7.5	5.1	7.2	7.1	
Indiana 	1.8	3.2	2.1	5.0	7.1	3.8	
Rhode Island	0.5	2.2	4.7	6.5	7.0	4.2	
Ohio 	7.6	5.9	6.7	5.4	6.9	6.5	
Texas 	9.4	8.5	6.2	6.4	6.9	7.5	
Georgia 	3.0	3.1	3.9	8.2	6.8	5.0	
North Carolina 	5.5	4.7	5.8	6.5	6.7	5.8	
Florida 	4.8	6.1	5.3	6.4	6.7	5.8	
South Dakota 	3.3	3.4	2.8	2.6	6.6	3.7	
Oklahoma 	1.3	2.7	3.5	7.1	6.6	4.2	
Louisiana 	5.5	5.4	7.5	6.7	6.5	6.3	
Virginia 	6.7	8.7	5.5	3.6	6.5	6.2	
Maryland 	5.4	4.7	2.8	7.3	6.5	5.3	
Iowa 	4.4	4.0	4.5	6.4	6.3	5.1	
Arkansas 	4.5	7.7	8.2	8.0	6.3	6.9	
California 	2.7	5.2	4.7	5.1	6.2	4.8	
New York 	4.5	4.9	5.5	3.4	6.1	4.9	
Nebraska 	5.2	7.0	7.8	7.1	6.1	6.6	
Vermont 	5.0	3.2	2.6	2.5	6.1	3.9	
Pennsylvania 	2.0	2.8	6.0	5.8	6.0	4.5	
Idaho 	7.6	6.2	6.2	6.0	5.5	6.3	
Oregon 	4.1	5.0	4.1	6.6	5.4	5.1	
Missouri 	7.3	4.6	7.1	8.3	5.4	6.5	
South Carolina 	4.9	5.0	8.5	3.9	5.4	5.5	
Michigan 	6.4	4.3	3.7	5.6	5.1	5.0	
Massachusetts 	3.6	4.2	5.0	3.8	4.9	4.3	
Mississippi 	4.6	7.9	6.6	7.6	4.9	6.3	
Wisconsin 	1.0	2.6	2.7	2.4	4.7	2.7	
Wyoming 	6.2	6.5	6.4	7.1	4.5	6.1	
Colorado 	4.2	3.9	2.5	2.8	4.4	3.6	
Alaska 	6.3	6.1	4.7	9.0	4.1	6.1	
Alabama 	8.5	9.7	7.5	11.1	4.0	8.2	
North Dakota 	2.9	6.2	2.3	3.0	3.9	3.7	
West Virginia 	7.1	6.9	5.2	5.4	3.9	5.7	
Hawaii 	5.0	.	6.4	6.3	3.6	5.3	
Montana 	5.4	4.5	4.6	3.8	3.5	4.4	
Washington 	4.4	6.3	5.5	3.8	3.4	4.7	
Utah 	3.6	2.8	2.2	5.2	3.3	3.4	
New Mexico 	9.1	7.9	4.9	4.2	2.5	5.7	
Maine 	2.5	3.6	1.8	5.4	1.1	2.9	
Minnesota 	2.4	2.9	1.3	-0.3	0.7	1.4	
Nevada 	11.4	6.5	6.3	2.6	-2.6	4.9	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum)

TABLE 3: DISCREPANCY BETWEEN WEIGHTED* SAMPLE AND POPULATION BY AGE CATEGORY AND STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENTAGE POINT DIFFERENCE	
	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	55-64	65+	
Alabama 	-1.7	-0.8	-1.7	2.0	2.2	0.0	
Alaska 	-2.3	0.4	3.6	2.4	-1.0	-3.1	
Arizona 	0.4	-1.0	-4.5	1.1	1.7	2.3	
Arkansas 	-2.2	0.6	0.7	4.0	1.6	-4.7	
California 	0.8	1.6	1.4	-0.6	-0.5	-2.8	
Colorado 	-0.2	1.5	-0.3	1.2	0.0	-2.2	
Connecticut 	-2.5	3.1	2.3	1.1	-1.2	-2.9	
Delaware 	-0.3	0.8	0.4	1.0	1.3	-3.1	
District of Columbia	-1.4	2.4	-3.5	-1.9	1.0	3.4	
Florida 	-0.2	1.0	0.0	0.7	0.7	-2.3	
Georgia 	-3.7	0.1	3.2	1.6	0.7	-1.9	
Hawaii 	-2.4	0.4	2.2	3.3	-1.7	-1.8	
Idaho 	0.3	1.9	1.4	0.1	-0.2	-3.5	
Illinois 	0.1	2.8	3.4	-0.2	-1.8	-4.3	
Indiana 	-4.9	-0.6	3.8	4.1	0.5	-2.8	
Iowa 	-2.7	0.1	1.0	1.6	0.5	-0.5	
Kansas 	-2.1	-0.1	-0.5	1.5	0.8	0.4	
Kentucky 	-2.8	-1.0	0.4	1.1	1.7	0.6	
Louisiana 	-0.7	0.3	0.1	0.7	-0.2	-0.2	
Maine 	-3.8	-2.9	2.7	2.4	1.8	-0.2	
Maryland 	1.6	0.1	0.4	0.6	-0.6	-2.1	
Massachusetts 	-2.5	1.5	2.2	1.1	0.1	-2.4	
Michigan 	-0.3	0.3	1.1	0.2	-0.1	-1.2	
Minnesota 	-0.6	-1.1	4.7	-0.3	0.3	-3.0	
Mississippi 	-2.7	-1.4	1.9	2.6	2.6	-2.8	
Missouri 	-2.2	-0.7	2.4	-0.4	2.1	-1.3	
Montana 	-1.2	-3.7	1.5	2.4	1.5	-0.6	
Nebraska 	-0.4	-0.5	-2.3	0.0	0.6	2.7	
Nevada 	0.6	3.4	-1.0	2.1	-2.0	-3.0	
New Hampshire 	-5.1	0.2	3.1	1.4	0.5	-0.1	
New Jersey 	-2.0	1.6	1.0	-0.1	0.4	-0.8	
New Mexico 	-0.7	-2.4	-0.5	2.0	1.5	0.0	
New York 	-0.5	2.7	1.5	0.4	0.2	-4.3	
North Carolina 	-3.4	0.4	-1.4	2.3	0.7	1.4	
North Dakota 	-1.1	-0.7	-0.6	0.7	0.9	0.9	
Ohio 	-3.1	-0.6	-1.4	0.6	1.8	2.7	
Oklahoma 	-2.4	0.1	-0.1	0.3	1.5	0.6	
Oregon 	1.2	2.7	-2.6	1.6	-0.6	-2.3	
Pennsylvania 	-1.8	0.5	4.1	1.2	-0.9	-3.0	
Puerto Rico 	-5.5	-5.0	-0.3	2.7	3.2	4.9	
Rhode Island 	-1.7	1.3	1.7	2.4	-0.6	-3.1	
South Carolina 	-2.6	1.0	1.4	3.0	0.6	-3.5	
South Dakota 	-2.7	-1.3	3.0	1.8	0.6	-1.5	
Tennessee 	-1.5	1.0	0.9	0.6	0.3	-1.3	
Texas 	0.2	0.9	1.7	0.8	0.1	-3.7	
Utah 	1.7	2.1	-1.2	0.0	-1.1	-1.5	
Vermont 	-4.8	0.4	2.1	2.2	0.2	-0.1	
Virginia 	-2.8	-1.2	1.3	3.5	1.7	-2.5	
Washington 	1.2	2.2	0.1	-0.7	-0.4	-2.5	
West Virginia 	-3.2	-1.7	0.0	4.5	1.1	-0.7	
Wisconsin 	-3.5	0.5	2.8	0.9	0.3	-1.0	
Wyoming 	0.7	-0.4	0.8	1.5	0.4	-3.0	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum)
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with Age Not Missing

