# CIHISPEED & Group Quarters

**URL:** <https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453>\
**Category:** USA\
**Created:** [April 8, 2020, 1:53pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453 "2020-04-08T13:53:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Burroughs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6bbea6/32.png) [@Nathan\_Burroughs](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Nathan_Burroughs)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 1:53pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453/1 "2020-04-08T13:53:26Z")

</div>

I’m attempting to estimate broadband access in a particular state. In my dataset I thought I had already excluded group quarters (by restricting gq to 1 or 2), but when I run the frequencies I find a substantial # that are still labeled NA(GQ). Is this just missing data? Or am I making a mistake with my group quarters subsetting? Thanks!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JeffBloem](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/jeffbloem/32/40_2.png) [@JeffBloem](https://forum.ipums.org/u/JeffBloem)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 7:04pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453/2 "2020-04-08T19:04:09Z")

</div>

As the [codes tab of the GQ variable](https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/variables/GQ#codes_section) notes, GQ==0 identifies vacant units. These households should not show up in a person-level data file, however, because there are no people in those households. After looking into the ACS data from 2013 through 2018 I am unable to replicate your observation. Therefore, I wonder if you are mistakenly interpreting CIHISPEED==0 “NA(GQ)” as GQ==0.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Burroughs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6bbea6/32.png) [@Nathan\_Burroughs](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Nathan_Burroughs)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453/3 "2020-04-08T19:47:08Z")

</div>

Thanks for getting back to me! Since I’m new to working with the microdata, it’s certainly possible that I’m confused about something.

I am looking at the 2018 1-year Michigan file. Since I am interested in households, I dropped all except pernum=1, and then dropped gq\>2 and gq=0. A crosstab of gq & cihispeed (with household weights) shows the following:

households under 1970 def: na(gq) 603,179; yes 2,639,244, no 711,594  
additional households: na(gq) 183; yes 2842; no 289

It’s the na(gq) that is puzzling me. Since I dropped all but gq=1 and gq=2 (which as I understand it are “regular” households rather than group quarters), why am I getting 600K na(gq)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JeffBloem](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/jeffbloem/32/40_2.png) [@JeffBloem](https://forum.ipums.org/u/JeffBloem)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 8:14pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453/4 "2020-04-08T20:14:52Z")

</div>

Ah, okay. So, the “NA(GQ)” label is probably misleading in this case. Being in a GQ is only one reason for a CIHISPEED==0. The other could be that the household does not have access to the internet. You can see this if you look at the [questionnaire](https://usa.ipums.org/usa-action/source_documents/enum_form_ACS(2017)_tag.xml#54), where question 9 (on internet access) screens for question 10 (high speed internet access).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Nathan\_Burroughs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6bbea6/32.png) [@Nathan\_Burroughs](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Nathan_Burroughs)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2020, 7:05pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/cihispeed-group-quarters/3453/5 "2020-04-09T19:05:38Z")

</div>

Oooh I see. I hadn’t put that together. That makes more sense. Much obliged.