[GRAPHIC] \SW11CVR.GIF
                  MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL COMMITTEE ON
                        STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
                            (February 1984)
Maria Elena Gonzalez (Chair)            Charles D. Jones
Office of information and               Bureau of the Census
  Regulatory Affairs (OMB)               (Commerce)
Barbara A.  Bailar                      Daniel Kasprzyk
Bureau of the Census                    Bureau of the Census
(Commerce)                               (Commerce)
Norman D.  Beller                       William E. Kibler
National Center for Education           Statistical Reporting Service
 Statistics (Education)                  (Agriculture)
Yvonne M.  Bishop                       David A. Pierce
Energy Information                      Federal Reserve Board
 Administration (Energy)
Edwin J.  Coleman                       Thomas Plewes
Bureau of Economic Analysis             Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Commerce)                               (Labor)
John E.  Cremeans                       Fritz Scheuren
Bureau of industrial Economics          Internal Revenue Service
(Commerce)                              (Treasury)
Zahava D.  Doering                      Monroe G. Sirken
Defense Manpower Data Center            National Center for Health
(Defense)                                 Statistics (Health and
                                          Human Services)
Maria D.  Eldridge                      Thomas G. Staples
National Center for Education           Social Security Administration
  Statistics (Education)                (Health and Human Services)
Daniel E.  Garnick                      Robert D. Tortora
Bureau of Economic Analysis             Statistical Reporting Service
(Commerce)                               (Agriculture)
             OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
                   Christopher DeMuth, Administrator
             Thomas D.  Hopkins, Deputy Administrator for
                  Regulatory and Statistical Analysis
          Dorothy M.  Tella, Chief, Statistical Policy Office
                    Maria E.  Gonzalez, Chairperson
             Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology
                                PREFACE
The Working Group on Industry Coding was initiated by the
Administrative Records Subcommittee of the Federal Committee on
Statistical Methodology to review the various existing  industry
coding systems and study their relationships, comparability and
accuracy.  The report presents information on the principles and
procedures used to classify and code business establishments by
industry within the framework of the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) system.
This report  is intended primarily for Federal agencies that are
responsible for industry coding.  However, users  of data classified
by industry should also find it valuable to know more about the coding
procedures and practices that affect the quality of the data.
The findings and recommendations of this, report emphasize the need
for increased interagency cooperation to improve the quality and,
comparability of industry codes  and reduce the cost and respondent
burden of multi-agency coding efforts.  A permanent interagency
committee is recommended as the mechanism for coordinating
improvements in industry coding systems.
Implementation of the recommendations in this report will be explored
by the Statistical Policy Office.  The report does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Office of Management and Budget.
The working Group was chaired by Carl A.  Ronschnik, Bureau of the
Census, Department of Commerce; the Administrative Records
Subcommittee is chaired by Fritz Scheurent Internal Revenue Service.
                                   i
          MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS SUBCOMMITTEE
                            (December 1983)
Fritz Scheuren (Chairman)          Daniel Kasprzyk
Internal Revenue Service           Bureau of the Census
(Treasury)                         (Commerce)
Faye Aziz                          Beth Kilss
Social Security Administration     Internal Revenue Service
(Health and Human Services)        (Treasury)
Warren Buckler                     Carl A.  Ronschnik
Social Security Administration     Bureau of the Census
(Health and Human Services)        (Commerce)
Paul Burke                         Bruce Levine
Department of Housing and               Bureau of Economic Analysis
Urban Development                  (Commerce)
David W.  Cartwright               Brian MacDonald
Bureau of Economic Analysis        Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Commerce)                         (Labor)
Charles Cowan                      James Millette
Bureau of the Census               Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Commerce)                         (Labor)
Maria E.  Gonzalez                 Douglas Sater
Office of Management and           Bureau of the Census
Budget                             (Commerce)
David A.  Hirschberg               Michael Searson
Small Business Administration      Bureau of Labor Statistics (Labor)
Susan Hostetter                    Linda Bouchard Taylor
Bureau of Labor Statistics         Internal Revenue Service
(Labor)                            (Treasury)
Thomas B.  Jabine                  Alan Zempel
Consultant to Committee on         Internal Revenue Service
National Statistics                (Treasury)
(National Academy of Sciences)
                                  ii
                            MEMBERS OF THE
                     INDUSTRY CODING WORKING GROUP
                    Carl A. Konschnik, Chairperson
                         Bureau of the Census
                              (Commerce)
                             Linda M. Dill
                    Social Security Administration
                      (Health and Human Services)
                            Susan Hostetter
                      Bureau of Labor Statistics
                                (Labor)
                           Thomas B. Jabine
                      Consultant to Committee on
                          National Statistics
                    (National Academy of Sciences)
                              Beth Kilss
                       Internal Revenue Service
                              (Treasury)
                             Bruce Levine
                      Bureau of Economic Analysis
                              (Commerce)
                            James Millette
                      Bureau of Labor Statistics
                                (Labor)
                         Linda Bouchard Taylor
                       Internal Revenue Service
                              (Treasury)
                              Alan Zempel
                       Internal Revenue Service
                              (Treasury)
iii
                            ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The idea for this study grew out of the collective interest of the
members of the Administrative Records Subcommittee in looking at
industry coding issues.
Data for the 16 major industry coding systems reviewed were first
collected from the agencies on a questionnaire prepared by the Working
Group.  The questionnaire responses and associated documentation were
then used to prepare "system descriptions" following a standard format
developed by Thomas B. Jabine.Copies of system descriptions, which are
in A supplement to this report entitled Description of Selected
Industry Coding Systems, may be obtained from the Statistics of Income
Division, Internal Revenue Service, D:R:S, 1111 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20224.
In addition to the members of the Working Group, the following persons
contributed to the completion of the questionnaires and system
descriptions;
     Bureau of the Census:    Alfred R. Brand, Patricia A. Clark,
          Stanley M. Hyman, C. Harvey Monk, Walter E. Neece, Frank M.
          Hartman
     Bureau of Economic Analysis:  George R.  Kruer
     Internal Revenue Service:     Bertie Brame, John Maiden, Patrick
          Piet, Paul J.  Rose, Nathan Shaifer, Raymond Wolfe
     Social Security Administration: Cheryl Williams
The working paper was reviewed by all members of the Working Group.
The chapters were initially drafted by:.
       I. Susan Hostettert James Millette
      II. Carl A.  Konschnik, Bruce Levine
     III. Linda M.  Dill, Carl A.  Konschnik
      IV. Thomas B.  Jabine
The entire Working Group provided comments to the initial drafts.  The
final wording was reviewed by the Working Group.  Maria E.  Gonzalez
met with the Working Group throughout its term.  Fritz Scheuren and
members of the Administrative Records Subcommittee provided additional
assistance and encouragement, as did members of the Federal Committee
on Statistical Methodology.
                                  iv
In the preparation of this working paper, substantial use was made of
the following sources:
1.   Farrell, M.G., Jabine, T.B., and Konschnik, C.A.
     1982 A review of industry coding systems.  Proceedings of the
          Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical
          Association.
2.   Jabine, T.B.
     1984 The Comparability and Accuracy of Industry Codes in
          Different Data Systems (in draft).  Committee on National
          Statistics.  Commission on Behavioral and social sciences
          and Education.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy of
          Sciences.
The second item is scheduled for publication in 1984.  Several
excerpts from it were used directly or with minor changes in Chapters
III, IV and VI of this working paper.
                                   v
                  A REVIEW OF INDUSTRY CODING SYSTEMS
                           Table of Contents
                                                                  Page
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv
1.   Findings and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
     A.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
     B.   Code Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
     C.   Standardization of industry Coding Principles  . . . . . . 2
     D.   Standardization of Coding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . 5
     E.   Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
     F.   Matching Studies and Other Research. . . . . . . . . . . . 8
     G.   Interagency Cooperation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
II.  Description of the Industry Coding Working .
Group Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
     A.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
     B.  Scope of the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
     C.  Major Uses of industry Coding Information . . . . . . . . .15
     D.  Composition and Objectives of the Industry Coding
          Working Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
     E.   Development of the Basic Documentation for the
          Federal Industry Coding Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
III. Industry Coding Systems and Their Relationships . . . . . . . .21
     A.  Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
     B.  Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
     C.  Frequency and Timing of initial Coding and Updating . . . .28
     D.  Classification System Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
     E.  Classification Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
     F.  Information Used as input to Coding . . . . . . . . . . . .35
     G.   Coding Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
     H.   Description of Systems Relationships . . . . . . . . . . .48
IV.  Quantitative Information on Comparability and Accuracy. . . . .53
     A.   Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
     B.   Inter-system Macro-comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53
     C.   Inter-system Micro-comparisons: General. . . . . . . . . .55
     D.   Interagency Comparisons Between Systems. . . . . . . . . .56
     E.   Intra-agency Comparisons Between Systems . . . . . . . . .63
     F.   Data on industry Coding Error in Individual Systems. . . .72
     V.   References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89
     VI.  Selected Source Documents and Instructions . . . . . . . .95
                                  vi
                            List of Tables
Table                                                             Page
1    Selected Characteristics of Industry Coding
     Systems Reviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
2    Coverage of Industry Coding Systems Reviewed
     by SIC Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
3    Interagency Transfers of Industry Codes . . . . . . . . . . . .51
4    Results of independent Coding of Establishments by Census and
     SSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5    Summary of Errors as a Result of Reconciling BES and Census
     Records on Delaware Retail Payroll in 1963. . . . . . . . . . .59
6    Results of Comparison between Final Industry Codes and SSA-based
     Mailing List Codes: 1963 Economic Censuses. . . . . . . . . . .62
7    An Analysis of 1947-1949 Code Changes for 500 Single-Unit
     Establishments in Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
8    Indexes of Shift for In Scope and out of Scope of Retail Trade by
     Kind of Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
7    Major Kind-of-Business Cross-Classification of Group 1 Retail
     Trade Establishment Sales in Census and in Current Survey: United
     States, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67
10   Differences between IRS Master File and Statistics of income
     (SOI) Industry Classification by SIC Division and Type of
     organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
11   Percent of IRS Master File Codes Agreeing with SOI Codes, by Type
     of Organization and Level of Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
12   Agreement of IRS Master File Codes with SOI Codes at Major
     Industry Level for Corporations: Tax Years 1972 and 1973. . . .72
13   IRS Statistics of income Program.  Number of Incompletely
     Classified Returns by Industry
     Division and Type of organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75
14   Reasons for industry Code Differences between Initial and Recheck
     Surveys: Retail Trade Surveys, 1948 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
                                  vii
                                                                  Page
15   Indexes of inconsistency for Selected Major
     industries: 1960 and 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
16   Comparison of SIC Codes Based on Census Questionnaires
     with those Based on Administrative Records:
     1977 Economic Censuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
17   Evaluation of Published Statistics for Nonemployers
     in Contract Construction: 1977 Census . . . . . . . . . . . . .82
18   Single-Unit Establishments in the SSEL with
     Current Year Payroll by SIC Division and
     Source: 1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85
                                 viii
                               CHAPTER I
                     FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.   Introduction
     This section presents the findings and recommendations of the
Industry Coding Working Group.  The recommendations are based on two
goals:
     1.   To improve the quality and comparability of industry codes
          for all of the data systems reviewed by the working Group;
          and
     2.   To reduce the overall cost and respondent burden associated
          with initial industry coding and updating of codes for these
          systems.
     Meeting these objectives requires increased interagency
cooperation in the areas of standardization and code sharing (the
transfer of industry codes,for individual establishments or other
economic units from one data system to another).  With respect to
these two areas, the Working Group found that:
     Significant improvements in quality and comparability of industry
     coding can be achieved by increased standardization of coding
     principles  and procedures; however, a substantial increase in
     code sharing between agencies is needed to achieve the best
     results.
B.   Code Sharing
     Chapter III of this report describes the differences found by
the Industry Coding Working Group in coding procedures, source
documents, procedures for updating codes, and other features of the
systems reviewed.  These differences, which result in part from cost
and respondent burden limitations, cause differences in the industry
codes assigned to individual units.  This applies both to statistical
data systems and to systems developed primarily for administrative
purposes.  Chapter IV presents quantitative evidence, from several
studies, of differences resulting from system variations.
     At present there are few transfers of industry codes between
agencies.  The primary transfers are from the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue service (IRS) to the
Census Bureau for use in the latter's economic statistics programs.
(See Table 3 on page 51 for details.) The Working Group recommends
that:
                                   2
     Agencies whose systems have been reviewed should expand industry
     code sharing to improve the quality of codes and to reduce code
     differences between systems.
     Increased code sharing between agencies should lead to more
comparable and accurate industry codes in major Federal and
Federal/State cooperative data systems.  Initially, there would be a
significant cost to develop a system to match units in different
agency files and to deal with those cases in which the industry codes
or the units fail to match.  However, once these processing systems
were established, considerable savings could be realized by cutting
back on independent data collection activities for assigning and
updating industry codes.  Currently various agencies collect similar
information from the same respondents for use in determining industry
codes.  Thus the beneficial impact "of code sharing between agencies
on both respondent burden and cost should be extensive.
     To implement the recommendation for code sharing fully will
require changes in the confidentiality laws currently governing the
Federal statistical community.  Except for a few specific cases,
agencies may not, under current law, disclose individually
identifiable microdata outside their own agency.
C.   Standardization of industry Coding Principles
The Working Group found that the agency coding systems
reviewed all based their classification systems on the current version
of the SIC Manual, but that each of the systems departs from it in
some respects.  The nature of these departures from the SIC Manual is
described in Chapter III of this report.
     It is not clear that all systems would be in a position to follow
the principles of the ST exactly in every respect.  Administrative
requirements and resource limitations may sometimes preclude this.
Nevertheless, the Working Group believes that greater adherence to
these principles is feasible in most cases, and recommends that:
     All Federal and State agencies cooperating in Federal statistical
     programs that classify economic units (establishments or
     reporting units) by industrial activity should, to the greatest
     extent possible, follow the classification principles contained
     in the 1972 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual as
     amended by the 1977 Supplement.
     Agencies using the SIC Manual as the basis for assigning industry
codes to establishments or reporting units should adhere to the
following recommendations on specific classification principles.  The
specific recommendations do not necessarily apply for classifying
enterprises or similar units.
                                   3
     1.   The basic business unit should be the establishment as
          defined in the SIC Manual.
     The establishment is normally an economic unit at a single
physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of
economic activity.  Special rules apply where two or more distinct and
separate activities are carried on at a common physical location.
The SIC manual is intended for assigning codes to establishments.
However, some agencies assign codes to similar but somewhat
differently defined units-- reporting units.  As along range goal,
these agencies should attempt to redefine their reporting units so
that they are consistent with the establishment definition.
     2.   To the extent possible, all units should be classified by 4-
          digit SIC industry, using all of the industries included in
          the current SIC Manual.
     Most of the systems reviewed come close to following the SIC
structure in the Manual, but use groupings of SIC industries in a few
instances.  Some aggregation occurs to avoid disclosure of individual
establishment data.  Some occurs because experience in some agencies
shows that for certain industries adequate reporting records are not
available on an industry-wide basis.  Since different agencies
aggregate for different reasons, varying groupings of industries
result.  Comparability of data by industry would be improved if
participating agencies used all of the 4-digit SIC codes or could
agree on and use a standard set of codes for grouped industries.
     This recommendation is not intended to preclude the use of
additional classifiers for the same units.  However, classifiers such
as those used for administrative or tax purposes should be clearly
distinguished from codes based on the SIC.  The assignment of SIC's
should not be altered or controlled in any way by the assignment of
such additional codes.  Some agencies, primarily the Census Bureau,
assign industry codes in greater detail than provided by 4-digit SIC
codes.  This practice is acceptable as long as the detailed
classifications are defined within 4-digit industries.
     3.   When an establishment or reporting unit has multiple
          activities, the SIC code should be determined according to
          the principles outlined in the SIC Manual.
     This recommendation implies, among other things, that the
treatment of multiple activities be based on the variables recommended
in the SIC Manual to measure the relative importance of each activity
and that 4-digit SIC codes be assigned to each
                                   4
activity of the establishment.  Also it is necessary to assign a
percent of total value for each activity for which a 4-digit SIC was
determined and then group activities with the same 4-digit SIC's and
sum the percent values.  The establishment's classification would then
be the 4-digit SIC with the greatest percent of total activity.
     4.   Information that identifies Central Administrative offices
          (CAO's) and auxiliary units must be collected and reviewed
          to ensure accurate determination of 4-digit industry codes.
          All systems should incorporate this information.
     As stated in the SIC Manual, a CAO is an establishment primarily
engaged in management and general administrative functions performed
centrally for other establishments of the same company.  An auxiliary
unit is an establishment primarily engaged in performing supporting
services for other establishments of the same company rather than for
the general public or for other business firms.  Both CAO's and
auxiliary units should be classified according to the primary 4-digit
industry activity of the operating establishments they serve.
     Additional classification codes describing the type of function
performed also should be standardized.  The Working Group recommends
that agencies responsible for industry coding adopt a uniform set of
auxiliary codes for the classification of CAO or auxiliary activities
for use in their systems.  The codes would delineate activities such
as central administration; research and development; warehousing; data
processing; and repair shops.
     5.   Agencies should work together to arrive at consistent
          solutions to two problems generally encountered in
          classifying government operations-- determining ownership
          and distinguishing between operating and administrative
          operations.
     Many activities are quasi-government and the distinctions between
government and private industry are often unclear.  Most agencies have
guidelines for determining ownership that follow the SIC Manual
concept of "owned and operated".  However, very little coordination
and sharing of the interpretation of the rules have occurred.
Developing a system for sharing and comparing concepts would foster
consistency among agencies.
     The Public Administration division of the SIC Manual includes
"...the legislative, judicial, administrative and regulatory
activities of Federal, State, local and international
governments." However, the government owned and operated
establishments outside of public administration properly should
be classified according to the activities in which they are
                                   5
engaged.  Coordination and cooperation among agencies should enhance
systematic identification and reporting according to these standards.
D.   Standardization of Coding Procedures
     This section presents recommendations to improve and standardize
coding procedures used by the systems to implement industry coding
principles.  Coding procedures considered most important are those
that relate to the use of source documents, quality assurance training
for coders, and resistance principles.
     Chapter III of this report describes source documents used by
each of the systems reviewed.  These source documents vary both in the
level of detail requested and the format and wording of the items
included.  This variability has clearly contributed to differences
between the systems.  Chapter VI contains examples of source
documents.
     Although it was beyond the scope of this Working Group to develop
specific questionnaires or standards for questionnaires, the Working
Group recommends that:
     1.   Agencies that do industry coding should work together to
          increase the uniformity of product, activity and related
          questions used in their source documents
     The Working Group believes that accurate 4-digit industry coding
requires questions specifically tailored to SIC division level and for
some intermediate groupings of 4-digit industries.  Since some
agencies may not have the need or resources to use forms designed for
specific industry groups, the Working Group suggests the development
of two kinds of model source documents: a set for specific industry
groups and an abridged general purpose version.  Separate versions for
initial coding and updating are also suggested.
     The development of standardized source documents should be based
on thorough research.  The Working Group's recommendations for
research on source documents are given in section F of this chapter.
     This report provides some information on Quality Assurance in
Chapter III.  However, most of the agencies reviewed had limited
information on specific quality assurance measures used for their
systems.  The systems reviewed show considerable variation in the
scope and intensity of procedures for maintaining and improving the
accuracy of industry codes.  The Working Group recommends that:
     2.   Each agency should review the procedures it uses to assure
          the quality of industry coding and should try to upgrade
          them where needed.
                                   6
     Because technology (both in industries upon which codes are based
and in the processing and procedures used by agencies when assigning
codes) is changing rapidly, the Working Group suggests that one or
more interagency workshops be organized to discuss new developments in
industry coding and to promote the exchange of information on coding
procedures.  Workshops should cover computerized coding (coding based
on verbal descriptions or on quantitative product and service data),
computer-assisted coding from activity descriptions, and computer
consistency checks.  Methods of reducing agency cost and respondent
burden also should be examined.
     The Working Group found that agencies doing industry coding did
not have formal training programs for coders in some of their systems.
SSA provides extensive formal training for new coders in their single-
unit employer identification (EI) file system.  This is followed up by
on-the-job training and close quality review.  The Census Bureau
provides training for large groups of coding technicians during the
economic censuses, and ,the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides
an ongoing training program for all State coding technicians.