TABLE 4: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE WHITE NON-HISPANIC BETWEEN THE WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1999

STATE	WT1	POP	DIFF	
	PERCENT	PERCENT	PERCENT	
Georgia 	72.8	69.1	3.7	
Virginia 	77.1	74.3	2.8	
Arkansas 	85.3	83.2	2.1	
Delaware 	79.1	77.2	1.9	
Utah 	91.3	89.4	1.9	
Pennsylvania 	89.3	87.6	1.7	
Mississippi 	67.2	65.6	1.6	
New York 	68.9	67.3	1.6	
California 	55.4	53.8	1.6	
Washington 	86.8	85.2	1.6	
Missouri 	88.4	86.9	1.5	
Ohio 	88.4	86.9	1.5	
Oklahoma 	83.8	82.4	1.4	
New Jersey 	72.2	70.9	1.3	
South Dakota 	93.1	91.9	1.2	
Illinois 	74.9	73.8	1.1	
South Carolina 	71.7	70.6	1.1	
Kentucky 	93.0	91.9	1.1	
Kansas 	88.9	88.1	0.8	
North Dakota	95.0	94.2	0.8	
Wisconsin 	92.2	91.4	0.8	
Nebraska 	91.7	91.0	0.7	
Idaho 	91.9	91.4	0.5	
Florida 	71.0	70.6	0.4	
Texas 	59.2	58.9	0.3	
Louisiana 	66.8	66.5	0.3	
Tennessee 	83.2	83.0	0.2	
Michigan 	82.9	82.8	0.1	
Alabama 	74.5	74.6	-0.1	
Montana 	92.7	92.8	-0.1	
Iowa	95.2	95.4	-0.2	
Massachusetts 	86.5	86.8	-0.3	
Indiana 	88.9	89.3	-0.4	
Minnesota 	92.7	93.2	-0.5	
Wyoming 	91.3	91.8	-0.5	
Arizona 	70.9	71.8	-0.9	
West Virginia	95.1	96.0	-0.9	
New Mexico 	50.5	51.6	-1.1	
Connecticut 	81.8	83.0	-1.2	
Alaska 	74.0	75.3	-1.3	
Vermont	96.4	97.8	-1.4	
Rhode Island	87.2	88.9	-1.7	
New Hampshire 	94.9	96.8	-1.9	
North Carolina 	73.6	75.7	-2.1	
Colorado 	78.5	80.8	-2.3	
Maine	95.8	98.1	-2.3	
Hawaii 	28.3	30.7	-2.4	
District of Columbia 	29.8	32.4	-2.6	
Maryland 	63.6	66.3	-2.7	
Oregon 	86.3	89.4	-3.1	
Nevada 	69.6	73.8	-4.2	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum).
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Native American/Alaska Native, for Orace and Hispanic Or Non-Hispanic for Hispanic.

TABLE 5: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE WHITE BETWEEN THE WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1997-1999

