1

Steven M. Mance

mance.steven@bls.gov

Steven M. Mance is a supervisory economist in 

the Office of Employment and Unemployment 

Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

John R. Stewart

stewart.john@bls.gov

John R. Stewart is a supervisory economist in the 

Office of Employment and Unemployment 

Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Reconstruction of CES time series: implementing 

the 2010 OMB metropolitan area delineations

With the release of January 2015 data, the Current 

Employment Statistics program at the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics incorporated new area delineations from the 

Office of Management and Budget. Taking into account 

population and commuting data from the 2010 census, the 

program added 34 new areas, dropped 15 previously 

published areas, and changed the geographical scope of 

129 areas. Throughout the revisions, the chief aim was to 

maintain the integrity of series in the redefined areas.

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) program is a 

federal–state cooperative program between the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and State Workforce 

Agencies. Through the CES survey, the program produces 

data on employment, hours, and earnings at the national 

level for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

the Virgin Islands, and more than 400 metropolitan areas. 

The program produces some of the timeliest economic 

indicators each month—usually available 3 to 5 weeks after 

the reference period—by surveying approximately 146,000 

businesses and government agencies that represent about 

623,000 individual worksites.

Each year, CES sample-based estimates are benchmarked 

to universe counts derived primarily from state 

unemployment insurance (UI) tax records compiled by the 

BLS Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) 

program. At the state and metropolitan area levels, the CES 

program replaces sample-based estimates with a version of QCEW data adjusted to CES definitions and corrected 

for noneconomic breaks in time series.1 At the level of total nonfarm employment, CES time series go back to at 

least 1990 for all metropolitan areas and to 1939 for all states except Alaska and Hawaii. At the national level, most 

detailed industry time series go back to 1990, although many go back further.

October 2016
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

2

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

Defining CES areas

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides federal statistical agencies with common delineations 

of geographic areas consisting of urban clusters economically integrated with surrounding communities. These 

delineations in turn afford data users a needed commonality across agencies and databases. The OMB 

delineations are based primarily upon the concept of a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), which is made up of 

adjacent counties (or equivalent jurisdictions, such as boroughs in Alaska and parishes in Louisiana) having at 

least one core population of 10,000 or more.2 Commuting patterns between the urban core and surrounding 

counties are used to quantify the economic integration of the region, and qualifying adjacent counties are included 

in the CBSA. Counties can be in only one CBSA, and CBSAs may merge or split over time.

CBSAs fall into two categories: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs)—that is, urban areas having a population of 

at least 50,000—and Micropolitan Statistical Areas—that is, urban clusters between 10,000 and 50,000. OMB also 

defines New England City and Township Areas (NECTAs), using almost identical methodology as that for CBSAs, 

except with cities and towns instead of counties as the core population. For very large areas containing an urban 

area of at least 2.5 million, OMB divides MSAs and NECTAs into Metropolitan Divisions (MDs) and NECTA 

Divisions.

The CES program produces estimates of employment, hours, and earnings for all MSAs and MDs in the nation, 

except for New England, where the program produces estimates for NECTAs and NECTA Divisions. Although the 

program does not produce estimates for Micropolitan Statistical Areas, it does provide estimates of employment, 

hours, and earnings for some nonstandard areas that are not based on OMB definitions.3 Nonstandard areas can 

be large municipalities, individual state pieces of cross-state areas, or the residual portions of MSAs not elsewhere 

defined. Because of their economic importance, and owing to demand from data users, CES maintains data on 

these areas. Nonstandard areas published by the CES program in 2014 and 2015 are shown in table 1.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2010 updates