However, for some systems more on-the-job training and less of a
formal program is used.  The Working Group recommends that:
     3.   Agencies should provide periodic training
          based on recommended coding course principles
          and procedures for their SIC coders.
     Such courses should include solutions, preferably those agreed
upon by an interagency group, to coding problems arising from the
development of new industries and from changes in existing industries.
     Resistance principles generally take prior industry codes, and
related data into account in determining a current code.  The purpose
of using them is to.  avoid erratic shifts back and forth from one
industry to another and, in sample-based systems, to help control
sampling variability.  Lack of uniformity in the use of resistance
principles has been one of many causes of industry classification
differences between systems.
     The Working Group found that resistance principles, while
frequently employed in the systems reviewed, were poorly documented
and inconsistent among agencies.  Therefore, the Working Group
recommends that:
     4.   Agencies that apply resistance principles in updating
          industry classifications should collaborate to develop
          uniform guidelines for application of these principles.  The
          rules used for resistance coding should be documented and
          made readily available.
                                   7
E.   Documentation
     A major accomplishment of the Working Group has been the
collection of detailed documentation on the characteristics of
industry coding systems and source documents used for SIC coding.
System descriptions developed by members of the Working Group with the
help of Other agency personnel include information about: the basic
coding unit, the industry classification principles followed, the
source document used, the coding procedures, the volume and timing of
coding, the quality measures associated with the coding, the general
characteristics of the file in which the codes reside, the timing and
methods for updating codes, planned changes to the coding system, and
the uses and users of the industry codes.  (A collection of these
systems descriptions is available as a supplement to this report
(Internal Revenue Service, 1984).)
     This information serves as an essential tool for understanding
the content of each system and the data produced from it.  Therefore,
the Working Group recommends that:
          1.   Complete documentation for coding systems included in
               this study should be updated at least every five years.
               Additionally, major changes occurring in any agency
               system should be documented and the information updated
               promptly.
          2.   All coding principles used by an agency
               principle which is either in addition to or contrary to
               those currently in the SIC Manual should be clearly
               described in agency publications that provide data by
               industry.
          3.   Coding rules embedded in programs for computerized
               coding systems should be fully documented in a form
               that makes them accessible to data users.
          4.   Results of quality control checks and
               evaluation studies of manual and computerized coding
               operations should be systematically documented and made
               available to users.
     The Working Group believes that agencies should adhere to certain
standards for internal documentation.  For example, cumulative files
that contain industry codes should show the date of the most recent
review and update for each unit and, where relevant, the source.  in
some cases it may be desirable to show more than one source code to
avoid unnecessary restrictions on access.  An agency may have data of
its own and from other agencies, with differing restrictions on
access.  All data
                                   8
sources should be identified to avoid unnecessary restrictions on
release of codes to other agencies for statistical purposes.
P.   Hatching Studies and Other Research
     Chapter IV documents several matching studies.  Generally.y, the
findings of such studies have led to improved methodology within the
matched systems, greater awareness of the need for interagency
cooperation, and a better understanding of the impact of differences
in economic data used for policy determinations.  in addition,
matching studies provide information on the feasibility of code
sharing and supporting evidence for the importance of code sharing.
Most major matching studies were conducted more than 10 years ago.
The Working Group recommends that:
     1.   interagency microdata matching studies be conducted as a way
          of investigating the feasibility of code sharing and of
          quantifying differences between the systems.
     Matching studies should compare industry codes, along with
selected data items such as employment, geographic location, and
payroll, for units which match between agency files.  The Working
Group suggests that the studies first establish a sound matching
process in areas with a high degree of agreement and comparability.
Using matching processes identified as successful, a study should then
focus on areas where classification is known to be especially
difficult, such as wholesale and retail trade.  Once differences are
quantified, the agency specific procedures that cause the differences
should be identified and improved.
     A current interagency group, the Employer Reporting Unit Match
Study (ERUMS) Working Group, has done initial planning for a micro-
record matching study to compare the statistical characteristics of
the Social Security, BLS, and IRS systems.  The ERUMS Working Group
will examine the effects of the variations between agencies in
defining the reporting unit.  Currently, expectations are that a
sample covering 400 employer identification (EI) numbers from one
state will be selected from Unemployment insurance (UI) records.  ADP
and manual matching techniques will be used to match these units with
those in SSA and IRS for the same EI's.  A natural by-product of the
study will be a comparison of the industry codes for matched units.
The ERUMS Working Group expects to gain useful information about the
kinds of problems that must be solved to match records from different
economic data systems.
     While documenting facets of the various industry coding systems,
the Working Group made no attempt to judge the relative merits of any
specific form, procedure, unit identification or updating method.  All
of the source documents and procedures used
                                   9
by these cooperating agencies lend themselves to research studies
aimed at identifying benefits and limitations.  Chapters III and IV of
this paper discuss in some detail specific forms, procedures, levels
of industry coding, frequency of updating information used to obtain
codes, and other details of each system.  Based upon the review of
these source documents, the Working Group recommends that:
     2.   Research studies and tests be conducted with a view toward
          establishing the most effective source documents for SIC
          coding as standards.
     3.   Tests and research be conducted on current and new methods
          and procedures for industry coding.
     Tests and studies with varying sets of questions designed to
elicit the nature of business activity should be cooperative ventures
among agencies.  Results of tests should be used to establish the most
effective version as a standard.  Since not all agencies can collect
detailed information for use in industrial classification, the goal
should be to develop standard questionnaires with at least two levels
of detail.
     A research project testing the verification method of SIC
updating has been initiated by BLS (Hostetter, 1983).  This method
utilizes a form containing a description of the four-digit SIC
industry in which a particular employer was most recently classified.
The form requests the employer to verify the industry description as
an accurate indicator of his primary economic activity.  If correct,
the employer simply checks the appropriate box, answers some other
questions on ownership, auxiliary status and multi-establishment
status and returns the form.  This reduces both respondent burden and
staff time, since forms checked as correct need not be reviewed to
assign an industry code.  If the industry description does not
correctly describe the economic activity, the employer then is asked
to provide a detailed product and activity statement so that the
correct classification can be determined.  Currently, BLS has
contracted with five State employment security agencies to conduct
independent but identical quality measurement surveys testing the
validity of the verification method of refiling.
     The Census Bureau has introduced computer-assisted coding and is
currently researching and refining the process.  Although computer-
assisted coding and updating codes by verification both have potential
for enhancing SIC coding, the Working Group does not endorse wide use
of either method until testing and results substantiate their
effectiveness.
     Additional cooperation among agencies on methodological research
would allow progress toward standardization of all facets of industry
coding.  Even where standardization is not
                                  10
possible, such research could produce detailed documentation of
differences in data stemming from specific methods or procedures.
This should prove useful to users who combine or compare data from
different sources.
G.   Interagency Cooperation
     Increased interagency cooperation is essential for significant
progress toward the goals stated at the beginning of this section:
improvements in the quality, comparability and efficiency of industry
coding systems.
     The OMB Statistical Policy Office's Technical Committee on
Industrial Classification is devoting most of its attention to
planning for the SIC revision scheduled for 1987, with somewhat less
attention to the other important aspects of industry classification
and coding.  The Working Group recommends that:
     The activities relating to industrial classification and coding
     listed below should be undertaken either by the OMB Technical
     Committee on Industrial Classification or by another permanent
     interagency committee established for this purpose:
     1.   Regular meetings to discuss and resolve coding problems
          caused by the development of new industries and changes in
          the structure of existing industries.  Interim solutions,
          pending revision of the SIC, should be agreed on and adopted
          by all of the participating agencies.
     2.   Promotion, support and coordination of other relevant
          activities along the lines recommended elsewhere in this
          chapter.
     Some examples of how this continuing committee might operate
include: periodic updating of the industry coding system descriptions
prepared by the Industry Coding Working Group; conducting interagency
workshops for sharing information about new coding methods and
procedures and about materials and methods used to train coders;
promoting greater uniformity in source documents used for SIC coding;
coordinating and facilitating interagency matching studies; developing
standards for partial coding and for grouping 4-digit industries; and
developing standards for resistance coding..
     In addition to leadership from the Statistical Policy office of
OMB and any interagency groups established for these purposes,,
progress on these recommendations will require full cooperation from
agencies that produce and use data classified by industry, as well as
those that control administrative record sources.  from which industry
codes are developed.
                                  11
                              CHAPTER II
       DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY CODING WORKING GROUP PROJECT
A.   Introduction
     Under the auspices of the Administrative Records Subcommittee
of the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, the Industry
Coding Working Group reviewed industry coding systems used by Federal
agencies to classify establishments and other economic units for
statistical purposes.  The objective of this interagency working
grout) was to review and document the existing industry coding systems
with a view toward ultimately improving the comparability and quality
of data classified by industry.  This report describes the activity of
the Working, Group and presents some findings and recommendations.
     By industry coding systems here we mean the methods and
procedures for assigning industry codes, rather than the technical
aspects of constructing a classification framework and
numbering scheme within which economic units will be assigned
industry codes.     Moreover, the term "industry code" is used in a
generic sense; it refers to the codes actually used in each
system, which are not always equivalent to the four-digit industry
codes in the Standard industrial Classification (Office of Management
and Budget, 1972).  The coding systems reviewed generally conform to
the SIC, but all are at variance with it to some degree.
     The Working Group's effort was responsive to two recommendations
made by a predecessor group, the Subcommittee on Statistical Uses of
Administrative Records, which also worked under the auspices of the
Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology.  In its final report
(office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, 1980), that
Subcommittee recommended that:
     The quality of administrative records to be used for statistical
     purposes should be evaluated systematically to determine the
     appropriateness of the records for the proposed use.
     Consistent procedures should be used in administrative and
     statistical data collection efforts for defining reporting units,
     identifying and coding reporting unit characteristics, and
     developing standards for data tabulation.
     These recommendations apply with particular force to industry
classification and coding, where the information sources are many and
of varying quality.
                                  12
     In order to get some idea of the magnitude of the industry code
assignment by the Federal government, consider the following.
Annually, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assigns industry codes to
nearly 16 million business units as part of its revenue processing of
the tax returns.  Additionally, more than 200,000 units are coded for
the IRS Statistics of Income Program.  Similarly, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) assigns industry codes to over 900,000 new
business units each year, with most of these (an estimated 875,000)
coded in the Single-unit Employer Identification (EI) File coding
operation.
     As part of the Employment Security Program, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) maintains an industry-coded file of about
4.8 million units.  Each year about 500,000 new units are coded,
and codes are reviewed annually and updated, where appropriate,
for about one-third of the existing units.
     At the Census Bureau, as part of the annual Company organization
Survey, over 900,000 establishments of multi-unit firms have their
codes reviewed, and changed if appropriate, while about 75,000 new
multi-unit establishments are industry coded.  In addition to this,
about 50,000 new business births are coded each year.  For the
quinquennial economic censuses, the Bureau mails census forms covering
about half of the total universe of 6.7 million establishments in
scope to the censuses.  Responses to items included on the census
forms are used to assign current industry codes to these
establishments.  Also, as part of the censuses, another 200,000 or so
unclassified establishments are coded via a classification form
mailing.
     The figures just cited account for a substantial percentage of
the volume of industry coding done by, or under the auspices of, the
Federal government.  However, this is not the whole picture, as can be
seen f rom Table 1 on page 23, where coding volume figures (from
columns (9), (10), and (11)) are given along with other data.
     No attempt has been made in this work to quantify the substantial
costs associated with industry code assignment.  This would indeed be
difficult, since the industry coding is a necessary (and in many
instances a relatively small) component of the overall administrative
or statistical work which is being
done concurrently.
     Inconsistent industry classification of identical or overlapping
populations of economic units by different agencies has led to
problems of comparability for analysts and other users who try to
compare and combine data from different agency sources.  One example
of this is in the area of productivity measurement.  A recent report
on this subject (National Research Council, 1979) said that "A major
problem with the comparability of the basic data has been that
different agencies assign the same establishments to different
industry classifications, as a consequence,, aggregated data at the
industry level are not in fact comparable
                                  13
from agency to agency" (p. 178).  Similar problems occur in connection
with the preparation of the national income and product accounts, in
manpower studies, in the development of a data base for small
businesses, and in other uses of economic statistics.
     Several review groups have examined these problems (for example,
the Central Statistical Board, 1939; the Hoover Commission, 1949; the
President's Commission on Federal Statistics, 1971; the National
Research Council, 1979; and the General Accounting office, 1979).
Without exception, they have recommended creation of a central listing
of establishments and other economic units, classified by industry,
which would be available to Federal and possibly State agencies for
statistical purposes.  The Census Bureaus Standard Statistical
Establishment List (SSEL) was in fact developed for this purpose, but
existing statutory restriction--, on the release of Census Bureau
information have so far made it impossible for other agencies to use
the SSEL, except in a very limited sense.
     At the technical level, several studies of relationships between
reporting unit definitions and industry coding practices in different
agency systems were undertaken by interagency working groups, under
the general direction of the Office of Statistical Standards of the
Bureau of the Budget, in the early 1950's.  Several of these studies
which were begun in an attempt to account for observed discrepancies
between manufacturing employment totals from the 1947 Census of
manufactures and the BLS's Current Employment Statistics, involved
matching individual reports for selected companies and establishments.
These studies identified numerous problems that often impaired uniform
reporting, many of which were solved by the working groups or referred
to the Office of Statistical Standards SIC Technical Committee for
action.  The work during this period showed that significant progress
toward comparability could result from carefully conducted studies of
the coding principles and procedures used by different agencies and
their application to particular units (Bureau of the Budget, 1961).
     Since that time, however, there does not seem to have been any
comprehensive and detailed technical review of the existing industry
coding systems: their coverage, the classification principles
followed, the coding procedures, and the uses of the industry codes
assigned and of aggregate data classified by these codes.
     The findings from the present review, the Working Group believes,
will suggest changes in individual systems that can lead to
significant improvements in quality and to greater comparability
between systems.  Also, these findings suggest advantages from new
code sharing arrangements where these are permitted by law.  Some
gains can be realized even if there are no new exchanges of codes
between agencies (for exchanges at present, see Table 3 on page 51).
For example, the applicability
                                  14
of shared software for computer assisted coding could be evaluated.
Should future legislation permit the establishment and general use of
a central list for statistical purposes, the Working Group's findings,
suitably updated, should assist the implementation process.
B.   Scope of the Review
     The following 16 coding systems have been included in the
Working Group's review:
     1.   Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) System
          -- Direct Investment Statistics
     2.   Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) System
          -- Employment and Wages Program (ES-202 Report)
     3.   Bureau of the Census Systems
          --   Agriculture Census
          --   Business Births
          --   Company Organization Survey
          --   County Business Patterns
          --   Economic Censuses
     4.   Federal Trade Commission (FTC) System
          --   Quarterly Financial Report 1/
     5.   Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Statistics of Income (SOT)
          Systems
          --   Sole Proprietorships
          --   Partnerships
          --   Corporations
     6.   Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Administrative Systems
          (Revenue Processing)
          --   Sole Proprietorships
          --   Partnerships
          --   Corporations
1/ Responsibility for publishing the Quarterly Financial Report
was transferred to the Census Bureau in late, 1982.  However,
throughout this paper all references to the FTC system or
Quarterly Financial Report apply to the time period before the
transfer.
                                  15
          7.   Social Security Administration (SSA) System:;
               --   Single-unit Employer identification (EI) Pile
               --   Multi-unit EI File
     The systems selected for review include some used only for
statistical purposes (e.g., all Census systems) and some that are used
for both statistical and non-statistical purposes (e.g., the IRS
revenue processing systems).  All of the systems assign codes to
establishments or other economic units; systems that assign industry
codes directly to individual workers were not included.  most of the
systems reviewed have broad coverage in terms of Standard industrial
Classification (SIC) divisions; however, there are some exceptions,
such as the Agriculture Census system.  All are of a more or less
permanent character, i.e., the universe or a sample of it is coded
periodically, or the coding is continuous in support of accretions or
changes to a cumulative file.  Most systems have a relatively large
volume of coding, and together they are believed to account for a
substantial proportion of the industry coding of establishments and
other business units that is done by the Federal government and by
State agencies under Federal-State cooperative programs.
     It was necessary to distinguish between an industry coding system
and the principal file in which the codes reside.  To illustrate this,
generally, industry codes assigned to establishments by the Census
Bureau are placed in the Standard Statistical Establishment List
(SSEL).  (Industry codes assigned to agriculture establishments during
the agriculture census processing are not placed in the SSEL, while
those assigned to agricultural services establishments are.) However,
the separate industry coding activities done at various times and
based upon different source documents are treated as separate industry
coding systems.
C.   Major Uses of Industry Coding Information
The statistical uses of administrative records are well
Documented in Statistical Policy Working Paper 6 (Office of Federal
Statistical Policy and Standards, 1980).  These uses range widely from
the basic publication of statistics describing economic or demographic
phenomena to being used as components in the formulation of complex
mathematical models.
     In general, industrial classification was developed for
classifying an establishment by the activity in which it is primarily
engaged.  The presence of industry codes can facilitate the
collection, tabulation, presentation and analysis of data as well as
promote uniformity and comparability of data series.
     The Federal Government uses industry codes as a means of
aggregating much of the administrative and statistical data it
collects for publication.  Some examples of the regular publication of
descriptive statistics by industry from primary data sources include:
                                  16
     -    Quarterly Financial Report _for Manufacturing,_Mining and
          Trade Corporations by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
     -    Corporation Income Tax Returns, Sole Proprietorship)
          Returns, and Partnership Returns by the Internal Revenue
          Service (IRS).
     -    Census Bureau publications such as County Business Patterns
          and the results of the economic censuses.
     -    Employment and Earnings and Employment and Wages by the
          Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
     There are other data series published that have been synthesized
from several primary data sources.  The Bureau of Economic Analysis
(BEA) , for the most part, does not collect information directly from
firms or individuals.  BEA's estimates of current economic activity
are based on data obtained from other agencies.  The Gross national
Product, which is presented with industry detail, combines data from
many sources including the Census Bureau, IRS, BLS, and FTC.  The
Input-Output Accounts of the U.S.  are composed entirely of industry
information collected by others.  BEA's estimates of State and local
area personal income involve the use of several sets of data
aggregated by industry.  BEA is thus heavily dependent on the
comparability of data from its various sources.
     In addition, both published and unpublished sets of industry -
based data are useful for the collecting agency's internal programs.
For example, various units of the Department of Labor use BLS data for
purposes such as:
     -    studies of financial aspects of the Unemployment Insurance
          program are conducted to set maximum weekly benefit levels.
     -    States use industry wage and employment data in preparing
          forecasts of program workloads that are used in developing
          annual budgets.
     -    Local area workforce and unemployment statistics are
          produced by industry which enables classification of areas
          eligible for benefits under a number of Federal area
          assistance programs.
     -    Employment figures are useful in time-series analysis and in
          the study of seasonal employment, and are used extensively
          in industry/area comparisons.
1/ Responsibility for publishing the Quarterly Financial Report was
transferred to the Census Bureau in late 1982.
                                  17
     -    The data serve as a base for labor market information
          programs at the county, labor market area, State and
          national levels.
     Industry codes from some administrative or statistical record
systems are helpful in the processing and tabulation of raw data in
other record systems.  The Social Security Administration (SSA)
assigns industry codes to new firms applying for an employer
identification number.  A major use of these codes is for identifying
industrial activity for workers included in the Continuous Work
History Sample (CWHS).  These codes are also released to the Census
Bureau for incorporation into their standard Statistical establishment
List.  Reciprocally, on some past occasions, the Census Bureau has
provided SSA with updates of industry codes for employers based on the
results of the economic censuses.
     Some data producers can use the industry codes from other systems
as a tool to edit aggregated tabulations.  BEA, for example, receives
industry codes from FTC and IRS for individual corporations which help
to explain changes in their estimates of components in the National
income and Product Accounts.
     There are other uses that governmental units make of the industry
information that they can obtain from data producing
agencies. The IRS, for instance, releases its industry coded
Statistics of Income (SOI) files to the office of Tax Analysis
and to the Joint Committee on Taxation for use in "tax models" to
evaluate the effects of existing or proposed tax policies.
