Question

Status:Closed    Asked:Dec 17, 2017 - 05:44 PM

How were PUMA and mini-PUMA identifiers assigned to each record in the 5% PUMS data?

I understand how the 1960 PUMA and mini-PUMA geographic boundaries were created, but it is unclear what the methodology for populating these units was. Short of having the specific location of all respondents geo-coded, how did you know within which PUMA each record fell?

Is there a piece of the documentation I am missing?

 
Do you have the same question? Follow this Question
 

Staff Answer

avatar

MPC_vanriper

Staff

There is a description of the methodology on the 1960 PUMA and Mini-PUMA page.

 

Dec 17, 2017 - 07:26 PM

0
0
Report it

To answer the specific question, "how did you know within which PUMA each record fell?": As part of the 1960 Data Restoration Project, we obtained permission to access, within the Minnesota Research Data Center, the complete 1960 microdata records, which include the county and census tract of residence for all respondents. We then assigned each respondent to the PUMA and mini-PUMA corresponding to their county or tract.

 

Dec 18, 2017 - 08:58 AM

1
0
Report it

Voted Best Answer

To answer the specific question, "how did you know within which PUMA each record fell?": As part of the 1960 Data Restoration Project, we obtained permission to access, within the Minnesota Research Data Center, the complete 1960 microdata records, which include the county and census tract of residence for all respondents. We then assigned each respondent to the PUMA and mini-PUMA corresponding to their county or tract.

 

Dec 18, 2017 - 08:58 AM

1
0
Report it

OTHER QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

In the past, I was able to extract raw data for a specific defined PUMA. Can...
2010 5-year PUMA definition
Correspondence between Puma 1990 and Puma 2000
1990 1% PUMA boundaries file when using 1990 1% unweighted IPUMS USA data?
Login   |   Register

Recently Active Members

View More »

Share |