Question

Status:Closed    Asked:Jun 30, 2015 - 02:01 PM

Explaining changes in family population by geographic type.

I'm examining the population among people in families by geographic area. Adding together the totals in principal cities and suburban and rural areas, it looks like the total family population is about 99 million in 2011 and 2012. Then in 2013, the total drops significantly to about 71 million. Why is that happening?


At the same time, it looks like the missing data rate for geography type jumped from 37% to 55% between 2012 and 2013.


Could you please help with an explanation for those changes?

 
Do you have the same question? Follow this Question
 

Staff Answer

avatar

Tim_Moreland

Staff

The 2012 ACS was the first sample to use 2010 Census-based PUMAs instead of the 2000 Census-based definitions. These PUMAs were then mapped onto the 2013 Office of Management and Budget metropolitan definitions to create METRO for 2012-onward ACS samples. The ACS samples prior to 2012 use the 1999 OMB metropolitan delineations. Due to these changes in both PUMA and metro area definitions, the population totals you have calculated are not comparable before and after 2012.


Hope this helps.

 

Jul 01, 2015 - 03:47 PM

0
0
Report it

OTHER QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

Merging NBER and IPUMS ASEC data for 1962-1967 surveys
For the Higher Ed dataset of all the observations the salary is at most $150,...
Is it appropriate to use cluster and strata for person weighting?
In IPUMS MEPS, how was the variable OPNPVIS derived? What MEPS variables were...
In IPUMS MEPS, how was the variable OBNPVIS derived? What MEPS variables did ...
Can you please let me know if the following criteria seems correct to identif...
Login   |   Register

Recently Active Members

View More »

Share |