     Nongovernment groups such as businesses and nonprofit
organizations use industry information from administrative and
statistical sources as well.  While confidentiality restrictions
prohibit the transfer of individual industry codes outside the
government (except to contractors of government agencies), aggregated
statistics based on industry can be quite useful.  Business firms can
conduct research to classify and study the industrial profiles of
their customers and suppliers.  Sales patterns can be analyzed, market
potentials can be estimated and commercial strategies can be
evaluated.
     The industry dimension of administrative and statistical data is
one of their most interesting and useful characteristics.  It enables
the government to improve and evaluate many of its programs.  It
enhances the research efforts of both public and private groups and it
is very helpful to individuals in gaining understanding of the
economic and demographic characteristics of the nation.
D.   Composition and objectives of the Industry Coding Working Group
The Working Group members (see list in preface) were in some
cases members of the parent subcommittee or were designated by
                                  18
the subcommittee representative or their agency.  Working Group
members met for the first time in May of 1981 and have conducted
meetings, generally monthly, throughout 1982 and 1983.
     From the outset the Working Group felt that a fundamental task
was to review and document the major industry coding systems.  Once
this was accomplished, analysis and comparison followed, leading to
the proposals for improvements in the comparability and quality of the
industry codes which appear in Chapter I .  As a further application
of this work, a user or potential user of data classified by industry
can be provided with essential information concerning the usability
and relative quality of the data.
E.   Development of the Basic Documentation for the Federal Industry
     Coding Systems
     The Working Group constructed a questionnaire on industry
coding which requested basic information needed to compare and assess
the systems.  This questionnaire covered the following main areas:
     -    The basic coding unit (the unit to which an industry code is
          assigned), the source or source document from which tile
          coding is done, and the industry classification system use];
     -    The volume, timing, coding procedures, resource material
          used, and quality measures associated with the coding;
     -    General characteristics of the principal file(s) in which
          the codes reside;
     -    Updating of the codes and recent or planned changes to the
          coding system;
     -    The uses and users of the industry codes.
     Within each of these areas specific questions were asked.  Also,
related documentation was requested, principally the forms or source
documents from which the coding is done, code lists and instructions
concerning classification system variations, and any available data
bearing on the quality of the coding.
     Members of the Working Group identified industry coding systems
within their own agencies which fit into the scope of the review.  At
the same time, they identified key persons who were most knowledgeable
about each coding system.  The survey questionnaires were then
delivered to these respondents by the Working Group members.
     Each completed questionnaire was reviewed by one or more members
of the Working Group and a meeting was arranged with the respondent
for clarification or further information.  As a result
                                  19
of the meeting, the questionnaire was revised, and frequently
additional documentation of the system was obtained.
     A summary system description was prepared from each questionnaire
and the associated materials.  These descriptions Are designed to put
the collected in  formation in a standardized, concise format for easy
reference, comparison, and analysis.  These summary descriptions form
the basis of this report.  Copies of system descriptions may be
obtained by contacting the Statistics of income Division, Internal
Revenue Service.
                                  21
                              CHAPTER III
            INDUSTRY CODING SYSTEMS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS
A.   Introduction
     This chapter provides an analysis of the coding systems
reviewed.  This analysis should provide a stimulus to the agencies
maintaining the systems to make changes aimed at increasing
comparability with other systems and at improving the accuracy of
codes and reducing the cost of coding in their own systems.  in
addition, the information developed can make possible a technical
evaluation of possible new arrangements for interagency code sharing,
subject to legal restrictions on such exchanges.  Finally, the results
should help users of data from these systems to understand their
structure and limitations and the extent to which lata from different
systems are comparable.
     An initial step is to identify the system characteristics or
dimensions to be compared.  The primary dimensions that have been
identified are coverage, frequency and timing of initial coding and
updating, classification system used, classification principles,
information used as input to coding, coding procedures, and
description of systems relationships.
     Each of these dimensions is discussed in the following sections.
B.  Coverage
     Systems coverage has 3 sub-dimensions which can be described by
the answers to 3 questions: What kinds of units are coded?
Which of these units are included in the target population? And,
finally, is coding for all units or for a sample?
1.    Kinds of Units Coded
     The kinds of units that are classified by industry vary widely.
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was developed for
classification of establishments by industry.  Its offshoot, the
EnterPrise Standard Industrial Classification (ESIC), was developed
for classification by industry of enterprises or companies, many of
which consist of two or more establishments (Office of Management and
Budget, 1972, 1974, and Office of Federal Statistical Policy and
Standards, 1977b.)
     Concerning this first aspect of coverage, basic coding units or
simply units, i.e., the units of observation to which industry codes
are applied, are often determined by intended uses of the data files.
For example, the Census Bureaus systems, which are established and
maintained solely for statistical purposes, use establishments as the
basic unit.  However, the Standard Statistical Establishment List
(SSEL)  which is the
                                  22
basic file in which industry codes produced by the various Census
Bureau systems reside, is organized to permit the aggregation of
groups of establishments to form other units, such as Employer
Identification (EI) number units (all establishments operating under a
single EI number) and enterprises, and the assignment of industry
codes to these units.
     By contrast, the units used in the systems of other agencies
(e.g., employers, tax entities, consolidated corporations) are
determined largely by administrative requirements.  Table I on page 23
provides a comparison of the basic coding units used for each system
studied, as well as comparisons of SIC level of, detail used, sample
or population coverage, an assessment of the level of input data
available for assignment of codes, updating cycles, and the average
annual volume of coding.
     In practice, business enterprises consisting of a single
establishment, as defined for purposes of the SIC, are classified in
essentially the same way in all of the systems reviewed by the Working
Group.  There are, to be sure, some elements of judgment in the SIC
definition, especially in those instances where "...distinct and
separate economic activities are performed at a single physical
location..." (Office of Management and Budget, 1972, p.10).  The SIC
Manual states that these activities shall be treated as separate
establishments if the employment in each is "significant" and reports
can be prepared separately for each activity on employment, payrolls,
sales or receipts and other establishment type data.  These criteria
clearly allow some latitude for judgment by the agency collecting the
data, and one could expect to find some cases where establishments
were defined differently by different agencies.
     Nevertheless, the major conceptual differences among systems with
regard to definitions of basic coding units are those affecting only
multi-establishment enterprises.  Here the systems reviewed use a
variety of units, including those with a legal, administrative, or
statistical basis, such as employers, taxpayers, corporations,
consolidate, corporations, or "reporting units".
     The "reporting units" used by BLS and SSA deserve
special attention.  Although they have the same name and have
been established for similar purposes, their operational
definitions are not identical for .multi-establishment employers.
Basically, the reporting unit in each case is a group of two or more
establishments under the same employer (El number) in the same county
and four-digit industry.  It has been so established for the
convenience of employers who would find it difficult or burdensome to
file separate administrative returns to SSA and to State Employment
Security Agencies for each establishment.
The BLS system is primarily an establishment based
system.   However, under certain circumstances a "reporting unit"
concept is substituted.  The "reporting unit" used by BLS
[GRAPHIC] \SW1123.GIF
[GRAPHIC] \SW1124.GIF
                                  25
includes two or more establishments under the same employer
identification (EI) or Unemployment Insurance (UI) account number in
the same county and industry.  These exceptions to establishment based
reporting are allowed in order to reduce employer quarterly
unemployment insurance tax reporting burden.  Exceptions to
county/industry level reporting are discouraged.
     SSA also uses a "reporting unit" concept under their
establishment Reporting Plan (ERP) to facilitate the processing of
large multi-unit employer wage reports.  When an employer firm agrees
to participate in the plan, it is asked to identify each of the firm's
retorting units (which may be establishments or payroll groupings) by
geographic location (county) and industrial activity and assign a
four-digit reporting unit number to each on a Form SSA-5019.  on
subsequent annual wage reports the firm groups its employees by
reporting unit, identifying each with the preassigned unit number.
This arrangement provides a basis for SSA to isolate earning
discrepancies and to assign geographic and industrial classification
to each unit so that wage reports can be used as a source of
statistical data.  However, it should be noted that due to the
voluntary nature of ERP, every effort is made to set up and maintain a
breakdown of,reporting units that most closely conforms to the firm's
internal business structure in order to minimize the reporting burden
on the employer.  This may or may not result in the use of
establishments as the reporting unit.  In summary, operational,
procedural, and definitional differences make it difficult to compare
the net effect of the use of the "reporting unit" concepts in the BLS
and SSA systems.
     Finally, it is worthwhile to point out that for all systems the
nature of the units which are classified by industry in each system is
affected not only by the formal definitions but also by the specific
procedures used to implement these definitions.
          2.    Units Included in the Target Population
     The second aspect of coverage is to identify which of the
specified units are included in the target population for the system.
The 5 principal criteria are:
          a.   Geographic location.  All systems cover units located
in the United States and owned by United States citizens or legal
entities.  Treatment varies for units located in United States
territories and possessions, for units with non-United States
ownership physically located in the United States, and United States-
owned units located outside of the United States.
     b.   Legal form of organization.  Each of the IRS systems covers
only one form of organization: sole proprietorship, partnership or
corporation.  The FTC Quarterly Financial Report system covers only
corporations.  Most systems cover all forms of organization.  However,
coverage of government-operated units differs greatly, as described in
d.  below.
                                  26
     C.   Presence of employees.  Sole proprietorships or partnerships
with no employees are included in the IRS systems if they are required
to file tax returns.  These nonemployer establishments are
incorporated into the economic censuses from IRS records; they are not
independently contacted by the Census Bureau.  Also, establishments
without payroll are included in the Census of Agriculture.  All other
coding systems code only units with employees.
     d.   SIC divisions.  Some systems are restricted to specified SIC
divisions or parts of divisions.  For example, the Census of
Agriculture covers only part of Division A (Agriculture, Forestry, and
Fishing).  The FTC Quarterly Financial Report system covers only
corporations whose primary activity is in mining, manufacturing,
wholesale trade and retail trade.  The inclusion of government units
varies.  They are not covered at all by IRS systems, but are covered
in part by several other systems.  The BLS Employment and Wages system
covers government employees at all levels, except for members of the
armed forces.
     e.   Size.  Industry coding in the economic censuses is limited
to employer establishments which exceed payroll cutoffs that vary by
industry.  These cutoffs are set to exclude the smallest
establishments within an industry from getting a census form.  The
census data, including industry codes for these small Establishments,
are taken from administrative records.  In the Census of Construction,
however, census forms are mailed to a  probability sample of
establishments below the established cutoffs, and sample estimates for
this group are included in the census totals.
     Table 2 on page 27 shows the coverage of the systems reviewed
with respect to criteria b., c., and d.  For this purpose, the six IRS
systems were grouped to form two "mega-systems": the Revenue
Processing and the Statistics of Income systems.
3.   Coding for a Sample or a Population
     The third aspect of coverage is whether or not sampling is used.
If it is, the particular sample design will affect the frequency with
which coding is required and the potential for sharing industry codes
with other systems.  Examples of sample based systems are the IRS
Statistics of Income systems, the FTC Quarterly Financial Report
system, and the Census Bureaus Business Births coding system.
     Of all systems reviewed, the IRS systems (condensed in Table 2
from six to two systems) are the most complete, covering all SIC
divisions except J, Public Administration, and all forms of
organization except "government establishments" in the other SIC
divisions.
[GRAPHIC] \SW1127.GIF
                                  28
     The most complete coverage of Division J, Public Administration,
is by the BLS Employment and Wages System, since most public as well
as private employers are covered by the Unemployment Insurance system.
It should be-noted that the 1972 revision of the SIC changed the
principles for classification of "government establishments."
Previously, most of them had been classified under Division J,
Government; since 1972, each one is to be classified by its primary
economic activity, with only those not classified in other divisions
to be assigned to Division J, Public Administration.  One result of
this change is that the TRS systems, which do not include any
"government establishments" (since they are not taxed) , can no longer
be expected to have full coverage in all of the other SIC divisions.
     For employers, i.e,, businesses with one or more paid employees,
the BLS Employment and Wages and the SSA single-unit EI systems
between them should have virtually complete coverage of all SIC
divisions.  The BLS system excludes railroads and some "small"
agricultural employers (the cutoff varies by State); the SSA single-
unit system has only partial coverage of Federal, State and local
government employers and tax-exempt nonprofit organizations.
C.   Frequency and Timing of Initial Coding and Updating
The extremes of this dimension can be represented by the IRS
revenue processing coding systems and the SSA single-unit EI System.
In the IRS revenue processing systems, industry codes are assigned
annually to businesses reported on tax returns, without reference to
prior year codes.  In the SSA system, each covered employer is
assigned an industry code at the time of entry into the system, which
occurs when the employer applies for an EI number. This code is
generally retained in the system unless and until updated, primarily
by matching against economic censuses codes for the employers in the
file. These two approaches can be distinguished by the labels
"periodic, independent" for the approach represented by the IRS
systems and cumulative" for the approach represented by the SSA
single-unit system.  As another example, BLS has a tight schedule for
new code assignments, along with a three year cycle for updating.
Many systems lie somewhere in between the extremes.  Where industry
coding is done for a sample of units in the target population, the
approach used will depend on whether and how much the samples for
successive time periods overlap.
D.   Classification System Used
     All of the systems studied use a classification scheme based
on the SIC.  Some systems which classify groups of establishments,
e.g., the IRS systems for corporations, use systems based
on the ESIC, which in turn ties into the SIC.
     For the systems reviewed by the Industry Coding Working
Group, the  following   assertion can be made:  While each
                                  29
classification system is based on the 1972 SIC 1/ or the 1974 ESIC
(which in turn is derived from the 1972 SIC), each system departs from
it in one or more respects.  These departures fall into three
categories:
          --   grouping of SIC categories
          --   subdivision of four-digit SIC categories
          --   addition of categories not covered by the SIC
     For the systems reviewed, grouping of SIC categories is more
common than subdivision.
     The SIC contains 1,005 four-digit and 421 three-digit codes.
The systems of IRS use a much smaller number of categories than
the others, currently in the neighborhood of 200 for each of its
6 systems.  The groupings vary by type of organization; there are
different groupings for sole proprietors, partnerships and
corporations.  For each organization type, the groups for the Revenue
Processing and Statistics of Income (SOI) systems are essentially the
same.  There are a few instances where IRS has subdivided SIC
industries.  For example, in the partnership systems, SIC Industry
7011, Hotels, Motels, and Tourist Courts has been divided into (1)
hotels, and (2) motels, motor hotels, and tourist courts.
     The BLS system uses most (971 of the 1,005) four-digit industry
codes.  In the 34 remaining industries, BLS experience is that four-
digit sic level coding is often unreliable because of conditions that
prevail in these industries, such as frequent fluctuations in employer
products or services or generally inadequate employer records.
     The SSA system also uses most of the four-digit industry codes.
in the SSA systems, the full four-digit SIC Code is the preferred
code, except for major groups 01 (agricultural production -- crops)
and 02 (agricultural production -- livestock) , and division i (public
administration) , where only the two-digit detail is provided.  The
codes used for these groups are called "foldback" codes.  Thus, there
are 63 of the 1,005 SIC industry codes which are not used at all.  For
115 industries, "foldback codes" are used only if the employer does
not furnish enough information to code to the four-digit level;
followups for additional information are not attempted by SSA.  The
use of these foldback codes was especially heavy during a period in
the early 1970's when SSA was doing "dual coding" (assigning two codes
to each employer, one based on the 1967 SI.  and one based on the 1972
SIC) in preparation for conversion of their systems to the 1972 SIC.
In summary, it seems fair to say that full SIC detail is lacking in
SSA's systems for 178 of the 1005 industries in the 1972 SIC.
1/ AS revised by the 1977 Supplement (Office of Federal Statistical
Policy and Standards, 1977b).
                                  30
     The Census Bureaus industry classification system for the 1977
Economic Censuses is described in its 1977 Industry and Product
Classification Manual (Bureau of the Census, 1977b).  The latest
version of this IPC manual for the 1982 Economic Censuses has recently
been released.  Census establishment codes carry full SIC four-digit
industry detail except when information available for classification
is incomplete, or when publication of establishment data for a
particular industry would disclose individual company operations.
Industries affected by the latter restriction for 1977 are:
          (1)  Mercury, 1092, grouped with 1099
          (2)  Typewriters, 3572, grouped with 3579
          (3)  Electronic tubes, 3671 to 3673, carried as 3671.
     In addition, for economic censuses purposes, the IPC Manual
provides for subdivision of selected industries in SIC major groups
41, 42, 47, 50-59 and 70-89, i.e., in the areas of transportation,
wholesale and retail trade, and services.  The "sub-industries" are
identified by adding two digits to the four digit SIC code.  For the
1977 Economic Censuses, 83 four-digit industries in these major groups
were subdivided to form 256 six-digit sub-industries.  Two different
patterns have been followed in subdividing four-digit industries.  In
most cases, there is only one level of disaggregation for an industry,
i.e., the six-digit codes differ only in the 5th digit, and the 6th
digit is 0.  In a few cases, however, there are two levels of
disaggregation, i.e., one or more of the five-digit codes will be
subdivided by using different digits in the 6th position.
     All of the systems have conformed to SIC revisions; in addition,
many of them have introduced other changes from time to time, usually
in the direction of showing more detail.
E.   Classification Principles
     Given the general principle of adherence to the SIC, there
remain several conceptual issues to be dealt with in order to develop
the procedures to classify establishments or other units by industry
(Simmons, 1953).  These include:
          1.    Classification of units with multiple activities.
     Under some conditions, such units may be split and classified
separately.  This option is more likely to be used when reports are
filed solely for statistical purposes.  When it is not used the first
decision needed is what measure of activity to use.  Options include
gross receipts, value of sales, value of production, value of
shipments, and employment or payroll associated with each activity
covered by a separate SIC code.  A second decision is how to use these
measures to determine the principal activity.  one option is to simply
choose the 4-digit (or 6-digit if using IPC) category with the highest
value of the measure chosen.  An alternative sometimes used is a
hierarchical
                                  31
procedure:  choose first the SIC division which has the highest value,
next the major (2-digit) industry within that division with the
highest value, and so on until the 4-digit or 6-digit level is
reached.
     For establishments the main question is what measure of the
relative importance of different activities should be user? The 1972
SIC Manual (Office of Management and Budget, 1972) is F clear on this.
It states that "Ideally, the principal product or service should be
determined by its relative share of
"value added" at the establishment" (p.  12).  Recognizing, however,
that data for value added for each product or service are difficult to
obtain, it recommends that the following data measures be used (SIC
Manual.  p.  12):
Division                                     Data Measure
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing,     Value of Production
hunting, and trapping (except
agricultural services)
Mining                                  Value of Production
Construction                            Value of Production
Manufacturing                           Value of Production
Transportation, communications,         Value of receipts or
electric, gas, and sanitary services    revenues
Wholesale trade                         Value of sales
Retail trade                            Value of sales
Finance, insurance, and real estate     Value of receipts
Services (including agricultural        Value of receipts
services) or revenues
Public administration                   Employment or-payroll
     The recommendation is qualified in two ways.  First, it is stated
that these measures should be used "when available." Second, it is
stated that in some instances, an industry classification based upon
the recommended output measure will not represent adequately the
relative economic importance of each of the varied activities carried
on at such establishments.  In such cases, employment or payroll
information should be used to determine the primary activity of the
establishments."
     Once relative (or absolute) values of the measures have been
obtained for each product or service by four-digit industry, the
establishment is coded to the industry with the largest share
                                  32
of the total, without regard to the shares of higher-level SIC
categories (industry groups, major industries, or divisions).
     To what extent are these recommendations followed in the systems
reviewed by the Industry Coding Working Group? Following is a summary
of the practices of the four major agencies.  It
will be seen that none of the agencies follows the SIC Manual in every
respect.
     BLS -- For all SIC divisions except Division J, public
administration, the source documents for industry coding ask for sales
or receipts.  The source document for government reporting units asks
for employment or payroll.
     Census -- According to the official description of industry
coding procedures for the SSEL (Bureau of the Census, 1979), the
recommended measures are used except in Division C, construction,
where value of receipts is used in place of value of production and
Division D, manufacturing, where value of shipments is used in place
of value of production.  It should be recognized, however, that the
specified measures are not available on a current basis for some units
in the SSEL, in particular, those that are out of scope of the
economic censuses or are not included in the mail portion of the
censuses.
