Revisions in the Current Population

Survey Effective January 1994

Sharon R. Cohany, Anne E. Polivka, and Jennifer M. Rothgeb

A major redesign of the Current Population Survey

(CPS) was implemented in January 1994. The primary

aim of the redesign was to improve the quality of the data

derived from the survey by introducing a new questionnaire and modernized data collection methods. This

article discusses the major features of the new questionnaire and collection methods and compares the estimates

derived under the former and new procedures.' The article

also describes the introduction of new population controls

based on the 1990 census adjusted for the estimated population undercount. (The effects of the redesign and other

survey changes on the publication of data are discussed in

the companion article, "Revisions in the Presentation of

Data in Employment and Earnings," in this issue.)

Redesign of the Current Population

Survey

Background

A monthly survey of some 60,000 households, the CPS

is conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. Since its inception in 1940, the CPS has

been the primary source of information on the employed,

the unemployed, and persons not in the labor force.

Prior to the recent redesign, the survey questionnaire

had been virtually unchanged for nearly three decades.

The last major revisions were made in 1967.2 Since that

time, problems with the questionnaire in measuring certain labor market concepts were identified. Also, the Nation's economy and society underwent major shifts. For

instance, there has been tremendous growth in the number

of service-sector jobs, while the number offactory jobs has

declined sharply as a share of overall employment. Other

changes include the more prominent role of women in

the work force and the growing popularity of alternative

Sharon R. Cohany is an economist in the Division of Labor Force Statistics and Anne E. Polivka is an economist in the Office of Research and

Evaluation, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jennifer M. Rothgeb is a social

science statistician in the Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of

the Census. The sections relating to the 1990 census-based population

controls were co-authored by Shail J. Butani, Janice Lent, Edwin L. Robison, and Michael E. Welch of the Statistical Methods Division, Bureau of

Labor Statistics, and Frederick W. Hollman of the Population Division,

Bureau of the Census.

work schedules. These changes raised issues which were

not being fully addressed with the old questionnaire. In addition, there had been major advances in survey research

methods and data collection technology. Spurred by all of

these developments, work by BLS and the Bureau of the

Census began in the mid-1980's to redesign the CPS to better capture the dynamics of the contemporary labor market, while incorporating recent advances in data collection

technology .

The redesign of the questionnaire had four main objectives: 1) To measure the official labor force concepts more

precisely, 2) to expand the amount of data available, 3) to

implement several definitional changes, and 4) to adopt a

computer-assisted interviewing environment.

Beginning in 1988, BLS and the Bureau of the Census

conducted a number of research projects to guide the development of a new CPS questionnaire. Alternative versions of the questionnaire were developed, based on both

this research and recommendations made in 1979 by the

National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, also known as the Levitan Commission.'

The various questionnaire alternatives were tested in 1990

and 1991 in two phases, using centralized computerassisted telephone interviewing (CAT!) with a sample of

households selected through random digit dialing (RDD)

techniques. The results of both of these experimental

phases were used in the development of the final revised

questionnaire.

The new version was then tested extensively in a national sample survey, which ran parallel to the CPS from July

1992 to December 1993. This article compares data from

this "parallel survey" with results from the official CPS using 1993 annual averages, in order to gauge the effects of

the new questionnaire and computer-assisted data collection on the estimates.

1 For additional information on the background of the CPS redesign,

see "Questions and Answers on the Redesign of the Current Population

Survey," available from BLS, and three articles published in the September 1993 Monthly Labor Review under the heading "Overhauling the Current Population Survey." A comprehensive bibliography is available from

BLS upon request.

2 See Robert L. Stein, "New Definitions for Employment and Unemployment," Emtioyment and Earnings, February 1967.

3 National Commission on Employment and Unemployment Statistics, Counting the Labor Force, 1979.

13
Computerization

The new questionnaire was designed for a computerassisted interview. In most cases, interviewers conduct the

survey either in person at the respondent's home or by telephone from the interviewer's home, using laptop computers on which the questionnaire has been programmed.

This mode of data collection is known as computerassisted personal interviewing (CAP!). Interviewers ask

the survey questions as they appear automatically on the

screen of the laptop, and then type the responses directly

into the computer. At the end of each day, interviewers

transmit the data via modem to the computer at the

Bureau of the Census headquarters. A portion of sample

households (expected to reach about 20 percent later this

year) is interviewed via CATI, from two centralized telephone centers (located in Hagerstown, Maryland and

Tucson, Arizona) by interviewers who also use a computerized questionnaire.

Computer-assisted interviewing has important benefits,

most notably:

Consistency. In a survey such as the CPS, consistency from

interview to interview is essential for data quality. Automation facilitates the use of a relatively complex questionnaire, incorporating complicated skip patterns and standardized followup questions. Yet, certain questions are

automatically tailored to the individual's situation to

make them more understandable to the respondent.

Editing. The computerized questionnaire has several builtin editing features, including automatic checks for internal

consistency and unlikely responses. In this way, some potential errors can be caught and corrected during the interview itself.

Dependent interviewing. An automated interview also permits dependent interviewing, that is, the use of information in the current interview that was obtained in a previous month's interview. Dependent interviewing reduces

respondent and interviewer burden, while improving consistency of the data from one month to the next. The technique is being used to confirm the previously reported occupation and industry of a person's job and, for many people not in the labor force, to confirm their status as retired

or disabled. If it is determined that there has been no

change in the information which was supplied in the earlier interview, no further questions on the topic are asked. If,

however, the information which was previously supplied

has changed, the respondents are asked to provide the updated information. In a somewhat different form of dependent interviewing, persons' duration of unemployment is

asked in the first month they are reported as unemployed,

and this information is automatically updated by either 4

or 5 weeks if they remain unemployed in the subsequent

month.

It should be noted that the new questionnaire was designed for computer-assisted interviewing. Given the

14

complexity of the skip patterns and the use of dependent

interviewing, it would be nearly impossible to administer

the new survey using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. In

fact, there is no operational paper version of the new questionnaire.

Major Questionnaire Changes

Enhanced accuracy

Unlike the 1967 revision, whose major purpose was to

sharpen the definition of unemployment, the emphasis of

the 1994 redesign was to improve the overall quality of labor market information through extensive question

changes and the introduction of computers into the collection procedures. The redesign was also undertaken to obtain data on topics not previously or adequately covered.

While the labor force status of most people is straightforward, some are more difficult to classify correctly, especially if they are engaged in activities that are relatively informal or intermittent. Many of the changes to the questionnaire were made to deal with such cases. This was accomplished by rewording and adding questions to conform more precisely with the official definitions, making

the questions easier to understand and answer, minimizing

reliance on volunteered responses, revising response categories, and taking advantage of the benefits of an automated interview. Areas affected by these improvements

include:

Reference week. Many questions refer to activities "last

week," but in the former questionnaire the time period was

never defined. Research found that fewer than 20 percent

of respondents defined the reference week as it is meant in

the survey, that is, from Sunday to Saturday of the week

including the 12th day of the month. The new questionnaire provides respondents with the specific dates of the

reference week.

On layoff. Persons on layoff are defined as those who are

separated from a job to which they are awaiting recall. The

old questionnaire, however, was not structured to consistently obtain information on the expectation of recall. This

was a particular problem since, in common parlance, the

term "layoff" has come to refer to a permanent termination rather than the temporary situation that BLS and the

Census Bureau are trying to measure.

In order to measure layoffs more accurately, questions

were added to determine if people reported to be on layoff

did in fact have an expectation of recall- that is, had they

been given a specific date to return to work or, at least, had

they been given an indication that they would be recalled

within the next 6 months. Also, a direct question about

layoff replaced a long and cumbersome question about

both layoff and absence from work.

Jobsearch methods. To be counted as unemployed, a person must have engaged in an active job search during the 4
weeks prior to the survey, that is, must have taken some

action that could result in a job offer. In addition to contacting employers directly, active jobsearch methods

include answering want ads, sending out resumes, and

contacting private or public employment agencies. On the

other hand, passive methods, such as taking a class or

sik ply reading the want ads, do not qualify as a jobsearch.

To allow interviewers to better distinguish between active

and passive methods, the response categories for jobsearch

methods were expanded and reformatted. Also, the basic

question on jobsearch methods was reworded and

followup questions were added to encourage respondents

to report all types of jobsearch activity.

Hours at work. Research showed that, when asked about

their actual hours at work, some respondents provided

their scheduled or usual hours instead. To improve the

accuracy of these data, the series of questions on hours

worked was reordered to incorporate a recall strategy,

which asks for usual hours first, then about possible time

taken off or extra hours worked during the reference week,

and finally about hours actually worked.

Reasons for working part time. Persons who work part

time (fewer than 35 hours a week) do so either voluntarily

(that is, because of personal constraints or preferences) or

involuntarily (that is, because of business-related reasons

such as slack work or the lack offull-time opportunities).

Because respondents typically are not familiar with this

distinction, the question asking why those working part

time were doing so was reworded to provide examples of

the two types of reasons. More importantly, the measurement of working part time involuntarily (or for economic

reasons) was modified to better reflect the concept. Starting in 1994, workers who are part time for economic reasons must want and be available for full-time work. Individuals who usually work part time for an economic reason are asked direct questions to determine if they meet

these criteria; those usually working full time are assumed

to meet them.

Occupation and industry. Research has shown that the former system of asking questions on occupation, industry,

and class of worker independently each month led to an

overreporting of month-to-month change. The accuracy

of these data will benefit significantly from the use of dependent interviewing, with most respondents being asked

to supply this information only in the initial interview. In

subsequent months, they are asked merely to verify the information that had been reported earlier regarding their

employer, occupation, and usual activities on the job. If no

changes have taken place, no further questions are asked

and the information is simply carried forward. If changes

in the job situation have occurred, the series of questions

that was asked in the previous month is asked again.

Unpaid family workers. The definition of employment includes persons who work without pay for at least 15 hours

a week in a business or farm owned by a member of their

immediate family. To better measure the extent of work in

such businesses, the new questionnaire-has a direct question on the presence of a business in the household. Persons in households with a business who are not otherwise

employed are specifically asked if they worked in the

business.

Earnings. With the former questionnaire, respondents

were asked to report their earnings as a weekly amount,

even though that may not have been the easiest way to recall or report their earnings. In the new version, respondents are asked to report earnings in the time frame which

they find easiest, for example, hourly, weekly, biweekly,

monthly, or annual. Weekly earnings are automatically

calculated for persons who respond on a basis other than

weekly. Also, individuals are asked a specific question to

determine if they usually receive overtime pay, tips, or

commissions. For minimum wage studies, all earners are

asked if they are, in fact, paid at hourly rates.

New data

The questionnaire redesign also makes it possible to

collect several types of data regularly for the first time,

namely:

Multipe jobholding. Employed persons are now asked

each month whether they had more than one job. This allows BLS to produce estimates of multiple jobholding on a

monthly basis, rather than having to derive them through

special, periodic supplements. The inclusion of the multiple jobholding question also enhances the accuracy of answers to the questions on hours worked, and it may help to

reconcile employment estimates from the CPS with those

from the Current Employment Statistics program, BLS'

survey of nonfarm business establishments.

Usual hours. All employed persons are asked each month

about the hours they usually work. Previously, information on usual hours was collected from just one-quarter of

wage and salary workers each month.

Definitional changes

As part of the redesign, several labor force defmitions

were modified, specifically:

Discouraged workers. This was the most importantdefinitional change implemented. The Levitan Commission had

criticized the former definition, because it was based on a

SUbjective desire for work and on somewhat arbitrary assumptions about an individual's availability to take a job.

As a result of the redesign, two requirements were added:

For persons to qualify as discouraged, they must have engaged in some job search within the past year (or since they

last worked if they worked within the past year), and they

must be currently available to take a job. (Formerly, avail15
ability was inferred from responses to other questions;

now there is a direct question.) Discouraged workers are

now defined as persons who want a job, are available to take

a job, and who had looked for work within the past year but

not within the prior 4 weeks because they believed their

search would be futile. Specifically, their main reason for

not recently looking for work was one of the following: Believes no work available in line of work or area; couldn't find

any work; lacks necessary schooling, training, skills or experience; employers think too young or too old; or other types

of discrimination. Also, beginning in January 1994, questions on this subject are asked of the full CPS sample rather

than being limited to a quarter of the sample, permitting

estimates of the num ber of discouraged workers to be published monthly (rather than quarterly).