STATE	1997	1998	1999	MEAN	
California 	5.1	5.5	5.2	5.2	
Virginia 	3.0	1.0	3.8	2.6	
Georgia 	1.4	0.0	3.7	1.7	
New Jersey 	3.4	2.0	3.3	2.9	
New York 	2.7	3.1	3.1	3.0	
Delaware 	1.8	3.5	3.0	2.8	
Missouri 	0.0	1.1	2.9	1.3	
Mississippi 	2.8	4.8	2.9	3.5	
Washington 	1.8	2.6	2.8	2.4	
Arkansas 	1.1	1.7	2.7	1.8	
Arizona 	4.2	3.2	2.7	3.4	
Oklahoma 	3.3	3.5	2.6	3.1	
Ohio 	-1.9	1.1	2.3	0.5	
South Carolina 	1.3	5.4	2.3	3.0	
Kansas 	0.6	1.0	2.3	1.3	
Illinois 	3.4	2.9	2.2	2.8	
South Dakota 	-0.1	1.8	1.9	1.2	
Massachusetts 	1.9	1.4	1.8	1.7	
Pennsylvania 	1.2	2.2	1.8	1.7	
Texas 	-0.3	1.8	1.8	1.1	
Florida 	1.9	-0.2	1.6	1.1	
Kentucky 	0.3	0.7	1.5	0.8	
Louisiana 	3.7	5.5	1.5	3.5	
North Dakota 	0.8	0.6	1.3	0.9	
Utah 	1.8	1.3	1.1	1.4	
Michigan 	1.9	2.3	1.0	1.7	
Wisconsin 	0.8	1.2	1.0	1.0	
Colorado 	1.5	0.4	1.0	0.9	
Tennessee 	1.2	2.7	0.9	1.6	
Minnesota 	1.0	0.3	0.8	0.7	
Rhode Island	1.8	0.3	0.8	1.0	
Wyoming 	0.4	1.5	0.8	0.9	
Alabama 	2.7	0.6	0.8	1.4	
Nebraska 	1.4	2.1	0.6	1.4	
Montana 	0.8	1.0	0.6	0.8	
Oregon 	0.4	1.5	0.6	0.8	
Hawaii 	0.4	-0.9	0.5	0.0	
New Hampshire 	-0.2	-0.3	0.4	0.0	
Iowa 	1.0	0.4	0.4	0.6	
West Virginia 	1.3	0.6	0.2	0.7	
Idaho 	-0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	
Indiana 	1.1	-3.1	0.1	-0.6	
Connecticut 	2.2	0.6	0.1	0.9	
Maine 	-0.1	-0.5	-0.1	-0.2	
Vermont 	-1.0	0.3	-0.5	-0.4	
New Mexico 	0.0	-0.5	-0.6	-0.4	
Alaska 	2.9	2.2	-1.1	1.3	
North Carolina 	-0.8	2.4	-1.2	0.1	
Maryland 	5.1	-0.5	-1.5	1.0	
Nevada 	1.5	3.3	-5.0	-0.1	
District of Columbia 	-5.0	-6.8	-6.4	-6.0	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum).
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Native American/Alaska Native.

TABLE 6: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE BLACK BETWEEN THE WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1997-1999

STATE	1997	1998	1999	MEAN	
District of Columbia 	6.8	8.5	7.2	7.5	
Nevada 	-0.9	-1.8	5.3	0.9	
Maryland 	-3.9	1.2	1.7	-0.3	
North Carolina 	0.7	-2.1	1.6	0.0	
Alaska 	-1.1	-0.7	0.3	-0.5	
California 	-2.4	-0.9	0.3	-1.0	
Minnesota 	-0.1	0.6	0.1	0.2	
Vermont 	0.2	-0.3	0.1	0.0	
Maine 	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.1	
New Hampshire 	-0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0	
Montana 	0.1	-0.1	-0.1	0.0	
South Dakota 	0.3	0.0	-0.1	0.1	
Wyoming 	0.1	-0.4	-0.2	-0.2	
Idaho 	-0.2	-0.2	-0.2	-0.2	
North Dakota 	0.1	-0.2	-0.3	-0.1	
Arizona 	-1.6	-0.7	-0.3	-0.9	
Iowa 	-0.8	-0.3	-0.3	-0.5	
Utah 	-0.4	-0.3	-0.4	-0.4	
Oregon 	-0.6	-1.1	-0.5	-0.7	
Tennessee 	-0.9	-2.5	-0.6	-1.3	
Connecticut 	-2.7	-1.0	-0.6	-1.4	
New Mexico 	-0.2	-0.2	-0.7	-0.3	
West Virginia 	-1.0	-0.5	-0.8	-0.8	
Rhode Island 	-1.1	-0.3	-0.8	-0.7	
Indiana 	-2.0	1.4	-0.8	-0.5	
Colorado 	-1.6	-1.1	-0.9	-1.2	
Washington 	-0.7	-0.9	-1.0	-0.9	
Kansas 	0.3	-0.6	-1.0	-0.5	
Kentucky 	0.1	-0.4	-1.1	-0.5	
Alabama 	-3.0	-0.9	-1.1	-1.7	
Nebraska 	-1.1	-1.4	-1.1	-1.2	
Wisconsin 	-1.3	-1.9	-1.2	-1.5	
Hawaii 	-0.3	-1.7	-1.2	-1.1	
Massachusetts 	-1.3	-1.7	-1.6	-1.5	
Oklahoma 	-1.5	-0.7	-1.6	-1.3	
Louisiana 	-4.2	-4.9	-1.7	-3.6	
Florida 	-2.1	0.7	-1.7	-1.0	
Michigan 	-3.0	-3.4	-1.8	-2.7	
Illinois 	-3.1	-2.8	-1.8	-2.6	
Pennsylvania 	-1.2	-1.9	-1.8	-1.6	
Texas 	-0.8	-2.0	-2.1	-1.6	
Ohio 	1.8	-1.1	-2.1	-0.5	
Mississippi 	-2.7	-4.5	-2.3	-3.2	
Delaware 	-1.7	-2.4	-2.4	-2.2	
South Carolina 	-1.2	-5.8	-2.5	-3.2	
Missouri 	-0.1	-0.8	-2.7	-1.2	
Virginia 	-3.4	0.1	-2.7	-2.0	
Georgia 	-0.8	0.9	-2.8	-0.9	
New Jersey 	-3.2	-2.9	-2.8	-2.9	
New York 	-2.1	-3.2	-3.0	-2.8	
Arkansas 	-2.4	-2.6	-3.9	-3.0	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum)
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Native American/Alaska Native

TABLE 7: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE HISPANIC BETWEEN THE WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1998-1999

