What's the smallest geographic slice to browse ACS data?

Hello, new to the forum Wave

I’m exploring data in the ACS 5-year survey data. I thought I’d look at the census tract-level, but notice that in many tables the data has large margins of error, with a coefficient of variation 50% or more (screenshot).

When looking at ACS 5-year data, what’s the smallest geographic slice you look at? Seems like the zip code is where margin of error comes within a tolerable range? Of course would depend on the specific table. Tables that include multi-dimensional demographic slicing probably still have a high MOE at the zip code level.

Thanks,

Parents
  • Welcome Eric. 

    There is so much in this question, and I'm actually working on a blog post about this very topic! You're right that with more dimensions of demographic slicing, the more you should look at coarser levels of geography. For basics like total pop, total housing units, etc. you might be fine with block groups or tracts, depending on your purpose.

    I want to mention another option though: aggregation.

    Aggregate by geography:

    instead of being limited by census-defined geography, you can aggregate multiple block groups or multiple tracts together until you have a margin of error/reliability score that's acceptable to you.

    Aggregate by rows/categories:

    For example, with the age and sex breakdowns in your screenshot, could you live with 10-year age breakdowns instead of 5-year ones? Do you really just need everyone age 65+?  Do you need the breakdowns by sex, or are you really just interested in age groups? Combining these groups will also help to get the reliability up.

    Hope this helps,

    Diana

Reply
  • Welcome Eric. 

    There is so much in this question, and I'm actually working on a blog post about this very topic! You're right that with more dimensions of demographic slicing, the more you should look at coarser levels of geography. For basics like total pop, total housing units, etc. you might be fine with block groups or tracts, depending on your purpose.

    I want to mention another option though: aggregation.

    Aggregate by geography:

    instead of being limited by census-defined geography, you can aggregate multiple block groups or multiple tracts together until you have a margin of error/reliability score that's acceptable to you.

    Aggregate by rows/categories:

    For example, with the age and sex breakdowns in your screenshot, could you live with 10-year age breakdowns instead of 5-year ones? Do you really just need everyone age 65+?  Do you need the breakdowns by sex, or are you really just interested in age groups? Combining these groups will also help to get the reliability up.

    Hope this helps,

    Diana

Children