Unemployment. A relatively minor change was incorporated into the definition of unemployment. Under the former definition, persons who volunteered that they were

waiting to start a job within 30 days (a very small group

numerically) were classified as unemployed, whether or

not they were actively looking for work. Under the new

definition, people waiting to start a new job are no longer

automatically counted as unemployed. Rather, they must

have actively looked for a job within the last 4 weeks in

order to be counted as unemployed. Otherwise, they will

be classified as not in the labor force. Thus, beginning in

January 1994, the unemployed are defined as persons 1)

without jobs; 2) actively seeking work, or on layoff from a

job and expecting recall (who need not be seeking work to

qualify); and 3) currently available to take a job (including

temporary illness).

New entrants and reentrants. Unemployed persons who

were not working just before their jobsearch commenced

are classified as either new entrants or reentrants (to the

labor force). Prior to 1994, new entrants were defined as

job seekers who had never worked at a full-time job lasting

2 weeks or longer; reentrants were defined as jobseekers

who had held a full-time job for at least 2 weeks and had

then spent some time out of the labor force prior to their

most recent period of jobsearch. These definitions have

been modified to encompass any type of job, not just a fulltime job of at least 2 weeks duration. Thus, new entrants

are now defined as jobseekers who have never worked at

all, and reentrants are jobseekers who have worked before,

but not immediately prior to their jobsearch.

Full-time and part-time workers. The classification of fulland part-time workers is now based completely on their

usual weekly hours worked. In the past, due to limitations

in the questionnaire, persons who worked full time in the

reference week were not asked about their usual hours.

Rather, they were assumed to work full time on a usual

16

basis and classified as full-time workers. In the revised

questionnaire, all workers are asked the number of hours

they usually work, and are classified accordingly.

The Darallel Survey

As mentioned above, the new computerized questionnaire was tested in a parallel survey, also known as the

. "CATI/CAPI Overlap." The parallel survey was ad ministered to approximately 12,000 households per month for

18 months, from July 1992 to December 1993. The survey

had several objectives, including testing the complex programming of the questionnaire, breaking in computerized

data collection and transmission operations, and measuring differences in major labor force estimates between the

old and new surveys. Since a lack of funding prevented the

administration of the former questionnaire in a CAP! environment and since the new questionnaire's complexity

prevented its administration on paper, the effects of computer-assisted data collection on the labor force estimates

cannot be completely isolated from the effects of changes

in question wording and sequence.

The parallel survey was a nationally representative survey, in which all of the largest metropolitan areas were included and the remaining areas were sampled on a probability basis.' The parallel survey had the same rotation

schedule as the CPS, that is, households were interviewed

for 4 months, left the ~mple for the next 8 months, and

then were interviewed for another 4 months.

When comparing estimates derived from the parallel

survey with official CPS estimates, it should be recognized

that the parallel survey was based on a national sample, in

contrast with the State-based sample design of the CPS.

Moreover, the sample of the parallel survey was just onefifth the size of the CPS sample. This means that its estimates have greater variance, particularly those for small

groups, which are based on relatively few sample members.

The data compared in this article are 1993 annual averages. There were, of course, month-to-month fluctuations,

especially in the parallel survey, which are minimized using averages of 12 months of data. For example,

the overall unemployment rate from the parallel survey for

the 12-month period under study (January-December

1993) averaged 0.5 percentage point higher than the rate

from the CPS, compared with monthly differences ranging

from 0.1 to 0.7 percentage point.

Comparisons Between CPS and Parallel

Survey Estimates

The following analysis describes differences in labor

market estimates between the official CPS and the parallel

survey for 1993. This includes highlights of the major

1The sample design of the parallel survey was based on that used by the

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is conducted by the

Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
differences as well as sections on the employed, unemployed, persons in the labor force, and persons not in the

labor force.

Explanations for observed differences in the estimates

are suggested whenever possible. It is important to note,

however, that given the sweeping changes to the survey, it

is impossible to completely disentangle the underlying

causes behind the differences. In general, only differences

that are statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level are discussed. Confidence intervals for major

estimates are shown in table 1. Standard errors for estimates in all other tables are available from BLS upon request. In order to maintain comparability with parallel

survey results, the CPS estimates used in this article were

not subjected to the compositing procedure, and as a result

may not always agree with published estimates+

Highlights of findings

The following are highlights of the study comparing

data from the parallel survey (using the revised questionnaire and automated collection) with the CPS (using the

former questionnaire and procedures) for 1993.

• The national unem ployment rate as estimated by the

parallel survey was higher than the rate obtained by the

CPS. This difference averaged 0.5 percentage point (table

1). As shown in table 2, the measured effect was relatively

larger for women than for men. The parallel survey also

measured more unemployment among teenagers and older workers (65 years and over).

• The overall proportion of the population that was

working-the employment-population ratio-was essentially the same in the parallel survey and the CPS. However, there were marked differences by gender. For men, the

ratio was lower in the parallel survey than in the CPSj for

women the ratio based on the parallel survey was higher.

• The labor force participation rate was estimated to

be higher in the parallel survey than in the CPS. Again,

there were significant differences by gender: The percentage for men was lower in the parallel survey while the rate

for women was higher.

Employment

As stated above, overall estimates of employment differed little between the parallel survey and the CPS. The

employment-population ratio was 61.8 percent in the parallel survey, statistically indistinguishable from the 61.7

percent using the CPS. This similarity in the aggregate ratio, however, masks significant differences by gender. The

ratio for women was higher in the parallel survey than in

the CPS - 54.9 versus 54.2 percent - while for men the

measure from the parallel survey was lower - 69.3 versus

5 Compositing is an estimation procedure which reduces variability in

estimates, especially of month-to-month change. For a detailed explanation, see "Estimating Methods" under the Household Data section of the

Explanatory Notes and Estimates of Error in this publication.

69.9 percent. (See table 2.)

There are several questionnaire changes which may

have contributed to higher estimates of employment

among women. Many of the revisions to the new questionnaire were made to capture labor force activity more completely, especially that of a more irregular or informal nature. To this end, key questions on work activity were reworded. (See exhibit A.) For example, the question asking

about work was changed from" Did you do any work at all

LAST WEEK, not counting work around the house?" to

"LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for pay?" Some

respondents to the former questionnaire may have failed

to report work activities if their activities were part time,

intermittent, or perhaps even if they were home-based.

The revised question communicates more clearly to the respondent that the survey uses an inclusive definition of

work, to encompass any work for pay.

Indeed, the entire context of the interview must be considered. The labor force portion of the former CPS interview began with the following question: "What were you

doing most of LAST WEEK (Working, keeping house, going to school, or something else)?" This question, originally introduced as an "icebreaker," has been criticized on

several grounds. For one, we really don't want to know

what a person was doing most of last week (the answer to

that might be something unrelated to labor force activity),

but rather whether a person worked at all last week. The

phrase "most of last week," moreover, may have beenindieating to some respondents that the interest of the survey

was in full-time, "regular" employment and not in parttime or intermittent work.

Another difficulty with the former opening question was

that interviewers were instructed to tailor it depending on

the person's apparent situation. For a person (typically a

woman) who appeared to be a homemaker, the question

could be phrased, "What were you doing most of last

week - working, keeping house, or something else?" For a

young person, the question could be tailored to read, "What

were you doing most of last week- working, going to

school, or something else?"The "working" option was not

always offered. Everyone else was asked, "What were you

doing most of last week - working or something else?" It is

not known to what extent these procedures were

followed; however, the instructions for tailoring provided the potential for bias and may have cast doubt

on the intent of the survey to capture all labor force

activity.

In the new questionnaire, none of the questions is customized on the basis of the appearance of respondents.

Thus, for example, after an opening question (asked once

for the entire household) on the presence of a business or

farm, everyone is asked whether he or she did any work for

pay, clearly setting the tone that this is a survey in which

labor force activity is the sole interest. Also, the new version systematically asks about employment in family busi17
Table 1. Employment status of the population for selected labor force groups using 1980 census-based population estimates

from the CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

(Numbers in thousands)

Parallel

Difference

Employment status and group CPS1 survey

Level Error at 1.6 sigma2

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional population • •••••• o •••••• 193,550 193,550 0 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 128,103 128,965 862 642

Percent of population .................. ,. 66.2 66.6 .4 .3

Employed .............. ,.,. " ...... " ... 119,389 119,606 217 696

Employment-population ratio .............. 61.7 61.8 .1 .4

Unemployed •••••• , •••• 0 •••••••• , ••••• , •• 8,714 9,359 645 278

Unemployment rate ...................... 6.8 7.3 .5 .2

Men, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional population ....... ,., .... 85,906 85,850 ·56 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 66,077 65,599 -478 354

Percent of population ..... , ............. , 76.9 76.4 -.5 .4

Employed ...... , ... , ............... , ... , 61,884 61,283 -601 381

Employment-population ratio .............. 72.0 71.4 -.6 .4

Unemployed ................... '" , ...... 4,193 4,316 123 189

Unemployment rate ...................... 6.4 6.6 .2 .3

Women, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional population ·............. 94,389 94,361 -28 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 55,184 56,162 978 486

Percent of population ................... , 58.5 59.5 1.0 .5

Employed ..................... '" , ...... 51,966 52,604 638 503

Employment-population ratio .............. 55.1 55.8 .7 .5

Unemployed .., ...................... ,., .. 3,219 3,559 340 159

Unemployment rate ...................... 5.8 6.3 .5 .3

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ••

Civilian noninstitutional populanon · ........ , .... 13,254 13,338 84 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 6,842 7,203 361 178

Percent of population ....... '" '" ....... 51.6 54.0 2.4 1.3

Employed ................ " ............. 5,540 5,719 179 174

Employment-population ratio .............. 41.8 42.9 1.1 1.3

Unemployed ............................. 1,503 1,485 182 100

Unemployment rate ...................... 19.0 20.6 1.6 1.3

White

Civilian noninstitutional population ..... , ..... '" 163,921 163,921 0 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 109,407 110,209 802 607

Percent of population ........... , ........ 66.7 67.2 .5 .4

Employed ...................... , ........ 102,891 103,267 376 648

Employment-population ratio .............. 62.8 63.0 .2 .4

Unemployed ...................... , ....... 6,516 6,942 426 223

Unemployment rate ............ '.......... 6.0 6.3 .3 .2

Black

Civilian noninstitutional population .............. 22,329 22,329 0

• 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 13,957 13,908 -49

,

325

Percent of population .......... '" ....... 62.5 62.3 -.2 , 1.5

Employed ............................... 12,148 11,923 -225 321

Employment-population ratio .............. 54.4 53.4 -1.0 1.4

Unemployed ............................. 1,809 1,985 176 129

Unemployment rate ...................... 13.0 14.3 1.3 .9

-----

See footnote at end of table.

18
Table 1. Employment status of the population for selected labor force groups using 1980 census-based population estimates

from the CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages-Continued

(Numbers in thousands)

Difference

Employment status and group CPS1 Parallel

survey

Level Error at 1.6 sigma2

Hispanic origin

Civilian noninstitutional population .............. 15,753 15,753 O. 0

Civilian labor force .......................... 10,385 10,666 281 241

Percent of population .................... 65.9 67.7 1.8 1.5

Employed '0' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9,285 9,412 127 268

Employment-population ratio .............. 58.9 59.7 .8 1.7

Unemployed ............................. 1,100 1,254 154 97

Unemployment rate ................•..... 10.6 11.8 1.2 .9

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993

averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 Sampling error at the 90-percent confidence level.

NOTE: Population estimates obtained from the two surveys will not

always agree due to slight differences in estimating procedures. Detail

for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not sum to totals because data for the "other races" group are not presented and Hispanics

are included in both the white and black population groups.