STATE	1998	1999	MEAN	
Hawaii 	9.3	7.2	8.2	
Arizona 	1.7	3.4	2.5	
Colorado 	3.6	3.0	3.3	
Oregon 	1.7	2.9	2.3	
California 	2.1	2.9	2.5	
New Mexico 	2.7	2.7	2.7	
Texas 	2.5	2.5	2.5	
New Jersey 	-2.0	2.2	0.1	
Maine 	1.2	2.1	1.7	
New Hampshire 	0.7	2.1	1.4	
Florida 	1.3	2.1	1.7	
Connecticut 	-0.2	2.1	1.0	
Louisiana 	2.3	1.7	2.0	
South Carolina 	1.0	1.6	1.3	
Massachusetts 	-0.5	1.5	0.5	
Mississippi 	1.3	1.2	1.3	
Oklahoma 	-0.2	1.2	0.5	
Minnesota 	1.1	1.2	1.1	
Illinois 	1.0	1.1	1.0	
West Virginia 	1.1	1.0	1.1	
Rhode Island	0.1	1.0	0.6	
Montana 	0.9	1.0	1.0	
Michigan 	0.5	0.9	0.7	
Kansas 	1.3	0.9	1.1	
North Carolina 	1.4	0.9	1.2	
Alabama 	2.3	0.8	1.6	
Vermont 	0.5	0.8	0.7	
Wyoming 	0.4	0.8	0.6	
South Dakota 	0.1	0.8	0.5	
Ohio 	0.4	0.8	0.6	
Missouri 	1.0	0.7	0.9	
Delaware 	-0.6	0.7	0.1	
Arkansas 	0.4	0.7	0.5	
Maryland 	0.8	0.7	0.8	
New York 	-3.1	0.6	-1.3	
Virginia 	1.6	0.6	1.1	
Tennessee 	0.5	0.5	0.5	
Alaska 	1.8	0.5	1.2	
North Dakota 	0.8	0.4	0.6	
Kentucky 	0.3	0.3	0.3	
Iowa 	0.5	0.2	0.3	
Pennsylvania 	0.4	0.1	0.3	
Wisconsin 	-0.3	0.0	-0.1	
Washington 	-0.4	-0.1	-0.2	
Indiana 	0.9	-0.1	0.4	
Georgia 	0.2	-0.3	-0.1	
Nebraska 	-1.2	-0.5	-0.9	
Utah 	-0.3	-0.9	-0.6	
Idaho 	-1.9	-1.2	-1.5	
Nevada 	-3.3	-1.7	-2.5	
District of Columbia 	-3.2	-3.7	-3.4	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum)
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with Hispanic Origin Not Missing

TABLE 8: PERCENT OF HISPANICS CODED OTHER RACE BY STATE, 1998-1999

STATE	1998	1999	MEAN	
	HISPANICS	HISPANICS		
	RACE = OTHER	RACE = OTHER		
	PERCENT	PERCENT		
Kansas 	40.6	68.8	54.7	
Arizona 	54.9	66.6	60.7	
Oklahoma 	31.7	47.9	39.8	
New Mexico 	34.1	45.3	39.7	
Maryland 	39.6	43.5	41.6	
Nevada 	52.2	42.1	47.1	
Delaware 	10.0	40.5	25.3	
Oregon 	20.9	35.8	28.3	
Texas 	30.3	35.7	33.0	
Ohio 	29.1	32.3	30.7	
Virginia 	35.0	29.9	32.4	
New York 	42.1	29.8	35.9	
Rhode Island	31.4	28.5	29.9	
Missouri 	20.0	28.3	24.1	
New Jersey 	36.5	27.5	32.0	
North Dakota 	7.1	27.3	17.2	
Connecticut 	39.8	27.1	33.4	
Wyoming 	26.2	26.1	26.2	
Georgia 	25.4	25.9	25.6	
Idaho 	16.4	25.8	21.1	
Massachusetts 	39.8	25.2	32.5	
Nebraska 	44.3	25.0	34.6	
Tennessee 	9.1	23.9	16.5	
Hawaii 	16.4	23.0	19.7	
Colorado 	23.3	22.8	23.0	
District of Columbia 	14.5	22.2	18.4	
South Dakota 	30.4	22.2	26.3	
Michigan 	32.3	21.6	27.0	
Pennsylvania 	29.2	20.8	25.0	
Iowa 	14.1	19.7	16.9	
Montana 	15.9	19.0	17.5	
Kentucky 	13.8	18.8	16.3	
Alabama 	10.5	17.1	13.8	
South Carolina 	13.1	16.1	14.6	
North Carolina 	18.0	13.8	15.9	
Minnesota 	23.8	12.2	18.0	
Mississippi 	12.0	11.6	11.8	
Louisiana 	16.0	10.7	13.3	
Arkansas 	3.8	10.0	6.9	
Indiana 	18.6	9.3	14.0	
New Hampshire 	14.8	7.1	11.0	
West Virginia 	0.0	7.0	3.5	
Wisconsin 	14.0	6.7	10.3	
Utah 	8.1	6.3	7.2	
Vermont 	4.4	5.8	5.1	
Maine 	0.0	4.8	2.4	
California 	5.4	4.0	4.7	
Washington 	6.5	3.5	5.0	
Florida 	3.2	2.4	2.8	
Illinois 	10.5	1.7	6.1	
Alaska 	6.3	0.0	3.2	

*Base for Percentages Is Respondents with Hispanic Origin Equal to One

TABLE 9: DISCREPANCY IN PERCENTAGE OF HISPANICS CODED WHITE BETWEEN WEIGHTED* SAMPLE DATA AND POPULATION DATA BY STATE, 1999

