Family Structure and Income

I am working with a colleague to evaluate the median family income using PUMS data (in this case 2007-2011 5-year data that combines personal and household files based on serialno) and have run into a question about family structure versus household structure versus incomes.

For example, PUMS has some observations that look like the attached file (headers use PUMS variable names). All observations have the same serialno, the sporder 1-4 makes sense, the personal incomes (pincp) seem reasonable, and the household income (hincp) makes sense.

But, npf says the family size is 3 while the family income variable says every member of the household has the same family income? I would expect one member of the household would not have a family income (i.e. sporder = 1 to 4 but nfp=3 so one member of household is not a member of the family), or maybe the household has two families so it should have 2 different family incomes and the family sizes should all say 2. Suggestions about how to interpret this type of outcome, alternative variables to use, or errors in logic?

Parents
  • Thanks to everyone for the quick feedback. The state code is 18, PUMA is 202.

    Between writing it down and thinking about everyone's feedback, I've realized the problem(s). The family income variable (fincp) is by definition a household level variable (i.e. in the household PUMS dataset rather than the person dataset) so there is only one family income for any given household. The same thing is true for the family size variable. When I merge the household dataset with the person dataset based on serialno, all of a household's characteristics are assigned to all of the persons in that household - this explains why I am getting a household size of 4, a family size of 3, all 4 people showing the same family income, etc. It seems like the solution is to create my own family income variable based on combining personal incomes (pincp) according to family unit rules? Make sense?
Reply
  • Thanks to everyone for the quick feedback. The state code is 18, PUMA is 202.

    Between writing it down and thinking about everyone's feedback, I've realized the problem(s). The family income variable (fincp) is by definition a household level variable (i.e. in the household PUMS dataset rather than the person dataset) so there is only one family income for any given household. The same thing is true for the family size variable. When I merge the household dataset with the person dataset based on serialno, all of a household's characteristics are assigned to all of the persons in that household - this explains why I am getting a household size of 4, a family size of 3, all 4 people showing the same family income, etc. It seems like the solution is to create my own family income variable based on combining personal incomes (pincp) according to family unit rules? Make sense?
Children
No Data