Impact of Preliminary versus Final Economic Census Data on the 

Universe Extraction Process for Current Business Surveys 1

Kari K. Clark and Carol S. King 

U.S. Census Bureau, SSSD 

4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington DC 20233, USA 

Kari.K.Clark@census.gov

Abstract

The U.S. Census Bureau selects a new sample for its current business surveys approximately once every five years. For use

in constructing the sampling frame, the first step in the sample selection process is the extraction of establishment records

from the Census Bureau’s Business Register used in the creation of an establishment list. As part of this process, census data

will also be extracted for establishments that were active during the time of the latest Economic Census. The data from the

Census and the Business Register are used to determine each establishment’s industry classification and the major kind of

business for the sampling unit. Sampling units consist of aggregations of one or more establishments, based on the 

organization of the company. The industry classification is used to evaluate if the establishments could be considered inscope to the current business surveys and is also used as a stratification variable in the sample design. Another stratification 

variable used in the sample design is a measure of size. This measure of size represents a full year of activity in terms of

revenue at both the establishment and sampling unit level. 

When the extraction process was done for the current sample, only preliminary data from the 2002 Economic Census was

available. Using the final census data would result in the extraction process being done a year later. Research was conducted

to evaluate how running the extraction process a year later would have affected the industry classification and the measure of

size for both the establishment and the sampling unit. This paper will detail the extraction process and how the changes to

the extraction process impacted the establishment list. 

1. Introduction 

Approximately once every five years, the U.S. Census Bureau reselects the samples for its annual, quarterly, and monthly 

economic surveys covering the retail, wholesale, and service sectors. This process is known as the Business Sample Revision

and focuses on businesses classified in at least one of the three sectors as defined by the North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS). The Annual Retail Trade Survey (ARTS), its monthly subsample (MRTS), and its advance

monthly subsample (MARTS) cover the retail (NAICS 44-45) and the accommodation and food services (NAICS 72)

sectors. The Annual Wholesale Trade Survey (AWTS) covers the wholesale (NAICS 42) sector and produces separate

estimates based on the type of operation code (TOC). There are three different types of operation code: wholesale 

distributors that take the title of the goods they sell, agents or brokers that do not take the title of the goods they sell, and

manufacturer sales branches and offices (MSBOs). The wholesale monthly subsample (MWTS) excludes agents or brokers 

and MSBOs. The Service Annual Survey (SAS) covers a wide range of service sectors, such as transportation and 

warehousing (NAICS 484, 492-493), information (NAICS 51), finance (NAICS 523), healthcare (NAICS 62), and other 

general service industries (NAICS 532, 54, 56, 71, and 81). The service quarterly subsample (QSS) covers NAICS 51, 54,

56, and part of 62. 

Prior to selecting the samples, an initial list of business establishments is extracted for the purposes of creating a sampling

frame. An establishment is defined as the smallest business unit at which transactions take place or services are provided 

and payroll and employment records are maintained. There are two types of establishments: singleunit (SU) and multiunit

(MU). A SU establishment and a company can be used to define the same entity, whereas a MU establishment is a part of a 

larger company. The process of creating the list is known as the universe extraction, and combines information from the 

Census Bureau’s Business Register (BR) and the most recent Economic Census. After the initial list is created and the

establishments are grouped into SUs and MUs, the final establishment list is determined by evaluating all establishments as 

1

This report is released to inform interested parties of research and to encourage discussion. Any views expressed on methodological issues are those of the 

authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. We thank Katrina T. Washington and Anne Kearney for their helpful comments.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

being in scope or out of scope to the surveys based on certain characteristics such as their NAICS codes, their business

activity status, tax status, or TOC. For those identified as being in scope, each establishment is assigned a sampling recode

based on its NAICS code, tax status, government status, and TOC. This recode is used as the primary stratification variable

for sampling along with the measure of size (MOS). The MOS is calculated for each establishment to represent a full year of 

activity in terms of revenue data. 