STATE	WT1	POP	DIFF	
	PERCENT	PERCENT	PERCENT	
Rhode Island	89.2	79.0	10.2	
North Dakota 	93.1	85.5	7.6	
North Carolina 	88.0	80.7	7.3	
Delaware 	87.9	80.9	7.0	
Mississippi 	82.0	75.1	6.9	
Kentucky 	89.9	85.3	4.6	
Massachusetts 	82.6	78.8	3.8	
Iowa 	94.2	92.1	2.1	
Washington 	87.1	85.6	1.5	
New York 	76.5	75.1	1.4	
Arizona	95.4	94.3	1.1	
California 	93.1	92.6	0.5	
Oregon 	92.1	91.8	0.3	
Minnesota 	82.4	83.1	-0.7	
Maine 	90.7	91.9	-1.2	
Colorado 	93.5	95.0	-1.5	
Kansas 	89.9	91.4	-1.5	
Illinois 	91.7	93.4	-1.7	
Tennessee 	79.8	82.1	-2.3	
Texas 	94.0	96.9	-2.9	
Georgia 	79.7	82.7	-3.0	
West Virginia 	89.7	92.7	-3.0	
Utah 	90.1	93.5	-3.4	
New Hampshire 	88.3	91.9	-3.6	
Missouri 	84.4	88.3	-3.9	
Idaho 	89.9	94.4	-4.5	
Nebraska 	86.9	91.7	-4.8	
Wyoming 	90.0	94.8	-4.8	
New Jersey 	80.1	85.8	-5.7	
Nevada 	84.9	90.8	-5.9	
Indiana 	85.3	91.8	-6.5	
South Carolina 	71.4	77.9	-6.5	
Vermont 	86.1	92.8	-6.7	
Wisconsin 	82.6	89.7	-7.1	
Florida 	85.3	93.5	-8.2	
New Mexico 	87.3	97.4	-10.1	
Ohio 	78.0	88.5	-10.5	
Pennsylvania 	71.1	82.7	-11.6	
Connecticut 	76.0	88.6	-12.6	
South Dakota 	62.6	75.3	-12.7	
Arkansas 	74.5	87.5	-13.0	
Alaska 	62.7	77.1	-14.4	
Maryland 	63.1	78.6	-15.5	
Louisiana 	70.4	86.5	-16.1	
Virginia 	69.1	85.5	-16.4	
Montana 	68.8	85.8	-17.0	
Hawaii 	19.3	38.1	-18.8	
Michigan 	69.2	88.6	-19.4	
Alabama 	62.1	82.7	-20.6	
Oklahoma 	60.8	82.2	-21.4	
District of Columbia 	51.4	78.8	-27.4	

*Weighted Probability of Selection (Number of Phones, Number of Adults, And Selection of Telephone Numbers by Stratum).
Base for Sample Percentages Is Respondents with White, Black, Asian/pacific Islander, or Native American/alaska Native, for Orace and Hispanic for Hispanic.

TABLE 10: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING INCOME2 BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
District of Columbia 	26.8	2.8	340	
Oklahoma 	24.8	2.5	737	
New Jersey 	21.3	1.9	601	
Arizona 	21.3	1.9	371	
Massachusetts 	18.4	1.5	923	
Connecticut 	18.3	1.5	644	
Pennsylvania 	18.3	1.5	651	
Rhode Island	17.7	1.4	710	
New York 	16.0	1.1	424	
Kansas 	15.6	1.0	604	
Vermont 	15.1	0.9	479	
South Carolina 	14.9	0.9	518	
Tennessee 	13.7	0.7	414	
Montana 	12.6	0.5	226	
North Carolina 	12.1	0.4	296	
New Hampshire 	11.6	0.4	145	
Nebraska 	10.4	0.2	293	
South Dakota 	9.7	0.0	401	
Michigan 	9.2	0.0	231	
Kentucky 	8.5	-0.1	642	
Maryland 	8.3	-0.2	328	
Hawaii 	8.2	-0.2	177	
Washington 	8.2	-0.2	295	
Ohio 	7.1	-0.4	117	
Louisiana 	6.9	-0.4	116	
Delaware 	6.9	-0.4	176	
Missouri 	6.8	-0.4	291	
Utah 	6.7	-0.4	213	
Indiana 	6.5	-0.5	159	
Nevada 	6.2	-0.5	135	
Florida 	6.1	-0.5	317	
Illinois 	6.1	-0.5	177	
Wisconsin 	5.8	-0.6	127	
Mississippi 	5.7	-0.6	125	
Georgia 	5.6	-0.6	128	
North Dakota 	5.6	-0.6	111	
Virginia 	5.5	-0.6	194	
Maine 	5.3	-0.7	88	
Alabama 	5.1	-0.7	106	
Arkansas 	4.3	-0.8	130	
California 	4.3	-0.8	186	
Texas 	4.3	-0.8	213	
Oregon 	4.3	-0.8	77	
Iowa 	4.2	-0.8	153	
Colorado 	4.0	-0.9	123	
Minnesota 	3.9	-0.9	207	
New Mexico 	3.7	-0.9	130	
Idaho 	3.6	-0.9	179	
Puerto Rico 	3.5	-1.0	106	
Wyoming 	3.2	-1.0	77	
West Virginia 	3.1	-1.0	80	
Alaska 	2.8	-1.1	57	