     IRS -- Taxpayers are asked to provide codes and/or short
descriptions of their "principal activity,, which is generally defined
in the instructions as the one accounting for the greatest proportion
of sales or receipts.  There are two exceptions to this general rule.
First, the tax schedule (Schedule r) for farm sole proprietors
contains entries for income (receipts) for each of several distinct
crop and livestock items, so that a more objective basis is available
for coding to industries within this division.  Second, starting in
tax year 1977, the instructions for the partnership tax return (Form
1065) have stated that the principal activity should be the one
accounting for the largest proportion of assets.  Before then, the
standard instruction to base principal activity on sales or receipts
was used.
     SSA -- Currently employers applying for an EI number are asked to
describe their "nature of principal business activity" without any
specific reference to the treatment of multiple activities.  Multi-
unit employers who provide data for their separate establishments or
reporting units are asked to provide percentages corresponding to the
principal activities of each one, listed in order of importance, but
the instructions do not say on what measures these percentages should
be based.  The report form also asks for number of employees engaged
in each activity.  In the coding process based on these reports, a
manufacturing industry code is preferred over all others if the
associated percentage is 20 percent or more.
                                  33
     Except for the SSA special treatment of manufacturing just noted,
all agencies assign the industry code for the category with the
greatest share of activity, using data by four-digit SIC industry or
the most detailed level contained in the system.
     One solution that has been proposed for the multiple activity
problem is to assign more than one industry code to establishments
with more than one activity.  The Census Bureau has developed but not
yet implemented a proposal that the SSEL include secondary activity
codes for each four- digit SIC activity with sales/receipts of
$100,000 or more (Bureau of the Census, 1979).  The record for the
establishment would carry a sales/receipts size class code
corresponding to each activity code.
2.   Time interval and reference period
     One year is the standard time interval for most systems.  The SSA
systems are an exception; the input document asks for a description of
the principal activity carried on, without any reference to a specific
time period.  Most systems use a calendar year, but in some systems
the reports are for tax years or fiscal years, which are not
equivalent to calendar years for all units coded.
     Another important consideration is the relationship between the
reference period for code determination and the period for which data
are collected and the code assigned.  This leads to the question of
updating, i.e., how often should industry codes be revised? There is
considerable variation both between and within systems as to the
frequency of updating industry codes, or refiling, as it is sometimes
called.
     When a system is used to produce aggregate data such as
employment, payroll, receipts, etc., classified by industry, the
reference period on which the industry code is based may not be the
same as the period covered by the data.  The.major industry coding
systems reviewed do, in fact, differ considerably in this respect.
Following is a broad outline of the differing practices followed by
each of the four major industry coding agencies.
     IRS -- Returns are industry coded annually, based either on self-
coding by taxpayers, or coding from an activity description on the tax
return.  Thus, for data by industry from the IRS systems, the
reference periods for the data and the industry classification always
coincide.
     BLS -- Each resorting unit is classified initially when the
employer enters the unemployment insurance system.  It is BLS policy
that codes should be reviewed and updated on a fixed time schedule, as
follows:
     34
Type of Unit                                           Frequency
Units with 500 or more employees,                      Annually
except government
All other units, except government                     Every 3 years
Government units                                       Every 5 years
     The timing of the 3-year cycles varies by SIC division, so that
review and updating is done for units in certain divisions each year.
information leading to code changes may come from other sources
between regular updates; the extent of such changes and how well they
track actual changes is not known.  The source documents used for
initial coding and updates request relevant information on activities
for the most recent calendar year.
     SSA -- Each employer is classified initially at the time an
application for an EI number is filed.  The application form asks for
information about the nature of the business at the time ,of the
filing; there is no defined reference period.  Shortly thereafter,
eligible multi-unit employers are asked to submit activity information
for each of their reporting units, the situation with respect to
reference period being the same as for the original application form.
For single-unit employers, the last general update was based on a
comparison with codes assigned in the 1972 Economic Censuses.  For
multi-unit employers, changes are based either on reports filed
voluntarily by employers or on correspondence initiated by SSA when
the units for which current wage reports are submitted do not match
those in the file.  Resources for such correspondence are limited.
     Since both the single and multi-unit employer files carry date
codes indicating the most recent update of the employer's industry
classification, it would be possible to tabulate each file to obtain a
distribution of employers by years elapsed since last update.
     Census -- Reference periods vary by coding systems.  For units
covered by mail (or interview) in economic censuses, the industry
classification has the same reference period as the data.  This is
also true in some but not all current surveys.  Perhaps the best
approach is to  consider the SSEL, which provides
the frame for all censuses and surveys and for the annual County
Business Patterns program.l/ For the larger multi-unit
companies, industry codes for their establishments are updated
annually in the Company Organization Survey.  Smaller multi-unit
companies are updated once between five-year economic censuses.
A.t the other end of the spectrum, industry codes for single.-unit
     1### - true for all units with employees.  IRS is the main source
of information for zero-employee units.
                                  35
employers outside the industry scope of the economic censuses (such as
those included in Division H, finance, insurance, and real estate, and
some industries in other divisions) and for those small employers who
are in scope but not included in the mail portion of the census will
in most cases be the original codes assigned to them by SSA when they
applied for EI numbers.
     In summary, most agencies use a one-year reference period for the
activity data on which industry classification is based, the exception
being SSA which asks for current activities with no defined reference
period.  Updating practices vary widely, both within and between
agencies.  (See Table 1 on page 23, Column B.)
3.   other considerations
     Some data users are troubled by the effects of sudden and/or
erratic changes in industry classification, especially when large
units are affected.  This has led to the application, in some systems,
of resistance principles.  After a preliminary code has been
determined using data from :the current reference period, the
preliminary code is compared with codes from one or more previous
periods.  If the preliminary code differs, from the prior one, it is
accepted only if certain threshold conditions are met.  Several of the
systems studied incorporate resistance principles.
     There is also the problem of the classification of certain
ancillary or auxiliary activities, such as central administrative
offices, manufacturers' sales branches, laboratories, and warehouses.
Classification of these units is usually based on the activities of
the establishments they serve, as specified by the SIC Manual.
F.   Information Used as Input to Coding
Various sources of information are used as input for classification of
units by industry within the agency systems covered in this study.
The two principal categories are agency source documents, and
information other than agency source documents.  The latter
encompasses prior codes assigned within the same agency and codes from
other agencies.  The referencing of codes and other information
available from commercial sources and contact with the company by
phone, correspondence, or in person are also methods of obtaining
additional coding information.
1.   Agency Source Documents
     The principal resource for assigning industry codes to units
within each system is usually the source documents used by the agency.
The reason for this is that the codes from other agencies or
commercial business listings may not be fully compatible with the data
classification requirements of the
                                  36
receiving system because of differences such as the required level of
detail, coding principles, code inaccuracy and whether or not the
codes apply to the appropriate reference period.  Also, in many
situations code transfers are prohibited by law.
     A study of the source documents used for the different coding
systems shows a variation between agencies and in some cases within
agencies.  Lack of standards in this area could be one reason, but the
variation can, in most cases, be justified by the major differences
between each agency program's data requirements for the design of
their source documents, and whether industry coding is a primary or
supplemental consideration in this program.
     Some factors that an agency must consider in designing the form
are the type of information needed in order to obtain the desired
level of industry detail, the scope of instructions needed to secure
this information, and whether or not the form can be specialized to
cover specific industries.  It is also necessary to determine whether
the forms are to be self coded by the respondent, manually coded by
the agency's classifiers or coded by computer.  In addition, the
burden which completing the form places on the respondent must be
evaluated.
     A.  very important factor that should be noted is that
     often the coding source documents are designed primarily for
     other purposes.  For example, the Form SS-4, which is used as the
main coding source for SSA's single unit El coding system, is actually
an IRS form utilized by employers and others in applying for an El
number.  Another case would be the IRS' Statistics of Income coding
Systems where tax schedules, such as the Form 1120, are user for
industry coding.  Coding information is often a minor part of such
forms.
     In contrast, some other agency source documents are specifically
designed for the collection of industrial data.  These forms may vary
from the general purpose type to report forms tailored to a specific
industry.  Examples, of these latter types of source documents are the
various report forms used in the economic censuses.  These forms are
specialized to the industry which has been determined by codes
assigned from previous censuses or surveys, the Company Organization
Survey (COS) or Social Security Administration (SSA) records.  if a
code is not available and the kind of business cannot be determined
from the trade name or other reliable information, a more generalized
form is sent.
     In general, the principal difference among the source documents
is the nature and detail of coding information available on the
various forms used in each agency's system(s).  The type of
information requested on these forms for determining an industry code
ranges from brief descriptions of the principal business activity, or
pre-listed industry descriptions and codes for self-selection, to
percent distributions of gross sales or
                                  37
receipts by products or services.  Specific examples of these varied
kinds of information are: (1)pre-listed taxpayer-selected codes such
as on IRS Form 1120; (2) pre-listed kind of business activity check
boxes (with or without industry codes) on report forms used to
classify establishments lacking industry codes prior to mailing
industry-specific forms in the economic censuses; (3) respondent-
furnished descriptions of principal products or activities based on
percent of total sales on BLS Forms 3023-A and 3023-B (of which there
are different versions for each industry division); (4) principal
business activity on BLS Form SS-4 used in SSA's single-unit EI coding
system; and (5) sales distribution by industry on BEA's Form BE-12
used in their Benchmark Surveys. in the absence of an adequate
description of the unit's activities, some agency systems may use the
trade name as a coding source (e.g., Hilda's Beauty Shop, Bob's Cafe
or Johnson's Department Store).  This "name coding" is used in SSA's
coding of the Form SS-4.
     The following is a comparative analysis of the level of detail
available on source documents.  It provides a comparison by level of
source information detail based on the chart shown below and gives
examples for each category (See Chapter VI for actual source documents
and brief description of each).
                                        Level of source
     Category            Coding by:     information detail
     A                   Respondent     Not applicable
     B                   Agency         Low
     C                   Agency         Medium
     D                   Agency         High
     Category A (Selfcoded) -- The only systems which use self-coding
(i.e., coding by respondents) almost exclusively are the IRS revenue
processing systems for partnerships and corporations.  Some forms used
in BEA's Direct Investment (DI) Statistics Program also request
respondents to enter up to eight 3-digit codes which represent DI
industry Classifications under which they have sales.  However, final
code determinations are made and entered on the forms by BEA coders.
Bureau of the Census forms, especially in the retail anti wholesale
trade and service areas, also frequently utilize pre-listed,
respondents elected descriptions and codes.  In most cases, responses
to these items are checked against other data furnished on the form in
order to determine what industry code to assign.
     The source documents for the above mentioned IRS systems are the
appropriate tax return forms for these two categories of taxpayers.
The relevant data items and instructions from the partnership return
(IRS Form,1065) for tax year 1981 are shown as Exhibit 1, Chapter VI.
The "Business Code Number" is to be
                                  38
entered by the taxpayer in Item C on the first page, using the
instructions and code list on page 12 of the 4nstructions.  The code
list provides a short description for each of the industries included
by IRS along with the appropriate codes.  Taxpayers are also asked to
give a brief description of their principal business activity and
principal product or service in Items A and B, respectively.  This
information is used very little in revenue processing, but to a
greater extent in the Statistics of income industry coding.
     An observed feature of self-coding is the potential for a high
proportion of incorrect codes immediately following a revision of the
Standard Industrial Classification.  Some evidence on this score is
presented in Chapter IV.
     Category B (Agency coded, low detail) -- The example for this
category is also taken from IRS.  Exhibit 2 of Chapter VI shows the
relevant data items and instructions from the 1981 tax return schedule
used for non farm sole proprietorships (IRS Form 1040, Schedule C).
The primary data items used for coding are Item A, a two-part item
calling for brief descriptions of the "main business activity and its
"product" and Item B, the business name.  The instruction for Item A
is to "Report the business activity that accounted for the most
income...Give the general field as well as the product or service.
For example, "wholesale-groceries' or 'retail-hardware,."
     For some returns, additional clues to the correct classification
may be found by examining other parts of the return, e.g., the kinds
of expenses (deductions) reported in Part 11 and the kinds of
property listed in Schedule C-2, Depreciation.  Note, however, that
taxpayers are not required to show a breakdown of receipts or sales by
source, so there is no way even to check that the main activity has
been properly identified, let alone to apply the more complex rules
that are used for some combinations of activities.
     It may be noted in passing that IRS Form 1040, Schedule F and
Form 4385, which are used for farm sole proprietorships, do require a
breakdown of sales or income from different kinds of crops and
livestock production.  This is probably sufficient to put these source
documents in Category D.
     Other source documents classified as providing a low level of
input detail were certain ones used by the Census Bureau as a
preliminary to more precise coding of later documents based on the
economic censuses or current surveys.
     Category C (Agency coded, medium detail) -- The main example for
this category is the Form SS-4 (Application for Employer
Identification number).  The complete Form SS-4 and the relevant
section of the instructions for it appear as Exhibit 3 of Chapter II.
This is an IRS form Used by SSA to classify all employers for the
single-unit employer file.  (Codes for
                                  39
establishments or reporting units of multi-unit employers are based on
a more detailed form which is sent to eligible employers following
receipt of the initial application.) The primary data item used for
industry classification is Item 14, Nature of Principal Business
Activity.  The instructions for this item give examples of the kinds
of descriptions desired for various SIC divisions.  other items which
may assist in classification are:
          Items 1 and 4 -- Name and Trade name.
          Item 10   --   Type of organization.
          Item 16   --   Breakdown of employees by type.
          Item 17   --   For manufacturers, principal product and raw
                         material used.
          Item 18   --   To whom does the employer sell most of his or
                         her products or services.
     These items, especially 17 and 18, cover certain of the
key data requirements needed for classification that were not covered
in the Category B example.  The Form SS-4 is classified in the medium
rather than high detail category primarily because it does not provide
any breakdown of multiple activities.  Several earlier versions of the
SS-4 did include an item asking manufacturers to list their three
principal products and to give the percentage of total value of
products represented by each of these.
     Category D (Agency coded, high detail) -- Within this category,
the amount of detail and the general approaches used vary, so it will
he useful to give more than one example.
     The source documents which provide the most information for
industry coding are the mail questionnaires used in the quinquennial
economic censuses.  These questionnaires call for detailed information
and are tailored to different groups of SIC industries hence they
include the specialized inquiries needed to assign industry codes
within those groups.  Special procedures are, of course, needed to
handle questionnaires returned by establishments which are
inappropriate to their activities.
     Exhibit 4 of Chapter VI shows one questionnaire for the
1982 Census of Retail Trade -- Tires, Batteries, Parts, Accessories,
(Form CB-5502). This questionnaire was mailer to establishments
believed  to be in Census industry and Product Classification
categories 553110 (tire, battery and accessory dealers) and 553120
(other auto and home supply stores).  The "mailout" code, i.e., the
latest IPC code for that unit from the Standard Statistical
Establishment List (SSEL), will appear on the mailing label.  A "self-
designated" code will be determined on the basis of the respondent's
entry in Item 9, Kind of Business.  Normally, the final IPC code will
be computer-
                                  40
assigned, based primarily on the merchandise lines data (Item 11), but
also taking into account other relevant items on the form, including
dollar volume of business (Item 5), class of customer (Item 7), method
of selling (Item 10) and a specific inquiry on sales and receipts from
retreading tires (Item 12a).  The mailout and self-designated codes
enter into the final code determination only when the data for the
items normally used are incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.
     Other forms that provide a high level of information for industry
coding are BLS Forms 3023-A (Industry Classification Statement) and
3023-B (Industry Verification Form), which are designed for each
industry and used for updating all industry codes.  They are also used
to update area, type of ownership, and auxiliary codes of existing
units covered by the Unemployment Insurance Employment and Wages (ES-
202) Program on a three-year refiling cycle. Form BLS 3023-A is used
sometimes by the state agencies to clarify or obtain additional
information necessary to assign SIC codes to new employer accounts.
For both forms, there are separate versions for each industrial
division (including an " all industry" version).  Each form also
provides for the inclusion of other establishments reported by a multi
unit company.
     Exhibit 5 of Chapter VI shows BLS Form 3023-A7 (Rev. Dec. 1982),
which is one of the forms used to update industry codes for reporting
units currently classified in wholesale trade. Unlike other examples
discussed in this section, this form is designed primarily to get the
information needed for classification of the report  unit. The key
items on the form for this purpose are items B, D and E.  Item B
covers the identification of multiple products or activities of the
reporting unit, and the percent of total sales (value of receipts)
accounted for by each during the most recent calendar year.  Item D
identifies Central Administrative offices (CAO'S) and auxiliary units,
and item E asks for the principal class of customer, as an aid to
determining whether the unit is wholesale or retail.
     A final example in this category comes from the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC) Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) Program.  (This
program was transferred to the Bureau of the Census in late 1982.)
Exhibit 6 of Chapter VI shows FTC Form 59-103 (rev. Oct. 1979), Nature
of Business Report.  The FTC uses two versions of this form, the one
shown, which is for the manufacturing division, and a second version
for the other SIC divisions included in the QFR Program (mining,
wholesale trade and retail trade).  The Nature of Business Report is
sent to all corporations which are about to enter the QFR sample for
initial determination of status, and, for updating purposes, to
certain corporations reentering or remaining in the sample.  Like the
BLS Form 3023, its primary purpose is to classify the reporting units
by industry. in addition, several questions are asked to determine the
current corporate structure of the reporting unit.
                                  41
     The key item on the form is item 3, n which the respondent is
asked to list products made, processed or assembled and/or sold, with
the percent share of gross receipts accounted for by each.  in
addition, information is requested on kinds of raw materials used and
processes used in production.  Unlike the BLS form, this form does not
provide any illustration of the level of detail desired in
distinguishing different product categories.
          2.    Information Other than Agency Source Documents
     As stated earlier, most agencies rely primarily on their own
source documents as input to their coding systems.  However, in
certain situations they may resort to other coding sources such as
additional contact with the company, prior codes assigned to the same
units within their own agency codes supplied by other agencies, and
codes and other pertinent information extracted from commercial
sources.
     The prior codes assigned by an agency are used for various
purposes.  Listed below are some of the uses and examples of agency
systems to which these situations apply.
     ---  Report form selection.  During the economic censuses the
          Census Bureau utilizes prior codes as a selection factor in
          determining the appropriate form to be mailed.
     --   Reference for manual editing.  Many of the agency coding
          systems reference prior codes during updating processes for
          purposes of reviewing code changes, determining accuracy of
          current codes and making final code determinations.  For
          example, prior codes for permanent sample units in FTC's
          Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) are available to the coders
          for determining code changes for large corporations.
     Codes supplied by other agencies are also used for various
purposes.  Some of these are listed below with examples.
     --   Report form selection. The Census Bureau uses industry codes
          from SSA records if no previous Census assigned codes are
          available to determine the appropriate report form to mail
          in the economic censuses.
     --   Coding of nonrespondents, and establishments not included in
          the mail part of the economic censuses. IRS Principal
          Industrial Activity (PIA) and SSA assigned codes are two of
          the various sources used by the Census Bureau for
          determining an industry code for these cases in the economic
          censuses.
                                  42
     --   Coding of units with incomplete data.  The Census Bureau
          references SSA assigned codes when classifying cases with
          insufficient information in the business births coding
          system.
     --   Updating procedures.  The Social Security Administration
          attempts to update its code files every five years through a
          coordination with census records based on codes resulting
          from the economic censuses (especially following a major SIC
          revision).  The last such update was based on the 1972
          Economic Censuses.
     Other sources of coding information are commercial business
listings (e.g., Dun and Bradstreet, Moody's, Thomas Register).  many
agencies use these as a source when there is insufficient information
to assign a complete industry code to a unit.  Some examples of the
different agency coding systems which utilize these references are:
(1) business births coding (Census), (2) single-unit EI file (SSA),
(3) Company organization Survey (Census), (4) economic censuses
(Census), (5) Quarterly Financial Report (FTC), and (5) Statistics of
Income -- Corporations (IRS).