For past Business Sample Revisions, the final data from the latest Economic Census was not available at the time of the

extraction, so the preliminary data was used. Had we waited for the final census data, the extraction would have been

conducted about a year later. This paper will discuss research conducted to determine the impact of running extraction a year 

later than the most recent universe extraction process. Section 2 discusses the changes due to the timing of the extraction,

while sections 3 to 5 evaluate the changes in specific aspects of the universe extraction process: the determination of in scope 

versus out of scope, the assignment of sampling recodes, and the calculation of the MOS. Based on this evaluation, we will

determine whether or not the changes have enough impact to consider delaying the extraction process until the final census 

data is available. 

2. Changes due to Timing 

With the universe extraction process running a year later, the input data for the establishment list will change. Besides using 

the final census data as input, the Business Register will now have more current data and have been updated with information 

from the next Company Organization Survey (COS). The COS is used to update the Business Register each year by mailing 

questionnaires to a sample of MU companies asking for changes in their organization structure, such as if they had bought or

sold an establishment. During an economic census year (years ending in 2 and 7), all MU companies are mailed.

Also, establishments that were active in 2004, but not in 2003, will now be included in the establishment list. These 

establishments are known as birth establishments, but will not be addressed in this paper, as we will only evaluate the

changes that occur for establishments included in both extractions. There are also establishments that would be active in

2003 but are no longer active in 2004. These establishments are still included on the initial list but will later be identified as 

being out of scope on the final establishment list. 

In December of 2004 and January of 2005, the most recent universe extraction process was conducted. To assess the impact 

of using the final census data, the extraction process was modified in the following ways:

• When calculating the MOS, 2004 data instead of 2003 data from the Business Register was used. This

means a two-year lag from the time of the 2002 Economic Census. The deflation factors, used to bring 

MOS down to a 2002 basis, would have to be recalculated. Besides the deflation factors, there were other

parameters used throughout the extraction process, such as the bounds used for editing the data and

parameters used in the sample design. These would also have to be recalculated to account for the two-year 

lag. Due to time constraints for this research, we decided to make an assumption that these parameters 

would not have changed substantially when using a two-year lag instead of a one-year lag. 

• When determining the NAICS code for each establishment, the BR NAICS code was used because the final 

census information had been applied to the BR. For the initial extraction, a hierarchy was used based on

when the BR NAICS code was last updated. If the BR NAICS code had been updated more recently than 

the NAICS code from the 2002 Economic Census, then the BR NAICS code would have been used. 

Otherwise, the NAICS code from the Census would have been used. 

3. Determination of Scope 

After determining each establishment’s NAICS code, tax status, and/or TOC, we then identified if it was in scope or out of 

scope to our current surveys. An establishment is said to be in scope if it is active at the time of extraction, has paid

employees, and has U.S operations in one of the industries covered by the current surveys. Because using the final census 

data would have resulted in the universe extraction being done a year later, how many establishments were still in scope to 

our current surveys? For establishments that were identified in both the initial extraction and the new extraction, tables 1 and

2 show the changes in the determination of scope and the reasons for the change. Under the Reason column, “Business

Codes” combines different codes describing the establishment, such as its location or government status. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For establishments that were in scope in the initial extraction but became out of scope for the new extraction, the MOS from

the initial extraction represents what these establishments would have contributed had they still been in scope. For 

establishments that were out of scope for the initial extraction but became in scope for the new extraction, the MOS from the

new extraction represents what these establishments could have contributed had they been included in the initial extraction. 

For establishments that were in scope to both extractions, the MOS is from the initial extraction.