TABLE 11: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING AGE BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
New York 	1.4	2.6	37	
Massachusetts 	1.3	2.4	67	
New Jersey 	1.3	2.3	37	
Indiana 	1.1	1.9	28	
Pennsylvania 	1.1	1.8	40	
Connecticut 	1.1	1.7	38	
Rhode Island	0.9	1.3	38	
Vermont 	0.8	0.9	26	
Hawaii 	0.8	0.8	17	
North Carolina 	0.8	0.8	19	
South Carolina 	0.8	0.7	26	
Oregon 	0.7	0.6	13	
Tennessee 	0.7	0.5	20	
Nebraska 	0.6	0.3	17	
Louisiana 	0.6	0.3	10	
Alabama 	0.6	0.2	12	
Delaware 	0.5	0.1	14	
Texas 	0.5	0.1	27	
Missouri 	0.5	0.1	23	
Colorado 	0.5	0.1	16	
Virginia 	0.5	0.0	18	
Kansas 	0.5	0.0	19	
Georgia 	0.5	0.0	11	
New Hampshire 	0.5	-0.1	6	
Wisconsin 	0.5	-0.1	10	
Wyoming 	0.5	-0.1	11	
North Dakota 	0.5	-0.1	9	
Alaska 	0.4	-0.2	9	
Oklahoma 	0.4	-0.2	13	
District of Columbia 	0.4	-0.3	5	
South Dakota 	0.4	-0.3	16	
Maryland 	0.4	-0.3	15	
Ohio 	0.4	-0.4	6	
Utah 	0.3	-0.4	11	
Florida 	0.3	-0.5	17	
Arizona 	0.3	-0.6	5	
Michigan 	0.3	-0.6	7	
Mississippi 	0.3	-0.6	6	
Nevada 	0.3	-0.6	6	
Arkansas 	0.3	-0.7	8	
Idaho 	0.2	-0.8	11	
Maine 	0.2	-0.9	3	
Kentucky 	0.2	-0.9	13	
West Virginia 	0.2	-1.0	4	
New Mexico 	0.1	-1.0	5	
Illinois 	0.1	-1.0	4	
Puerto Rico 	0.1	-1.1	4	
Montana 	0.1	-1.1	2	
Iowa 	0.1	-1.3	2	
Washington 	0.1	-1.3	2	
California 	0.0	-1.4	0	
Minnesota 	0.0	-1.4	0	

TABLE 12: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING EDUCA BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
California 	0.8	2.8	35	
New York 	0.8	2.5	20	
New Jersey 	0.7	2.0	19	
Kansas 	0.6	1.9	25	
Massachusetts 	0.6	1.5	28	
North Carolina 	0.5	1.3	13	
Tennessee 	0.5	1.3	16	
Pennsylvania 	0.5	1.2	18	
Oklahoma 	0.5	1.2	15	
Delaware 	0.4	0.8	11	
Connecticut 	0.4	0.8	15	
Nebraska 	0.4	0.8	12	
Rhode Island	0.4	0.8	17	
District of Columbia 	0.4	0.6	5	
South Carolina 	0.4	0.5	13	
Mississippi 	0.4	0.5	8	
Puerto Rico 	0.3	0.3	10	
Kentucky 	0.3	0.2	24	
Virginia 	0.3	0.2	11	
Maryland 	0.3	0.2	12	
Maine 	0.3	0.1	5	
Georgia 	0.3	0.0	6	
Arizona 	0.2	-0.2	4	
Michigan 	0.2	-0.4	5	
Alaska 	0.2	-0.4	4	
Washington 	0.2	-0.4	7	
West Virginia 	0.2	-0.4	5	
Minnesota 	0.2	-0.4	10	
Hawaii 	0.2	-0.4	4	
Wisconsin 	0.2	-0.5	4	
Nevada 	0.2	-0.5	4	
Louisiana 	0.2	-0.5	3	
Florida 	0.2	-0.5	9	
Montana 	0.2	-0.5	3	
New Hampshire 	0.2	-0.6	2	
Vermont 	0.2	-0.6	5	
Utah 	0.2	-0.6	5	
New Mexico 	0.1	-0.7	5	
Texas 	0.1	-0.7	7	
South Dakota 	0.1	-0.8	5	
Oregon 	0.1	-0.8	2	
North Dakota 	0.1	-0.9	2	
Missouri 	0.1	-0.9	4	
Iowa 	0.1	-1.0	3	
Indiana 	0.1	-1.0	2	
Idaho 	0.1	-1.0	4	
Illinois 	0.1	-1.0	2	
Colorado 	0.1	-1.1	2	
Ohio 	0.1	-1.1	1	
Alabama 	0.0	-1.2	1	
Wyoming 	0.0	-1.2	1	
Arkansas 	0.0	-1.2	1	

TABLE 13: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING EMPLOY BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
California	0.7	2.7	32	
Massachusetts	0.7	2.5	36	
New Jersey	0.7	2.3	19	
New York	0.6	2.1	17	
South Carolina	0.6	1.8	20	
New Hampshire	0.6	1.7	7	
Pennsylvania	0.5	1.6	19	
North Carolina	0.5	1.1	11	
Nebraska	0.4	1.0	12	
Rhode Island	0.3	0.5	13	
Connecticut	0.3	0.4	11	
Georgia	0.3	0.4	7	
Idaho	0.3	0.3	15	
Louisiana	0.3	0.3	5	
Kansas	0.3	0.2	11	
Washington	0.3	0.2	10	
Tennessee	0.3	0.1	8	
Virginia	0.3	0.1	9	
Maryland	0.3	0.1	10	
Michigan	0.2	0.0	6	
District of Columbia	0.2	0.0	3	
Hawaii	0.2	0.0	5	
Texas	0.2	-0.1	11	
South Dakota	0.2	-0.1	9	
Oklahoma	0.2	-0.2	6	
Delaware	0.2	-0.2	5	
Florida	0.2	-0.2	10	
Alabama	0.2	-0.3	4	
Vermont	0.2	-0.3	6	
Mississippi	0.2	-0.3	4	
Arizona	0.2	-0.4	3	
Oregon	0.2	-0.4	3	
Puerto Rico	0.2	-0.4	5	
Kentucky	0.1	-0.5	11	
Colorado	0.1	-0.6	4	
Missouri	0.1	-0.7	5	
North Dakota	0.1	-0.7	2	
Alaska	0.1	-0.8	2	
Utah	0.1	-0.8	3	
Nevada	0.1	-0.8	2	
Iowa	0.1	-0.8	3	
Wyoming	0.1	-0.8	2	
West Virginia	0.1	-0.9	2	
Minnesota	0.1	-0.9	4	
Arkansas	0.1	-0.9	2	
Ohio	0.1	-1.0	1	
New Mexico	0.1	-1.0	2	
Montana	0.1	-1.0	1	
Wisconsin	0.0	-1.0	1	
Indiana	0.0	-1.1	1	
Illinois	0.0	-1.1	1	
Maine	0.0	-1.3	0	