     The final coding source (and indeed the first and preferred
source for large establishments and firms) by which an agency may
obtain coding information for a unit when there is insufficient
information is through additional contact with the company by phone,
written correspondence, or in person.  This is done for most of the
systems and, as a case in point, for the Unemployment Insurance (UI)
Employment and Wage Program (Bureau of Labor Statistics).  Here the
State may send a BLS-3023 form (for new accounts), contact the
employer by phone or make a personal visit in order to obtain the
needed information.
     The wide variation among the coding sources used by the various
agencies affects the uniformity of codes assigned to the same units in
different systems.  Greater standardization of the coding systems in
this area would seem feasible at this time, but only for agencies
which have similar data requirements and have the resources needed to
code at the agreed level of detail.
G.   Coding Procedures
The procedures developed for use within the different coding
systems encompass a variety of activities.  These include:
     -    The methods by which the industry codes are assigned (i.e.,
          manual, computer-assisted, automated).
     -    Treatment of missing data.
     -    Data entry.
                                  43
     -    Quality assurance procedures (i.e., manual quality control
          and computer consistency checks).
     The following provides descriptions of procedure types available
under each of these functions and examples of how they are used. It
shows that wide variations exist between the procedures for the
systems studied.  The fact that these differences will affect the
comparability of codes between agencies is self-evident.
     1.    Methods of assigning codes.
     There are three principal methods by which the initial
industry codes are assigned.  Of these, manual coding is the most
frequently used.  The other methods used are "automated coding" and
"computer-assisted coding," which is also a form of manual coding.  At
this time the Census Bureau is the only agency which makes use of
"computer assisted coding." Listed below are basic descriptions of the
procedures which apply to each of these methods:
     --   Manual Coding.  Under this method the classifier manually
          assigns an industry code directly to the source document (or
          other form used for data entry purposes) based on
          information supplied by the respondent and other available
          sources such as commercial references or prior codes.
     --   Computer-assisted Coding.  This system was developed by the
          Census Bureau to assist the  coder during manual operations
          by computerizing the basic coding routine.  This system is
          being used in several phases of the 1982 Economic Censuses
          processing.
          Under this method, the coder, who is working at an
          interactive computer terminal, is first required to select
          the major SIC division which relates to the activity
          description and/or trade name supplied on the source form.
          Then the coder selects a "key word" based on the same
          information and enters it into the terminal.  it possible,
          the system matches the "key word" to one or more verbal
          descriptions of SIC industries.  These industry descriptions
          are then displayed, with their associated code, for the
          coder to select the description and code which is
          applicable.  If the coder is unable to assign a code at this
          point, the system will then direct the coder through several
          routines until a code is derived.  If this fails the case is
          referred to an analyst for review.
          In addition to its coding functions, this method was also
          developed to improve the training of
                                  44
          coders, increase consistency, and provide a flexible
          mechanism for continuous updating of descriptions and codes
          in the system and IpC Manual.  it is also the first step
          towards a fully automated system of coding through the
          development of a comprehensive dictionary of industry
          descriptions.
     --   Computer/Automated Coding.  Currently no coding system
          studied by the Working Group is fully automated; however,
          two agencies (Census Bureau and IRS) are using largely
          automated coding procedures.  within the Census Bureau
          systems (e.g., the mail portion of the economic censuses,
          Census of Agriculture for farms with sales of $2,500 or more
          and other periodic surveys such as the Annual Survey of
          Manufactures) which have implemented this method, this is
          done by using computerized data on receipts or sales by type
          of product or service to assign and place in the records for
          each unit an industry code, according to a programmed set of
          rules.  Starting with tax year 1981, IRS's SOI programs have
          used largely automated procedures for generating current
          year Soi codes.  Procedures vary by type of return and tax
          year.  For most returns, the automated coding process
          derives the current year SOI code either from the prior year
          SOI code or from the current year revenue processing code.
          Manual coding is used only on an exception basis.
     The following lists the agencies covered in the review and
describes the manner in which these methods of coding are applied
within the various coding systems.
     BEA -- An editor manually assigns the industry codes using the
"top down method." The SIC Division is first determined by aggregating
the sales distributions which are each assigned a three digit Direct
Investment industry classification by the respondent.  Then a more
detailed industry code is assigned based on the subdivision of the
industry division which has the largest percentage of sales.  This
coding procedure is used in coding source documents in Benchmark
Surveys (Forms BE-10 and BE-12) and forms filed for new entities and
major code changes (Forms BE-507 and BE-607).
     BLS -- An initial industry code is manually assigned to each
unit-First entering the Unemployment insurance Employment and Wages
(ES-202) Program based on the principal business activity (as defined
in the SIC Manual) submitted by the employer on an "employer status
determination of liability form." Except for problem cases, which are
individually handled by regional offices or at the national BLS
office, the industry coding is performed at each of the individual
State Employment Security Agencies (SESA's).  In addition, on a 3-year
refiling cycle,
                                  45
codes for existing units are updated through the use of either BLS
Form 3023-A (Industry Classification Statement) and 3023-B (Industry
verification Form) or similar state versions.  The verification form
is currently being used in several States on a trial basis.  After
testing, it is expected that it will be used in place of the
classification statement for most industries in order to reduce
respondent burden and the cost of refiling.  For both of the BLS
forms, there are separate versions for each industry division
(including an "all industry" version).  The information supplied by
the employer on the Industry Classification Statement is manually
coded at the SESA's.  Manual coding of the Industry Verification Form
occurs only when the employer indicates that the current activity for
the unit differs from the form's computer-generated description of the
industry to which the unit was previously coded.
     Census -- This agency uses a combination of the avail able
methods. Codes and descriptions are pretested on report forms wherever
possible and practical.  If information and data are entered on the
report form without change or addition to the pretested material, then
subsequent coding operations are largely within the computer.  if it
is necessary for the respondent to alter or add to the pretested
descriptive material, then verification and review become necessary.
If new codes are assigned, this is done manually, utilizing the
computer assisted method if possible.  Codes assigned manually are
then processed and checked in the computer processing in the same
manner as pretested codes, with final codes based on predetermined
criteria and procedures or on manual override.
     FTC -- Based on the primary business activity and percent
distribution of gross receipts by source, the industry coder manually
enters a Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) industry code at the top of
the Nature of Business Report or Corporate Structure Schedule.
     IRS -- During Revenue Processing industry codes are manually
assigned to sole proprietorships based on the main business activity.
Partnership and corporate returns carry a taxpayer assigned Principal
Business Activity (PBA) code which is keyed in directly from the
schedule during data entry.  Since 1981, SOI industry coding has been
largely automated, with manual coding on an exception basis.   For
sole proprietorships, the current year revenue processing industry
code is accepted as the SOI code if it is a valid industry code, other
than "not allocable." If there is no revenue processing code or an
invalid or "not allocable" code, the SOI code is determined manually.
The automated coding process for partnerships and corporations makes
use of the prior year's SOI and revenue processing industry codes as
well as the current year revenue processing code.  if the current and
prior year revenue processing codes agree, the prior year SOI industry
code is accepted for the current year.  If they differ, the SOI code
for the current year is determined manually.  If prior year codes are
not available, a valid current
                                  46
year revenue processing code is accepted, except for taxpayers in
certain industries and large corporations.
     SSA -- Industrial Classification of SSA's single-unit and multi-
unit employers is a manual operation.  Codes are assigned directly to
the source documents (Forms SS-4 and SSA-5019) based on the principal
activity designated by the employer.
2.    Treatment of Missing Data.
     Each of the systems relies primarily on its own source documents
to supply the level of information necessary to assign a complete
industry code.  However, in those cases where the respondent does not
provide sufficient data for the desired level of coding or fails to
return the form, the agency must resort to other alternatives.  one
route which many of the agencies take is to obtain additional
information on the unit through further contact with the employer.
Another is the use of commercial listings.  A third available is to
reference either prior codes assigned within the same agency or codes
obtained from other Federal systems.
     When no additional information is available for the assignment of
a complete industry code, the agencies resort to a code that
represents the level of information available.  The principal methods
of code assignment to these types of cases are described below, with
examples of the agencies which apply them:
      --  Assignment of "Unclassified" or "unknown" Code.  This is a
          code used by an agency when there is insufficient
          information to determine the industrial activity at any
          level.  Of the agencies studied, all but BEA and FTC use
          such a code.  The assigned code varies between agencies.
          For example, SSA and Census assign "0000" and BLS uses
          "9999." IRS uses "9000" for the "not allocable" code.
      --  Force Coding.  This is a last resort method used to a
          limited extent by the Census Bureau for the elimination of
          incomplete codes within some of their systems by "imputing"
          the industry code.  For example, for tabulation purposes
          under the County Business Patterns Coding System partially
          coded cases may be "force coded" to 4 digit industry codes
          using known distributions of fully coded establishments
          within that industry division or group.  Also, under the COS
          and Directory Unit coding of multi-unit establishments,
          codes  are imputed" for unclassified units based on those
          assigned to other establishments of the same firm.
47
      --  Partial Coding. Except for BLS, BEA and FT, the coding
          systems studied rely on partial coding when there is
          insufficient information to code to full industry detail.  A
          partial code could be any valid 2 or 3 digit SIC filled in
          with O's under Census and SSA coding systems.
     Another form of partial coding, which is utilized by SSA, is
foldback coding.  "Foldback codes" are special 4-digit codes which are
used to consolidate 2 or more SIC codes in related areas where full
detail is neither attainable from the level of information supplied by
the employer, nor is it required for SSA statistical purposes.  When
there is insufficient information to determine the full industry
detail under one of these.groupings, the appropriate "foldback code"
is assigned to avoid additional correspondence.  The main difference
between an SSA partial code and "foldback code" is that the Latter is
not "O" filled (with the exception of special code 0100 which is used
for farming activities).  For example, if a unit is engaged in
landscaping activities, not further described, it is assigned
"foldback code" 0784, instead of partial SEC code 0780.  The
elimination of "O's' in the last 2 positions of the industry code
suppresses any future correspondence with the employer.
     A third method is the use of "not allocable" codes within IRS'
SOI systems.  These codes are assigned when the taxpayer provides
enough information to determine the industry division, but the level
of information is "not allocable" to a specific industry within that
division.
          3.  Data Entry.
     This is the procedure where either the final code is keyed into
the files or where source information is entered for computer coding.
As for entering the codes to the files, this may be done following the
manual coding and quality review operations or during the automated
coding procedures.  The coded information may be keyed from edit
sheets, computer listings or directly from the source documents.
Information on these procedures in the study was very limited.
4.   Quality Assurance procedures.
     Most of the coding systems apply either manual quality control or
computer consistency procedures or both for reviewing accuracy and
validity of assigned industry codes.
     Manual quality control procedures are used in many of the
industry coding systems studied.  During manual coding operations,
coded cases are systematically selected for additional verification
for purposes of controlling coding errors.  In most cases this is a
sample verification.  However, there are situations where a 100
percent review is conducted, either because of the size of the unit,
or because the industry
                                  48
coder is inexperienced, or because the quality control sampling
specifications call for an initial 100 percent review before going to
a sample review.
     For example, in SSA systems peer review of work complete by
experienced classifiers is conducted on a sample basis within the
coding branch along with re-review, by the technicians, of errors
charged before the blocks are returned to the classifiers for
correction.  If the error rate is more than 3 percent the coder's
block will be reviewed 100 percent.  Also, trainees' work is reviewed
100 percent by the technician until the codes reach a required level
of accuracy.  In addition, a weekly audit of approximately 1,000
Single-Unit Employer's (Form SS-4) and 5 Multi-Unit Employers (Form
5019), which have already been subjected to peer review, is conducted
by the Office of Research and Statistics in order to detect
outstanding coding errors and problems in the areas of code
interpretations and procedures.  Another example is the Census
Bureau's business births coding system where the forms are placed in
blocks of 100 and subjected to a 10 percent sample verification.  When
the verifier's code determination differs from the initial code
assignment the case is referred to a lead clerk or a supervisor for a
final decision.  if the coding differences reach more than 2, the
block is subjected to reworking.
     Computer consistency and validity checks are an automated method
of review found in all of the systems studied.  It is primarily used
to check for invalid codes, inconsistencies in coding or continuity of
code changes.  For example, after the codes have been entered in SSA's
single-unit (SU) and multi-unit (MU) EI files, the industry code for
each record is Computer checked against a list of valid industry
codes.  Records with invalid codes ar printed out on an exception
listing.  These listings are then checker against microfilm of the
original source documents for corrections.  Another example of
consistency review would be that done for the economic censuses where
inconsistencies are flagged during computer processing through edit
checks programmed into the system.
     In a sense, IRS's new partly automated SOI coding procedures
could be regarded as incorporating a consistency check.  In this case,
the computer, comparison is between the current and prior year codes,
and a difference indicates the need for manual review and coding of
the sample return.
     The use of computer checks in the BEA system is somewhat
different from the other systems in that the computer actually
generates an industry code using the same procedures as the editor.
It then compares it to the editor's code selection in order to check
for consistency and validity.
H.   Description of Systems Relationships
Existing systems relationships are of considerable importance
for suggesting further systems utilization.  In considering
                                  49
Possible new code sharing arrangements it is useful to know something
about the linkages that already exist among the industry coding
systems that were reviewed by the Working Group.  These are of two
kinds: intra-agency and interagency.  Intra-agency linkages are not in
inhibited by legal restrictions; technical and operational factors
determine their feasibility and desirability.
1.   Intra-agency Linkages
     Census - Most of the Census Bureau systems studied produce
industry codes that feed into the Standard Statistical Establishment
List (SSEL).  The preferred source is the quinquennial economic
censuses; industry codes assigned to establishments responding to
census mail inquiries take precedence because they are based on more
detailed information about the establishments' activities than is
available from any other source.
     For multi-establishment (multi-unit) companies, industry codes
are assigned to new establishments and to existing establishments with
activity changes on the basis of the Company Organization Survey.
This is done annually for the larger multiunit companies and once
between 5-year censuses for the small ones.  Special coding systems
have been established for unclassified or partly classified units that
are added to the SSEL from administrative record sources.  A special
classification form is mailed to these units during economic censuses.
In non-census years, an attempt is made, in connection with the annual
County Business Patterns program, to classify these units based on
name and on listings in commercial business directories.  The business
births coding system and other current sample surveys are additional
sources of industry codes based on more detailed and/or more recent
data.  Within the Census Bureau, the industry classification
information flows in both directions; once in the SSEL, codes are used
to determine eligibility for inclusion in a wide variety of current
statistical programs.
     IRS -- The IRS systems cover three types of business units: sole
proprietorships, Partnerships and corporations.  For each type, there
are separate coding operations for revenue processing (all returns)
and the Statistics of Income program (a sample of returns).  The
linkage consists in the fact that the same source documents are used
in both systems and that the codes assigned in revenue processing are
used indirectly in the Statistics of income industry coding, as
explained in Chapter III.G.
2.   Interagency Linkages
     Interagency linkages are subject to legal restrictions.  in
general, codes residing in files of statistical agencies
cannot be transferred to other agencies for nonstatistical
purposes. There are also severe restrictions on interagency
transfers of industry codes from administrative systems for
                                  50
statistical purposes.  Nevertheless, some transfers are permitted and
do occur.  The more significant ones are listed in Table 3 on page 51.
This table shows that SSA is an important source of both single unit
and multiunit industry codes for the Census Bureau's SSEL, the Federal
Trade Commission (prior to the transfer of the OFR to the Census
Bureau), and some State Employment Security Agencies.  For the
economic censuses, IRS provides the Census Bureau with codes from the
revenue processing Systems for the non mail units, including all
establishments with no paid employees.
     Prior to the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, the Social
Security Administration released employer lists, with industry codes,
to several Federal agencies, in addition to those shown in Table 3,
for statistical purposes.  These lists were usually for selected
industries and, in some cases for samples of employers in these
industries.  At present such releases can be made only to agencies for
which specific provisions have been made in Section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code.
     The transfers from Census to SSA have been allowed ur4der a U.S.
Attorney Generals opinion of January 5, 1953, known to the agencies
involved as the "McGranery Decision," which allows the Census Bureau
to update industry codes for other Federal and State government
statistical agencies for statistical purposes, but only for" those El
numbers whose identities are already known to the agencies receiving
the codes.  Although this opinion has not been rescinded, the last
such transfer occurred following the 1972 Economic Censuses, and at
the time was used only to update industry codes on the SSA Single-unit
EI File.
     A technical problem, as far as inter-system linkages are
concerned, is the fact that in the BLS system, EI numbers are not
available for all States in the central name and Address File.  Other
technical problems are apparent such as the differences between the
use of the establishments as the basic reporting unit (or multi-unit
firms by the Census Bureau, versus the BLS and SSA use of a reporting
unit which sometimes includes more than one establishment.
[GRAPHIC] \SW1151.GIF
                                  53
                              CHAPTER IV
        QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION ON COMPARABILITY AND ACCURACY
A.   Introduction
The discussion of comparability and accuracy of industry
coding so far has been largely in qualitative terms.  Factors which
lead to differences between systems have been identified.  Some of
these factors, such as coverage, definition of units, and
classification principles, depend primarily on the particular purposes
for which each data system has been developed.  Others, such as the
kinds of source data and the procedures used for coding, depend on the
resources available and on the judgments and preferences of system
designers.  Differences also arise from errors in carrying out the
coding procedures.  Several examples of features of different coding
systems have been presented, and the reader, on the basis of these,
may have already begun to form some intuitive judgments as to the
relative accuracy of codes in different systems.
     The purpose of this section is to present some quantitative data
bearing on the comparability and accuracy of industry coding in
different systems.  The data presented come from both published and
unpublished sources, the latter consisting largely of items supplied
to the Industry Coding Working Group by the agencies participating.
Section B.  covers inter-system macro-comparisons, i.e., comparisons
of aggregate data by industry from different systems.  Section C.
presents results from inter-system micro-comparisons, i.e.,
comparisons of industry codes from different systems for identical -
units.  Section D presents information on components of error in
individual systems.
B.   Inter-system Macro-comparisons
     It is fairly routine for agencies to compare aggregate data
for items such as employment, payroll, and receipts, by industry, with
similar data produced by other agencies or other systems within the
agency.  Generally the data sets compared cannot be expected to agree
fully because there are differences in --overage, concepts and
definitions; nevertheless, comparisons are sometimes useful as a means
of detecting gross errors in one or both data sets.  Such comparisons
may be regarded as a rough diagnostic device.  The location and
correction of specific errors require a more detailed examination of
the cells in which large differences occur.
     Observed differences in aggregates do not provide any direct
information about the accuracy of industry codes in the systems
compared; however, differences in industry codes for identical units
may explain some proportion of the differences in the aggregates, and
this has often been found to be so when
                                  54
individual unit comparisons have been made (see Section Ideally, a
useful sequence of investigation would be:
1.   Review descriptive material on the coverage concepts and
     definitions of the data sets compared.
2.   Compare data sets at a broad level, e.g., national totals by SIC
     division or major group.
3.   Where large differences are observed, make comparisons at a lower
     level of aggregation, e.g., by State and industry group or
     industry.
4.   For the cells with large differences, match individual units from
     the two systems and compare the data items and industry codes.
This idealized approach runs into practical difficulties.  Analysis of
results obtained by matching individual units is often technically
difficult and costly, and the ability to match may be limited by
agency confidentiality requirements.
     One example of this general approach is found in a 1961 report
from the Bureau of the Budget.  The 1947 Census of Manufactures
produced employment figures about 7 percent below those of BLS's
Current Employment Statistics.  The Budget Bureau's Division of
Statistical Standards established an interagency working group to
explore the reasons for the difference.  The working group undertook
case studies of how 60 of the largest companies in manufacturing were
reporting employment data to the Census Bureau and BLS.  These studies
eventually led to several clarifications of and changes in the
establishment definition, the treatment of administrative offices and
auxiliary units, and the structure of SIC categories within the
Manufacturing Division.  About 35 of the 60 companies studied agreed
at the time "to report on a uniform basis for the same list of
establishments to all the agencies." The 1954 Census of Manufactures
produced employment figures that differed by only 182,000 (about 1
percent) from those of BLS.  The author of the report took this result
as a demonstration that "the work over the years had not been in vain"
(Bureau of the Budget, 1947).
