Decennial Long Form Margins of Error

They did publish info on the MOE (as they call them).  They use the normal approximation for the error term, which frankly does not provide a very good estimate of error.  This is also true of the ACS, where they still have MOE's that push counts negative or over 100%.  They published some random replicate error estimates, that are done correctly from a frequentist perspective and are generally much smaller than their published MOE's.  But in the published documentation they did have some info on the errors, but it is quite primitive actually.  If anyone is interested in this please correspond with me off line.  We were forced to put up error bands for a project that the Bureau supported with the advent of the 2008-2012 ACS, for 2000, 1990 and 1980.  andy@socialexplorer.com

They did publish info on the MOE (as they call them).  They use the normal approximation for the error term, which frankly does not provide a very good estimate of error.  This is also true of the ACS, where they still have MOE's that push counts negative or over 100%.  They published some random replicate error estimates, that are done correctly from a frequentist perspective and are generally much smaller than their published MOE's.  But in the published documentation they did have some info on the errors, but it is quite primitive actually.  If anyone is interested in this please correspond with me off line.  We were forced to put up error bands for a project that the Bureau supported with the advent of the 2008-2012 ACS, for 2000, 1990 and 1980.  andy@socialexplorer.com