TABLE 14: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING MARITAL BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
Massachusetts 	0.7	2.5	33	
North Carolina 	0.6	2.0	14	
Michigan 	0.6	1.8	14	
Kansas 	0.5	1.8	21	
Pennsylvania 	0.5	1.7	19	
New York 	0.5	1.7	14	
Oklahoma 	0.5	1.5	15	
New Jersey 	0.5	1.3	13	
Rhode Island	0.4	1.0	17	
New Hampshire 	0.4	0.9	5	
California 	0.4	0.8	17	
Vermont 	0.4	0.7	12	
Nevada 	0.4	0.7	8	
Washington 	0.4	0.6	13	
Nebraska 	0.3	0.4	9	
Connecticut 	0.3	0.3	11	
Louisiana 	0.3	0.2	5	
Tennessee 	0.3	0.2	9	
Colorado 	0.3	0.2	9	
Indiana 	0.3	0.2	7	
Virginia 	0.3	0.2	10	
Montana 	0.3	0.1	5	
Illinois 	0.3	0.1	8	
Puerto Rico 	0.3	0.0	8	
South Carolina 	0.3	0.0	9	
Alaska 	0.2	-0.1	5	
District of Columbia 	0.2	-0.2	3	
Hawaii 	0.2	-0.2	5	
Mississippi 	0.2	-0.2	5	
Oregon 	0.2	-0.3	4	
Maryland 	0.2	-0.4	8	
Delaware 	0.2	-0.4	5	
Utah 	0.2	-0.5	6	
Ohio 	0.2	-0.5	3	
Arizona 	0.2	-0.6	3	
Kentucky 	0.2	-0.6	13	
Idaho 	0.2	-0.6	8	
Texas 	0.1	-0.8	7	
Georgia 	0.1	-0.8	3	
Maine 	0.1	-0.9	2	
North Dakota 	0.1	-1.0	2	
Arkansas 	0.1	-1.0	3	
Florida 	0.1	-1.0	5	
South Dakota 	0.1	-1.0	4	
Minnesota 	0.1	-1.1	5	
Wisconsin 	0.1	-1.1	2	
Iowa 	0.1	-1.1	3	
Wyoming 	0.1	-1.1	2	
New Mexico 	0.1	-1.3	2	
Alabama 	0.0	-1.3	1	
West Virginia 	0.0	-1.4	1	
Missouri 	0.0	-1.5	1	

TABLE 15: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING HISPANIC BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
New Jersey 	0.9	2.9	24	
New York 	0.8	2.8	22	
New Hampshire 	0.7	2.3	9	
Pennsylvania 	0.7	2.2	25	
Massachusetts 	0.6	1.8	31	
Washington 	0.6	1.6	21	
Vermont 	0.4	0.9	14	
Virginia 	0.4	0.9	15	
Rhode Island	0.4	0.9	17	
Connecticut 	0.4	0.7	14	
Maryland 	0.4	0.5	14	
Delaware 	0.4	0.5	9	
Idaho 	0.3	0.4	16	
Michigan 	0.3	0.3	8	
South Carolina 	0.3	0.3	11	
North Carolina 	0.3	0.2	7	
New Mexico 	0.3	0.0	9	
Nebraska 	0.2	0.0	7	
District of Columbia 	0.2	-0.1	3	
Kansas 	0.2	-0.1	9	
Colorado 	0.2	-0.1	7	
Nevada 	0.2	-0.1	5	
Oregon 	0.2	-0.1	4	
Florida 	0.2	-0.2	11	
Oklahoma 	0.2	-0.2	6	
Alaska 	0.2	-0.3	4	
Utah 	0.2	-0.3	6	
Maine 	0.2	-0.3	3	
Missouri 	0.1	-0.5	6	
Hawaii 	0.1	-0.5	3	
Mississippi 	0.1	-0.5	3	
Wisconsin 	0.1	-0.5	3	
Arkansas 	0.1	-0.6	4	
Georgia 	0.1	-0.6	3	
Indiana 	0.1	-0.6	3	
South Dakota 	0.1	-0.6	5	
Texas 	0.1	-0.6	6	
Kentucky 	0.1	-0.6	9	
Arizona 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Illinois 	0.1	-0.7	3	
North Dakota 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Tennessee 	0.1	-0.7	3	
Puerto Rico 	0.1	-0.7	3	
Alabama 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Iowa 	0.1	-0.8	3	
Wyoming 	0.1	-0.8	2	
Minnesota 	0.1	-0.8	4	
Ohio 	0.1	-0.9	1	
Louisiana 	0.1	-0.9	1	
Montana 	0.1	-0.9	1	
California 	0.0	-1.2	0	
West Virginia 	0.0	-1.2	0	

TABLE 16: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING HEIGHT BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
California 	1.8	4.2	76	
New York 	1.0	2.0	27	
New Jersey 	1.0	1.8	27	
Massachusetts 	0.9	1.8	47	
Nebraska 	0.8	1.4	23	
New Hampshire 	0.8	1.4	10	
South Carolina 	0.7	1.1	25	
Pennsylvania 	0.7	1.1	25	
North Carolina 	0.7	1.0	17	
Connecticut 	0.6	0.7	21	
Kansas 	0.6	0.7	22	
Rhode Island	0.6	0.6	22	
Michigan 	0.5	0.5	13	
Maryland 	0.5	0.5	20	
Mississippi 	0.4	0.2	9	
Oklahoma 	0.4	0.2	12	
Delaware 	0.4	0.1	10	
Washington 	0.4	0.1	14	
Louisiana 	0.4	0.0	6	
Alabama 	0.3	0.0	7	
Iowa 	0.3	-0.1	12	
Vermont 	0.3	-0.1	10	
Tennessee 	0.3	-0.1	9	
Maine 	0.2	-0.3	4	
District of Columbia 	0.2	-0.3	3	
New Mexico 	0.2	-0.4	8	
Georgia 	0.2	-0.4	5	
South Dakota 	0.2	-0.4	9	
Kentucky 	0.2	-0.5	13	
Virginia 	0.2	-0.5	6	
Indiana 	0.2	-0.6	4	
Puerto Rico 	0.2	-0.6	5	
North Dakota 	0.2	-0.6	3	
Alaska 	0.1	-0.6	3	
Wisconsin 	0.1	-0.6	3	
Illinois 	0.1	-0.6	4	
Nevada 	0.1	-0.6	3	
Utah 	0.1	-0.7	4	
West Virginia 	0.1	-0.7	3	
Arizona 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Montana 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Oregon 	0.1	-0.7	2	
Colorado 	0.1	-0.7	3	
Florida 	0.1	-0.8	5	
Minnesota 	0.1	-0.8	5	
Hawaii 	0.1	-0.8	2	
Texas 	0.1	-0.8	4	
Idaho 	0.1	-0.9	3	
Missouri 	0.0	-0.9	2	
Wyoming 	0.0	-0.9	1	
Arkansas 	0.0	-0.9	1	
Ohio 	0.0	-1.0	0	

