Question

Status:Closed    Asked:Jun 17, 2014 - 01:48 PM

When I merge the PWPUMA10 with the 2012 1-yr estimates, the calculations are incorrect. Could be the weights?

I used the PWPUMA10 variable provided by staff in a previous question posted here. After merging the file with my existing 2012 1-year file, everything seems to match correctly. However, once I weight the dataset using PERWT, the PWPUMA10 variable doesn't seem to correctly calculate. The estimates appear to be way too high for the geography I am interested in. Any help you could provide is much appreciated.

 
Do you have the same question? Follow this Question
 

Staff Answer

avatar

Joe_Grover

Staff

There are a number of potential causes for overly large PWPUMA populations. First, make sure to use the variable PWSTATE2, as PWPUMAs are state dependent. Also make sure you are calling on the correct PWPUMAs, as PWPUMA codes differ from PUMA codes. PWPUMA codes and boundaries can also differ by year. the 2012 ACS was the first year to use new geographies based on the 2010 Decennial Census so the PWPUMA codes and boundaries in the 2012 ACS are different from those used in the 2000-2011 samples. The Census Bureau provides a crosswalk between PWPUMAs (called POWPUMAs in the Census Bureau documentation) and PUMAs in the 2012 1-year code list.

I hope this helps.

 

Jun 18, 2014 - 11:09 AM

0
0
Report it

OTHER QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

zero wages
Sample weights
tehre is information about the size of the firm in the Census/ASEC datasets?
Sample selection for a study of a subgroup over time?
Is it possible to get information on municipality or district of respondent i...
Weekly earnings and usual hours
Login   |   Register

Recently Active Members

View More »

Share |