2014 2015

Area code Area name Area code Area name

92581 Baltimore City, MD 92581 Baltimore City, MD

92811 Kansas City, MO 92811 Kansas City, MO

92812 Kansas City, KS 92812 Kansas City, KS

93561 New York City, NY 93561 New York City, NY

93562 Putnam–Rockland–Westchester, NY 93562 Orange–Rockland–Westchester, NY

93563 Bergen–Hudson–Passaic, NJ 93563 Bergen–Hudson–Passaic, NJ

94781 Calvert–Charles–Prince George's, MD 93565 Middlesex–Monmouth–Ocean, NJ

94783 Northern Virginia, VA 94781 Calvert–Charles–Prince George's, MD

97961 Philadelphia City, PA 94783 Northern Virginia, VA

 ... ... 97961 Philadelphia City, PA

 ... ... 97962 Delaware County, PA

Table 1. Nonstandard areas published by CES, 2014 and 2015
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

3

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

Because of changes in economic and demographic trends, the delineations of metropolitan areas need to be 

reassessed frequently in order for them to maintain economic relevance. Areas expand or contract for a number of 

reasons, all of which can affect the quality of data and information provided by the CES program. Each year, OMB 

evaluates its definitions of metropolitan areas. Annual updates have been negligible, often not affecting data 

published by the CES program. However, with each decennial census, OMB receives substantive data updates on 

population distributions and commuting patterns from the U.S. Census Bureau, prompting a more extensive 

reassessment of the delineation of metropolitan areas.

In February 2013, OMB incorporated data from the 2010 census and released updates to area delineations.4 The 

effect of these delineations on CES areas is shown in table 2, where the categories “changed” and “unchanged” 

denote areas that were changed or unchanged geographically. (Areas that had only administrative changes to 

their titles or area codes were considered unchanged but were not included in the table.)

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Reconstructing time series by using administrative data

The primary source for reconstructing employment time series is the BLS Longitudinal Database (LDB), which 

consists of establishment-level microdata from the QCEW and represents all employment covered by the UI 

system. The LDB contains the state, county, township, ownership (private industry; or federal, state, or local 

government), and industry codes from the 2012 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) that were 

assigned to each establishment in a given quarter. The LDB also contains monthly employment values and other 

information. The LDB has data on approximately 29 million establishments from 1990 to 2013, including data on 

business births and deaths. The number of active establishments reporting employment has grown from about 5 

million per quarter in 1990 to about 8 million in 2013. The LDB connects businesses reporting to the UI system 

across time in two ways that aid in reconstructing employment time series. First, establishments that changed UI 

account numbers but represent the same business location are linked together with a common identifier (a unique 

“LDB number” for each establishment). Second, the LDB tracks more complicated predecessor–successor 

relationships where changes in reporting may be administrative rather than economic in nature. These kinds of 

relationships may exist when old and new UI reporting units share some physical assets but do not represent the 

exact same worksites. An example is a firm that changes from reporting all of its jobs in one report to reporting 

separately about individual worksites. The establishments newly reported on do not represent actual business 

births, so it would be reasonable to impute some of the predecessor’s employment data onto them prior to the date 

of the administrative change. For time-series reconstruction, each establishment involved in a predecessor–

Type of area Number added Number dropped Number unchanged Number changed

Total 32 12 286 125

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) 24 10 267 82

Metropolitan Division (MD) 5 1 16 7

New England City and Township Area 

(NECTA) 0 1 0 21

NECTA Division 1 0 0 9

Nonstandard 2 0 3 6

Table 2. Impact of 2013 OMB delineations on CES areas
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

4

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

successor transaction was given an adjustment value based on its most recent relationship. For example, if a 

worksite represented 10 percent of its firm’s employment when reporting was broken out in detail, then, prior to 

that point in time, 10 percent of its firm’s reported employment would have been imputed to that worksite. The 

process was made possible by improvements to the LDB linkage file in the years following the previous 

reconstruction of OMB areas.

