Papers Containing Tag(s): 'PIKed'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Authors
No authors occur more than twice in this search.
Viewing papers 11 through 13 of 13
-
Working PaperThe Nature of the Bias When Studying Only Linkable Person Records: Evidence from the American Community Survey
April 2014
Working Paper Number:
carra-2014-08
Record linkage across survey and administrative records sources can greatly enrich data and improve their quality. The linkage can reduce respondent burden and nonresponse follow-up costs. This is particularly important in an era of declining survey response rates and tight budgets. Record linkage also creates statistical bias, however. The U.S. Census Bureau links person records through its Person Identification Validation System (PVS), assigning each record a Protected Identification Key (PIK). It is not possible to reliably assign a PIK to every record, either due to insufficient identifying information or because the information does not uniquely match any of the administrative records used in the person validation process. Non-random ability to assign a PIK can potentially inject bias into statistics using linked data. This paper studies the nature of this bias using the 2009 and 2010 American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is well-suited for this analysis, as it contains a rich set of person characteristics that can describe the bias. We estimate probit models for whether a record is assigned a PIK. The results suggest that young children, minorities, residents of group quarters, immigrants, recent movers, low-income individuals, and non-employed individuals are less likely to receive a PIK using 2009 ACS. Changes to the PVS process in 2010 significantly addressed the young children deficit, attenuated the other biases, and increased the validated records share from 88.1 to 92.6 percent (person-weighted).View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperA COMPARISON OF PERSON-REPORTED INDUSTRY TO EMPLOYER-REPORTED INDUSTRY IN SURVEY AND ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
September 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-47
The Census Bureau collects industry information through surveys and administrative data and creates associated public-use statistics. In this paper, we compare person-reported industry in the American Community Survey (ACS) to employer-reported industry from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) that is part of the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program. This research provides necessary information on the use of administrative data as a supplement to survey data industry information, and the findings will be useful for anyone using industry information from either source. Our project is part of a larger effort to compare information on jobs from household survey data to employer-reported information. This research is the first to compare ACS job data to firm-based administrative data. We find an overall industry sector match rate of 75 percent, and a 61 percent match rate at the 4-digit Census Industry Code (CIC) level. Industry match rates vary by sector and by whether industry sector is classified using ACS or LEHD industry information. The educational services and health care and social assistance sectors have among the highest match rates. The management of companies and enterprises sector has the lowest match rate, using either ACS-reported or LEHD-reported sector. For individuals with imputed industry data, the industry sector match rate is only 14 percent. Our findings suggest that the industry distribution and the sample in a particular industry sector will differ depending on whether ACS or LEHD data are used.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperErrors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and Their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation
April 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-14
Benefit receipt in major household surveys is often underreported. This misreporting leads to biased estimates of the economic circumstances of disadvantaged populations, program takeup, and the distributional effects of government programs, and other program effects. We use administrative data on Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation matched to American Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) household data. We show that nearly thirty-five percent of true recipient households do not report receipt in the ACS and fifty percent do not report receipt in the CPS. Misreporting, both false negatives and false positives, varies with individual characteristics, leading to complicated biases in FSP analyses. We then directly examine the determinants of program receipt using our combined administrative and survey data. The combined data allow us to examine accurate participation using individual characteristics missing in administrative data. Our results differ from conventional estimates using only survey data, as such estimates understate participation by single parents, non-whites, low income households, and other groups. To evaluate the use of Census Bureau imputed ACS and CPS data, we also examine whether our estimates using survey data alone are closer to those using the accurate combined data when imputed survey observations are excluded. Interestingly, excluding the imputed observations leads to worse ACS estimates, but has less effect on the CPS estimates.View Full Paper PDF