Table 2. Employment status of the population by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin using 1980 census-based estimates from the

CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

(Numbers in thousands)

Total Men Women

Employment status and age

Parallel Differ· Parallel Differ- Parallel Differ- CPS1 CPS1 CPS1

survey ence2 survey ence2 survey ence2

Civilian noninstitutional

population

Total, 16 years and over .... 193,550 193,550 0 92,620· 92,620 0 00,930 100,930 0

16 to 19 years ............... 13,254 13,338 84 6,714 6,769 55 6,540 6,569 29

20 to 24 years ............... 17,583 17,641 58 8,613 8,677 64 8,970 8,964 -6

25 to 34 years ............... 41,314 41,375 61 20,382 20,374 -8 20,933 21,002 69

35 to 44 years ............... 40,341 40,238 -103 19,831 19,785 -46 20,510 20,453 -57

45 to 54 years ............... 28,863 28,943 80 14,027 14,016 -11 14,836 14,927 91

55 to 64 years ............... 21,029 21,006 -23 9,976 9,990 14 11,053 11,016 -37

65 years and over ........... 31,164 31,008 -156 13,078 13,009 -69 18,086 17,999 -87

Civilian labor force

Total, 16 years and over , ... 128,103 128,965 862 69,656 69,300 -356 58,447 59,664 1,217

16 to 19 years ............... 6,842 7,203 361 3,579 3,702 123 3,263 3,502 239

20 to 24 years ............... 13,555 13,705 150 7,159 7,186 27 6,396 6,519 123

25 to 34 years ............... 34,473 34,609 136 19,049 18,828 -221 15,424 15,782 358

35 to 44 years ............... 34,274 34,287 13 18,544 18,457 -87 15,730 15,830 100

45 to 54 years ............... 23,556 23,622 66 12,642 12,482 -160 10,914 11,139 225

55 to 64 years ............... 11,863 11,736 -127 6,632 6,473 -159 5,231 5,262 31

65 years and over •••••••• 0 •• 3,540 3,802 262 2,051 2,173 122 1,489 1,629 140

Participation rate

Total, 16 years and over .0 •• 66.2 66.6 .4 75.2 74.8 -.4 57.9 59.1 1.2

16 to 19 years ............... 51.6 54.0 2.4 53.3 54.7 1.4 49.9 53.3 3.4

20 to 24 years ............... 77.1 77.7 .6 83.1 82.8 -.3 71.3 72.7 1.4

25 to 34 years ............... 83.4 83.6 .2 93.5 92.4 -1.1 73.7 75.1 1.4

35 to 44 years ............... 85.0 85.2 .2 93.5 93.3 -.2 76.7 77.4 .7

45 to 54 years ............... 81.6 81.6 .0 90.1 89.1 -1.0 73.6 74.6 1.0

55 to 64 years ............... 56.4 55.9 -.5 66.5 64.8 -1.7 47.3 47.8 .5

65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 12.3 .9 15.7 16.7

i

1.0 8.2 9.1 .9

._,.-

See footnote at end of table.

19
Table 2. Employment stJtusof:,th",opulatlon by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin using 1980 census-based estimates from the

CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages-Continued

(Numbers in thousands)

Total Men Women

Employment status and age Parallel Differ- Parallel Differ· Parallel Differ· CPS1 survey ence2 CPS1 survey ence2 CPS1

survey ence2

Employed

Total, 16 years and over .... 119,389 119,606 217 64,727 64,200 -527 54,662 55,406 744

16 to 19 years ......•........ 5,540 5,719 179 2,844 2,918 74 2,696 2,802 106

20 to 24 years .............. -. 12,137 12,233 96 6,354 6,386 32 5,783 5,846 63

25 to 34 years ...•........... 32,119 32,099 -20 17,729 17,527 -202 14,390 14,573 183

35 to 44 years ............... 32,406 32,347 -59 17,512 17,400 -112 14,894 14,947 53

45 to 54 years ............... 22,444 22,431 -13 12,011 11,808 -203 10,433 10,623 190

55 to 64 years ............... 11,313 11,154 -159 6,292 6,106 -186 5,022 5,048 26

65 years and over ........... 3,430 3,623 193 1,986 2,057 71 1,444 1,566 122

Employment-population

ratio

Total, 16 years and over .... 61.7 61.8 .1 69.9 69.3 -.6 54.2

:

54.9 .7

·16 to 19 years ............... 41.8 42.9 1.1 42.4 43.1 .7 41.2 42.7 1.5

20 to 24 years ............... 69.0 69.3 .3 73.8 73.6 -.2 64.5

•

65.2 .7

25 to 34 years ............... 77.7 77.6 -.1 87.0 86.0 -1.0 68.7 69.4 .7

35 to 44 years ............... 80.3 80.4 .1 88.3 88.0 -.3 72.6 73.1 .5

45 to 54 years ............... 77.8 77.5 -.3 85.6 84.3 -1.3 70.3 i 71.2 .9

55 to 64 years ............... 53.8 53.1 -.7 63.1 61.1 -2.0 45.4 45.8 .4

65 years and over ........... 11.0 11.7 .7 15.2 15.8 .6 8.0 8.7 .7

Unemployed I:

Total, 16 years and over .... 8,714 9,359 645 4,928 5,100 172 3,785 I' 4,259 474

16 to 19 years ............... 1,302 1,485 183 735 784 49 567 700 133

20 to 24 years ............... 1,417 1,472 55 805 800 -5 613 673 60

25 to 34 years ............... 2,354 2,511 157 1,320 1,301 -19 1,034 1,210 176

35 to 44 years ............... 1,868 1,940 72 1,033 1,057 24 835 883 48

45 to 54 years ............... 1,112 1,190 78 631 675 44 482 516 34

55 to 64 years ............... 550 581 31 341 367 26 209 214 5

65 years and over ........... 110 180 70 65 116 51 45 63 18

Unemployment rate

Total, 16 years and over .... 6.8 7.3 .5 7.1 7.4 .3 6.5 7.1 .6

16 to 19 years ............... 19.0 20.6 1.6 20.5 21.2 .7 17.4 20.0 2.6

20 to 24 years ............... 10.5 10.7 .2 11.2 11.1 -.1 9.6 10.3 .7

25 to 34 years ............... 6.8 7.3 .5 6.9 6.9 .0 6.7 7.7 1.0

35 to 44 years ............... 5.5 5.7 .2 5.6 5.7 .1 5.3 5.6 .3

45 to 54 years ............... 4.7 5.0 .3 5.0 5.4 .4 4.4 4.6 .2

55 to 64 years ............... 4.6 5.0 .4 5.1 5.7 .6 4.0 4.1 .1

65 years and ever ........... 3.1 4.7 1.6 3.2 5.4 2.2 3.0 3.9 .9

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993

averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may not equal the results obtained from comparing

the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

NOTE: Population estimates obtained from the two surveys will

not always agree due to slight differences in estimating procedures.

20
EXHIBIT A. COMPARISON OF'KEY

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

QUESTIONS

CPS

1. What were you doing most of LAST WEEK -

(working or something else?)

(keeping house or something else?)

(going to school or something else?)

If answer indicates "with a job, but not at work"

(either temporarily or on layoff), ask 2, and if 2 is

"no" ask 4.1f answer indicates "working," skip 2.

All others, ask 2.

2. Did you do any work at all LAST WEEK, not

counting work around the house? (Note: If farm

or business operator in household, ask about

unpaid work.)

3. Did you have a job or business from which you

weretemporarily absent or on layoff LAST

WEEK?

If "no," ask 5. If "yes," ask 4.

4. Why were you absent from work LAST WEEK?

5. Have you been looking for work during the past 4

weeks?

If "yes," ask 6.

6. What have you been doing in the last 4 weeks to

find work?

PARALLEL SURVEY

1. Does anyone in this household have a business

or a farm?

2. LAST WEEK, did you do ANY work for (either)

pay (or profit)?

Parentheticals in question filled in if anyone in the

household has a business or farm.

!f 1 is "yes" and 2 is "no," ask 3.

3. LAST WEEK, did you do any unpaid work in the

family business or farm?

If 2 and 3 are both "no," ask 4.

4. LAST WEEK, (in addition to the business,) did you

have a job, either full or part time? Include any

job from which you were temporarily absent.

Parenthetical in question filled in if anyone in the

household has a business or farm.

If 4 is "no," ask 5.

5. LAST WEEK, were you on layoff from a job?

If 5 is "yes," ask 6. 115 is "no," ask 8.

6. Has your employer given you a date to return to

work?

If "no," ask 7.

7. Have you been given any indication that you will

be recalled to work within the next 6 months?

If "no," ask 8.

8. Have you been doing anything to find work during

the last 4 weeks?

If "yes," ask 9.

9. What are all of the things you have done to find

work during the last 4 weeks?

21
nesses and farms, where much of the previously "missing

employment" seems to have taken place.

The series of questions on work in the former questionnaire may have also led to an overstatement of men's labor

market activity, which was concentrated among men who

were reported as having a job but absent from work. This

is discussed in the section on characteristics of the

employed.

Unemployment

The new questionnaire (including the new collection

procedures) yielded an overall unemployment rate half a

percentage point higher than the CPS, 7.3 percent compared with 6.8 percent for the period January to December

1993. But, as with the employment-population ratio, this

statistic hides variations among worker groups. Namely,

the higher incidence of unemployment was statistically

significant only for women, workers 65 years and O~i',

and teenagers. The difference for men (0.3 percentage

point higher in the parallel survey) was close to being statistically significant.

The new questionnaire had a relatively large effect on

women's unemploymentrate, which was 7.1 percent in the

parallel survey compared with 6.5 percent based on the

CPS. Unemployment in the parallel survey increased for

both white women and black women. Among age groups,

teenagers and workers 65 years and over had higher jobless

rates in the parallel survey. The difference for the

25-to-34-year-old category was also statistically significant.

There are several differences between the old paper

questionnaire and the revised automated questionnaire

which could help to explain the higher unemployment

rates obtained by the parallel survey. Part of the explanation is consistent with that given in the section on the

employed. That is, the new questionnaire has a broader

approach to both work and jobsearch activities, due at

least in part to different messages communicated at the

beginning of the survey. This could help to explain the

higher unem ployment rates among women, teenagers, and

older workers, who are more likely to be looking for

informal employment.

Also, older people in the new questionnaire who initially

report that they are retired are asked, "Do you want a job

either full or part time?" If they answer yes, they are asked

the questions on jobsearch for potential classification as

unemployed. The "part-time" reference may prompt some

older workers to recall that they have looked for such a job.

Another part of the explanation for the differences relates to persons initially reported to be temporarily absent

from jobs. It appears that a larger proportion of persons

are reported as temporarily absent with the new questionnaire but are not classified as such because, when asked to

provide a reason for their absence, they report they were

"on layoff" or they cite "slack work/business conditions."

22

Such responses disqualify persons from being classified as

employed and move them into the layoff/ jobseeking question series.

A third part of the explanation is the direct question on

layoff. Research has indicated that the former question on

layoff was frequently misunderstood. The new direct question on layoff and a revised question on the reasons for

absence produce a larger proportion of persons reported

(but not classified) as on layoff in the parallel survey than

in the CPS. When the criterion of expectation of recall is

applied, nearly 60 percent of those initially reported to be

on layoff are eliminated from this category. They are then

routed to the series of questions on jobseeking, and, if they

have an active jobsearch (which about half do), and are

available to work, they will be counted among the unemployed.

It appears that, with the revised questions, a number of

women are initially reported to be on layoff, although they

had no expectation of recall. They do, however, meet the

requirement of active jobsearch and thus were counted as

unemployed. It is unknown how such persons would have

responded to the previous questionnaire. The new questions, however, communicate a different message at the

starloftheinterview which maybe prompting more women to report a layoff status and an active jobsearch, resulting in a higher unemployment rate.

Characteristics of the employed

Multiple jobholding. About 6.2 percent of all employed

people held two or more jobs during the fourth quarter of

1993, according to findings from the parallel survey."

As a result of the redesign, information on multiple jobholding is available each month; previously, this information had been obtained only in periodic supplements to the

CPS. While truly comparable data are not available from

the regular CPS, the most recent supplement, conducted

in May 1991, also showed a multiple jobholding rate of 6.2

percent.

Hours of work. Hours actually worked were somewhat

lower as estimated in the parallel survey compared with

the CPS. Mean (average) hours for workers in nonagricultural industries were 38.9 per week with the new questionnaire, compared with 39.4 using the former questionnaire.

The pattern held for both adult men and adult women.

(See table 3.)

These findings reflect several changes to the questionnaire which were made to obtain more accurate information on hours worked per week. A recall strategy was

embedded in the series of questions, asking first about

6 Due to processing problems, data on multiple jobholding are not

available for the first 9 months of 1993. The data presented here are

October-December 1993 averages.
\

Table 3. Persons at work In nonagrlcultural'lndustrles by actual hours of work, sex, and age using 1980 census-based population

estimates from the CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

,.