Industry, area, and ownership code changes, which may be for either economic or noneconomic reasons, also 

occur in the LDB. Economic code changes represent a change in business activity that was denoted in the quarter 

it occurred. These changes are included in the time series because they are, indeed, economic changes. Often, 

such changes are large and abrupt. Examples are a business moving its physical location to another county, a 

factory changing its main product, and the privatization of a hospital. If the changes are found at a time other than 

when they occurred, they are considered noneconomic. Noneconomic code changes also include fixes for codes 

that had been assigned erroneously and the initial assignment of codes for establishments that had been 

unassigned.5 Unlike economic code changes, noneconomic code changes are administrative in nature and 

therefore are adjusted before their inclusion in a time series, in order to eliminate series breaks. With the aim of 

reducing the number of noneconomic breaks, the LDB was adjusted so that each establishment was given its final 

(i.e., most recently assigned) codes at the same time that a list of economic code changes was compiled.

The sum of LDB employment—adjusted for predecessor–successor transactions—was then tallied for each 

industry, county, township, and ownership level. To these totals, employment data for LDB records with 

unclassified county or town codes were distributed on the basis of the proportion of employment in each county 

and town, for every NAICS and ownership code. Employment data associated with unassigned NAICS codes were 

distributed proportionally to other industries within a county or town. Records that lacked NAICS and county or 

town codes were distributed to counties and towns on the basis of their proportion of total CES-assigned 

employment within the state and then distributed proportionally to all industries.

Employment not covered by the LDB

The scope of employment covered by the UI system and by the CES definition of nonfarm payroll overlap broadly 

but not entirely: employment found in the LDB accounts for about 98 percent of nonfarm payroll employment and 

includes some agricultural and household workers who are covered by the unemployment insurance system but 

do not fit within the CES scope. Unemployment insurance laws vary by state, but examples of the 2 percent of 

workers who are in the scope of the CES survey but often are not covered by UI laws include employees of 

religious organizations, elected officials, commissioned insurance sales agents, corporate officers, student 

employees of colleges and universities, and workers covered under the Railroad Retirement Act. The CES 

program works with states each year to review UI laws and determine an appropriate noncovered employment 

(NCE) value for each industry and area.

To determine initial NCE values for reconstructions, the most recent year’s NCE values were examined and ratios 

of noncovered-to-covered employment were derived for every industry and ownership classification. It was then 

assumed that similar ratios of noncovered-to-covered employment would hold in substate jurisdictions (counties 

and townships). Finally, total LDB employment was multiplied by the noncovered-to-covered employment ratios to 

derive a noncovered-employment level for each industry–area–ownership6 (IAO) cell. This method accounts for 

the fact that the distribution of noncovered employment can vary significantly across geographic areas. For 
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

5

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

example, a small county with a large university would be expected to have more noncovered student workers than 

a large county without a university.7

Regular faculty members with contracts of at least 1 year at primary and secondary schools, colleges, and 

universities are counted as employed for the entire year in the CES survey, whether or not they receive pay year 

round. Many school faculty members do not get paid during summer breaks and are not counted under QCEW 

employment definitions, creating an additional difference in scope that required adjustment.

Noncovered employment totals and summer faculty adjustments were added to the sum of LDB employment, 

creating employment totals for every possible IAO cell in the country and forming a basis for reconstruction.

Scope of reconstructions

The reconstruction process used existing benchmarked time series as much as possible. Resources for the 

reconstruction were limited, and a thorough examination of the millions of LDB establishment records within new 

and changing areas spanning more than 23 years was not practical. Therefore, only jurisdictions (counties or 

townships) whose area definition changed were directly analyzed.

New areas had to be constructed “from the ground up”: employment at establishments within the area’s 

boundaries were summed together and adjusted for any noneconomic breaks, to get a grand total of employment 

in the area. For existing areas that changed, employment in the changing jurisdictions were added to or subtracted 

from the area’s time series. Some areas merged. When this happened, published histories from the original areas 

were used to the fullest extent possible and then were adjusted for any additional definitional changes as needed. 

