PUMA populations, 100,000 or 65,000?

I'm researching to see if PUMAs contain no less than 65,000 people or no less than 100,000.  I can find references for both.  Which is it?

Thank you,

Lorna

Parents Reply Children
  • BTW-As we are talking about PUMAs being an ACS tabulation geography, is anyone using them that way? When ACS was coming together I remember sitting in meetings talking about the value of getting PUMA level annual ACS every year. Fast forward, are people using the PUMA level annual ACS data? From the transportation perspective we were always hopeful that someday we could get workers at their workplace level PUMA data added in. We talked about it and worked on it since 2000. We came close in our last special tab with POW PUMAs (2012 to 2016) but the idea of filling in those Workers at their Workplace tables seem to have gone the way of the dodo bird ;-(   

  • I was getting confused between the tables and the PUMs data (I download the data and use SAS to analyze).  When I use the tables (poverty and population) I see counties, not PUMAs. When I use the PUMA data, I see PUMAs and convert to county groupings.  

  • PUMAs are not "county groupings" -- a PUMA may comprise fractions of counties.

  • True, I combine them to get to counties/combined counties.  There are some largely populated counties with many PUMAs and there are some PUMAs that cover more than a county, so I have to group them.  It's the best I can do at this point.