Thousands of persons Percent distribution

Hours of work,

sex, and age Parallel Differ- Parallel

CPS1 Differ- CPS1 survey ence2

survey ence2

TOTAL

Total at work ......................... 110,488 111,225 737 100.0 100.0 -

1 to 34 hours ........................... 26,954 29,563 2,609 24.4 26.6 2.2

1 to 14 hours ........................ 5,130 6,066 936 4.6 5.5 .8

15 to 29 hours ....................... 13,410 14,475 1,065 12.1 13.0 .9

30 to 34 hours ....................... 8,414 9,021 608 7.6 8.1 .5

35 hours and over •• 0 ••••••••••••••••••• 83,535 81,663 -1,872 75.6 73.4 -2.2

35 to 39 hours ....................... 7,176 8,534 1,357 6.5 7.7 1.2

40 hours ............................ 42,523 38,717 -3,806 38.5 34.8 -3.7

41 to 48 hours ....................... 11,528 13,684 2,157 10.4 12.3 1.9

49 to 59 hours ....................... 13,004 12,158 -845 11.8 10.9 -.8

60 hours and over .................... 9,304 8,570 -735 8.4 7.7 -.7

Average hours, total at work ............•. 39.4 38.9 -.6 - - -

Men, 20 years and over

Total at work ......................... 57,032 57,014 -18 100.0 100.0 -

1 to 34 hours ........................... 8,531 9,422 891 15.0 16.5 1.6

1 to 14 hours ........................ 1,396 1,564 168 2.4 2.7 .3

15 to 29 hours ....................... 3,946 4,251 305 6.9 7.5 .5

30 to 34 hours ....................... 3,190 3,607 418 5.6 6.3 .7

35 hours and over ...................... 48,501 47,592 -909 85.0 83.5 -1.6

35 to 39 hours .,.......... '" ........ 2,488 3,104 616 4.4 5.4 1.1

40 hours ............................ 22,777 21,033 -1,743 39.9 36.9 -3.0

41 to 48 hours ....................... 6,980 8,387 1,408 12.2 14.7 2.5

49 to 59 hours ....................... 9,161 8,513 -648 16.1. 14.9 -1.1

60 hours and over .................... 7,096 6,554 -542 12.4 11.5 -.9

Average hours, total at work .............. 43.1 42.7 -.4 -. - -

Women, 20 years and over

Total at work ....................... 48,308 48,956 648 100.0 <e. 100.0 -

1 to 34 hours ........................... 14,68J 16,311 1,630 30.4 33.3 2.9

1 to 14 hours ............. '" ........ 2,537 3,259 722 5.3 6.7 1.4

15 to 29 hours ............ '" ........ 7,416 8,106 690 15.4 16.6 1.2

30 to 34 hours ............ '" ........ 4,728 4,945 217 9.8 10.1 .3

35 hours and over ...................... 33,627 32,645 -983 69.6 66.7 -2.9

35 to 39 hours ....................... 4,390 5,119 729 9.1 10.5 1.4

40 hours ............................ 18,977 16,959 -2,017 39.3 34.6 -4.6

41 to 48 hours ....................... 4,383 5,080 697 9.1 10.4 1.3

49 to 59 hours ....................... 3,731 3,540 -191 7.7 7.2 -.5

60 hours and over .................... 2,146 1,947 -200 4A 4.0 -.5

Average hours, total at work .............. 36.8 36.0 -.8 - - -

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

,

Total at work ......................... 5,148 5,256 108 100.0 100.0 -

1 to 34 hours ........................... 3,741 3,829 88 72.7 72.9 .2

1 to 14 hours ............. '" ........ 1,197 1,243 46 23.3 23.7 .4

15 to 29 hours ............ '" ........ 2,048 2,117 69 39.8 40.3 .5

30 to 34 hours .......... , ............ 496 469 -27 9.6 8.9 -.7

35 hours and over ...................... 1,407 1,426 20 27.3 27.1 -.2

35 to 39 hours ....................... 298 311 12 5.8 5.9 .1

40 hours .'" ........................ 770 725 -45 15.0 13.8 -1.2

41 to 48 hours ....................... 165 217 52 3.2 4.1 .9

49 to 59 hours ....................... 112 105 -6 2.2 2.0 -.2

60 hours and over .................... 62 69 7 1.2 1.3 .1

Average hours, total at work .............. 24.3 24.3 .0 - - -

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may not equal the results obtained from comparing the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

23
usual hours, then about any time taken off and extra hours

worked in the reference week, and finally about total hours

actually worked. And, as described earlier, the questions

related to employment were reworded to capture work

activities more fully, especially informal, intermittent, and

part-time work. The more complete measurement of this

type of work could help to lower the average number of

hours worked.

The parallel survey found a higher proportion of workers at the lower end of the hours spectrum. For example,

nonagricultural workers who actually worked less than 15

hours in the reference week accounted for 5.5 percent of

persons at work in the parallel survey, compared with 4.6

percent in the CPS. Those working between 15 and 29

hours in the reference week comprised 13.0 percent of persons at work in the parallel survey, compared with 12.1

percent in the CPS.

The proportion of workers reporting a workweek of exactly 40 hours was lower in the parallel survey than in the

CPS. With the memory aids embedded into the new questions, workers are better able to recall exceptions to their

usual schedule, resulting in less clustering at precisely 40

hours.

Part-time employment. Some of the most closely watched

measures derived from the CPS pertain to part-time employment. The proportion of employed people who usually work part time (less than 35 hours per week) was larger

in the parallel survey (17.0 percent) than in the CPS (16.3

percent). The difference in part-time employment was relatively largest for adult women. (See table 4.)

Part time for economic reasons. The proportion of

em ployed persons working part time for economic reasons

was substantially lower in the parallel survey. The differences were observed for all major demographic groups but

were relatively larger for teenagers. Overall, the parallel

survey found that 4.2 percent of employed persons were

working part time for economic reasons, compared with

an estimate of 5.3 percent from the CPS. In terms of numbers of people, this translates into 5.0 million people as

measured by the parallel survey, compared with 6.3 million as measured by the CPS, a difference of 21 percent.

The smaller number and proportion of workers classified as part time for economic reasons in the parallel survey were observed among both those who usually work

part time and those who usually work full time. Among

those who usually work part time, the difference was more

pronounced for adult women and teenagers. The decline

among those who usually work full time did not differ significantly by demographic group.

The relatively large drop in the proportion of workers

who usually work part time for economic reasons stems

from two new criteria, formerly inferred, that are now explicit in the new questionnaire: Persons usually working

part time are asked if they want to work full time and also

24

if they were available to accept a full-time job during the

reference week. (For persons who usually work full time,

these criteria are assumed to be met.) The first criteriondesire for full-time work - had a particularly large im pact

in reducing the estimate of economic part-time workers,

while the second - availability - disqualified relatively few

people. To provide a context for respondents, the question

asking why those who want to work full time were working

part time was reworded to provide examples of both economic and noneconomic reasons for working part time.

The difference in the proportion of full-time workers (as

defined by their usual status) who were part time for economic reasons in the reference week can be at least partially traced to several changes in the questionnaire. For example, the parallel survey contains separate questions for

people who usually and actually worked part time,

reducing the incidence of coding errors. Also to obtain

more accurate coding, the labels of some of the noneconomic response categories were expanded. For example,

"own illness" was changed to "own illness/injury/medical

appointment," and "on vacation" was changed to "vacation/personal day."

Part time for noneconomic reasons. The proportion of

employed persons who worked part time for noneconomic

reasons was markedly higher in the parallel survey (21.4

percent) compared with the CPS (18.0 percent). All major

demographic groups showed a similar pattern.

These workers can be divided into two types-either

they usually work full time or usually work part time. It is

not uncommon for workers who are usually full time to

have worked part time in the reference week, having taken

time off for reasons such as vacation, holiday, or illness.

The higher proportion of these workers in the parallel survey-7.3 percent of all employed people, compared with

5.3 percent in the CPS - reflects the more precise information regarding hours at work obtained from the recall

strategy embedded in the new questions. It appears that

the new questionnaire is indeed effective in prompting

workers to remember exceptions to their usual schedule.

Most of the people who were part time for noneconomic

reasons in the reference week usually work part time, often

to give them more time for school.family, or other activities. The parallel survey also obtained a higher estimate of

these workers-14.1 versus 12.7 percent. This differential

reflects in part the new questionnaire's more stringent requirements to be classified as economic part time.

Temporary absences. While most employed people are

actually at work in the reference week, some are found to

be temporarily absentfrom their jobs for the full week. The

proportion of employed persons classified as temporarily

absent in the parallel survey (4.5 percent) was lower than

the proportion found in the CPS (5.0 percent). This

pattern held true for all major demographic groups except

teenagers.
Table 4. Employed persons b'y usual full- or part-time status, sex, and age, using 1980 census-based population estimates from the

CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

Thousands of persons Percent distribution

Sex, age, and fullor part-ti me status CPSl Parallel Differ- CPSl Parallel Differsurvey ence2 survey ence2

I

I

TOTAL

Total employed ••.......•........... 119,389 119,606 217 100.0 100.0 -

At work ............................... 113,438 114,201 763 95.0 95.5 .5

35 hours or more •......••....•.•... 85,617 83,610 -2,007 71.7 69.9 -1.8

1 to 34 hours ....................... 27,821 30,591 2,770 23.3 25.6 2.3

Part time 'for economic reasons ..... 6,325 5,028 -1,297 5.3 4.2 -1.1

Usually work full time ............ 1,988 1,501 -487 1.7 1.3 -.4

Usually work part time ......•.... 4,337 3,527 -810 3.6 2.9 -.7

Part time for noneconomic reasons .. 21,496 25,563 4,067 18.0 21.4 3.4

Usually work full time ............ 6,325 8,674 2,349 5.3 7.3 2.0

Usually work part time •.......... 15,171 16,889 1,718 12.7 14.1 1.4

With a job but not at work ...............• 5,951 5,405 -546 5.0 4.5 -.5

Men, 20 years and over

Total employed ..................... 61,884 61,284 -600 100.0 100.0 -

At work ............................... 59,198 59,065 -133 95.7 96.3 .6

35 hours or more ..., ............... 50,162 49,168 -994 81.1 80.2 -.8

1 to 34 hours ....................... 9,036 9,897 861 14.6 16.1 1.5

Part time for economic reasons ..... 2,720 2,225 -495 4.4 3.6 -.8

Usually work full time ............ 1,140 849 -291 1.8 1.4 -.5

Usually work part time ........... 1,580 1,376 -204 2.6 2.2 -.3

Part time for noneconomic reasons .. 6,316 7,672 1,356 10.2 12.5 2.3

Usually work full time ............ 3,006 4,187 1,181 4.9 6.8 2.0

Usually work part time .....•.•... 3,310 3,485 175 5.3 5.7 .3

With a job but not at work ................ 2,686 2,218 -468 4.3 3.6 -.7

Women, 20 years and over

Total employed .................... 51,966 52,603 637 100.0 100.0 -

At work ............................... 48,885 49,643 758 94.1 94.4 .3

35 hours or more .0 ••.•••••••••••••. 33,967 32,957 -1,010 65.4 62.7 -2.7

1 to 34 hours ....................... 14,918 16,686 1,768 28.7 31.7 3.0

Part time for economic reasons ..... 2,983 2,371 -612 5.7 4.5 -1.2

Usually work full time ............ 744 574 -170 1.4 1.1 -.3

Usually' work part time ........... 2,239 1,797 -442 4.3 3.4 -.9

Part time for noneconomic reasons .. 11,935 14,315 2,380 23.0 27.2 4.2

Usually work full time ............ 3,169 4,292 1,123 6.1 8.2 2.1

Usually work part time ........... 8,766 10,023 1,257 16.9 19.1 2.2

With a job but not at work ................ 3,082 2,960 -122 5.9 5.6 -.3

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

Total employed ..................... 5,540 5,719 179 100.0 100.0 -

At work ............................... 5,357 5,492 135 96.7 96.0 -.7

35 hours or more ................... 1,488 1,485 -3 26.9 26.0 -.9

1to 34 hours ....................... 3,869 4,007 138 69.8 70.0 .2

Part time for economic reasons ..... 623 430 -193 11;2 7.5 -3.7

Usually work full time ............ 104 77 -27 1.9 1.3 -.5

Usually work part time ........... 519 353 -166 9.4 6.2 -3.2

Part time for noneconomic reasons .. 3,246 3,577 331 58.6 62.5 3.9

Usually work full time ...........• 150 195 45 2.7 3.4 .7

Usually work part time ........... 3,096 3,382 286 55.9 59.1 3.2

With a job but not at work ................ 183 227 44 3.3 4.0 .7

1These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may not equal the results obtained fro m co mparing the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

25
The new questionnaire appears to result in more accurate classification of workers who are temporarily absent.

This may reflect several changes - the elimination of the

major-activity question, the inclusion of separate direct

questions on temporary absence and on layoff, and the revamping of the question on the reason for absences. Regarding the major-activity question in the former questionnaire, some responses may have given interviewers the

impression that those respondents had a job from which

they were absent, when in fact they did not have a job at all.

