| Date: | Fri, 6 Nov 1998 09:24:18 -0500 |
|---|
| Reply-To: | Gorrell_P <Gorrell_P@BLS.GOV> |
|---|
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> |
|---|
| From: | Gorrell_P <Gorrell_P@BLS.GOV> |
|---|
| Subject: | Fips codes, and the functions FIPSTATE and STFIPS |
|---|
|
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
|---|
I have been told that, prior to the current Fips coding system, Fips
codes corresponded to a strict alphabetical listing of US states and
territories. When the current system was adopted, non-states, excluding
DC, were (numerically) grouped and moved to the end of the list. This
left 'gaps' in the original non-states positions. So, '3' was formerly
American Samoa; '7' was (I think) formerly the Caroline Islands (no
longer relevant); '14' was formerly Guam; '43' was formerly Puerto Rico;
and '52' was formerly the Virgin Islands.
If you run the following data step (using the functions FIPSTATE and
STFIPS), you get the output below, which reflects the current system.
Paul Gorrell
Gorrell_P@bls.gov
--------------------------------------------------------
data fipstest (drop= XX);
do XX = 1 to 78;
fips+1;
state=fipstate(fips);
fipscode=stfips(state);
output;
end;
---------------------------------------------------------
FIPS STATE FIPSCODE
1 AL 1
2 AK 2
3 -- .
4 AZ 4
5 AR 5
6 CA 6
7 -- .
8 CO 8
9 CT 9
10 DE 10
11 DC 11
12 FL 12
13 GA 13
14 -- .
15 HI 15
16 ID 16
17 IL 17
18 IN 18
19 IA 19
20 KS 20
21 KY 21
22 LA 22
23 ME 23
24 MD 24
25 MA 25
26 MI 26
27 MN 27
28 MS 28
29 MO 29
30 MT 30
31 NE 31
32 NV 32
33 NH 33
34 NJ 34
35 NM 35
36 NY 36
37 NC 37
38 ND 38
39 OH 39
40 OK 40
41 OR 41
42 PA 42
43 -- .
44 RI 44
45 SC 45
46 SD 46
47 TN 47
48 TX 48
49 UT 49
50 VT 50
51 VA 51
52 -- .
53 WA 53
54 WV 54
55 WI 55
56 WY 56
57 -- .
58 -- .
59 -- .
60 AS 60
61 PQ 61
62 EQ 62
63 -- .
64 FM 64
65 -- .
66 GU 66
67 JQ 67
68 MH 68
69 MP 69
70 PW 70
71 MQ 71
72 PR 72
73 -- .
74 UM 74
75 TQ 75
76 BQ 76
77 IQ 77
78 VI 78
------------------------------------------------END.
| 