     Another comparison which led to a matching study involved payroll
statistics from the retail portion of the economic censuses for 1958
and 1963 (Bureau of the Census, 1965b).  The Census data were compared
with data from the Bureau of Employment Security (BES) for 19 States
in which coverage rules in the two systems were believed to be the
same.  The BES totals exceeded those from the Census Bureau by 5.8
percent in 1958 and 7.2 percent in 1963.  This led to a matching study
for the State of Delaware, which is discussed in Section C.
     The Bureau of Economic Analysis made extensive comparisons of
aggregate data on employment and wages by.  industry from several
                                  55
sources in connection with a study for the Department of Labor on the
usefulness of SSA's Continuous Work History Sample (Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 1972).  These comparisons, which involved data from the
Continuous Work History Sample (both the 1 percent and 10 percent
versions), population censuses, the County Business Patterns program,
and the Unemployment Insurance system, are summarized in another BEA
report (1976, Chapter VII, A Comparison of the CWHS with Other Data
Sets).  The observed differences are the result of several different
factors, so it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from the
data about differences in industry coding.  There are very large
differences between systems in the number of persons employed in
service industries.  The authors of the report say that
          CWHS services employment tends to be higher
          because of the inclusion of many public service
          workers (for example, in educational institutions
          or hospitals) who are either classified as
          government workers in the CBP and UI data or are
          excluded (P. 92).
Government establishments are, in fact, excluded from County Business
Patterns data, so the main implication is that the SSA and BLS
systems, both of which include government establishments, may have
assigned different classifications to some of them during the period
covered by these comparisons (mainly 1971 and 1973).
     Other more recent aggregate or macro-comparisons are available in
both published and unpublished form (for examples of published
comparisons, see Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards,
1977a, P. 29, and 1980; Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, 1977; and Harris, 1981), but they do not offer any
additional enlightenment on comparability and accuracy of industry
coding in different systems.
C.   Inter-system Micro-comparisons: General
This section and the two following sections cover the
comparison of industry codes for individual units in different systems
that cover, at least in part, the same business establishments or
enterprises.  Such comparisons may involve two different data bases or
coding systems in the same agency, or they may involve systems in more
than one agency.  Some comparisons occur as a relatively low-cost by-
product of routine processing operations; others -require special
arrangements for matching records from two or more systems.
     Most micro-comparisons require two steps.  The first is a
matching operation to identify records for corresponding units in the
systems compared.  The matching normally Produces a certain proportion
of one-to-one or "perfect" matches, i.e., pairs Of records, one from
each system, which clearly are for the same establishment or other
unit.  .For these units, the second step is
                                  56
a straightforward comparison of classifiers, including SIC codes, and
data items.  There will also usually be cases where the relationships
between units in the two systems are mote complex, e.g., one unit in
system A may correspond to a grouping of two or more units in system
B, etc.  In such cases, a clear interpretation of differences in
industry codes is not always possible.
     The comparison of industry codes must, of course, take into
consideration the inherent differences in the industry coding
principles and procedures used in the systems being compared.  In
particular, if SIC industries are grouped or subdivided in one or both
systems, comparable groupings for the two systems must be established.
     What can be learned from inter-system micro- comparisons of
industry codes? Strictly speaking, the fact that two systems have
assigned different industry codes for the same establishment indicates
only that at least one of the codes is incorrect.  Conclusions as to
the accuracy of either system or their relative accuracy require
either examination of the reasons for differences or an a priori
judgment that one system assigns codes more accurately.  Such a priori
judgments are sometimes justified.  For example industry codes
assigned by IRS in its Statistics of Income Program should, on the
average, be more accurate than those assigned in IRS's revenue
processing operations, because the SOI coders make fuller use of all
information available for classifying each unit.
     When individual differences are examined it is often possible to
determine why they occurred and what the correct code is.  Such
analyses are time-consuming and generally cannot be done on
a large scale. Nevertheless, they can be useful in two ways:
first, to improve inter-system comparability by uniform treatment
of large units, and second, to suggest changes in coding
principles and procedures in either or both systems in order to
improve their accuracy and comparability.
D.   Interagency Comparisons Between Systems
     A very early example (Bureau of the Budget, 1947) is reported
as follows:
          In 1939 the Central Statistical Board made an
          experimental study of 103 largest enterprises
          (10,000 and more employees) , in which the
          industrial classification of each agency (SEC,
          BIR, SSB) was translated into the Standard
          industrial Classification and examined for
          agreement.  Result of examination of the list of
          103 enterprises: 76 were listed by 3 agencies, 26
          by 2, and 1  by 1 agency.  Out of 76 listings by 3
          agencies, 70 cases were in complete agreement and
          6 cases in disagreement.  Of the 26 listings by 2
          agencies, 20 cases agreed and 6 disagreed.
                                  5 7
     The Bureau of the Census (1951) describes a special study carried
out in connection with the reconciliation of codes assigned in the
1947 Census of Manufactures with those in the SSA (then known as OASI)
system.  This study covered a sample of 600 establishments classified
as manufacturing by Census and non-manufacturing by SSA, or vice
versa.  it was found impossible in most cases to reach agreement on
the proper classification by examining the information on the two
agencies' source documents.  Therefore, new forms were sent to each
establishment to obtain current data.  When the forms were returned,
each establishment was classified independently as manufacturing or
nonmanufacturing by both agencies.  The results are shown in Table 4.
Considering that the sample cases were generally on the borderline
between manufacturing and nonmanufacturing, there was relatively good
agreement.  The report takes these results as evidence that
differences in source documents can often lead to assignment of
different codes.
     Table 4. Results of independent Coding of Establishments by
     Census and SSA
          Outcome                       Number of Establishments
Total in sample......................        600
Out of business since 1947...........        91
Insufficient information.............        51
Balance..............................        458
     Identical OASI-Census
          classification.............        404
     Different Census-OASI classification,
          the Census or OASI classi-
          fication being preliminary
          subject to change pending
          additional information......       21
     Census-OASI classification
          difference..................       33
     Another Bureau of the Census (1965a) study provides a comparison
of industry codes assigned to a sample of about 2,000 employed
persons, based on information reported by or for them in the 1960
Population Census, with industry codes assigned to their employers by
the SSA.  Matching was based on employer names and addresses reported
in the Census. Results are reported for 14 industry categories
corresponding, for the most part, to SIC divisions.  Of the matched
cases with industry codes, about 15.1 percent (weighted estimate) were
classified by SSA and Census in different categories.  The category
most clearly prone to error was wholesale trade, for which the Census
estimate (based only on
                                  58
matched cases) was 43 percent below the SSA estimate., and the
estimated index of inconsistency (a measure of variability) was 53. It
is doubtful that the results of this Employer Record Check by
themselves could be used to reach any firm conclusions about which
system contained more accurate classifications.  The SSA's industry
codes come from several different sources; it would have been of some
interest to tabulate the observed differences and rates separately for
each major source.  Both the Census and the SSA source documents had
inquiries specifically designed to distinguish wholesale and retail
trade.  However, the Census inquiry assumes that the respondent knows
the difference between wholesale and retail trade, as defined in the
SIC, whereas the SSA source document inquiries do not.
     Still another Census Bureau (1965b) study was undertaken because
of differences in aggregate payroll figures for retail trade from the
1958 Economic Censuses and the current statistics from the Bureau of
Employment Security (BES).  Individual records for the State of
Delaware from the two systems were matched.  A sample of about 100
retail establishments from the 1963 Retail Census was matched against
the full BES file, and about 200 sample cases from the BES retail file
were matched against the Census.  Matching in each direction required
some grouping of census establishments from the same company in order
to conform to the BES reporting format.  All matched cases with
differences in SIC classification were reviewed jointly by Census and
BES personnel, using source documents.  If information from the two
sources was contradictory, telephone calls were made to establish the
correct SIC classification.
     Table 5, taken directly from the Census Bureaus report (1965b),
shows the reasons for those cases in which it was determined that an
establishment or reporting unit was incorrectly included in or
excluded from the Delaware retail universe by one of the two agencies.
The table shows that all of the BES errors and nearly two-thirds of
the Census errors (in terms of payroll) resulted from classifying a
unit in the wrong SIC division.  The estimated net overstatement of
retail payroll resulting from incorrect classification by BES was
about 7.6 percent, and the net understatement by Census was about 1.6
percent.  Among the units classified in retail trade by both Census
and BES, about 2 percent of payroll was accounted for by units
classified in different major groups within retail trade.  The results
pointed clearly to SIC classification differences as an important
factor leading to differences in aggregate data.from the two sources.
     As the Census Bureau started to make greater use of
administrative records in the economic censuses during the 1950's and
1960's, various studies were carried out to evaluate the quality of
the administrative record data.  One such study (Bureau of the Census,
1968) compared final industry codes for single-unit establishments in
the 1963 Economic Censuses with mailing list codes obtained from SSA.
The latter codes had been
                                  59
[GRAPHIC] \SW1159.GIF
                                  60
[GRAPHIC] \SW1160.GIF
                                  61
derived by SSA in part from the 1958 Economic Censuses and in part
(primarily for "births" after 1958) directly from employers from the
SS-4 (Application for Employer Identification Number) or a followup
inquiry.
     Table 6 shows the main results of this comparison.  Of the
1,958,000 census mail cases matched to the SSA single-unit employer
file, 279,000, or about 14 percent, had not been classified to the 4-
digit SIC level by SSA of the remainder, 83.0 percent were given a
final census code the same as that in the SSA file.  Another 11.5
percent were assigned to the same division; for the remaining 5.5
percent there was not agreement at any level of detail.
     Other results showed that SSA-based mailing list codes were
changed at almost the same rate whether they were based on the 1958
Economic Censuses (15 percent) or on information obtained by SSA
directly from employers (18 percent).  The implications of this
finding are not clear, because changes resulting from real activity
shifts are confounded with those resulting from incorrect
classification.  However, on a priori grounds, one would expect fewer
differences resulting from real activity shifts in the latter group.
Of the 279,000 employers not classified by SSA to the digit level,
205,000 were in retail trade, and 165,000 of these (over half of the
total) were in eating and drinking places.
     In a study following the 1967 Economic Censuses (Bureau of the
Census, 1969), final economic censuses SIC codes were compared with
codes assigned by IRS in revenue processing.  This study was based on
a sample of 22,443 retail, single-unit sole proprietorships with
employees and for which the IRS principal industrial activity (PIA)
codes were available.  Presumably this group was selected to avoid
multi-unit matching problems and because the Census and PIA codes for
sole proprietors are more directly comparable than they are for some
other SIC divisions.  Also, the smaller units are of greatest interest
because there is a greater potential for relying entirely on tax
returns to obtain economic census data for these units.
     Results of the comparison were shown for 37 industries and
industry groups in retail trade for which a direct comparison of
census and PIA codes was possible.  For the 37 groups based on census
SIC codes, it was found that only 6 groups had the same PIA code for
more than 80 percent of the establishments.  There were 16 groups that
had different codes for more than half of the establishments.
Distributions of the number of establishments and value of sales by
industry group showed that there would have been substantial
3ifferences in data by industry had the PIA codes been used in place
of the census SIC codes for these establishments.
     In this instance, it seems reasonable to assume that the census
SIC codes were generally more accurate than the PIA codes,
                                 -62-
Table 6.  Results of Comparison Between Final Industry Codes and
        SSA-Based Mailing List Codes:    1963 Economic Censuses
                                        Establishments
                                                  Percent of matched
  Result of comparisons  Number    Percent of     classified to
                         (000)      total         4-digit
Total single-unit estab-
lishments in Censuses... 2,117     100.0               ---
Not matched to SSA......   159       7.5               ---
Matched to SSA.......... 1,958      92.5               ---
 Not classified to 4-
   digit level by SSA...   279      13.2               ---
 Classified to 4-digit
  level by SSA.......... 1,679      79.3               100.0
  Same 4-digit code..... 1,393      65.8                83.0
  Same 3-digit, differ-
     ent 4-digit........    67       3.1                 4.0
  Same 2 digit, differ-
     ent 3-digit........    70       3.3                 4.1
  Same SIC division,
    different 2-digit...    57       2.7                 3.4
  In scope of Economic
    Censuses, different
    division............    78       3.7                 4.6
  Out of scope..........    15       0.7                 0.9
                                  63
since the former were based on considerably more detailed .information
about each establishment's sales by merchandise line.  This assumption
is supported by the fact that PIA codes were more common in some of
the more general and "catch-all" categories, such as hardware stores,
grocery stores, miscellaneous food stores, and miscellaneous retail
stores, not elsewhere classified.  The last two probably represent a
misuse by IRS of these categories, which are intended to be used for
clearly defined activities which do not fit into any homogeneous
grouping within the SIC major group.
     Recently, the Statistics of Income Division of IRS and the Office
of Research and Statistics Of SSA have been undertaking joint studies
with a view toward possible reduction of the overall volume of their
coding operations through code sharing.  One of these studies
(Internal Revenue Service, 1982) compared industry codes assigned to a
small sample of sole proprietorships reported on Form 1040 Schedules C
and P for 1978 with SSA codes for those that could be matched in the
SSA single-unit employer file.  The assignment of codes to these cases
by IRS was done using standard Statistics of Income procedures, i.e.,
making use of all relevant information on the Schedule C or F.  For
149 cases for which the IRS and SSA industry codes could be compared,
the results were as follows:
Exact match (at the finest level of detail possible
  considering differences in the coding systems)..........        87
Partial match (matching on at least the first digit,
  but not An exact match).................................        15
No match (different first digits).........................        47
                                                                 ----
     Total                                                       149
This was a small stratified probability sample of Schedules C and E,
and the results were not weighted to reflect the different sampling
fractions used.  Even so, it is probably safe to conclude that there
is at present only limited comparability between the codes for sole
proprietorships in the IRS and SSA systems.  One can only speculate
about the relative accuracy of classification in these systems.  in
general, the SSA codes are based on greater detail, but the
information used by the IRS for coding is more recent.
E.   Intra-agency Comparisons Between Systems
     Prior to the development of the SSEL, industry classification
of establishments by the Census Bureau in economic censuses and
current surveys was less fully coordinated than it is now.  One
example of this is provided by a study (Bureau of the Census,
                                  64
1951) in which industry codes for 500 single-unit establishments from
the 1949 Annual Survey of Manufactures were compared with codes
assigned to the same units in the 1947 Census, of Manufactures.  For
the, 57 cases (11.4 percent) with code differences, the census and
survey schedules were analyzed to discover the reasons for the
differences.  The results are shown in Table 7.
        Table 7.  An Analysis Of 1947-1949 Code Changes for 500
              Single-Unit Establishments in Manufacturing
                              Number of      Percent of
     Item                      estab-        all cases      Percent of
                              lishments      examined     code changes
Total number of schedules
   examined.................       500       100.0          xxx
Total code changes, 1947
 to 1949....................       57a       11.4          xxx
     Classified cases.......       52         10.4          100.0
          Response differences     33          6.6           63.5
          Coding differences        4          0.8            7.7
     Activity changes 1947-1949    14          2.8           26.9
     Death-birth............        1          0.2            1.8
  Unclassified cases                5          1.0           xxx
     a Does not include possible code changes for establishments
     (estimated 7 percent of total) reporting product combinations
     affecting their industry classification.
     The striking finding is that, less than one-third of the apparent
changes turned out to be real.  Most of the others could be accounted
for by the use of different source documents and product categories,
and by coding errors.
     A more comprehensive analysis of the 30,000 "large"
establishments in the 1949 Annual Survey of Manufactures sample showed
that real changes in primary activity at the 4-digit SIC level
occurred for only 995,,or 3.3 percent.  However, there were an
estimated 2,000 to 3,000 additional cases for which "...it.was found
that what appeared to be reported changes  in primary activity were
actually response differences relating to the same, primary activity
in both 1947 and 1949."
     Another report from Census Bureau (1963) describes an intensive
analysis of differences between the 1958 Census of Retail Trade and
the monthly retail trade sample survey covering the same period.
Total retail sales from the two sources showed a net difference of
less than 0.5 percent; however, differences
for some kinds,of business were considerably greater (e.g., 10.0
percent for gasoline service stations) and the analysis showed that
there were significant compensating differences with respect to
coverage, classification and reported sales.
     Classification differences were of two types: between SIC
division and within the retail division.  In the first instance,
establishments were classified as in retail in the census and not in
retail in the current survey, or vice versa.  Data on the size of
these differences, for the kinds of business most affected, are shown
in Table 8.
     For the most part, these differences involved shifts between
retail and wholesale trade.  However, in the case of milk distributors
(part of the category "nonstore retailers") and bakeries, the shifts
were largely between retail trade and manufacturing.
     Table 9 shows classification differences by major kind of
business for establishments classified as retail in both the census
and the current survey.  (As in Table 8, the large multi-unit retail
firms were excluded.) The largest relative net shift was for nonstore
retailers; this category was used to a much larger extent in the
Census than in the current survey.  The second largest relative net
shift was for general merchandise stores.
     Examination of similar data for 30 detailed kinds of business
classes showed indexes of gross shift of 0.30 or more for the
following: hardware stores; general merchandise groups; variety
stores; meat markets; tire, battery, and accessory stores; family
clothing stores; household appliance stores; drinking places; and
nonstore retailers.  A shift between meat markets and grocery stores
occurred because of a difference in definition.  The census classified
any store having 50 percent more of its sales in meats as a meat
market, whereas the cutoff for the current survey was set at 80
percent.  In the case of drinking places the shift was primarily
between eating places and drinking places.  The BLS and SSA systems
combine these two categories because of the difficulty in
distinguishing between them.
     The Statistics of Income Division (formerly statistics Division)
of the Internal Revenue Service has made several studies comparing
industry codes contained in the IRS master files (those assigned in
revenue processing) for all business returns with those assigned in
the Statistics of income program to businesses included in the soi
samples for sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations
(Internal Revenue Service, 1973, 1974; Powell and Stubbs, 1981).
     In general, the SOI codes are believed to be more accurate than
the master file codes, since the SOI industry codes make fuller use of
all relevant information on the returns And resort
                                  66
Table 8.  indexes of Shift for in Scope and Out of Scope
of Retail Trade by Kind of Business
                                                  Index of Shift
     Kind of Business                             Gross       Net
United States, total..........................     0.07      -.02
Lumber, building, hardware-and
     farm equipment...........................      .17      -.01
     Lumber yards.............................      .12      -.05
     Hardware stores..........................      .07      -.07
Retail bakeries...............................      .29      -.17
Tire, battery and accessory stores............      .22      -.13
Gasoline service stations.....................      .07      -.03
Household appliance stores....................      .23       .10
Other retail stores...........................      .22      -.08
Nonstore retailers............................      .35      -.03
Note:     These indexes are defined as follows: Index of gross shift
          (Ai + Bi) / 1/2 (Xi + Yi); index of net shift (Ai -
          Bi) / 1/2 (Xi + Yi) where
          Xi = the census total for kind of business "i"
          Yi = the current survey total for kind of business "i"
          Ai = sales of establishments in scope of census and out
          of,scope of current survey
          Bi = sales of establishments in scope of current survey and
          out of scope of census
                                  67
[GRAPHIC] \SW1167.GIF
                                  68
to commercial directories in some cases.  For partnerships and
corporations, the master file codes are usually those entered by
taxpayers.
     Table 10 shows results, at the SIC division level, from two
studies that compared SOI an master file codes.  The measures shown
are base] only on those cases for which a valid industry code, other
than not allocable by SIC division, was assigned in both systems.
There were no valid industry codes in the master file for 20.1 percent
of the sole proprietorships and 9.1 percent of the partnerships.  The
measures shown in Table 8 are based on unweighted tabulations of SOI
sample cases; hence, the larger units are underrepresented.
     Based on Table 10, it can be observed that:
     -- There are large Differences between the..two systems, and the
large indexes of net shifts for some SIC divisions show that these
differences do not always tend to balance out.  It is difficult to
agree with the statement in one of the IRS reports that "on a broad
basis, the two coding systems yielded fairly comparable results"
(internal Revenue Service, 1973).  Considering that both systems used
the same source documents, the differences might be considered
surprisingly large.
     -- The master file codes for partnerships were largely those
supplied by the taxpayers,, whereas for the sole proprietorships the
codes were derived by tax examiners from the activity descriptions on
the returns.  No firm conclusions about the relative accuracy and
reliability of these two coding procedures can be drawn from these
data; however, there is certainly no clear evidence that self-coding
produces worse results.  it anything, the data point to the opposite
conclusion.