Also, the direct questions on layoff in the new questionnaire allow some people to be properly classified as unemployed or not in the labor force, rather than being erroneously counted as absent from a job.

To emphasize the im portant role played by the series of

questions on temporary absence, it is estimated that most

of the drop in men's em ployment level in the parallel survey was attributed to a lower estimate for persons temporarily absent. The other category of employed persons,

those at work, was essentially the same for men on both

surveys.

Class of worker. In the aggregate, the distribution of

employed persons by their "class-of-worker" status differed little between the two surveys. Wage and salary

workers comprised about 88 percent of all workers in both

the CPS and the parallel survey. This classification is further broken down into private and government workers.

Again, there were no significant differences between the

surveys, with the private sector accounting for about 73

percent and the government sector accounting for about

15 percent of all employed persons. Nearly all of the remaining 12 percent were classified as self-employed on

both surveys. (See table 5.)

Only a small fraction of all workers were classified as

unpaid family workers in the CPS, and the proportion was

even smaller in the parallel survey. This may seem surprising, given the changes to the questionnaire designed to

identify workers in family businesses. In fact, the new

questions were successful; however, many persons reported as working in family businesses were also found to

have received payor profit from the business and thus

were classified as wage and salary workers. Even in agriculture, where unpaid family workers are far more prevalent than in most other industries, the new questions resulted in a smaller proportion of such workers. In sum, the

redesign's efforts to more accurately identify workers in

family businesses resulted in more wage and salary workers compared with the former procedures.

Looking at the class-of-worker data by gender, the new

series of questions obtained quite different results for men

and women. For men, the parallel survey had a higher proportion in wage and salary work and a smaller proportion

in self-employment. For women, the findings were just the

reverse - a higher proportion of self-em ployed and a lower

26

proportion of wage and salary workers in the parallel survey. The level of self-employment among women was 4.8

million in the parallel survey, com pared with 4.1 million in

the CPS, which was equal to most of the increase in female

employment in the parallel survey. Thus, the improved

questions on work activity and the addition of questions

on work in a family business resulted in more women.being

properly classified as self-employed.

Occupation and industry. The distribution of employed

persons according to the occupation and industry of their

job shifted somewhat under the new questionnaire. (See

table 6.) For men, the parallel survey had a larger proportion employed in the managerial, professional, and technical categories, and a smaller proportion in sales occupations. The data suggest that the large decrease in the number of men who were employed but absent from their jobs

in the parallel survey may have reduced their representation in occupations (such as sales) in which employment

arrangements may be more tenuous.

Looking at the industry distributions for men, the parallel survey had a higher proportion in manufacturing and

educational services and a smaller proportion in retail

trade, mining, public administration, and private households. As a partial explanation of these differences, it is hypothesized that the classification of fewer men as temporarily absent from work as a result of the revised questionnaire reduces their representation in industries with more

informal or irregular employment, such as trade and private households.

Among women, a higher proportion in the parallel survey were working in managerial and farming occupations.

This is consistent with evidence presented earlier that the

new questionnaire is measuring more women working in

family businesses or farms and in their own businesses.

A smaller proportion were in administrative support and

private household positions.

The distribution by industry for women showed that

only one industry, agriculture, had a higher proportion of

workers in the parallel survey than in the CPS. (Evidence

suggests that the former survey may have underestimated

employment of women in agriculture by 25 percent.) Proportions as measured by the parallel survey were lower in

public administration and private households.

Earnings. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and

salary workers were somewhat higher under the revised

questionnaire ($462) than under the CPS ($450). The

parallel survey found higher median earnings for men but

no difference in earnings for women. Among part-time

workers, total earnings and those for men were also slightly higher in the parallel survey. (See table 7.)

Both in the parallel survey and in the full CPS, estimates

of earnings are based on data collected from one-quarter of

the sample each month. It should be noted that due to the

,
Table 5. Employed persons by class of worker and sex using 1980 census-based population estimates from the CPSand the

parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

Thousands of persons Percent distribution

Class of worker and sex

Parallel Differ- CPS1 CPS1 Parallel Differsurvey ence2 survey ence2

TOTAL

Total employed ......................... 119,389 119,606 217 100.0 100.0 -

Agriculture .........................•. 3,080 3,175 95 2.6 2.7 .1

Wage and salary workers ............ 1,488 1,487 -1 1.2 1.2 .0

Private industries ................. 1,476 1,439 -37 1.2 1.2 .0

Government ...................... 12 48 36 (3) (3) -

SeH-employed workers .............. 1,488 1,632 144 1.2 1.4 .1

Incorporated ':' .................. 159 172 13 .1 .1 .0

Other ........................... 1,328 1,460 132 1.1 1.2 .1

Unpaid family workers ............... 105 56 ·49 .1 e) -

Nonagricultural industries ............... 116,309 116,432 123 97.4 97.3 -.1

Wage and salary workers ............ 103,703 103,897 194 86.9 86.9 .0

Private industries ................. 85,194 85,835 641 71.4 71.8 .4

Government ...................... 18,509 18,062 -447 15.5 15.1 -.4

SeH-employed workers .............. 12,397 12,369 -28 10.4 10.3 .0

Incorporated ..................... 3,413 3,759 346 2.9 3.1 .3

Other ........................... 8,984 8,611 -373 7.5 7.2 -.3

Unpaid family workers ............... 208 166 -42 .2 .1 .0

Men

Total employed ......................... 64,727 64,200 -527 100.0 100.0 -

Agriculture ........................... 2,444 2,366 -78 3.8 3.7 -.1

Wage and salary workers ............ 1,149 1,184 35 1.8 1.8 .1

Private industries ................. 1,142 1,165 23 1.8 1.8 .1

Government ...................... 8 18 10 (3) (3) -

SeH-employed workers 00 •• ' ••••••••• 1,257 1,158 -99 1.9 1.8 '~.1

Incorporated ..................... 132 113 -19 .2 .2 -

Other ........................... 1,125 1,045 ·80 1.7 1.6 -.1

Unpaid family workers ............... 37 24 -13 .1 (3) -

Nonagricultural industries .............. 62,284 61,835 -449 96.2 96.3 .1

Wage and salary workers ............ 53,685 53,758 73 82.9 83.7 .8

Private industries ................. 45,297 45,480 183 70.0 70.8 .9

Government ...................... 8,387 8,278 -109 13.0 12.9 -.1

Self-employed workers .............. 8,554 8,022 -532 13.2 12.5 -.7

Incorporated ... " .. , ............. 2,656 2,703 47 4.1 4.2 .1

Other ................... '" ..... 5,898 5,319 -579 9.1 8.3 -.8

Unpaid family workers ............... 45 54 9 .1 .1 .0

Women I

Total employed ....... " ........ '" ..... 54,662 55,406 744 100.0 100.0 -

Agriculture ........................... 636 808 172 1.2 1.5 .3

Wage and salary workers • to ••••••••• 338 303 -35 .6 .5 -.1

Private industries ... , ............. 334 274 -60 .6 .5 -.1

Government ...................... 4 29 25 e) .1 -

Self-employed workers .............. 231 474 243 .4 .9 .4

Incorporated ..................... 28 59 31 .1 .1 -.1

Other ............................ 203 415 212 .4 .7 .4

Unpaid family workers ............... 67 31 -36 .1 .1 -.1

Nonagricultural industries ...... '" ..... 54,025 54,597 572 98.8 98.5 -.3

Wage and salary workers ............ 50,019 50,139 120 91.5 90.5 -1.0

Private industries .............. , .. 39,897 40,355 458 73.0 72.8 -.2

Government ................. 1 •••• 10,122 9,784 -338 18.5 17.7 -.9

Self-employed workers .............. 3,844 4,347 503 7.0 7.8 .8

Incorporated ..................... 757 1,056 299 1.4 1.9 .5

Other ......... '" ............... 3,087 3,291 204 5.6 5.9 .3

Unpaid family workers ............... 163 111 -52 .3 .2 -.1

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may not equal the results obtained from comparin%the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

Less than 0.05 percent.

27
Table 6. Employed persons by occupation, industry, and sex using 1980 census-based population estimates from the CPS

and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

(Percent distribution)

i

Total Men Women

Occupation and industry Parallel Differ- Parallel Differ- Parallel DifferCPS1 survey ence2 CPS2 survey ence2 CPS1 survey ence2

OCCUPATION

Managerial and professional specialty ......... 27.1 28.2 1.1 26.1 27.3 1.2 28.4 29.2 0.8

Executive, administrative, and managerial .. , 12.9 13.6 .7 13.8 14.3 .5 11.9 12.8 .9

Professional specialty •• , ••••••••••••• 0 •• 0 14.2 14.6 .4 12.3 13.0 .7 16.5 16.4 .0

Technical, sales, and administrative support ... 30.8 30.5 -.3 20.5 20.3 .2 42.9 42.3 -.7

Technicians and related support .0 •• 0 •••••• 3.4 3.6 .2 3.1 3.5 .4 3.7 3.8 .1

Sales occupations ' •• 0.0 ••••••••• ' ••• 0 •• 0 11.9 11.8 -.1 11.4 11.0 -.4 12.6 12.7 .2

Administrative support, including clerical ..... 15.5 15.1 -.4 6.0 5.9 -.1 .26.7 25.8 -.9

Service occupations ........................ 13.9 13.5 -.4 10.3 9.9 -.5 18.0 17.7 -.3

Private households ....................... .8 .7 -.1 .1 .1 .0 1.6 1.4 -.2

Protective service ........................ 1.8 1.7 -.1 2.8 2.6 -.1 .7 .6 -.1

Service, except private households

and protective service '" ................ 11.3 11.2 -.1 7.5 7.2 -.3 15.8 15.7 .0

Precision production, craft, and repair ......... 11.2 10.9 -.3 18.9 18.6 -.3 2.1 2.0 -.1

Operators, fabricators, and laborers ••• 0 •• 0 •• 0 14.3 14.1 -.2 19.9 19.7 -.2 7.7 7.7 .0

Machine operators, assemblers,

and inspectors •••••••••••••••••• 0 ••• 0.0 6.2 6.3 .1 7.0 7.1 .1 5.2 5.4 .2

Transportation and material moving

occupations ............................ 4.2 4.0 -.2 7.0 6.8 -.2 .9 .7 -.1

Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers,

and laborers .0 •••••••••• 0 •••• , ••••••••• 3.9 3.8 -.1 5.8 5.7 -.1 1.5 1.5 -.1

Farming, forestry, and fishing '·.·.0 .......... 2.8 2.8 .0 4.4 4.3 -.1 .9 1.2 .2

INDUSTRY

Agriculture ................................ 2.6 2.7 .1 3.8 3.7 -.1 1.2 1.5 .3

Mining .0 ••• 0 ••• 0 •• 0 ••• 0 •• ,0 ,. , ••••••• , '" .6 .4 -.2 .9 .6 -.2 .2 .1 -.1

Construction ••••••••••••••••• _0 ••••••• 0 •• 0 6.1 5.9 -.2 10.3 9.9 -.4 1.1 1.2 .1

Manufacturing ............................. 16.4 17.3 .9 20.5 21.9 1.4 11.6 12.0 .4

Durable goods •••••••••• ,0, •••••• 0 •••••• 9.5 10.1 .6 12.8 13.9 1.1 5.5 5.7 .2

Nondurable goods ........................ 6.9 7.2 .3 7.6 8.0 .4 6.0 6.2 .2

Transportation and public utilities ............. 7.1 6.9 -.2 9.4 9.2 -.2 4.4 4.2 -.3

Wholesale and retail trade ••••• 0 .0' •• 0 •• 0 ••• 20.7 20.5 -.2 20.4 19.8 -.5 21.2 21.3 .1

Wholesale trade .......................... 3.9 4.0 .1 5.1 5.2 .1 2.4 2.6 .2

Retail trade .............................. 16.9 16.5 -.3 15.3 14.7 -.6 18.8 18.7 -.1

Finance, insurance, and real estate ........... 6.7 6.6 -.1 5.1 5.1 .0 8.5 8.4 -.1

Services ••••••••••••••••• "0 •••••••••• 0'0 35.0 35.3 .3 24.7 25.0 .3 47.3 47.2 -.1

Private households ....................... .9 .8 -.1 .2 .1 -.1 1.8 1.6 -.2

Other service industries ................... 34.1 34.5 .4 24.5 24.9 .4 45.5 45.7 .2

Educational services •••••••• 0 •••••••••• 7.9 8.3 .3 4.7 5.2 .5 11.8 11.8 .0

Public administration .0 ••••• "0 •• 0 •••••••••• 4.8 4.5 -.4 5.1 4.8 -.3 4.5 4.1 -.4

1These distributions differ slightly from previously published 1993

averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2These differences may not equal the results obtained from comparing the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

extremely small sample on which earnings data from the

parallel survey are based, these data are subject to even

greater variability than other data from the parallel.

survey.