TABLE 17: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING WEIGHT BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
Massachusetts 	4.0	2.4	201	
Pennsylvania 	3.8	2.1	135	
South Carolina 	3.7	2.0	128	
New Jersey 	3.7	2.0	103	
Rhode Island	3.2	1.4	128	
Connecticut 	3.1	1.3	109	
Washington 	3.1	1.3	111	
Oklahoma 	3.1	1.3	91	
New York 	3.0	1.2	80	
Ohio 	2.7	0.9	45	
Vermont 	2.6	0.8	83	
Tennessee 	2.6	0.7	77	
Nebraska 	2.6	0.7	72	
New Hampshire 	2.5	0.6	31	
North Carolina 	2.5	0.6	60	
Minnesota 	2.4	0.5	128	
Delaware 	2.3	0.4	59	
Kansas 	2.2	0.3	85	
Indiana 	2.1	0.2	52	
Louisiana 	2.0	0.1	34	
Maryland 	2.0	0.1	80	
Virginia 	2.0	0.1	70	
Maine 	1.9	0.0	32	
California 	1.9	-0.1	82	
Nevada 	1.8	-0.1	40	
Wisconsin 	1.8	-0.2	39	
South Dakota 	1.8	-0.2	73	
Utah 	1.7	-0.3	55	
Michigan 	1.7	-0.3	42	
Arizona 	1.7	-0.3	29	
Montana 	1.6	-0.4	29	
Arkansas 	1.6	-0.4	48	
Kentucky 	1.6	-0.4	119	
Idaho 	1.6	-0.5	77	
Mississippi 	1.5	-0.5	33	
Wyoming 	1.5	-0.6	35	
Illinois 	1.4	-0.6	41	
Missouri 	1.4	-0.6	60	
Georgia 	1.3	-0.7	30	
North Dakota 	1.3	-0.7	26	
Florida 	1.3	-0.8	66	
Texas 	1.2	-0.8	62	
Oregon 	1.2	-0.8	22	
West Virginia 	1.2	-0.9	31	
Iowa 	1.1	-1.0	39	
District of Columbia 	1.0	-1.1	13	
Alaska 	1.0	-1.1	21	
Hawaii 	0.9	-1.2	20	
Colorado 	0.9	-1.2	27	
New Mexico 	0.7	-1.4	26	
Alabama 	0.7	-1.4	15	
Puerto Rico 	0.2	-2.1	5	

TABLE 18: PERCENT COMPLETED INTERVIEWS MISSING ORACE BY STATE, 1999

STATE	PERCENT	Z-SCORE	N	
New Jersey 	1.4	2.9	39	
New York 	1.2	2.5	33	
Wisconsin 	1.1	2.2	25	
Washington 	1.1	1.9	39	
Massachusetts 	1.0	1.7	50	
Pennsylvania 	1.0	1.5	34	
New Hampshire 	0.9	1.3	11	
Delaware 	0.9	1.2	22	
Michigan 	0.8	1.2	21	
Vermont 	0.8	1.0	25	
Indiana 	0.7	0.8	18	
Rhode Island	0.6	0.5	25	
New Mexico 	0.6	0.4	21	
Connecticut 	0.6	0.3	20	
Virginia 	0.5	0.2	19	
Maryland 	0.5	0.2	21	
Puerto Rico 	0.5	0.2	16	
South Carolina 	0.5	0.2	18	
District of Columbia 	0.5	0.0	6	
California 	0.5	0.0	20	
Oregon 	0.4	-0.1	8	
Nevada 	0.4	-0.2	9	
Arizona 	0.4	-0.2	7	
Colorado 	0.4	-0.2	12	
Alaska 	0.4	-0.3	8	
Wyoming 	0.4	-0.3	9	
Idaho 	0.4	-0.3	18	
Kansas 	0.4	-0.4	14	
Maine 	0.4	-0.4	6	
Nebraska 	0.4	-0.4	10	
Florida 	0.3	-0.4	18	
Hawaii 	0.3	-0.5	7	
Georgia 	0.3	-0.5	7	
Ohio 	0.3	-0.5	5	
North Carolina 	0.3	-0.6	7	
Mississippi 	0.3	-0.6	6	
Oklahoma 	0.3	-0.6	8	
Arkansas 	0.3	-0.7	8	
Texas 	0.3	-0.7	13	
Illinois 	0.2	-0.7	7	
Alabama 	0.2	-0.7	5	
Montana 	0.2	-0.8	4	
Utah 	0.2	-0.8	7	
North Dakota 	0.2	-0.9	4	
Missouri 	0.2	-0.9	8	
Louisiana 	0.2	-0.9	3	
South Dakota 	0.2	-1.0	7	
Iowa 	0.2	-1.0	6	
Kentucky 	0.2	-1.0	12	
Tennessee 	0.1	-1.1	4	
Minnesota 	0.1	-1.1	7	
West Virginia 	0.0	-1.5	0