# Possible YRIMMIG coding inconsistency in the 2011 and 2012 CPS ASEC samples

**URL:** <https://forum.ipums.org/t/possible-yrimmig-coding-inconsistency-in-the-2011-and-2012-cps-asec-samples/7099>\
**Category:** CPS\
**Created:** [June 17, 2026, 4:56pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/possible-yrimmig-coding-inconsistency-in-the-2011-and-2012-cps-asec-samples/7099 "2026-06-17T16:56:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Penn\_Wharton\_Budget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@Penn\_Wharton\_Budget](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Penn_Wharton_Budget)\
**Post date:** [June 17, 2026, 4:56pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/possible-yrimmig-coding-inconsistency-in-the-2011-and-2012-cps-asec-samples/7099/1 "2026-06-17T16:56:54Z")

</div>

Hello!

We noticed that the top (most-recent) YRIMMIG range code in the 2011 and 2012 CPS ASEC samples appears inconsistent with (a) the basic monthly samples for the same calendar years and (b) every other ASEC year. The two ASEC years are off in opposite directions, which looks like a shifted or mislabeled comparability bin rather than intentional coding.

| **Year** | **Max code in basic monthly** | **Max code in ASEC** |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2011 | 2008–2011 (code 40) | 2008– **2010** (code 39) — one year low |
| 2012 | 2010–2012 (code 42) | 2010– **2013** (code 43) — one year high |

Supporting observations:

- Codes 40 (2008–2011) and 42 (2010–2012) do **not** appear in **any** ASEC sample; they appear only in the basic monthly samples. The ASEC series skips them, so the 2011 and 2012 ASEC samples fall onto the neighboring codes 39 and 43.
- The 2012 ASEC case (code 43 = 2010–2013) implies an immigration upper bound of 2013 in a survey fielded in early 2012, which is not possible. The 2011 ASEC case (max code 2008–2010) appears unable to represent 2011 arrivals.

We also came across what might be a related thread — “Label 47 in yrimmig” (Aug 2024), where staff noted some YRIMMIG code/label corrections for the 2023 ATUS sample (including individuals coded 43 who should have been code 42). It made me wonder whether something similar might be going on here.

Could you help us understand whether this is expected behavior for the 2011/2012 CPS ASEC, or a coding issue?

Thank you!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ivan\_Strahof](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.ipums.org/ivan_strahof/32/626_2.png) [@Ivan\_Strahof](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Ivan_Strahof)\
**Post date:** [June 18, 2026, 8:30pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/possible-yrimmig-coding-inconsistency-in-the-2011-and-2012-cps-asec-samples/7099/2 "2026-06-18T20:30:50Z")

</div>

Thanks for bringing this discrepancy to our attention. Your observations are correct.

In the 2011 ASEC sample, cases with [YRIMMIG](https://cps.ipums.org/cps-action/variables/YRIMMIG#codes_section) = 39 (“2008-2010”) should be assigned to YRIMMIG = 40 (“2008-2011”). In the 2012 ASEC, cases with YRIMMIG = 43 (“2010-2013”) should be assigned to YRIMMIG = 42 (“2010-2012”). This pattern can be confirmed in [the CPS ASEC codebooks](https://cps.ipums.org/cps/codebooks.shtml) for those years.

I will share your findings with colleagues who will implement this fix to the data.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Penn\_Wharton\_Budget](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a87d85/32.png) [@Penn\_Wharton\_Budget](https://forum.ipums.org/u/Penn_Wharton_Budget)\
**Post date:** [June 23, 2026, 7:09pm UTC](https://forum.ipums.org/t/possible-yrimmig-coding-inconsistency-in-the-2011-and-2012-cps-asec-samples/7099/3 "2026-06-23T19:09:32Z")

</div>

Thank you, Ivan!