In the new questionnaire, respondents are asked to

report their earnings in the time frame that is easiest for

them, rather than forcing them to report a weekly amount

as had been the case. Results from the parallel survey indicate that, when given a choice, only a relatively small proportion of respondents chose to report on a weekly basis.

The breakdown of respondents' preferences in reporting

earnings was:

Hourly

Annually

Weekly

Biweekly

Monthly

Twice a month

Other

38.14 percent

21.8

21.3

7.4

6.4

2.4

2.3

28
For minimum wage sttidies, iriformation is also collected on the number and wage rate of persons who are

paid at hourly rates. In the revised questionnaire, individuals who choose to report their earnings on a basis other

than hourly are asked directly whether they were paid at

an hourly rate. If so, they are asked what their hourly rate

of pay is. In the parallel survey, 61 percent of workers reported be~g paid by the hour, somewhat higher than the

59 percent reported in the CPS.7

Characteristics of the unemployed

The new questionnaire had a greater incidence of unemployment overall, with significantly higher rates for certain worker groups. This section explores the effect of the

new procedures on selected characteristics of the unemployed, including persons on layoff, and reasons for and

duration of unemployment.

On layoff. As described earlier, the series on workers on

layoff was revamped to obtain more accurate information,

particularly relating to the expectation of recall. As measured in the parallel survey, the percentage of the unemployed accounted for by persons on layoff was 12.8 percent, essentially the same as the 12.5 percent obtained

from the CPS. (See table 8.)

The proportion of unemployed men who were on layoff

was not statistically significant between surveys. On the

other hand, the proportion of unemployed women who

were on layoff was higher in the parallel survey compared

with the CPS. For men, there appeared to have been

several offsetting effects. In the parallel survey, people

were asked a direct question - "LAST WEEK, were you

on layoff from a job?" - and more were initially reported

to be on layoff. But when the questions on expectations of

recall were posed, some did not meet these criteria. As a

result, the number of men on layoff ended up to be about

the same under the old and new questionnaires.

For women, these offsetting effects are also present, but

in addition it is suspected that other changes to the questionnaire, such as the elimination of the initial labor force

question, the specificity of the work for pay question and

the direct layoff question, prompted more women to

report labor market activities. Greater reporting of such

activities by women could contribute to the higher proportion of unem ployed women on layoff in the parallel survey.

Those who are initially reported to be on layoff, but do

not meet the expectation of recall, are asked the series of

questions on jobsearch, and most are found to have looked

for work within the prior 4-week period. If so, they are still

counted as unemployed, but as "jobseekers," rather than

persons on layoff.

Duration of unemployment. Measures of both mean and

median duration were little different between the old and

7 These estimates pertaining to hourly paid workers are based on the

average of the 6 months from September 1992 to February 1993.

new procedures. The mean duration in the parallel survey

was 19.7 weeks, compared with 18.1 weeks in the CPS, and

the median duration was 9 weeks, compared with 8 weeks.

Several changes were made to the unemployment duration measure, including one which allowed respondents to

report duration in weeks, months, or years, as they prefer,

rather than only in weeks, as in the former questionnaire.

This change was designed to make it easier for the longerterm unemployed to report their length of jobsearch, and,

in fact, the parallel survey obtained relatively more reports

of longer-term joblessness.

Another change involved dependent interviewing. As

mentioned in the section on computerization, duration of

unemployment is automatically updated by either 4 or 5

weeks each month (depending on the number of weeks

between surveys) as long as a person continues to be unemployed.

Reasons for unemployment. The unemployed are classified

by their activity immediately prior to becoming unemployed. These "reasons for unemployment" include having lost a job (including persons on layoff), having left a job

to seek a new one, or being either new entrants or reentrants to the labor force. Several changes to the questionnaire - both definitional and operational- resulted in differences in the way the unemployed are distributed among

these categories.

There was a higher proportion of the unemployed

counted as reentrants in the parallel survey (32.7 percent)

compared with the CPS (24.6 percent) and a smaller proportion of new entrants (6.7 versus 10.2 percent). These

estimates were affected by the increase in the overall number of unemployed, some of whom were coming from outside the labor force and increasing the ranks of reentrants.

Also, the seemingly minor modification to the definition of

entrants, which was broadened to take into account any

type of job, and not just a full-time job of at least 2 weeks

duration, affected the estimates of new entrants and reentrants.

Table 7. Median weekly earnings of full- and part-time wage

and salary workers by sex using 1980 census-based

population estimates from the CPS and the parallel survey,

1993 annual averages

(In current dollars)

Category CPS1 Parallel Difference

survey

FUll-time workers

Total ............... $450 $462 $12

Men ............. 509 529 20

Women .......... 400 400 -

Part-time workers

Total ............... 130 133 3

Men .......... , .. 120 127 7

Women ........... 136 135 -1

1These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedures used.

29
Table 8. Unemployed persons by reason for and duration of unemployment using 1980 census-based population estimates from

the CPS and the parallel survey, 1993 annual averages

Thousands of persons Percent distribution

Reason and duration Parallel Parallel

CPS' survey Difference2 CPS' survey Difference2

REASON

Total unemployed ............................ 8,714 9,358 644 100.0 100.0 -

Job losers .... , .................... " ............. 4,731 3,820 -911 54.3 40.8 -13.5

On layoff ....................................... 1,091 1,202 111 12.5 12.8 .3

Other job losers ................................. 3,640 2,618 -1,022 41.8 28.0 -13.8

Persons who completed temporary jobs ............... e) 985 (3) e) 10.5 e)

Job Ieavers ....................................... 949 861 -88 10.9 9.2 -1.7

Reentrants ........................................ 2,143 3,064 921 24.6

!

32.7 8.1

New entrants ..................................... 890 629 -261 10.2 6.7 -3.5

DURATION

I,

Less than 5 weeks ................................. 3,138 2,801 -337 36.0 29.9 -6.1

5 to 14 weeks ..................................... 2,562 2,968 406 29.4 31.7 2.3

15 weeks and over ................................. 3,015 3,590 575 34.6 38.4 3.8

15 to 26 weeks ... , ..............•............... 1,250 1,476 226 14.3 15.8 1.5

27 weeks and over ................................ 1,765 2,114 349 20.3 22.6 2.3

27 to 51 weeks ................................ 747 899 152 8.6 9.6 1.0

52 weeks and over ............................. 1,018 1,215 197 11.7 13.0 1.3

Average (mean) duration, in weeks ................... 18.1 19.7 1.6 - - -

Median duration, in weeks .......................... 8.0 9.0 1.0 - - -

, These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may notequal the results obtained from compar-

"Completed temporary job" was added as a major reason for unemployment category, based on a revised question posed to jobseekers who were working before they

started looking for work: "Did you lose or quit that job, or

was it a temporary job that ended?" Under the old questionnaire, most people who became unemployed when

their temporary job ended were classified as "job losers."

Under the new procedures, persons who completed temporary jobs accounted for about 11 percent of all unemployed. The job loser proportion was lowered by close to

this magnitude.

Other changes. As discussed in the section on major questionnaire changes, the distinction between active and passive jobsearch methods is a crucial one, and, in the new

questionnaire, response categories were reordered and expanded for greater accuracy in classifying responses. Two

passive methods- "looked at ads" and "attended job

training programs/courses" - were added to the list, as

was a category called "other passive." In the past, interviewers were instructed to code passive jobsearch methods

as "nothing" and otheractive methods as "other," but

there was evidence that some passive methods were being

miscoded as "other." Also, it is quite possible that some

active jobsearches were miscoded as "nothing."

30

in~ the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

Not available. '

The question on whether a person looked for a job during the last 4 weeks was reworded to convey a broader concept of jobsearch activity (see exhibit A), and followup

questions were added to obtain a full accounting of the jobsearch methods used. The parallel survey yielded a somewhat higher proportion of individuals who gave passive

reasons only-4,4 versus 3.2 percent of everyone receiving

the jobsearch question.

Labor force

The labor force participation rate, that is, the percentage of the population that is either employed or unemployed, was higher in the parallel survey than in the CPS.

For all workers, the labor force participation rate using the

new questions was 66.6 percent, compared with 66.2 percent in the CPS. (See tables 1 and 2.)

Women's participation rate was 59.1 percent in the parallel survey. compared with 57.9 percent in the CPS. Teenagers and older workers also had higher participation rates

in the parallel survey than in the CPS. The labor force participation rate for men, however, was somewhat lower in

the parallel survey -74.S versus 75.2 percent.

To explain the differences in participation rates among

certain demographic groups, the arguments used to explain variations in employment and unemployment apply.
That is, the new questionnaire generally-obtains more labor force activity, especially for those worker groups

which have traditionally had more part-time or irregular

participation.

Not In the labor force

Given the greater proportion of labor force participants

in the parallel survey compared with the CPS, it follows

that the percentage of the population that was out of the

labor force was lower in the parallel survey, 33.4 percent

compared with 33.8 percent. The "not in the labor force"

group is large and diverse, including retirees, homemakers, students, the ill and disabled, and all others who are

neither working nor looking for work.

Discouraged workers. Within the "all others" category is a

group of particular interest-discouraged workers. These

are people who want jobs but have not searched for work

in the prior month because they believe there are no jobs to

be found or none for which they could qualify.

As discussed in the section on definitional changes, the

definition of discouraged workers was made more restrictive by requiring some search activity within the prior year

and availability to work. These two new criteria, especially

the former, contributed to a substantially reduced number

of discouraged workers in the parallel survey compared

with the CPS. (See table 9.)

Most, but not all, of the reduction in discouragement is

due to the change in definition, but other changes in the

questionnaire played a role also. Even when estimates

based on the former definition were com pared, the parallel

survey estimates remained lower than those from the CPS.

Data on a larger group of persons outside the labor

force, one that includes discouraged workers as well as

persons who desire work but give other reasons for not

searching (such as child-care problems, family responsibilities, school, or transportation problems) may also be relevant for analysis. This group is made up of persons who

want a job, are available to work, and have looked for work

within the past year. They constitute 2.1 percent of the

not-in-the-labor-force group in the parallel survey. There

is no com parable figure for the CPS, since the old questionnaire did not ask about recency of jobsearch for those not

in the labor force.

Retired and disabled persons. One of the most frequent

complaints from respondents and interviewers about the

former questionnaire was the burden it placed on retired

and disabled people, who every month were asked a series

of questions on labor force activity which had no relevance

to their situation. In the new questionnaire, several

changes were made to address this problem. In the case of

retirees 50 years and over, the first month they volunteer

that they are retired they are skipped to a question asking

whether they currently want a job (either full or part time).

If they do not want a job, the interview is ended. In subse-

~

quent months, through dependent interviewing, they are

asked if they did any work in the last week. If not, it is verified that they are still retired and do not want a job. Nearly

all of the people who were identified as retired in previous

months verify that they are still retired in the subsequent

month.

Similar changes were made to reduce the burden for

those who volunteer that they are disabled or unable to

work. (The latter category is intended to cover people with

a temporary illness or injury who might not perceive themselves as disabled, a term which may have a more permanent connotation.) Individuals who are reported as disabled or unable to work are asked a followup question to

determine if they will be able to do any gainful work in the

next 6 months. If they won't, the interview is ended. In

subsequent months, they are asked if they worked in the

prior week. If not, they are asked to sim ply verify their previous month's status as disabled or unable to work.

It is important to be aware ofthefactthat the "shortcut"

offered to older survey participants did not reduce the

count of older persons who are active in the labor market.

On the contrary, the parallel survey obtained a larger labor

force among the older population than did the CPS. As

explained in the sections on employment and unemployment, the new questions appeared, to capture more

part-time and irregular work, as well as more jobsearch .

for these types of work, resulting in higher estimates of

labor force activity for several groups, including older

workers.

It should also be noted that the response categories of

retired and disabled were intended merely to reduce the

burden of participating in the survey, not to provide a

com plete count of retired or disabled persons. Such classiTable 9. Discouraged workers by sex and age using 1980

census-based population estimates from the CPS and the

parallel survey, 1993annual averages

(In thousands)

Category CPS1 Parallel Difference2

survey

Not in labor force, total .. 65,447 64,585 ·862

Discouraged workers:

Total .............. 1,127 424 ·703

Men ............ 523 221 ·302

Women ......... 604 204 ·400

16 to 24 years .... 222 114 -108

Men .......... 120 67 ·53

Women ........ 102 47 -55

25 years and over 905 311 -594

Men .......... 404 154 -250

Women ........ 502 157 -345

1These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993

averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 These differences may not equal the results obtained from comparing the values shown in the table because of independent rounding.