Table 1: Changes in Scope for MU Establishments

Scope Reason # Estabs % Estabs MOS (in thousands) 

In to In 1152481 47.29% $9,799,722,675

Out to Out 1196474 49.09% $0

In to Out Activity Status 76181 3.13% $1,051,265,965

NAICS code 1693 0.07% $27,150,725

Payroll from Business Register 842 0.03% $3,135,070

Payroll from Census 22 0.00% $0

Receipts from Census 12 0.00% $0

Business Codes 308 0.01% $3,528,999

Total 79058 3.24% $1,085,080,759

Out to In Activity Status 2299 0.09% $8,734,531

NAICS code 1965 0.08% $45,275,349

Payroll from Business Register 3800 0.16% $19,901,992

Payroll from Census 0 0.00% $0

Receipts from Census 0 0.00% $0

Business Codes 1009 0.04% $21,905,932

Total 9073 0.37% $95,817,804

Total 2437086 100.00% $10,980,621,238

Table2: Changes in Scope for SU Establishments 

Scope Reason # Estabs % Estabs MOS (in thousands) 

In to In 3027847 44.19% $3,890,076,381

Out to Out 3143376 45.87% $0

In to Out Activity Status 248527 3.63% $166,247,574

NAICS code 18531 0.27% $35,190,341

Payroll from Business Register 96779 1.41% $28,461,366

Business Codes 727 0.01% $922,921

Total 364564 5.32% $230,822,202

Out to In Activity Status 20415 0.30% $8,358,112

NAICS code 86699 1.27% $78,003,123

Payroll from Business Register 208974 3.05% $139,419,346

Business Codes 659 0.01% $681,883

Total 316747 4.62% $226,462,464

Total 6852534 100.00% $4,347,361,047
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From looking at the tables, 96.38% of MU and 90.06% of SU establishments did not change scope between the two

extractions. The following subsections examine the reasons behind the changes occurring in more than one percent of all

establishments: activity status for both types of establishment (3.13% MU, 3.63% SU), the payroll from the Business

Register for SU establishments (1.41%, 3.05%), and the NAICS code for SU establishments (1.27%). The last subsection

examines changes when an establishment was a SU in one extraction but a MU in the other extraction. 

3.1 Activity Status and Payroll

For both MU and SU establishments, those that were active in 2003 but not in 2004 make up the majority of the cases where 

they became out of scope based on activity status or payroll from the Business Register. For the SU establishments, activity 

status was determined based on whether or not the company still reports quarterly payroll to the Internal Revenue Service

(IRS). For the MU establishments, activity status was extracted from the Business Register, which was updated based on 

responses to the Company Organization Survey (COS). With a different COS sample selected each year, it is possible that a

MU company would not be mailed a COS form in one year but is mailed a form in the following year. Depending on when 

the MU company responds to the COS, it may be that the activity status codes for each of its establishments are not current

for a given year. As an extraction is done at a certain point in time, there will be establishments that could be in scope but

later be out of scope or vice versa. 

3.2 NAICS codes

One of the changes made when running the new extraction was how the NAICS code was assigned to the establishments. In

any given year, there could be a potential misclassification or not enough information available to determine the industry for

the establishment. Table 3 shows the sources from which the NAICS codes were assigned for SU establishments originally

out of scope but now in scope. The unclassified establishments were those for which we could not assign a NAICS code in

the initial extraction, so the code was set equal to all zeroes. 

Table 3: Source of NAICS Codes for SU Establishments

NAICS - Initial NAICS - Current # Estabs % Estabs

Census Census 755 0.87%

BR 2441 2.82%

BR Census 5050 5.82%

BR 51146 58.99%

Unclassified BR 27307 31.50%

Total 86699 100.00%

Of the 5,825 establishments (5050 + 755) that had their NAICS code updated as a result of the final census data, only 1,016

of these occurred because the NAICS code from the preliminary census was different compared to the NAICS code from the

final census. Waiting for the final census data to be finalized does not seem to affect the NAICS assignment, but with the 

updated Business Register, unclassified cases are now assigned a NAICS code. 

3.3 Type of Establishment 

The previous sections examined the cases for which the establishment was a SU in both extractions or a MU in both 

extractions. Depending on how a business is restructured or bought by another business, a MU establishment could become

a SU establishment and vice versa. Table 4 shows the number of establishments that change their type between extractions

as well as whether or not they were in scope. For those that remained in scope to both extractions regardless of their type, 

they will be included in sections 4 and 5 with the same type of establishment they were identified for the initial extraction 

when looking at the changes in the sampling recode and measure of size. These establishments could have an effect on the 

sampling units as explained in section 4. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Changes in Type of Establishments

Scope 

MU to SU SU to MU 

# Estabs # Estabs 

In to In 669 822

Out to Out 7 69

In to Out 75 64

Out to In 17 522

Total 768 1477

4. Assignment of Sampling Recode 

After determining which establishments were in scope to our current surveys, we then assigned a sampling recode. For

establishments in the wholesale sector, the sampling recode was assigned based on their NAICS code and TOC. For 

establishments in the retail sector, the sampling recode is assigned based on their NAICS code. For establishments in the 

service sector, the sampling recode is assigned based on their NAICS code, tax status, and government status. Table 5 shows

the changes in the sampling recode for both MUs and SUs, and the reasons for the change. Around 98% of establishments do

not have any changes in their sampling recode. For establishments where the sampling recode did change, the majority

appeared to be because of the NAICS code. 

Table 5: Changes in Sample Recode 

Reason for Change 

MU SU

# Estabs % Estabs # Estabs % Estabs 

No Change 1142206 98.97% 2959017 97.50%

NAICS Code 9591 0.83% 71393 2.35%

Type of Operation Code 881 0.08% 4 0.00%

Tax Status Code 1328 0.12% 4515 0.15%

Government Code 69 0.01% 43 0.00%

Total 1154075 100.00% 3034972 100.00%

For singleunits, there is no difference between the sampling unit and the establishment. However, for multiunits, the

sampling units can either be the entire company or the level at which payroll for the establishments are reported to the IRS, 

also known as an EIN or Employer Identification Number. Summing up the MOS for each sampling recode within the 

sampling unit by trade area and finding the maximum MOS determines the major kind of business for the sampling unit. To

approximate the possible changes at the sampling unit level, the major kind of business was calculated for each company and 

EIN in both extractions. Table 6 shows that almost 99% of the sampling units do not have a change in their major kind of

business.

Table 6: Breakout of MU Sampling Units

Sample Recode # % 

Companies No Change 146108 98.76%

Change 1833 1.24%

Total 147941 100.00%

EINs No Change 200104 98.53%

Change 2985 1.47%

Total 203089 100.00%
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Calculation of MOS 

Once a sampling recode was assigned to an establishment, we then calculated its measure of size to represent a full year of 

revenue in terms of the most recent data available. During the initial extraction, the MOS was calculated for the 2003 year

while the MOS was calculated for the 2004 year during the new extraction. Depending on how the MOS was calculated, the 

data used could be payroll or receipts from either the Business Register or the Economic Census. After the MOS was

calculated, a deflation factor was used to adjust the MOS to a 2002 level. Table 7 shows the number and percentage of

establishments within a certain range of percent changes and absolute differences between the initial MOS and the new MOS. 

34.60% of MU establishments and 27.47% of SU establishments had an absolute difference greater than or equal to 100,000

and a percent difference greater than 10%. 

Table 7: Changes in Measure of Size 

Percent Change

Absolute Difference 

(in thousands)

MU SU

# Estabs % Estabs # Estabs % Estabs 

No change 58342 5.06% 90110 2.97%

Change from

Zero 

< 100 3221 0.28% 5 0.00%

>= 100 16205 1.40% 18 0.00%

<= 5% < 100 258077 22.36% 600470 19.79%

>= 100 66113 5.73% 36676 1.21%

5% - 10% < 100 128540 11.14% 461873 15.22%

>= 100 109532 9.49% 101490 3.34%

10% - 25% < 100 89736 7.78% 589406 19.42%

>= 100 212588 18.42% 322679 10.63%

> 25% < 100 24967 2.16% 321098 10.58%

>= 100 186754 16.18% 511147 16.84%

Total 1154075 100.00% 3034972 100.00%

For establishments that had their MOS changed, we looked at the reasons for the change to see if they were based on the 

method used to calculate the MOS or the actual data used in the calculation as shown in table 8. However, during the initial 

extraction, subject matter analysts could make corrections to the data, which would change how the MOS was calculated.