     - As noted already in several other studies, the differences
associated with,wholesale trade are especially,large.
     Further examination of the detailed results shows that the
largest indexes of net shift between SIC divisions were accounted for
primarily by:
     -- Sole proprietorships classified in agriculture in the
master file and in wholesale trade or services in the SOI coding.
     --   Sole proprietorships classified in retail trade in the
master file and in wholesale trade in the SOI coding.
     --   Partnerships classified in transportation and public
utilities in the master file and in services in the SOI coding.
                                  69
[GRAPHIC] \SW1169.GIF
                                  70
     The results shown in Table 10 were based only on cases for which
a return was classified in different SIC divisions in the two systems.
Table 11 shows, by SIC division, the percent of cases classified
differently in the two systems at the.  division, major industry (two-
digit), and industry group (three-digit) levels. Unlike Table 10, this
table includes those SOI sample returns for which there was no valid
industry code in the master file. As a, result, the division level,
percents for sole proprietorships and partnerships in Table 11 are
lower than those in Table 10.
     By definition, the percent agreement must decrease or remain the
same as the level of detail increases from division to major industry
to industry group.  Looking at how much the percent,of agreement drops
off from one level to the next is a useful way of finding out where
special coding problems exist.  Two examples of, this are:
     -- For partnerships in agriculture, forestry and fishing,
agreement dross off from 86.9 percent at the major industry level to
61.9 percent at the industry group level.  This was,primarily the
result of returns classified as farms in both systems but classified
in different farm types (field crop; fruit, tree nut, and vegetable;
livestock; animal specialty; and other).
     -- For sole proprietorships in finance, insurance, and real
estate, agreement drops off from 67.1 percent at the major industry
level to 40.2 percent at the industry group level.  This resulted
primarily from a group of returns classified in real estate in both
systems, but classified differently to the seven industry groups used
within the major industry.
     Table 12 shows data on the extent of agreement at the major
industry level between master file and SOI industry codes for
corporations in tax years 1972 and 1973, by SIC division.  The percent
agreement was lower in 1973 in all divisions except transportation and
public utilities.  For four divisions agriculture, Forestry, and
fishing; construction; wholesale and retail trade,; and finance,
insurance, and real estate--the percent agreement was substantially
lower in 1973.  The probable explanation for these results is that the
1972 revision of the SIC was first implemented by IRS for tax year
1973.  The revision required several changes in the list of activities
and codes provided to taxpayers for self-coding on their returns.  in
all probability, a substantial proportion of taxpayers simply copied
their industry codes from their previous year's return without
referring to the instructions to see whether the code was still
appropriate.   This is borne out by a tabulation of the master
file codes for 1973 showing that no fewer than 46.3 percent of
the 4-digit industry codes in the Business, Master File were
invalid (Internal Revenue Service, 1975b).
                                  71
[GRAPHIC] \SW1171.GIF
                                  72
    Table 12. Agreement of IRS Master File Codes with SOI Codes at
     Major Industry Level for Corporation: Tax Years 1972 and 1973
                                                  Percent agreement
   SIC Division                                    with SOI Codes
                                                  1972      1973
 Agriculture, forestry, fishing................   78.3      29.5
 Mining........................................   87.7      86.2
 Construction...................................  89.2      52.1
 Manufacturing..................................  72.8      72.3
 Transportation, public utilities...............  70.6      75.7
 Wholesale and retail trade.....................  75.4      41.0
 Finance, insurance, real estate................  75.8      64.7
 Services.......................................  71.6      70.1
     Source:   1972 data--Powell and Stubbs, 1981
               1973 data--Internal Revenue Service, 1975a
F.   Data on Industry Coding Error in Individual Systems
     Director or indirect evidence about the level of industry coding
error in individual systems is available from several sources, such as
quality control records, tabulations showing the number of units not
classified or only partially classified by industry, and special
studies to measure selected components of error.  Available data are
presented in this section in the following sequence: errors of
nonresponse leading to incomplete classification; response errors,
i.e., those occurring in connection with manual coding or data entry;
and general information not restricted to specific components of
error.
     1. Errors of Nonresponse
     There are various methods of dealing with incomplete data for
industry classification. The evidence at hand on the results of these
effort for different systems is not as complete and uniform as might
be wished; however, a reasonably good picture can be had from various
sources, mostly published (Internal Revenue Service, 1984).  An
agency-by-agency presentation of available data follows:
     Census -- The most significant nonresponse problem for the Census
Bureau is that connected with new or re-activated establishments
(births).  For single-unit enterprises, information about new units is
received primarily for IRS and SSA.
                                  73
Significant proportions of these units are unclassified or only
partially classified by four-digit industry.  The latter may occur
because the source agency system groups some industries, because the
information on the source document is incomplete; or, especially in
the case of IRS, because an invalid code has been assigned.
     Before each quinquennial round of economic censuses, special
efforts are made to reduce the number of unclassified units in the
SSEL, in order to ensure that units within the scope of the economic
censuses are included and that those meeting criteria for inclusion in
the mail portion of the censuses ace sent the appropriate types of
questionnaires.  As a result, the number of unclassified units in the
SSEL tends to show a cyclical variation, rising to its highest point
between each round of economic censuses.
     For 1979 (two years after the 1977 Economic Censuses) ,
approximately 220,000 or 4.2 percent of the active establishments in
the SSEL were unclassified; however these establishments accounted for
only about 0.6 percent of total employment (Bureau of the Census,
1982a).  All of the unclassified establishments were single units.
For new establishments in multi-unit enterprises, if the information
reported in the Company Organization Survey is not enough to assign an
industry classification, codes are assigned either by making
additional contacts or by imputation based on the pattern of activity
for other establishments operated by the same company.
     The published 1977 County Business Patterns (Bureau of the
Census, 1981) report shows 60,613 or 1.4 percent of all establishments
as completely unclassified; however, these accounted for only about
0.1 percent of total employment.  The corresponding published figures
for 1979 were 219,736 establishments (4-8 percent of the total)
accounting for 0.7 percent of employment.
     BEA - According to the description of the classification system
used for the agency's Direct investment Statistics file (prepared for
the Industry Coding Working Group), all units are fully classified,
since they are required by law to report sales distributions.
     BLS - No quantitative data were available on the extent of
incomplete industry classification in the agency's ES-202
(Unemployment Insurance Employment and Wages Program) Report file.
According to the systems description prepared for the Industry Coding
Working Group, the State Employment Security Agencies, which are
responsible for the industry coding, are expected to deal with
incompleted data as follows.
     "If there is incomplete information to assign a SIC code,
     either a BLS-3023 form (for new accounts) is sent to the
     employer or the
                                  74
     employer contacted by telephone to obtain the needed
     information.  In the interim, the establishment is put in an
     unclassified 9999 group.
Change to a specific code is made as soon as possible, usually by the
next quarter."
     FTC - According to the systems description for Quarterly
Financial Report (QFR) industry coding, there is no incomplete
classification.  Over 99 percent of the units are classified by
reference to the source documents or commercial lists. The remainder
are classified by contacting respondents or, very infrequently, by
adopting the industry code on the list provided by IRS for use as a
sampling frame.
     Parenthetically, it can be observed that industry classification
errors by IRS could have resulted in coverage errors for the QFR
program, since the sampling frame provided by IRS included only
corporations classified in the 4 SIC divisions within the scope of the
OPR program.  This coverage problem is likely to be less serious in
the future since the QFR program was transferred to the Census Bureau
late in 1982, and it will be possible to use the SSEL as a sampling
frame.
     IRS - The extent of incomplete classification in the SOI (sample-
based) files can be determined from publications.  Table 13 shows
relevant data for corporations (1979) and sole proprietorships (1977).
There are very few unclassified returns.  Partial classification is
more common for sole proprietorships than for corporations, especially
when it is taken into account that the figures for corporations are an
overstatement, as explained in the footnote to Table 13.
     The 1979 data for partnerships, in striking contrast to those for
corporations and sole proprietorships, show that the proportion of
unclassified and partially classified cases combined is somewhat less
than 0.1 percent.
     Current data are not available on incomplete classification OE
businesses included in the ERS individual and business master files.
However, in all likelihood the proportions unclassified and partially
classified are considerably higher than in the SOI files.  It is
known, as stated earlier in this parts, that.for tax year 1969 there
were no valid industry codes in the master file for 20.1 percent of
the sole proprietors, and that for tax year 1971 there were no valid
industry codes for 9.1 percent of the partnerships.  These figures
include both returns that were completely unclassified by industry and
those that were assigned invalid codes.  modes for "not allocable"
within SIC, division are not used in industry coding for the master
files.
                                  75
Table 13.  IRS Statistics of Income Program.  Number of incompletely
Classified Returns by Industry Division and
Type of Organization
     Type of organization and           Percent of all returns for
     industry classification            this type of organization
     CORPORATIONS (1979)
Partially classified 1/.................          1.7
     Manufacturing, miscellaneous and
     not allocable 1/...................          0.5
     Wholesale, miscellaneous and not
     allocable 1/.......................          1.1
     Wholesale and retail,
     not allocable......................          0.1
     Unclassified.......................          0.15
     SOLE PROPRIETORSHIPS (1977)
Partially classified....................          3.3
     Farms, not allocable...............          1.3
     Construction, not allocable........          0.5
     Manufacturing, not allocable.......            *
     Wholesale, not allocable...........          0.4
     Retail, not allocable..............          0.3
     Wholesale and retail,
     not allocable......................          0.8
Unclassified............................          0.3
*    Less than 0.05 percent.
1/   The figures for these categories are overstated, since they
     include some fully classified returns in SIC major groups 39
     (miscellaneous manufacturing industries) and industry groups 509
     (miscellaneous durable goods) and 519.  (miscellaneous nondurable
     goods).
                                  76
     Further evidence on the trend in the proporation of unclassified
sole proprietors - is found in an article by Levine (1980) - The SSA,
as part of its Continuous Work History Sample (CWHS) system, maintains
a longitudinal one-percent sample file of self-employed workers with
data on their earnings.  The percent of workers unclassified by
industry in this file averaged 4.9 from 1960 to 1969; however, in the
following 6 years (1970 to 1975) it averaged 14.6, with a high of 21.3
percent in 1975.  Levine explains this increase as follows:
     "...before 1968 SSA received the schedule SE's from IRS and
     assembled the file as a routine part of CWHS processing.
     Subsequent to 1968, however, IRS began to transmit the SE
     data on magnetic tape and problem resolution was difficult
     or impossible."
By taking advantage of the longitudinal nature of the file for
imputation, SSA was able to reduce the final percents of unclassified
cases considerably.
     SSA -- According to the system description prepared for the
industry Coding Working Group, about 7.5 percent of the total records
in the single-unit employer identification file as of December 1979
were completely unclassified.  No data were given on the proportion of
partially classified units, nor was a separate figure available for
active employers.  There was no corresponding figure available or
reporting units in the multiunit employer identification file.
     Data from a matching operation following the 1963 Economic
Censuses presented earlier in this,part (Table 6) showed that 279,000
Out of 1,958,000 establishments (14.2 percent) included-in the
censuses and matched to SSA records had not been fully classified,
i.e., to the four-digit level, by SSA.
     Finally, data from the CWHS (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1976)
show that only 1.2 percent of the wage and salary workers in the one-
percent sample were unclassified by industry in the final version of
the file for the first quarter of 1972.  This suggests that the 7.5
percent of the establishments that were unclassified at the end of
1979 were small and/or inactive, although some of the difference could
be accounted for by a larger proportion of unclassified employers
among those added to the system since 1972.
     2.   Response Error
     There have been a few studies in which industry codes initially
assigned have been checked on the basis of additional information
obtained from respondents.  "Reinterview" studies of this kind may
provide estimates of response bias, response variance, or some
combination of these two components of error.
All such studies located for use in this report were conducted by the
Census Bureau.
                                  77
     In 1948, the Census Bureau (1951) conducted a "retail trade
industry code recheck." A sample of 535 retail trade establishments
from the monthly survey were reinterviewed after an interval of about
two months.  Somewhat more detailed information was obtained oh each
establishment's sales by merchandise line. In particular, the recheck
obtained percent of sales for each of our principal merchandise lines,
whereas the initial interview only called for a listing, in order of
importance, of the three principal merchandise lines.  Four-digit (and
in a few industries more detailed) SIC codes were assigned on the
basis of recheck data without reference to the original questionnaires
and codes.
     Code differences were observed for 98 establishments, 18 percent
of the total included in the recheck.  Results of an analysis of the
reasons for difference are shown in Table 14.  About two-thirds
resulted from differences in the information in the original and
recheck questionnaires, presumably resulting from the more detailed
data requirements in the latter.  It was further stated that commodity
breakdowns with percentages were "helpful or necessary for proper ...
coding" in 22 of the 98 cases with differences.
Table 14.  Reasons for industry Code Differences Between
Initial and Recheck Surveys: Retail Trade Surveys, 1948
                                                       Percent of
     Reason attributed for difference        No. of      total
                                             cases     differences
1.  Informational differences.............   67        68
2.   Coding differences (same information)   25        26
3.   MiscelLaneous problems...............    6         6
                         Total............   98        100
     source: Bureau of the Census, 1951.
     The evaluation of industry classification in the  Employer Record
Check of the 1960 Population Census (described earlier in this
section) was carried out by comparing industry codes of employed
persons based on information reported in the Census with industry
codes for their employers available in SSA files.  A second Employer
Record Check was carried out following the 1970 Census of Population,
using a different procedure (Bureau of the Census, 1977a).  Employers
of the sample of 6,245 persons included in the study were asked to
provide information about their establishment's principal activities,
products and services; and industry codes based on this information
were
                                  78
compared with those assigned to the same persons from information
reported by or for them in the Population Census.
     Table 15 shows the indexes of inconsistency by "major industry"
(roughly equivalent to SIC division) from the 1960 and 1970 Employer
Record Checks.  Clearly wholesale,trade was subject to large response
error in both censuses.  As stated in the 1970 report:
          "This industry has classification problems in two
          directions.  in some cases there is confusion as
          to whether the case should be manufacturing or
          wholesale trade.  In other cases the confusion is
          between wholesale and retail trade." (Bureau of
          the Census, 1977a, p.4)
     Table 15 also shows that the indexes of inconsistency by industry
were lower in 1970 than in 1960.  Possible reasons for this change are
not discussed directly in.  the Census Bureau's report, except for a
brief statement in the "Highlights' section as follows:
          "On the whole, the reporting of occupation in the
          1970 census was no better nor worse than the
          reporting in the 1960 census.  There did appear to
          be some improvement in the reporting of industry."
The hypothesis of better "reporting" in 1970 does not seem very
tenable, as the industry inquiries in the two censuses, were nearly
identical, and the collection procedures were similar, although self-
enumeration was used somewhat more in 1970.
     More likely, the difference resulted from changes in the coding
and related Processing procedures between 1960 and 1970, or from
differences in the procedures used in the record check studies, or
both.  Detailed information on differences in processing procedures in
the 1960 and 1970 censuses is not available in published form;
however, significant changes could have occurred in the training of
coders; the quality and coverage of reference materials, such as
company name lists, available to coders; the effectiveness of quality
control procedures; and the computer edits used to eliminate.
impossible or unlikely industry codes.  The basic difference in the
record check procedures was the collection of the source data for
industry classification directly from employers in 1970, as opposed to
the use of SSA industry codes in 1960.  It is not possible to say with
confidence which of these methods provides a better standard for
evaluation of industry codes assigned in the Census; however there are
at least two points that would appear to favor the direct approach:
                                  79
[GRAPHIC] \SW1179.GIF
                                  80
     (1)  As discussed earlier in this report, the updating of ssa's
codes to reflect activity changes is incomplete and done with
considerable time lag.  Thus the direct approach provides more current
information for classifying by industry.
     (2)  The direct approach includes collection of data on each
sample person's occupation, which may sometimes be helpful in
determining the correct industry.
If, in fact, the 1970 recheck codes were more accurate than those used
in 1960, the higher.  indexes of inconsistency observed in 1960 may
have resulted, in part, from errors in the recheck codes.
     Several evaluation studies conducted in connection with the 1977
economic censuses provide information about the quality of industry
codes obtained by the Census Bureau from administrative record
sources (Bailar and Kallek, 1980).  These studies primarily covered
three types of establishments:
     (1)  Those classified on the basis of administrative records as
being outside the scope of the economic censuses.
     (2)  Those within scope, but designated as nonemployers and
therefore excluded from the mail portion of the census.  For the most
part, data for these establishments were obtained from tax returns.
     (3   Those within scope and having employment, but with
employment below designated cutoffs that varied by industry.  Only
a.sample of these establishments was included in the mail portion of
the census.
The technique used in each of these studies was to mail economic
census questionnaires to a sample of units in the group. The returned
questionnaires were used to evaluate the accuracy of census
information, including industry codes, that was normally being derived
from administrative record sources.  Indirectly, therefore, these
studies provide information on the quality of industry codes in the
IRS and SSA systems; however the emphasis in the reports of the
studies is on the accuracy of economic census results, regardless of
their source.
     A recent report (Hanczaryk and Sullivan, 1980) studies active
establishments with employees included in the SSEL but refined as
being out of scope of the economic censuses.  The study universe
comprised about 558,000 establishments.  Of these about 77  percent
were out of scope because they were classified in SIC industries not
included in the economic censuses.  Most of the remainder were
government organizations, and a few represented units located abroad
or in U.S.  territories and possessions.  A sample was selected from
this population and copies of the Economic Censuses General Schedule
(NC-X4) were mailed to 5,505 units that were not clearly out of scope.
                                  81
     The returns were classified by industry, and it was then possible
to estimate that about 17,200 establishments in the study population
were actually in the scope of the economic censuses. This was 3.1
percent of the establishments classified as out of scope, and they
accounted for 0.4 percent of total employees and 0.3 percent of
payroll for this group.  If these establishments had been included in
the censuses, census totals would have been increased by 0.5 percent
for number of establishments and 0.2 percent for number of employees
and total payroll.
     Three other evaluation studies were reported by King and Ricketts
(1980).  The first two were based on mailings of census questionnaires
to samples of nonemployers and "employers below cutoff" classified in
the retail trade and service divisions on the basis of administrative
record sources.  The samples were approximately 10,000 nonemployers
and 103,000 employers.
     Table 16 shows the results of comparing SIC classifications based
on census questionnaires with those based on administrative records
for the same establishments in these two studies.  The percent of
agreement was higher for service industries than for retail trade in
both studies.  Agreement rates for employers below cutoff were
considerably better than for nonemployers.  Administrative codes for
nonemployers are primarily those supplied by IRS, whereas for
employers most of the codes come from SSA or from internal Census
Bureau programs.
Table 16.  Comparison of SIC Codes Based on Census Questionnaires with
those Based on Administrative Records: 1977 SIC Censuses
                                   Percent agreement at 2/
Type of establishment         Division  2-digit   3-digit   4-digit
and SIC division 1/           level     level     level     level
Nonemployers
     Retail trade.........    69.8      58.0      46.7      NA
     Service..............    79.1      70.0      NA        NA
     Employers below cutoff
     Retail trade.........    95.8      89.6      85.0      81.3
     Service..............    97.4      96.1      94.1      94.1
NA - Not available
1/ - Division per administrative record code.
2/ - Weighted to reflect varying sampling rates used.
Source:   King and Ricketts, 1980.
     The third study reported by King and Ricketts (1980) was
a study of nonemployers administratively classified in construction.
Census questionnaires were mailed to 2,610 cases selected from this
population.  The relevant results from this study, some of which are
shown in Table 17, are presented somewhat
                                  82
[GRAPHIC] \SW1182.GIF
                                  83
differently; they show the net effects of classification changes on
the totals by major industry.  Overall, there was a net reduction of
12 percent in the number of nonemployer establishments in
construction.  About half of this resulted from the removal, of
duplicate listings from the census lists, but the remainder (net) was
the result of changes in industry classification.
     Finally, King and Ricketts report on a similar study of employers
in construction who did not return the census mail questionnaires.
Data were collected for a sample of this group by telephone.  The
results were analyzed in the same way as those from the other
construction study.  The relative net change in total number of
employers, including respondents, was minus one percent, and the
relative net changes by major industry, as might be expected, were
considerably smaller than those for nonemployers.
     3.   Processing Error
     The systems descriptions prepared for the Industry Coding Working
Group contained very little quantitative information on errors
occurring in manual and automated stages of industry coding.  one
exception was the IRS Statistics of income industry coding system for
sole proprietorships.  Records from dependent sample verification of
industry coding for tax year 1980 showed the following results
(unweighted):
                                             Range for 10
Type Of business         Error rate          service centers
     Nonfarm             0.9%                0.1 to 2.5%
     Farm                0.9%                0.0 to 4.9%
     Systems descriptions for SSA's single and multi-unit industry
coding both stated that "audits" (based on sample verification)
conducted by SSA's Office of  Research and Statistics "...show
approximately a 97 percent accuracy in assignment of codes." Since
these audits are conducted on cases that have already been subjected
to "peer review," which is also conducted for a sample of cases (10
percent for the multi unit system), it seems Likely that the overall
outgoing quality is somewhat lower than 97 percent.
     No data on processing errors were included in the systems
description for the BLS's ES-202 industry.coding, which is done by
State offices.  Boyes and Brown (1974) report on plans for a study of
coding reliability based on independent coding of a sample of State
product reports, but there have been no results published.
     Turning once again to the coding of industry for persons, there
was a carefully designed study of "coder effects"
                                  84
in the 1960 Census of Population (Bureau of the Census, 1972).  This
study,, which was based on a comparison of codes entered on the same
set of census questionnaires (or copies thereof) by the original
census coders and by other coders, measured both the simple and
correlated components of coder variance. It did not provide estimates
of biases common to the original and special coders.  The results
showed that both simple and correlated coder variances, especially the
latter, were quite small in relation to response variances for the
same items, measured in other studies that were part of the 1960
Census Evaluation Program.  Data are presented primarily at the SIC
division level.  Here may be seen a familiar result; the largest
indexes of inconsistency are for wholesale trade, closely followed by
business and repair services. The two-way tabulations show relatively
large shifts between wholesale trade and manufacturing, and between
wholesale and retail trade.
          4.   Data on Sources of Codes.
     It seems reasonable to suppose that when the industry codes in a
file come from several sources, their quality may vary by source.
Thus the distribution of industry codes in a file by source could be
considered an indirect indicator of quality.
     Such information is available for single-unit establishments in
the SSEL, and is shown in Table 18 (industry codes for multi-unit
establishments virtually all come from the economic censuses or from
current surveys of the Census Bureau).  The first 7 SIC divisions
listed in the table are those which are fully or partly included in
the economic censuses.  The out-of scope division includes two groups:
first, about 482,000 establishments in SIC divisions B (mining)
through I (services) in industries not included in the economic
censuses, and second, 133,000 establishments in agriculture,
government, or located abroad.
     The industry codes for establishments in columns (1) and (2) are
based on questionnaires from economic censuses and surveys, Codes from
census sources account for 68.5 percent of the in scope establishments
and 53.7 percent of the classified out of scope establishments.  The
next largest source is SSA'S single unit file, from which birth
listings are provided,monthly to the Census Bureau.  industry codes
came from this source for 26.4 percent of the in scope and 35.8
percent of the out of scope establishments.  Relatively small
proportions came from the IRS master files: 3.2 percent of the in
scope and 5.5 percent of the out of scope establishments.  The
remaining cases were classified by industry on the basis of commercial
lists or name coding, accounting for 2.0 percent of the in scope and
2.3 percent of the out of scope establishments.
     It would be interesting to see how other characteristics such as
employment, payroll and receipts, are distributed by industry source
code.  No direct data are published, but it can
                                  85
[GRAPHIC] \SW1185.GIF
                                  86
[GRAPHIC] \SW1186.GIF
                                  87
be observed that the division with the highest proportion of codes
from Census Bureau Sources -- manufacturing with 82.7 percent  has in
average of 19.6 employees per single-unit establishment.  On the other
hand, the division with the lowest proportion of Census-based codes --
construction with 54.4 percent -- averages only 6.8 employees per
establishment (Census Bureau, 1982a).  Furthermore, virtually all of
the industry codes for establishments in multi-unit enterprises, which
accounted in 1979 for about 54 percent of total employment, are based
on economic censuses or current Census Bureau surveys.
     No comparable data are available for other systems.  The two SSA
files carry source and date codes for each employer's industry
classification, but tabulations showing the distribution of currently
active employers classified by industry source and data codes are not
available.
                                  89
                               CHAPTER V
                              REFERENCES
Bailar, B.A., and Kallek, S.
1980 Evaluation of the 1977 Economic Censuses. Pp. 17 in Proceedings
     of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical
     Association.
Boyes, B.A., and Brown, J.R.
1974
      Quality measurement and quality of sampling frames.  pp.  162-
     166 in Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics
     Section, American Statistical Association.
Bureau of the Budget
1947 History of the development of industrial classification of the
     United States.  Memorandum from V.S.  Kolesnikoff to members of
     the Interagency Committee on Development and Application of
     Standard industrial Classification, March 14.  Washington, D.C.:
     Bureau of the Budget.
Bureau of the Budget
1961 Brief history, of the movement in the Federal Government for a
     central directory and of related efforts aimed at improving
     quality and comparability of economic statistics.  Office of
     Statistical Standards, unpublished report.  Washington, D.C.:
     Bureau of the Budget.
Bureau of the Census
1951 Effect of different documents, coders and time periods on
     industry classification of establishments.  Memorandum from
     Morris E.  Hansen to Thomas J.  Mills, August 7.  Attached report
     with same title by H.T.  Goldstein, July 15.  Washington, D.C.:
     Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1963 Reconciliation of the 1958 Census of Retail Trade with the
     Monthly Retail Trade Report.  Technical Paper No.  9.
     Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1965a     Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S. Censuses. of
          population and Housing 1960: The Employer Record Check
          Series ER 60, No.  6.  Washington, D.C.: Department of
          Commerce.
                                  90
Bureau of the Census
1965b     Final results of BES-Census retail payroll reconciliation
          for the State of Delaware.  Memorandum from Peter Harvey
          Kailin and William Hurwitz, July 22.  Washington, D.C.:
          Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1968 Analysis of 1963 Economic Censuses changes of mailing list
     industry codes single-unit establishments with payroll.
     memorandum from Harold T. Goldstein to Owen C. Gretton and Harvey
     Kailin, October 9. Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1969 Comparison of Census SIC codes with Internal Revenue PIA codes
     for same establishments.  Memorandum from George Minton to Joseph
     F. Daly, November 12.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1972 Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S.  Censuses of
     Population and Housing 1960: Effects of Coders, Series ER 60, No.
     9.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1977a     Evaluation and Research Program of the 1970 Census of
          Population and Housing: The Employer Record Check.  PHC(E)-
          12.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1977b     1977 Industry and Product Classification manual.
          Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1979 The Standard Statistical Establishment List Program.  Technical
     Paper No.  44.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1981 County Business Patterns 1968-1977: 10-Year History.CBP 77-55.
     Washington, D.C.: Department o Commerce.
                                  91
Bureau of the Census
1982a     Special tabulation: number of single-unit and multiunit
          establishments, and number of employees, by trade area, data
          from 1979 SSEL.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of the Census
1982b     Computer printout: From the EI Master Sample of the 1981 BMF
          update, the weighted number of single unit establishments
          with current year payroll by LFO (legal form of
          organization) by source code for different division codes.
          Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Bureau of Economic Analysis
1972 An Evaluation of the :Usefulness of the Social Security
     Administration's Continuous Work History Sample. Report prepared
     for the Manpower Administration, Department of Labor.
     Washington, D.C.: Department of commerce.
Bureau of Economic Analysis
1976 Regional Work Force Characteristics and Migration Data: A
     Handbook on the social security Continuous work History Sample
     and Its Application.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
Central Statistical Board
1939 Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1939.  Washington, D.C.
Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government (Hoover Commission)
1949 Task Force Report on  Statistical Agencies (Appendix D). January.
     Washington, D.C.
Farrell, M.G., Jabine, T.B., and Konschnik, C.A.
1982A     review of industry coding systems. Pp.  278-283 in
          Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods,
          American Statistical Association.
General Accounting Office
1979 After Six Years Legal Obstacles Continue to Restrict Government
     Use of the Standard Statistical Establishment List. Report to the
     Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States.
                                  92
Hanczaryk, R.S., and Sullivan, J.M.
1980 Evaluation Of coverage of the administrative records frame for
     the 1977 Economic Censuses-employer segment.  Pp. 154-159 in
     Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American
     Statistical Association.
Harris, C.S.
1981 A Comparison of Employment Data for Several Business Data
     Sources: County Business Patterns, Unemployment Insurance, and
     the Brookings' U.S.  Establishment and Enterprise Microdata File.
     Washington, D.C.: The Brookings institution.
Hostetter, Susan
1983 The Verification Method as a Solution to an Industry Coding
     Problem, pp.  499-504 in Proceedings of the Section on Survey
     Research Methods, American Statistical Association.
Internal Revenue Service
1973 A comparison of industry coding of tax returns during revenue
     processing and statistical processing.  Unpublished report by
     Linda Bouchard, Statistics Division.  January 15.  Washington,
     D.C.: Department of the Treasury.
Internal Revenue service
1974 Partnerships: A comparison study of the principal industrial
     activity code with the Statistics of Income industry code.
     Unpublished report, Business Statistics Staff, Statistics
     Division.  December 11. Washington, D.C.: Department of the
     Treasury.
Internal Revenue Service
1975a     Consistency of BMF industry code to SOI industry codes at
          major industry level, 1973.  Unpublished tabulation,
          Statistics Division.  Washington, D.C.: Department of the
          Treasury.
Internal Revenue Service
1975b     Possible and impossible BMF industry codes, 1973.
          Unpublished tabulation, Statistics Division.  Washington,
          D.C: Department of the Treasury.
                                  93
Internal Revenue Service
1982 A pilot study of the extent and accuracy of EIN and business
     activity reporting on tax returns by sole proprietors.
     Unpublished report, Statistics Division.  Washington, D.C.:
     Department of the Treasury.
Internal Revenue Service
1984 Descriptions of Selected Industry Coding Systems, Supplement to A
     Review of Industry Coding Systems, Statistics of Income Division
     Internal Revenue Service.
Jabine, T.B.
1984 The Comparability and Accuracy of Industry Codes in Different
     Data Systems (in draft).  Committee on National Statistics.
     commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
     Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
King, C., and Ricketts, E.
1980 Evaluation of the use of administrative record data in the
     economic censuses.  Pp.  175-180 in Proceedings of the Section on
     Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association.
Levine, B.
1980 Improving industry and place of work coding  in the Continuous
     Work History Samples.  Pp.  472-477 in Proceedings of the Section
     on Survey Research Methods, American Statistical Association.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
1977 Comparison of COG's Regional Employment Census (REC) counts by
     jurisdiction with State employment security estimates and other
     Sources of County-Level employment.  Memorandum from Stuart
     Bendelow to Project Advisory Committee, November 11.  Washington,
     D.C.
National Research Council
1979 Measurement and Interpretation of Productivity. Panel to Review
     Productivity Statistics, Committee on National Statistics,
     Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences.  Washington, D.C.:
     National Academy of Sciences.
Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
1977a     Gross National Product Data Improvement Project Report:
          Report of the Advisory Committee on Gross National Product
          Data Improvement.  Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce.
                                  94
Office o Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
1977b     Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1977 Supplement.
          Washington, Department of Commerce.
Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards
1980 Report on Statistical Uses of Administrative Records. Statistical
     Policy Working Paper 6.  Washington, D.C.:
     Department of Commerce.
Office of Management and Budget
1972 Standard Industrial Classification Manual.  Statistical Policy
     Division. Washington, Office of Management and Budget.
Office of Management and Budget
1974 Enterprise Standard industrial Classification Manual.
     Statistical Policy Division.  Washington, D.C.: Office of
     Management and Budget.
Powell, W.T., and Stubbs, .J.R.
1981 Using Business Master File data for Statistics of income
     purposes.  Pp.  471-744 in Proceedings of the Section on Survey
     Research Methods, American Statistical Association.
President's Commission on Federal Statistics
1971 Federal Statistics. Report  of the President's Commission.
     Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Simmons, W.R.
1953 The elements of an industrial classification policy.  Journal of
     the American Statistical Association (48):429-439.
                                  95
                              CHAPTER VI
              SELECTED SOURCE DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS
A.   Introduction
The source documents and instructions in this Chapter are
included to give an idea of the wide variety in the amount and kinds
of information obtained by different agencies, and for different data
systems within agencies, to classify units and assign codes.  They do
not cover all of the Systems reviewed by the Industry Coding Working
Group; they were selected purposively to illustrate different levels
of detail, as well as the difference between a Document designed for
self-coding by the respondent (TRS Form 1065) and documents designed
for coding by the agency.
     For the longer forms, only those parts directly relevant to
Industry coding are shown.  Similarly only those parts of respondent
instructions relevant to industry coding are included.
     A comparative analysis of the Level of detail available on these
forms appears in Chapter III.  Seven forms and the corresponding
instructions, if any, appear in this chapter as separate exhibits.  In
the sections which follow, each exhibit (1 through 7) is briefly
described: the form and the coding system or Systems for which it is
used are identified, and a few explanatory remarks about the items
used for coding and the coding system are provider.
B. Exhibit 1 (page 99)
1.   Source document
     Form 1065, U.S. Partnership Return of income, Tax Year 1981
2.   Industry coding systems
     The source document shown is used in the following industry
     coding systems of the internal Revenue Service:
     a.   Revenue processing of partnership-returns;
     b.   Statistics of income (SOI) for partnerships (for a sample of
          returns)
3.   Remarks
     Shown are page 1 of the form and page-12 of the taxpayer
     instructions.  The latter provides the codes to be used by the
     taxpayers in item C (Business Code number), on the form.
     For the revenue processing industry coding system, the code
     entered by the taxpayer in item C is normally accepted.  For the
     Statistics of income industry coding system, past practice has
     been for coders to use items A (Principal Business Activity), B
     (Principal Product or Service), and C, name of taxpayer, and
     other relevant items to assign a code which is entered in the
     margin of the form. A partially automated system, making use of
     prior year revenue-processing and SOI codes, when available, is
     now used.
C.   Exhibit 2 (page 101)
1.   Source document
     Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or (loss) From Business or
     Profession (Sole Proprietorship), Tax Year 1981
2.   Industry coding systems
     The source document shown is used in the following industry
     coding systems of the Internal Revenue Service.
     a.   Revenue processing of sole proprietorship returns
     b.   Statistics of Income for sole proprietorships (for a sample
          of returns)
3.   Remarks
     Shown are page 1 of the form and the paragraph covering Item A,
     Main Business Activity and Product, from page 27 of the taxpayer
     instructions.
     For the revenue processing industry coding system, a code based
     primarily on Item A is entered on the return by a coder.  For
     returns in the Statistics of Income sample, past practice has
     been to enter a separate code on the return, making full use of
     all relevant information available.  The present coding system
     for SOI sole proprietorships is partially automated, making use
     of revenue processing industry codes when available.
D.   Exhibit 3 (page 103)
1.   Source document
     Form SS-4, Application for Employer Identification Number
     (Revised 9-82)
2.   Industry coding system
     The source document shown is used in the Single Unit Employer
     Identification (EI) Number System of the Social Security
     Administration.
97
3.   Remarks
     Shown are the full form and the instruction to applicants.
     several items are used for industry coding (see text).  Although
     this is an Internal Revenue Service Form, the industry coding is
     done by the Social Security Administration.
E.   Exhibit 4 (page 106)
1.   Source document
     Form V-B-5502, 1982 Census of Retail Trade: Tires, Batteries,
     Parts, Accessories
2.   industry coding system
     This form is used by the Census Bureau as a source document for
     coding industry in their economic censuses.
3    Remarks
     This is one of a large number of specialized forms that was used
     in the mail portion of the 1982 Economic Censuses.  As explained
     in the text, many of the items in the questionnaire are used in
     the largely automated industry coding process.  The key item is
     Item 11-Merchandise Lines.
P.   Exhibit 5 (page 108)
1.   Source document
Form BLS 3023-A7 (Revised December 1982), Industry Classi4ication
Statement: Wholesale Trade
2.   Industry coding system
This source document is used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
for their "Employment and Wages (ES-202) System
3.   Remarks
The complete form is shown.  This is one of several versions tailored
to particular ST% divisions; this one is for wholesale trade.  The
form is us4d,for updating classification information for employers
already in the system.  This is now being done every three years for
most employers.  In addition, it may be used, on new employer
accounts.
                                  98
G.   Exhibit 6 (page 110)
1.   Source document
     FTC Form 59-103 (revised 09-79) Nature of Business Report
2.   Industry coding system
     The source document shown is user for the Quarterly Financial
     report (QFR) Program.  Responsibility for the OFR was transferred
     to the Census Bureau in late 1982.
3.   Remarks
     Only the first page of the form is shown.  The second page covers
     the corporate structure and organization (parents, subsidiaries,
     changes, etc.) of the unit responding.  The form is used both for
     new corporations entering the sample and for updating the
     classification of units remaining on the sample for more than two
     years.  This version is used for corporations in manufacturing; a
     second version is used for the other SIC divisions included in
     the program.
H.   Exhibit 7 (page 112)
1.   Source document
     BEA Form BE-12, Benchmark Survey of Foreign direct Investment in
     the U.S., 1980.
2.   industry coding system
     The source document shown is used by the Bureau of Economic
     Analysis (BEA) for their Foreign Direct Investment System.
3.   Remarks
     Shown is page 3 of a form used in a baseline survey#, conducted
     at approximately 5-year intervals to collect data for U.S.
     affiliates of foreign persons (firms or governments ).  This part
     of the form is used to determine the overall industry
     classification for the unit responding.  Note that respondents
     are asked to enter an industry code for each 3-digit industry
     accounting for significant sales or revenues.
                                  99
[GRAPHIC] \SW1199.GIF
                                  100
[GRAPHIC] \SW11100.GIF
                                  101
[GRAPHIC] \SW11101.GIF
                                  102
[GRAPHIC] \SW11102.GIF
                                  103
[GRAPHIC] \SW11103.GIF
                                  104
[GRAPHIC] \SW11104.GIF
                                  105
[GRAPHIC] \SW11105.GIF
                                  106
[GRAPHIC] \SW11106.GIF
                                  107
[GRAPHIC] \SW11107.GIF
                                  108
[GRAPHIC] \SW11108.GIF
                                  109
[GRAPHIC] \SW11109.GIF
                                  110
[GRAPHIC] \SW11110.GIF
                                  111
[GRAPHIC] \SW11111.GIF
                                  112
[GRAPHIC] \SW11112.GIF
Reports Available in the
Statistical Policy
Working Paper Series
1.   Report on Statistics  for Allocation of Funds; GPO Stock Number
     003-005-00178-6, price $2.40
2.   Report on Statistical Disclosure and Disclosure-Avoidance
     Techniques; GPO Stock Number 003-005-00177-St price $2.50
3.   An Error Profile: Employment as Measured by the Current,
     Population Survey; GPO Stock Number 003-005-00182-4, price $2.75
4.   Glossary of Nonsampling Error Terms: An Illustration of a
     Semantic Problem in Statistics (A limited number of copies are
     available from OMB)
5.   Report on Exact and Statistical Matching Techniques; Gpo Stock
     Number 003-005-00186-7, price $3.50
6.   Report on Statistical Uses of Administrative 'records; GPO Stock
     Number-003-005-00185-9, price $5.00
7.   An Interagency Review of Time-Series Revision Policies (A limited
     number of copies are available from OMB)
8.   Statistical Interagency Agreements (A limited number of copies
     are available from OMB)
9.   Contracting for Surveys (Available through NTIS Document Sales,
     PB-83-233-148)
10.  Approaches to Developing Questionnaires (Available through NTIS
     Document Sales, PB-84-105-055); Paperback $16.00; microfiche
     $4.50
11.  A Review of industry Coding Systems (Available through NTIS
     Document Sales, PB-84-135-276)
Copies of these working papers, as indicated, may be ordered from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.  Government Printing office,
Washington, D.C.0402 (202-783-3238) or from NTIS Document
Sales, 5285 Port Royal  Road, Springfield, VA 22161
(703-487-4650).