31
fications in the survey depend strictly on individuals' volunteering the information. No attempt is made to determine if those who say they are retired ever worked at a paying job or met any other specific criteria. Moreover,

persons active in the labor force market who are also retired from previous careers or disabled are classified as

employed or unemployed rather than as not in the labor

force (retired or disabled).

Historical Comparability

The new questionnaire and mode of data collection will

result in changes for most estimates. Examination of the

parallel survey data has helped quantify the magnitude of

these differences and identify their possible causes. BLS

will not, however, use the parallel survey data to reissue

official estimates. Instead, BLS will provide estimates and

suggestions in the form of research series and publications,

in order to aid individuals who examine CPS data historically.

Some of the techniques being investigated for use in the

construction of historical research series include the im position of old definitions on the data collected beginning in

January 1994, construction of new definitions with data

collected prior to January 1994, the use of measurement

error models to explore the structural relationship between the CPS and the parallel survey data in order to predict what the CPS estimates would have been had the new

procedures been used prior to January 1994, the exploration of geographic variation to gain insight into the effects

of the new questionnaire and procedures at different levels

of unemployment, and the tracking of the CPS and parallel

survey data with other concurrent measures of economic

activity.

Considerable analysis of the aggregate unemployment

rate has already been completed and is available from BLS

upon request. Work on other labor market series will be

coming out over the next 12 to 18 months."

Also for comparability, BLS and the Bureau of the Census will, for a period, continue to conduct the "old

CPS" -that is, with the old questionnaire and paper and

pencil procedure, using the 12,000 household sample in

the 1992-93 parallel survey. Current plans call for data

from this second parallel survey to be made available in

July 1994 after the effects of switching respondents and interviewers from the automated survey to the paper survey

have been investigated. It is important for data users and

the public to know that data from the second parallel surveyare being collected for the purposes of historical com8 For preliminary findings from this research, see two BLS Technical

Reports: "What Would the Unemployment Rate Have Been Had the Redesigned Current Population Survey Been in Place From September 1992

to December 19931: A Measurement Error Analysis, n by Stephen M.

Miller (Telephone 202-606-7379); and "Predicting the National Unemployment Rate That the 'Old' CPS Would Have Produced," by Richard

Tiller (Telephone 202-606·6370).

32

parisons only. The official unemployment rate estimates

will continue to be derived from the 60,000 household

sample that, as of January 1994, is administered with the

new automated questionnaire. Given its small sample size,

estimates from the second parallel survey will have a great

deal of variability and thus reduced reliability. Specifically, the standard error on a 3-month national unemployment rate from the 12,000 household second parallel survey will be more than twice as large as the standard error

from the 60,000 household sample. To put this in perspective, data from the second parallel survey would have to be

aggregated together for more than a year to obtain a level

of variability as small as that obtained for 1 month of CPS

data collected from the 60,000 household sample.

Introduction of 1990 Census-Based

Population Controls

Derivation of 1990 census-based population

controls, with adjustment for net census

undercoverage

Beginning with the CPS estimates for January 1994, the

independent national population controls used for the agesex-race groups in the second-stage estimation procedure

are being prepared by projecting forward the resident population as enumerated on April 1, 1990. Also, for the first

time, estimates of the decennial census undercount, obtained from the Post Enumeration Survey (PES), are being

added to the population controls.

Current month CPS estimates of the population are adjusted to agree with independent population controls.

These controls are developed from a variety of sources, as

described below. In the second-stage estimation procedure, the CPS sample weights are adjusted to ensure that

sample-based estimates of population match the independent controls. The CPS population estimates are consistent with three sets of controls for:

1) 50 States and the District of Columbia

2) 14 Hispanic and 5 non-Hispanic age-sex groups

3) 66 white, 42 black, and 10 other race-age-sex

groups

The first set of controls is restricted to the civilian noninstitutional population (16 years and over) and the remaining controls are developed for the civilian noninstitutional

population plus noninstitutionalized children 15 years and

under.

Since the population controls are derived primarily

from non-survey data, they are assumed to contain no

sampling error and thus do not contribute to the variance

of the survey estimates. The second-stage ratio adjustment

reduces the variability of those CPS estimates which are
correlated with the population - particularly estimates of

em ployment and civilian labor force. At the same time, the

adjustment partially corrects for CPS undercoverage of

certain demographic groups, most notably Hispanics.

The 1990-based independent population controls are

aggregates of more detailed population projections and are

developed in a manner similar to earlier controls. Decennial census data and a variety of administrative and survey

information are used to "age forward" estimates of the

population to the current month, adjust for births and

deaths, account for net migration, and then subtract the

counts of Armed Forces and institutionalized persons.

The population figures derived in this manner are projections based on administrative estimates, in contrast to the

survey-based estimates of population obtained from the

CPS. A description of the method used to make the

1990-based projections is given here.

The base figures for the resident population are derived

from the 1990 decennial census, which has an official reference date of April 1, 1990. (The resident population includes all persons living in the United States, regardless of

age, institutional status, or Armed Forces membership.)

The age distribution is modified to correct for lags between

the census date and the actual date of interview. The race

distribution is modified to be consistent with OMB Directive 15, which stipulates that persons of unspecified race,

mostly persons of Hispanic origin, are allocated to one of

four race categories (white; black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; Asian and Pacific Islander). As a result of

these changes, the base figures differ in age and race distribution from figures published by the Bureau of the Census

in decennial census reports. For details, see U.S. Bureau of

the Census, Publication CPH-L-74, Age, Sex, Race, and

Hispanic Origin Information from the 1990 Census: a

Comparison of Census Results with Results where Age and

Race have been Modified. The Bureau of the Census also

develops estimates of the April 1, 1990 population, independent of the 1990 census, using methods of demogra phic analysis. These estimates are also used in developing the

population controls for CPS.

A myriad of data sources are tapped to measure postcensal change in the resident population due to births,

deaths, and net migration. The National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS) provides the Census Bureau with data

on births by sex, race, and Hispanic origin, although data

for the latest month must be projected. Deaths by age, sex,

and race are also obtained from NCHS, although the latest

6 months must be projected from a life table based on

NCHS and Social Security Administration data. (The entire series of deaths for the Hispanic-origin population is

projected.) Data on legal international immigration are

obtained from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Puerto

Rican Planning Board (mostly projected between the latest July 1 to the current month, although preliminary data

are used to track refugee movements). EStimates of net undocumented immigration and permanent emigration of

legal United States residents are modeled using the 1980

census and data from surveys and earlier censuses. The net

movement of United States citizens from overseas to the

United States is estimated based on data provided by the

Department of Defense and the Office of Personnel Management (for military and civilian Federal Government

personnel and their dependents). Other net migration is

assumed to be zero (e.g., movement offoreign students and

civilians not affiliated with the Federal Government).

Most of the data are characterized as administrative,

although some data for recent months must be projected.

Thus, while the data are not subject to sampling error, they

may contain nonsampling errors and bias.

The "inflation-deflation" method uses data from all

these sources to generate the current month's national (not

State) projections of the resident population by age, sex,

race, and ethnicity. The inflation-deflation method is a

variant of the standard cohort-component method in

which a population is aged forward a number of years taking into account births, deaths, and net migration by age.

The cohort-component method is improved by factoring

in estimates of the decennial census undercount, using the

method of inflation-deflation.

The basic procedure may be described as follows. For

each age-race-sex cell, the 1990 census population count is

divided by the corresponding estimate of the resident population made by demographic analysis. The resulting inflation-deflation factors are estimates of census coverage

rates. The factors are assumed to be time-invariant and associated with a specific age range. At the April 1 census

date, the reciprocals of the factors are viewed as inflating

the census figures up to the demographic analysis

figures (although these are not always larger). The demographic analysis population estimate is aged forward

to the current time. Estimates of births and net migration

are added to each aged demographic analysis cell value,

and estimates of deaths are subtracted. Each cell value is

then multiplied by the inflation-deflation factor of its new

age to deflate the value. While not correcting for net census

undercount (which is both added and subtracted), the inflation-deflation procedure preserves the age pattern of the

undercount. For more information on data sources and

methods, see Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Reports 1045 and 1095, U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Let us consider an example. The 1990 factor of approximately 0.98 for white male 13-year-olds represents a 2-percent undercount in the census; the factor of 1.02 for white

male 17-year-olds represents an overcount of 2 percent.

The demographic analysis population estimate is aged forward to the current time. Each aged demographic analysis

cell value is adjusted for births, deaths, and migration.

Each cell value is then multiplied by the inflation-deflation factor for its new age to deflate the cell value to corre33
::::

spond to the decennial census base. If the current reference

date is April 1994, the la-year-old white male cell value for

the census is inflated by dividing by 0.98 and aged forward

to 17 years of age. Deaths are subtracted, and net migration figures are added. The cell value is then multi' plied by

the 1.02 factor for the 17-year- old group, effectively

giving the new cell estimate a census overcount of 2

percent.

To obtain the civilian noninstitutional population,

which is the universe. for the CPS, the resident population

estimates for those 16 years of age and over are reduced by

subtracting both Armed Forces personnel residing in the

United States and civilians living in institutions. The number of resident Armed Forces personnel is estimated using

data from the Department of Defense. The 1990 demographic census data on the institutional population are updated annually through a canvass of group quarters facilities. The estimates of the resident population for those under 16 years of age are also reduced by subtracting the institutional population.

As a last step, corrections for net census undercount are

applied. The level of the 1990 decennial census undercount is calculated from the PES by sex-race-ethnicity for

each year of age. The level of undercount is assumed to be

invariant over time, and a matrix of undercounts is added

to the population projections. The overall level of the projections is raised by the addition of this constant matrix,

but month-to-month changes in the population are unaffected. See U.S. Bureau of the Census, Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for

use in Intercensal Estimates: Report of the Committee on

Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates. The undercount adjusted projections are aggregated to obtain the national

age-sex-ethnicity and age-sex-race population controls

used in second-stage ratio adjustment.

State projections of the civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over are developed using similar procedures. Population estimates for States are produced by age

and sex only (not race or Hispanic origin), and only the 16

and over totals are used in computing independent controls. Information from tax returns is used to estimate migration between States. For each State, the population 16

years and over is calculated for each JUly. The two most

recent July figures give the latest estimate of year-to-year

change. For the current month, a straight-line extrapolation of the change is made, with a new base series for the

projection instituted each January. Counts of resident

Armed Forces and the institutional population 16 years

and older are subtracted to yield the civilian noninstitutional population. A pro rata adjustment ensures the additivity of the State projections to the projection for the

national civilian noninstitutional population. For mere

information,see Current Population Reports, Series P-25, .

Reports 957 and 1010, Bureau of the Census.

34

Effect of 1990 census-based population

controls on national estimates

CPS estimates of major labor force characteristics for

the annual average of 1993, using both the 1980 censusbased and adjusted 1990 census-based population controls, are presented in table 10. An undercount adjustment, based on results from the Census Bureau's Post

Enumeration Survey (PES), is applied to the 1990-based

controls. These averages are based on monthly CPS estimates using the final weights computed after second-stage

estimation, which are neither composited nor seasonally

adjusted. Under the new controls, the annual average estimate of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years of

age and over increased by about 1.3 million or 0.7 percent;

the civilian labor force increased by about 1.1 million or

0.9 percent; and the level of unemployed increased by 0.2

million or 2.3 percent. The estimated totals using the 1990

population controls are considered to be more accurate,

since these controls are projected from the April 1990

decennial census estimates and adjusted for undercount,

whereas the 1980-based controls are projected from the

1980 decennial census estimates.

Under the new controls, the estimate of the annual average unemployment rate increased by 0.1 percentage point,

primarily because of the large upward population adjustment for Hispanics (see below), who have an unemployment rate higher than the overall labor force. The labor

force participation rate increased by 0.2 percentage point;

and the employment-population ratio increased by 0.1

percentage point.

Levels increased for the civilian noninstitutional population and all labor force categories in all demographic

groups shown in table 10. The most notable increases occurred for Hispanics. The change from the 1980- to

1990-based estimates of the population for this group was

approximately 11 percent, with similar percentage increases in employed and unemployed levels. The difference

between the 1980- and 1990-based estimates of the unemployment rate for all groups, except teenagers, was near the

national average of 0.1 percentage point; for teenagers,

there was negligible change in the unemployment rate.

Differences in labor force participation rates for adult

men, blacks, and Hispanics were above the national average of 0.2 percentage point, while the differences for adult

women, teenagers, and whites were below the national

average. Differences in employment-population ratios also

exceeded the national average of 0.1 percentage point

for adult men, blacks, and Hispanics, while there were virtually no differences for adult women, teenagers, and

whites.

Total effects due to changes in methods and

popuJation controls

Differences in labor force estimates using the old and
. new questionnaires and data collection' procedures were

presented in the section on the redesign. These differences

were calculated from 1993 annual average CPS and parallel survey estimates based on 1980 population controls

and represent changes that can be attributed to the redesign. Changes in 1993 CPS estimates attributed to the new

population controls were discussed in the previous section.

This section presents a brief discussion of the combined effects of the new questionnaire and controls by comparing

labor force estimates from the 1993 CPS, adjusted to

1980-based controls, with estimates from the parallel survey, adjusted to 1990-based controls.

Table 10 shows annual average estimates of major labor

force characteristics for the 1993 CPS (1980-based) and

the parallel survey (1990-based) and the differences between these estimates. The effects from the new methods

and population controls are essentially additive. For example, the estimate of civilian labor force increased by 2

million; an increase of 1.1 million is due to the new population controls as reported in the previous section, and the

remainder (0.9 million) is attributed to the survey redesign. Similarly, estimated total employment increased by

1.1 million under the new methods and population controls. Of this amount, about 0.9 million is due to the new

controls and 0.2 million is contributed by the new questionnaire. Total unemployment increased by 0.9 million,

of which 0.7 million is attributed to the redesign and 0.2

million is due to the new population controls.

The sum due to the population controls and the redesign

may not equal the total effect in table 10, primarily because

the new population controls affect CPS and parallel survey

estimates differently. For example, the parallel survey

yields a larger estimate of the number of unemployed; consequently, the effect due to the population controls would

be slightly larger for that survey estimate. In addition,

there are minor differences in the CPS and parallel survey

second-stage estimation algorithms.

The breakdown of the total effect on various rates and

ratios is given in table 11. The increase in the annual average unemployment rate is 0.6 percentage point; since the

difference due to population controls is 0.1 percentage

point, the contribution from the redesign is 0.5 percentage

point. The labor force participation rate increased by a total of 0.6 percentage point, with 0.2 percentage point due

to population controls. The total change in the employment-population ratio is 0.2 percentage point. The change

attributed to the redesign is about half this amount, or 0.1

percentage point. Note that the total effect is not always

the sum of two positive effects. For example, the total effect for adult men's employment-population ratio is -0.4

percentage point. The effect from population controls is

0.3 percentage point, and the questionnaire effect is -0.7

percentage point.

Table 11 also shows that for the unem ployment rate the

effects from new population controls are about 0.1 percentage point for all demographic groups except teenagers. The total effects vary from 0.3 percentage point for

adult men to 1.6 percentage points for teenagers. The effects from population controls are fairly stable over time

so the annual average is similar to the population control

effect for a given month; however, as the redesign effects

vary from month to month, especially for Hispanics and

teenagers, the annual average redesign effect may not be a

good indicator of difference for a single month.

The total change for labor force participation rates in

table 11 varies from -0.2 percentage point for adult men to

2.3 percentage points for teenagers and Hispanics. The effect due to population controls is largest for blacks. For the

employment-population ratio, the total changes are larger

for teenagers (about 1 percentage point, all attributed to

the redesign) and Hispanics (0.8 percentage point from the

redesign and 0.3 percentage point due to population controls). Again, the estimates of the redesign effects for teenagers and Hispanics have a high degree of month-tomonth variability, primarily due to small sample sizes. For

adult men and blacks, the total effect on the employmentpopulation ratio is a decline of about one-half of one percentage point.

Effect on State and Area Estimates

Beginning with estimates for January 1994, State and

area labor market statistics produced by BLS in cooperation with State Employment Security Agencies also reflect

a number of important changes. Consistent with changes

affecting the national data, these include:

• implementation of the CPS redesign, and

• introduction of 1990 census-based population controls (adjusted for the estimated population undercount).

In addition, the State and area labor market estimates

are affected by:

• improved time-series models for the smaller States,

and

• incorporation of selected 1990 census data in the

geographic definition of labor market areas and in local

area labor force estimation.

Each of these topics will be explained in a detailed

article which will appear in the March 1994 issue of this

publication.

Further Information

Additional information is available on all of the suh.jects

covered in this article. Requests should be sent to: Il.S,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 4675, 2 Massachusetts

AvenueNE., Washington, DC 20212-0001. The telephone

number is (202) 606~6378; Fax (202) 606-6426.

35
Table 10. Total effect of the adjusted 1990 census-based population controls and the redesign on selected labor 'force groups, 1993

annual averages

(Numbers in thousands\

CPS Parallel survey Effect2

Adjusted Adjusted PopuEmployment status and group 1980 1990 1980 1990 Total lation Redesign

census- census- census- census- controls

based! based based based (4-1) (2-1) (3-1)

(1) .

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

TOTAL

Civilian noninstitutional population ........ 193,550 194,805 193,550 194,805 1,255 1.255 0

Civilian labor force' ................... 128,103 129,240 128,965 130,103 2,000 1,137 862

Percent of population ............. 66.2 66.3 66.6 66.8 .6 .2 .4

Employed ....................... , 119,389 120,323 119,606 120,511 1,112 934 217

Employment-population ratio .•. , ... 61.7 61.8 61.8 61.9 .2 .1 .1

Unemployed ...................... 8,714 8,917 9,359 9,592 878 203 645

Unemployment rate ......... ,. '" 6.8 6.9 7.3 7.4 .6 .1 .5

Men, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional population ........ 85,906 86,290 85,850 86,236 329 384 -56

Civilian labor force ................... 66,On 66,680 65,599 66,197 120 604 -478

Percent of population ............. 76.9 n.3 76.4 76.8 -.2 .4 -.5

Employed ........................ 61,884 62,402 61,283 61,786 -97 519 -601

Employment-population ratio ....... 72.0 72.3 71.4 71.7 -.4 .3 -.6

Unemployed ...................... 4,193 4,278 4,316 4,410 218 85 123

Unemployment rate '" .......... , 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.7 .3 .1 .2

Women, 20 years and over

Civilian noninstitutional popUlation ........ 94,389 94,598 94,361 94,590 201 209 -28

Civilian labor force ....•.............. 55,184 55,379 56,162 56,363 ,178 195 978

Percent of population ..........•.. 58.5 58.5 59.5 59.6 1.1 .1 1.0

Employed ........ , ............... 51,966 52,110 52,604 52,735 769 144 638

Employment-population ratio ....... 55.1 55.1 55.8 55.8 .7 .0 .7

Unemployed ....................... 3,218 3,270 3,559 3,627 409 51 340

Unemployment rate '0 •••••• , ••••• 5.8 5.9 6.3 6.4 .6 .1 .5

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years

Civilian noninstitutional population ........ 13,254 13,916 13,338 13,979 725 662 84

Civilian labor force ................... 6,842 7,180 7,203 7,543 701 338 361

Percent of populeuon ............. 51.6 51.6 54.0 54.0 2.3 .0 2.4

Employed •••••• "0 •••• "0', •••• "0 5,540 5,812 5,719 5,989 449 272 179

Employment-population ratio ....... 41.8 41.8 42.9 42.8 1.1 .0 1.1

Unemployed .· .. ·.0 ............... 1,302 1,369 1,485 1,554 252 66 182

Unemployment rate • to' '" ••••••• 19.0 19.1 20.6 20.6 1.6 .0 1.6

White

Civilian n6ninstitutional population ........ 163,921 164,268 163,921 164,268 347 347 0

Civilian labor force ................... 109,407 109,736 110,209 110,550 1,143 329 802

Percent of population ............. 66.7 66.8 67.2 67.3 .6 .1 .5

Employed '" ......... , .., ........ 102,891 103,114 103,267 103,482 592 223 376

Employment-population ratio ....... 62.8 62.8 63.0 63.0 .2 .0 .2

Unemployed ............. , ........ 6,516 6,622 6,942 7,067 551 106 426

Unemploy ment rate '" ........... 6.0 6.0 6.3 6.4 .4 .1 .3

•

Black

Civilian noninstitutional population .. " .... 22,329 22,505 22,329 22,505 176 176 0

Civilian labor force ................... 13,957 14,224 13,908 14,171 214 267 -49

Percent of population ............. 62.5 63.2 62.3 63.0 .5 .7 -.2

Employed ................... '" ... 12,148 12,370 11,923 12,133 -14 222 -225

Employment-poPlllation ratio ....... 54.4 55.0 53.4 53.9 -.5 .6 -1.0

Unemployed ...................... 1,809 1,855 1,985

i

2,038 229 45 176

Unemployment rate .............. 13.0 13,0 14.3 I

14.4 I 1.4 .1 1.3

36
Table 10. Total effect of the adjusted 1990census-based population controls and the redesign on selected labor force groups, 1993

annual averages-Continued

(Numbers in thousands)

CPS Parallel survey Effect2

Adjusted Adjusted PopuEmployment status and group 1980 1990 1980 1990 Total lation Redesign

census- census- census- census- controls

basedl based based based (4-1) (2-1) (3-1)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Hispanic origin

Civilian noninstitutional population ........ 15,753 17,505 15,753 17,505 1,752 1,752 0

Civilian labor force .....•.•........... 10,385 11,611 10,666 11,933 1,548 1,226 281

Percent of population ...... '" .... 65.9 66.3 67.7 68.2 2.3 .4 1.8

Employed ........................ 9,285 10,370 9,412 10,528 1,243 1,085 127

Employment-population ratio .•..... 58.9 59.2 59.7 60.1 1.2 .3 .8

Unemployed ..................•... 1,100 1,241 1,254 1,405 305 141 155

Unemployment rate .............. 10.6 10.7 11.8 11.8 1.2 .1 1.2

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.

2 Changes in column 5 minus those in column 6 do not necessarily

equal those in column 7 primarily because the population controls affected the CPS and the parallel survey estimates differently. Moreover,

population estimates obtained from the two surveys do not always

agree due to slight differences in estimating procedures.

NOTE: Detail for the above race and Hispanic-origin groups will not

sum to totals because data for the "other races" group are not presented

and Hispanics are included in both the white and black population groups.

Table 11_ Total effect of adjusted 1990 census-based population controls and the redesign on selected labor force ratios and rates,

1993 annual averages.

(Percent)

Effect2

Category CPS 1980 Parallel survey,

census-based" adjusted 1990 Population

census-based Total controls Redesign

Labor force participation rates

Total, 16 years and over ...................... 66.2 66.8 0.6 0.2 0.4

Men, 20 years and over •••••••••• 0 •••••••••• 76.9 76.8 -.2 .4 -.5

Women, 20 years andover .., ............... 58.5 59.6 1.1 .1 1.1

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ..............•.... 51.6 .54.0 2.3 .0 2.4

White ..................................... 66~7 67.3 .6 .1 .5

Black ..................................... 62.5 63.0 .5 .7 -.2

Hispanic origin ............................. 65.9 68.2 2.3 .4 1.8

Employment-population ratios

Total, 16 years and over ...................... 61.7 61.9 .2 .1 .1

Men, 20 years and over •••••••••••••• 0 •••••• 72.0 71.7 -.4 .3 -.7

Women, 20 years and over '" .... " ......... 55.1 55.8 .7 .0 .7

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years ................... 41.8 42.8 1.1 :

.0 1.1

White ................•.................... 62.8 63.0 .2 .0 .2

Black ................•..............•..... 54,4 53.9 -.5 .6 -1.0

Hispanic origin .....•....................... 58.9 60.1 1.2 .3 .8

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over •••• 0 ••••••••••• 0 •• ' •• 6.8 7.4 .6 .1 .5

Men, 20 years and over ••••••••••• 0 ••••• II ••

6.4 6.7 .3 .1 .2

Women, 20 years and over ....... , .......... 5.8 6.4 .6 .1 .5

Both sexes, 16 to 19 years .................•. 19.0 20.6 1.6 .0 1.6

White ..................................... 6.0 6.4 .4 .1 .3

Black ..................................... 13.0 14.4 1.4 .1 1.3

Hispanic origin ............................. 10.6 11.8 1.2 .1 1.2

1 These estimates differ slightly from previously published 1993 averages because of the estimation procedure used.2 The sum ofthe difference due to population controls and the redesign

may not equal the total difference primarily due to rounding.

37