For 

Bureau of Labor Statistics 

by 

Carol House, Study Director 

National Academies Panel on Redesign Options the 

Consumer Expenditure (CE) Surveys 

July 12, 2012 1 

Redesigning the BLS Consumer 

Expenditure Surveys: NAS Panel 
Today’s purpose 

 Provide insight into how perspectives from several 

relevant disciplines were brought to bear on redesign 

issues (Carol’s presentation) 

 Describe issues associated with CE Surveys from a 

survey methodology perspective. (Don’s presentation) 

 Limitations 

 Report is now under review – public by the end of August 

 Today’s presentation stops short of recommendations 

July 12, 2012 2 
Charge to the Panel 

The Committee on National Statistics will convene an expert panel to 

contribute to the planned redesign of the Consumer Expenditure 

(CE) surveys by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The 

panel will review the output of a data user needs forum and a 

methods workshop, both convened by BLS. It will also conduct a 

household survey data producer workshop to ascertain the 

experience of leading survey organizations in dealing with the types 

of challenges faced by the CE surveys and a workshop on redesign 

options for the CE surveys based on papers on design options 

commissioned from one or more organizations. Based on the 

workshops and its deliberations, the panel will produce a consensus 

report at the conclusion of a 24-month study with findings and 

recommendations for BLS to consider in determining the 

characteristics of the redesigned CE surveys. 

July 12, 2012 3 
The Panel 

 The Panel was composed of 13 members 

representing a variety of disciplines and 

skills. 

 Sample design 

 Data collection 

 Survey measurement and cognitive design. 

 Economics 

 Technology 

 Public Policy 

July 12, 2012 4 
The CE Panel on Redesigning the 

BLS Consumer Expenditure 

Surveys 

 Don Dillman, Department of Sociology, 

Washington State University (Chair) 

 David Betson, College of Arts and 

Letters, University of Notre Dame 

 Mick Couper, Institute for Social 

Research, University of Michigan 

 Robert Gillingham, Independent 

Consultant, Potomac Falls, VA 

 Michael Link, The Nielsen Company, 

Marietta, GA 

 Bruce Meyer, Harris School of Public 

Policy Studies, University of Chicago 

 Sarah Nusser, Department of 

Statistics, Iowa State University 

 Andy Peytchev, RTI International, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 

 Mark Pierzchala, Independent 

Consultant, Rockville, MD 

 Robert Santos, The Urban Institute, 

Washington, DC 

 Michael Schober, New School for 

Social Research, New York City, NY 

 Melvin Stephens, Jr. Department of 

Economics, University of Michigan 

 Clyde Tucker, Independent 

Consultant, Vienna, VA 

 Carol House, Study Director, 

Committee on National Statistics 

July 12, 2012 5 
Consensus Report 

 A menu of comprehensive design options with the highest potential, 

not one specific all-or-nothing design. 

 Focus on redesign from scratch. 

 Flexibility to allow for variation in program budget, staffing resources 

and skills, ability to implement. 

 Recommendations for future research 

 Approximate timeline for a new survey within 10 years. 

July 12, 2012 6 
Consensus Report 

 Focus on: 

 Underreporting of expenditures 

 Changes in social environment for data collection 

 Changes in the retail environment 

 Availability of large amounts of expenditure data from small 

number of intermediaries 

 Declining response rates 

 Proactive approaches 

July 12, 2012 7 
Consensus Report 

 Constraints: 

 Budget 

 Meet the CPI needs 

 Support other data users as much as possible 

 Modified Constraints – October 2011 

 CE Data Requirements document versus CPI Requirements of 

the CE 

July 12, 2012 8 
How was it achieved? 

 Review GEMINI work 

 Reach out to data users to understand uses of the CE 

 Participate in proxy interviews 

 Conduct a household survey producer workshop 

 Solicit for redesign ideas and options (redesign options 

workshop) 

 Do a lot of work within the panel 

July 12, 2012 9 
Review of progress by dates 

 Feb. 8-9, 2011, First Panel Meeting 

 March 14, Issued RFP for Proposed Redesigns 

 June 1-3, Household Survey Producer Workshop, and 

second Panel meeting. 

 October 26-29, Redesign Options Workshop and third 

Panel Meeting. 

 Jan. 25-27, 2012, Panel Meeting to work on report. 

 March 2, 2012, Web conference to discuss report. 

 June 8, 2012, Report submitted for independent review. 

July 12, 2012 10
Background: The U.S. Consumer 

Expenditure (CE) Surveys 

 First survey on consumer expenditure survey 

conducted 1888-91 

 Done periodically until the early 1940’s, then 

about every ten years 

 Redesigned 1972-73, and this design used 

on continuing basis since 1980 

July 12, 2012 11
Purpose of CE Surveys 

 To meet the need for timely and detailed information about the 

spending patterns of U.S. households. 

 Three important uses of the CE surveys: 

 Provide budget shares for the Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

 Other government program administration, e.g. thresholds for 

Poverty Measurement. 

 Economic analyses of consumer expenditures, e.g. effect of tax 

or other changes. 

 Uniqueness of CE: complete picture of spending at household level, 

with household income, assets and demographics. 

July 12, 2012 12
Two independent surveys 

 The CE Diary: 7,000 diary households per year 

 2 one-week diaries from each household 

 All expenditures in each week 

 The CE Interview: 7,100 interview households/year 

 A bounding interview, followed by four interviews with 

the same household 

 Expenditures for the previous three months 

 About 1/3 of interviews by telephone 

 All data collected by U.S. Census Bureau 

July 12, 2012 13
Response 

 Response rates about 75% for both surveys 

 Panel attrition 

 Panel information not exploited for nonresponse 

adjustment 

 Some evidence of disproportionate nonresponse 

July 12, 2012 14
Underreporting 

 Comparison with other sources, especially the PCE of 

the BEA 

 Considerable research is available on these 

comparisons. 

 There appears to be underreporting 

 Differential by survey (interview and diary) 

 Differential by expense item 

July 12, 2012 15
Turn to Don Dillman to talk about CE from a 

survey methodology viewpoint. 

July 12, 2012 16