Quality of Age Data at the PUMA Level in the 3-Year Estimates from the American Community Survey

Chapter
Part of the Applied Demography Series book series (ADS, volume 2)

Abstract

This paper evaluates the utility of 2005–2007 American Community Survey (ACS) age/sex distributions below the county level, focusing on Bronx, New York. For large counties that comprise multiple Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) – areas with at least 100,000 people – PUMA-level estimates are derived using controls by age/sex, race, and Hispanic origin that are determined at the county level but that are used uniformly across all PUMAs within a county. This process improves sampling variance and helps compensate for nonresponse. An important issue in a county like the Bronx, which is heterogeneous racially, ethnically, and socioeconomically, is whether county controls reflect nonresponse among individual PUMAs and whether the age/sex distributions that are a product of this process are useful at the PUMA level.

Keywords

County Level American Community Survey Decennial Census Hispanic Origin York City Department 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Citro, C., & Kalton, G. (Eds.). (2007). Using the American community survey: Benefits and challenges. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  2. Gage, L. (2007). Thoughts on using multi-year ACS estimates for San Francisco and Tulare Counties, California. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/Multi_Year_Estimates/presentations.html
  3. Hough, G., H., & Swanson, D. (2004). The 1999–2001 American community survey and the 2000 census – data quality and data comparisons – Multnomah County, Oregon. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/acs_census/report.htm
  4. Salvo, J., & Lobo, A. P. (2006). Moving from a decennial census to a continuous measurement survey: Factors affecting nonresponse at the neighborhood level. Population Research and Policy Review, 25(3), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Salvo, J. J., Lobo, A. P., & Love, S. P. (2003). Evaluating continuous measurement: Data quality in the Bronx test site of the American Community Survey. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, 28(4), 263–277.Google Scholar
  6. Salvo, J., Lobo, A. P., & Calabrese, T. (2004). Small area data quality: A comparison of estimates, 2000 census and the 1999–2001 ACS, Bronx, New York Test Site. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/acs_census/report.htm
  7. Salvo, J., Lobo, A. P., Willett, A., & Alvarez, J. (2007). An evaluation of the quality and utility of ACS five year estimates for Bronx census tracts and neighborhoods. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/Multi_Year_Estimates/presentations.html
  8. Van Auken, P., Hammer, R., Voss, P., & Veroff, D. (2004). American community survey and census comparison -final analytical report -Oneida and Vilas Counties, Wisconsin – Flathead and Lake Counties, Montana. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/AdvMeth/acs_census/report.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Population DivisionNew York City Department of City PlanningNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations