This data collection relates ZIP codes to counties, to standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), and, in New England, to minor civil divisions (MCDs). The relationships between ZIP codes and other geographical units are based on 1979 boundaries, and changes since that time are not reflected. The Census Bureau used various sources to determine ZIP code-county or ZIP code-MCD relationships. In the cases where the sources were confusing or contradictory as to the geographical boundaries of a ZIP code, multiple ZIP-code records (each representing the territory contained in that ZIP-code area) were included in the data file. As a result, the file tends to overstate the ZIP code-county or ZIP code-MCD crossovers. The file is organized by ZIP code and is a byproduct of data used to administer the 1980 Census. Variables include ZIP codes, post office names, FIPS state and county codes, county or MCD names, and SMSA codes.

Master Area Reference Files (MARFs) link geographic areas with their respective numeric codes. This data collection is a five-digit ZIP-code equivalency file created for the 1980 Census of Population and Housing. The data contain geographic items from Summary Tape Files 1A and 3A, as well as total population and housing unit counts. This equivalency file was created to allow users to prepare additional data summaries relevant to ZIP-code areas. The file enables users to equate detailed record files having ZIP codes with census geographic units. This national file is hierarchically sequenced by geographic area. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08323.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.

This data collection is a component of Summary Tape File (STF) 3, which consists of four sets of data files containing detailed tabulations of the nation's population and housing characteristics produced from the 1980 Census. The STF 3 files contain sample data inflated to represent the total United States population. The files also contain 100-percent counts and unweighted sample counts of persons and housing units. All files in the STF 3 series are identical, containing 321 substantive data variables organized in the form of 150 "tables," as well as standard geographic identification variables. Population items tabulated for each person include demographic data and information on schooling, Spanish origin, language spoken at home and ability to speak English, labor force status in 1979, residency in 1975, number of children ever born, means of transportation to work, current occupation, industry, and 1979 details on occupation, hours worked, and income. Housing items include size and condition of the housing unit as well as information on value, age, water, sewage and heating, number of vehicles, and monthly owner costs (e.g., sum of payments for real estate taxes, property insurance, utilities, and regular mortgage payments). Selected aggregates and medians are also provided. Each dataset in STF 3 provides different geographic coverage. Summary Tape File 3B provides summaries for each 5-digit ZIP-code area within a state, and for 5-digit ZIP-code areas within states that were contained within Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), portions of SMSAs, or within counties, county portions, or county equivalents. All persons and housing units in the United States were sampled. Population and housing items include household relationship, sex, race, age, marital status, Hispanic origin, number of units at address, complete plumbing facilities, number of rooms, whether owned or rented, vacancy status, and value for noncondominiums. The Census Bureau's machine-readable data dictionary for STF 3 is also available through CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1980 [UNITED STATES]: CENSUS SOFTWARE PACKAGE (CENSPAC) VERSION 3.2 WITH STF4 DATA DICTIONARIES (ICPSR 7789), the software package designed specifically by the Census Bureau for use with the 1980 Census data files.

The Orange County Annual Survey is in progress for three years. Since 1982 in three consecutive surveys, the goal is to understand the nature of community life in Orange County. A related purpose is to examine trends in demographics and opinions over time as the county grows, matures, and inevitably changes. The three surveys together offer a unique opportunity for decision makers and academics to analyze the social, economic, and political evolution of a major metropolitan area. Other regions of the United States today must rely on the 1980 Census which, for geographic areas which are changing and growing, represents outdated information. One topic receives considerable attention this year. It is the political attitudes of Orange County residents. There is confusion about the current nature of Orange County. This is especially relevant in a year in which the presidential vote, the legislative elections, and residents responses to this year's state and county ballot initiatives were the focus of great attention. The sample size is 1,003 Orange County adult residents.Online data analysis & additional documentation in Link below. Methods The sample for the 1984 Orange County Survey consists of 1,003 randomly selected residents who were interviewed by telephone. The sample is stratified geographically, with half of the sample selected from north of the Santa Ana River and half from the south. For data analyses, the sample is statistically weighted to represent the actual distribution of the Orange County population. The sample in each area was chosen using a computer program which randomly generates telephone numbers from among working blocks of telephone exchanges. A working block is one that contains numbers in use. The total of telephone numbers generated within an exchange was in proportion to the number of residential phones represented by that exchange in the northern part of the county or the southern part of the county. Using this procedure, approximately 2,200 telephone numbers from the south and approximately 2,2,00 telephone numbers from the north were drawn. This procedure of random digit dialing ensures that unlisted as well as listed numbers are included in the sample, Also, since over 95 percent of the households in Orange County have telephones, random dialing yields a sample representative of the population of Orange County.The Troldahl-Carter Method was used in randomly selecting which adult member of the household was to be interviewed. This method consists of enumerating the total number of adults in the household and the total number of men in the household. Then, using a prearranged grid, the interviewer selects the individual in the household for interviewing.As further evidence of the representativeness of the sample chosen by the above methods, characteristics of the sample were compared to characteristics of the total Orange County population using the 1980 census. On the basis of age, income, sex, marital status, household size, and home ownership, the sample is representative of the population of Orange County. Characteristics of the 1982 and 1983 Orange County Survey samples were also contrasted with the characteristics of the 1984 Orange County Survey sample. Marital status, ethnicity, age, sex, and education were closely comparable in the three surveys.The sampling error for this survey is plus or minus three percentage points. This means that if this survey were to be repeated 100 times, in 95 out the 100 times the answers obtained for a particular question would match those we obtained in this survey within three points. The sampling error for any particular sub-group would be greater. These calculations assume that the data were collected under ideal circumstances. Since there are a� large number of practical problems in conducting social surveys, the actual sampling error for any particular result might be slightly higher.As noted above, the interviewing for the Orange County Survey was done by telephone. Cost considerations and methodological improvements have led to telephone surveys' increased adoption in the social sciences. In addition, several studies show similar quality in telephone and face-to-face interviews. Interviewers were closely supervised during the data collection. Interviewers participated in a two-hour training session on the Orange County Survey instrument. Supervisors were available during the telephone interviewing to answer questions of interviewers or respondents. The telephone system used also allowed supervisors to monitor interviews to correct for errors in administering the questionnaire.The interviewing was done between September 5th and September 22nd, 1984. On weekdays, interviewing occurred between the hours of 5:30 and 10:00 p.m., and on Saturday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. For each number in the sample, at least four call back attempts were made. The resulting sample of 1,003 represents 25 percent of the numbers dialed (4,021 in all). For 13 percent, a refusal to cooperate was received. The majority of calls not completed (56%) was due either to nonworking residential phone numbers or to o answers, which may indicate nonresidential phone numbers. The refusal rate for the survey was 34 percent, that is, 25 percent completions plus 13 percent refusals divided into 13 percent. This is consistent with the general refusal rate in surveys, which varies between 25 percent and 40 percent.The Orange County Survey, as shown in Appendix D, includes 86 questions. There were also a few open-ended questions. Individuals were asked to name their residential zip code. In addition, there is a question on the respondent's occupation. Categories for coding were developed prior to interviewing, and reliability tests indicated that the coding of open-ended questions was conducted accurately.

This extraction of data from the 1990 decennial Census files (CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, 1990 UNITED STATES: SUMMARY TAPE FILES 3A AND 3B (ICPSR 9694, 9693)) was designed to provide a set of contextual variables to be matched to any survey dataset that has been coded for the geographic location of respondents. Over 120 variables were selected from original Census sources, and more than 100 variables were derived from those component variables. The variables characterize geographic areas in terms of ethnicity, family structures, income, education, labor force activity, and housing. The geographic areas chosen range from neighborhoods (tracts, Block Numbering Areas (BNAs), and Enumeration Districts (EDs)), through intermediate levels of geography (Minor Civil Divisions and Census County Divisions (MCDs/CCDs), census places, and ZIP codes), through large economic areas (counties, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, State Economic Areas (SEAs), and specially created Labor Market Areas (LMAs)), and beyond to large regions (Economic Sub-Regions (ESRs) and states). To the maximum extent possible, the investigator selected Census variables that seemed relevant to problems associated with poverty and income determination and that were present in comparable form in the 1970 and 1980 Census datasets. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02889.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.