| Data Dictionary: | Census 1990 on 2010 Geographies |
you are here:
choose a survey
survey
data set
table details
Survey: Census 1990 on 2010 Geographies
| Data Source: | U.S. Census Bureau & Social Explorer |
| Table: | P160. Imputation Of Work Status In 1989 [3] |
Universe: Persons 16 years and over
Table Details
| P160. | Imputation Of Work Status In 1989 | ||||||||
| Universe: Persons 16 years and over | |||||||||
|
Relevant Documentation:
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix C. Accuracy of the Data -> Confidentiality of the Data |
To maintain the confidentiality required by law (Title 13, United States Code), the Bureau of the Census applies a confidentiality edit to the 1990 census data to assure that published data do not disclose information about specific individuals, households, or housing units. As a result, a small amount of uncertainty is introduced into the estimates of census characteristics. The sample itself provides adequate protection for most areas for which sample data are published since the resulting data are estimates of the actual counts; however, small areas require more protection. The edit is controlled so that the basic structure of the data is preserved.
The confidentiality edit is implemented by selecting a small subset of individual households from the internal sample data files and blanking a subset of the data items on these household records. Responses to those data items were then imputed using the same imputation procedures that were used for nonresponse. A larger subset of households is selected for the confidentiality edit for small areas to provide greater protection for these areas. The editing process is implemented in such a way that the quality and usefulness of the data were preserved.
The confidentiality edit is implemented by selecting a small subset of individual households from the internal sample data files and blanking a subset of the data items on these household records. Responses to those data items were then imputed using the same imputation procedures that were used for nonresponse. A larger subset of households is selected for the confidentiality edit for small areas to provide greater protection for these areas. The editing process is implemented in such a way that the quality and usefulness of the data were preserved.
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix C. Accuracy of the Data -> Editing of Unacceptable Data |
The objective of the processing operation is to produce a set of data that describes the population as accurately and clearly as possible. To meet this objective, questionnaires were edited during field data collection operations for consistency, completeness, and acceptability. Questionnaires also were reviewed by census clerks for omissions, certain specific inconsistencies, and population coverage. For example, write-in entries such as Dont know or NA were considered unacceptable. For some district offices, the initial edit was automated; however, for the majority of the district offices, it was performed by clerks. As a result of this operation, a telephone or personal visit followup was made to obtain missing information. Potential coverage errors were included in the followup, as well as a sample of questionnaires with omissions and/or inconsistencies. Subsequent to field operations, remaining incomplete or inconsistent information on the questionnaires was assigned using imputation procedures during the final automated edit of the collected data. Imputations, or computer assignments of acceptable codes in place of unacceptable entries or blanks, are needed most often when an entry for a given item is lacking or when the information reported for a person or housing unit on that item is inconsistent with other information for that same person or housing unit. As in previous censuses, the general procedure for changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry for a person or housing unit that was consistent with entries for persons or housing units with similar characteristics. The assignment of acceptable codes in place of blanks or unacceptable entries enhances the usefulness of the data.
Another way in which corrections were made during the computer editing process was through substitution; that is, the assignment of a full set of characteristics for a person or housing unit. When there was an indication that a housing unit was occupied but the questionnaire contained no information for the people within the household or the occupants were not listed on the questionnaire, a previously accepted household was selected as a substitute, and the full set of characteristics for the substitute was duplicated. The assignment of the full set of housing characteristics occurred when there was no housing information available. If the housing unit was determined to be occupied, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed occupied unit. If the housing unit was vacant, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed vacant unit.
Another way in which corrections were made during the computer editing process was through substitution; that is, the assignment of a full set of characteristics for a person or housing unit. When there was an indication that a housing unit was occupied but the questionnaire contained no information for the people within the household or the occupants were not listed on the questionnaire, a previously accepted household was selected as a substitute, and the full set of characteristics for the substitute was duplicated. The assignment of the full set of housing characteristics occurred when there was no housing information available. If the housing unit was determined to be occupied, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed occupied unit. If the housing unit was vacant, the housing characteristics were assigned from a previously processed vacant unit.
| Table A. Unadjusted Standard Error for Estimated Totals [Based on a 1-in-6 simple random sample] | ||||||||||||||
| Estimated Total | Size of publication area2 | |||||||||||||
| 500 | 1,000 | 2,500 | 5,000 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 | 250,000 | 500,000 | 1,000,000 | 5,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 25,000,000 | |
| 50 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 16 |
| 100 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 22 |
| 250 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| 500 | 35 | 45 | 45 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
| 1,000 | 55 | 65 | 65 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | 70 | ||
| 2,500 | 80 | 95 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | 110 | |||
| 5000 | 110 | 140 | 150 | 150 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | 160 | ||||
| 10,000 | 170 | 200 | 210 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | 220 | |||||
| 15,000 | 170 | 230 | 250 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | 270 | |||||
| 25,000 | 250 | 310 | 340 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | ||||||
| 75,000 | 310 | 510 | 570 | 590 | 610 | 610 | 610 | |||||||
| 100,000 | 550 | 630 | 670 | 700 | 700 | 710 | ||||||||
| 250,000 | 790 | 970 | 1 090 | 1 100 | 1 100 | |||||||||
| 500,000 | 1120 | 1 500 | 1 540 | 1 570 | ||||||||||
| 1,000,000 | 2 000 | 2 120 | 2 190 | |||||||||||
| 5,000,000 | 3 540 | 4 470 | ||||||||||||
| 10,000,000 | 5 480 | |||||||||||||
1For estimated totals larger than 10,000,000, the standard error is somewhat larger than the table values. The formula given below should be used to calculate the standard error.