Thus, these are put into a separate category. With the timing difference, it is not surprising that a majority of the

establishments had their MOS changed because the data also changed. These results do not factor in the possibility that the 

establishment could have had its sampling recode changed, which would mean that the deflation factor was different. Thus, 

the change in timing is the main factor for the changes in MOS.

Table 8: Reasons for the Change in Measure of Size 

Reason

MU SU 

# Estabs % Estabs # Estabs % Estabs 

Analyst Correction 348 0.03% 71 0.00%

Change in Data 1071165 97.76% 2588620 87.90%

Change in Calculation 24220 2.21% 356171 12.09%

Total 1095733 100.00% 2944862 100.00%

We also examined the total MOS for the retail, services, and wholesale sectors to see the overall impact of the changes in

MOS. Tables 9 and 10 show the number of establishments and total MOS, and the wholesale sector is divided into the three

different TOC types. The percentages are not different by more than 10%. For the singleunit establishments, there are no

MSBOs because they are defined to be multiunit establishments working for a parent company. The 5 establishments in the 

new extraction are those where they originally were singleunit establishments in the initial extraction, and were multiunit 

establishments in the new extraction.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 9: MOS by Trade Area for Multiunit Establishments 

Trade Area Estabs - Initial MOS - Initial % MOS Estabs - Current MOS - Current % MOS 

Agents & Brokers 2983 $215,444,397 2.19% 3205 $225,778,860 2.36%

MSBOs 16473 $1,441,111,866 14.67% 16116 $1,525,562,825 15.93%

Retail 537495 $2,178,778,538 22.18% 536985 $2,238,264,921 23.38%

Services 506984 $2,826,227,201 28.78% 507370 $3,574,141,561 37.33%

Wholesale Distributors 90140 $3,159,914,245 32.17% 90399 $2,010,328,299 21.00%

Total 1154075 $9,821,476,247 100.00% 1154075 $9,574,076,466 100.00%

Table 10: MOS by Trade Area for Singleunit Establishments 

Trade Area Estabs - Initial MOS - Initial % MOS Estabs - Current MOS - Current % MOS 

Agents & Brokers 22491 $238,989,123 6.10% 26490 $256,825,876 5.95%

MSBOs 0 $0 0.00% 5 $2,017,670 0.05%

Retail 857768 $1,187,809,426 30.34% 857994 $1,254,692,789 29.05%

Services 1926429 $1,582,253,202 40.41% 1926360 $1,801,351,435 41.70%

Wholesale Distributors 228284 $906,543,185 23.15% 224123 $1,004,442,354 23.25%

Total 3034972 $3,915,594,936 100.00% 3034972 $4,319,330,124 100.00%

6. Conclusion 

The goal of this paper was to assess the impact of the final versus preliminary census data on the universe extraction process.

However, the timing of the new extraction also included an updated Business Register. Thus, any changes on the final

establishment list due to the determination of scope, the assignment of sampling recodes, and the calculation of MOS were 

based on either the final census data or data from the updated Business Register. With the changes in the MOS, it is

recommended that the extraction process be run a year later. Also, the combined changes in MOS and sampling recodes

could have an effect on the samples selected for the current surveys, but more research would need to be conducted to verify

this. 

References 

King, Carol S. (2007), “An Evaluation of Changes to Universe Extraction Editing for Current Business Surveys at the U.S. 

Census Bureau,” paper presented at the third International Conference on Establishment Surveys, Montreal, Canada. 

Kinyon, D., D. Glassbrenner, J. Black, and R. Detlefsen (2000), “Designing Business Samples Used for Surveys Conducted 

by the United States Bureau of the Census,” paper presented at the second International Conference on 

Establishment Surveys, Buffalo, NY. 

Walker, Ed (1997), “The Census Bureau’s Business Register: Basic Features and Quality Issues,” paper presented at the 1997 

Joint Statistical Meetings.