# Presentation: 304126

## Comparison of the Income Items from the CPS and Census 2000

- Bruce H. Webster Jr.
- U.S. Census Bureau

## Overview

- Introduction
- Previous Research
- Question to Study
- Methods
- Analysis
- Findings
- Conclusion

## Introduction:Purpose

- The purpose of this paper is to compare responses to questions about total income and individual income components from Census 2000 and the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social Economic Supplement (ASEC).

## Intro. (cont.):Income Estimates

| Estimate | Census 2000 | CPS ASEC |
| --- | --- | --- |
| U.S. Median Household Income | $41,994  | $40,816  |
| U.S. Median Earnings for Male, FTYR workers | $37,057 | $36,476 |
| U.S. Median Earnings for Female, FTYR workers | $27,194 | $26,324 |

## Intro. (cont.):Survey Overviews

- Census 2000
- Asked eight income questions
- Administered to individuals in a household
- Mail Survey with follow-up performed by minimally trained staff
- CPS ASEC
- Asked over 50 income questions
- Administered at a household level
- CAPI survey performed by experienced staff

## Previous Research

- Fowler (1995) discusses how several items instead of one allows for better recall.
- Tourangeau et al. (2000) supports this with trials that split complex items into more questions.

## Previous Research (cont.)

- Tversky and Koehler (1994) state that a respondent will respond with a smaller amount when asked one complex question than if simpler items are summed up.

## Question to Study

- How well do responses for the same person to income questions from Census 2000 and CPS ASEC match?

## Methods

- Data was matched with a four-stage process
- Matching was done by household and then by people
- Matching was done for CPS interviews from four months, but only one used in this paper

## Methods (cont.)

- 11,341 matched responses without any imputed income data were compiled.
- Responses from the 50+ questions from the CPS ASEC were summed to match the eight income items in Census 2000.
- Income amounts were compared for these eight components and for total income.

## Analysis

- Two rates for matching responses and matching nonzero responses
- Exact match rates
- “Close match rates” – smaller response is within 5% of the larger response
- Separate rate for nonzero responses on one survey and zero responses on the other

## Analysis (cont.)

- Responses where the total incomes matched but some of the components did not were examined closely.

## Table 1 – Match Rates of Income Values for Total Income

## Table 2– Exact Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component 

**Table 2– Exact Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component**** **

## Table 2– Exact Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component (cont.)

**Table 2– Exact Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component (cont.)**

## Table 3 – Close Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component 

## Table 3 – Close Match Rates of Income Values by Income Component (cont.)

## Table 4 – Exact Match Rates of Nonzero Income Values in Both Surveys by Income Component 

## Table 4 – Exact Match Rates of Nonzero Income Values in Both Surveys by Income Component (cont.)

## Table 5 – Close Match Rates of Nonzero Income Values in Both Surveys by Income Component 

## Table 5 – Close Match Rates of Nonzero Income Values in Both Surveys by Income Component (cont.) 

## Table 6 – Rates of One Survey Reporting Zero and the Other Non-zero by Income Component 

## Table 6 – Rates of One Survey Reporting Zero and the Other Non-zero by Income Component (cont.)

## Findings

- For full set of matched responses, there seems to be some matching.
- For nonzero responses, the match rates fall drastically.
- There are response rates of nonzero on one survey and zero on the other.
- Significant amounts are being misreported or omitted.

## Findings (cont.)

- When total income matched and the individual items did not, there were three main reasons
- Misreporting other income on the ASEC
- Misreporting income as wages on one survey and as self-employment on the other
- Misreporting other income on the Census

## Limitations

- Not a random sample
- No control over actual respondent on CPS

## Conclusions

- Responses across the two surveys do not generally agree
- Comparisons would be subject to design differences
- Changes would have had to be made

## Future Research

- Census Long Form no longer in use
- ACS now fully implemented
- Matched ACS-CPS dataset has been constructed for next step in research

## References

- Fowler, F.J. Jr., (1995), Improving Survey Questions: 	Design and Evaluation, Applied Social Research 	Methods Series Volume 38, Thousand Oaks, 	CA: SAGE Publications.
- Tourangeau, R., Rips, L., and Rasinski, K. (2000).  	The Psychology of Survey Response.  	Cambridge.
- Tversky, A. and Koehler, D. (1994) Support Theory: 	A Nonextensional Representation of Subjective 	Probability. Psychological Review, 101, 547-567