2The total count of persons in the area if the estimated total is a person characteristic, or the total count of housing units in the area if the estimated total is a housing unit characteristic.
2The total count of persons in the area if the estimated total is a person characteristic, or the total count of housing units in the area if the estimated total is a housing unit characteristic.
| Table B. Unadjusted Standard Error in Percentage Points for Estimated Percentage [Based on a 1 in-6 simple random sample] | ||||||||||||||
| Estimated percentage | Base of percentage1 | |||||||||||||
| 500 | 750 | 1,000 | 1,500 | 2,500 | 5,000 | 7,500 | 10,000 | 25,000 | 50,000 | 100,000 | 250,000 | 500,000 | ||
| 2 or 98 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 5 or 95 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 10 or 90 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| 15 or 85 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 20 or 80 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 25 or 75 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 30 or 70 | 4.6 | 3.7 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | |
| 35 or 65 | 4.8 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| 50 | 5.0 | 4.1 | 3.5 | 2.9 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| Excerpt from: | Social Explorer, U.S. Census Bureau; Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Summary Tape File 3 on CD-ROM [machine-readable data files] / prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau [producer and distributor], 1991. |
| Summary Tape File 3 -> Appendix B. Definitions of Subject Characteristics -> Population Characteristics -> Work Status in 1989 |
The data on work status in 1989 were derived from answers to questionnaire item 31, which was asked of a sample of persons. Persons 16 years old and over who worked 1 or more weeks according to the criteria described below are classified as "Worked in 1989." All other persons 16 years old and over are classified as "Did not work in 1989." Some tabulations showing work status in 1989 include 15 year olds; these persons, by definition, are classified as "Did not work in 1989."
The data on weeks worked in 1989 were derived from responses to questionnaire item 31b. Question 31b (Weeks Worked in 1989) was asked of persons 16 years old and over who indicated in question 31a that they worked in 1989.
The data pertain to the number of weeks during 1989 in which a person did any work for pay or profit (including paid vacation and paid sick leave) or worked without pay on a family farm or in a family business. Weeks of active service in the Armed Forces are also included.
The data pertain to the number of weeks during 1989 in which a person did any work for pay or profit (including paid vacation and paid sick leave) or worked without pay on a family farm or in a family business. Weeks of active service in the Armed Forces are also included.
The data on usual hours worked per week worked in 1989 were derived from answers to questionnaire item 31c. This question was asked of persons 16 years old and over who indicated that they worked in 1989.
The data pertain to the number of hours a person usually worked during the weeks worked in 1989. The respondent was to report the number of hours worked per week in the majority of the weeks he or she worked in 1989. If the hours worked per week varied considerably during 1989, the respondent was to report an approximate average of the hours worked per week. The statistics on usual hours worked per week in 1989 are not necessarily related to the data on actual hours worked during the census reference week (question 21b).
Persons 16 years old and over who reported that they usually worked 35 or more hours each week during the weeks they worked are classified as "Usually worked full time;" persons who reported that they usually worked 1 to 34 hours are classified as "Usually worked part time."
The data pertain to the number of hours a person usually worked during the weeks worked in 1989. The respondent was to report the number of hours worked per week in the majority of the weeks he or she worked in 1989. If the hours worked per week varied considerably during 1989, the respondent was to report an approximate average of the hours worked per week. The statistics on usual hours worked per week in 1989 are not necessarily related to the data on actual hours worked during the census reference week (question 21b).
Persons 16 years old and over who reported that they usually worked 35 or more hours each week during the weeks they worked are classified as "Usually worked full time;" persons who reported that they usually worked 1 to 34 hours are classified as "Usually worked part time."
All persons 16 years old and over who usually worked 35 hours or more per week for 50 to 52 weeks in 1989.
The term "worker" as used for these data is defined based on the criteria for Work Status in 1989.
It is probable that the number of persons who worked in 1989 and the number of weeks worked are understated since there was some tendency for respondents to forget intermittent or short periods of employment or to exclude weeks worked without pay. There may also be a tendency for persons not to include weeks of paid vacation among their weeks worked; one result may be that the census figures may understate the number of persons who worked "50 to 52 weeks."
The data on weeks worked collected in the 1990 census were comparable with data from the 1980, 1970, and 1960 censuses, but may not be entirely comparable with data from the 1940 and 1950 censuses. Since the 1960 census, two separate questions have been used to obtain this information. The first identified persons with any work experience during the year and, thus, indicated those persons for whom the questions on number of weeks worked applied. In 1940 and 1950, however, the questionnaires contained only a single question on number of weeks worked.
In 1970, persons responded to the question on weeks worked by indicating one of six weeks-worked intervals. In 1980 and 1990, persons were asked to enter the specific number of weeks they worked.
In 1970, persons responded to the question on weeks worked by indicating one of six weeks-worked intervals. In 1980 and 1990, persons were asked to enter the specific number of weeks they worked.