For example, the Grand Rapids, MI, MSA absorbed the Holland, MI, MSA, which consisted of Ottawa County. In 

that case, benchmarked employment counts for industries that the two areas had in common were added together, 

and when an industry was not published for Holland, adjusted LDB data were added to Grand Rapids to account 

for that industry’s not being published for Holland. In addition to merging, Grand Rapids added one other county 

and subtracted two counties. In this case, employment in these counties was added to or subtracted from the 

Grand Rapids MSA in the same fashion as with any other changing area.8

CES review of reconstructed time series

A manual review by BLS and State Workforce Agency analysts followed the automated process of summing LDB 

records, adjusting for predecessor–successor transactions, estimating noncovered employment, and distributing 

unclassified employment. X-13ARIMA-SEATS, a seasonal adjustment and time-series modeling program 

maintained by the Census Bureau,9 was used to scan for additive (point) outliers and level shifts in the net change 

in the series. Level shifts sometimes represent series breaks—for example, a large predecessor–successor 

transaction that was not accounted for by the automated process—but may also represent an economic event, 

such as a strike or the opening or closing of a large business. Additive outliers could be caused as well by 

noneconomic events, such as data entry errors. All anomalies were investigated and, if they were shown to be 

noneconomic, were adjusted by analysts.

During annual CES production, states are responsible for providing noncovered-employment values—for instance, 

by conducting supplemental surveys or using other resources, such as County Business Patterns, a Census 

Bureau series that provides subnational economic data by industry.10 In many cases, states were able to provide 
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

6

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

better values of noncovered employment for area reconstruction purposes than the initially derived noncoveredemployment values. Further, states had previously benchmarked and published data on a number of the 

Micropolitan Statistical Areas that were reclassified as MSAs. In these cases, BLS used state-published histories 

to the fullest extent possible. Many of these series did not go back to 1990, however, so they had to be spliced into 

series derived from the LDB.

Seasonal adjustment

A number of methodological constraints associated with the CES two-step seasonal adjustment process limited the 

ability of the CES program to provide seasonally adjusted all-employee updates for areas being redelineated and 

for new areas. Research from the Dallas Federal Reserve has shown that CES benchmarked population data 

exhibit a seasonal pattern different from that of the sample-based estimates.11 The benchmarked population data 

are used in the two-step process to seasonally adjust from the benchmark point back. By contrast, the previously 

published sample-based estimates are used as input to forecast seasonal factors for the upcoming estimation 

year. This process of independently adjusting benchmarked data and sample-based data accounts for seasonal 

differences between the two series and allows for a better seasonal adjustment of sample data in the coming year. 

The two series are independently adjusted and then spliced together at the benchmark month (in this case, 

September 2014).12 However, as with the population reconstructions, areas being redelineated will show breaks in 

their historical sample-based estimates while new areas will have no historical sample-based estimates. Once the 

redefined population data were reconstructed, the CES program utilized several statistical techniques to examine 

differences in seasonality within the population data across area delineations. The aim of such an examination was 

to learn whether these differences could serve as a proxy for breaks in the sample-based component of a given 

series. The examination found that areas with greater changes in levels performed more poorly with regard to the 

test statistics. Therefore, a threshold was set to identify areas that CES analysts could be confident would not 

experience seasonal breaks due to the new delineations: areas whose geographic compositional change was less 

than an absolute percent change of 4 percent (as of March 2013) remained eligible to be published on a 

seasonally adjusted basis, while areas whose change was greater than 4 percent would not be seasonally 

adjusted in 2015. As a result, the CES program was able to publish 57 of the affected areas on a seasonally 

adjusted basis. Currently, the program does not provide seasonally adjusted data for 91 areas (59 that are 

compositionally changing and 32 that are new).13

Non–all-employee data

Two methods were developed to reconstruct non–all-employee (non-AE) data: one for new areas and one for 

preexisting areas. Reconstruction was necessary for preexisting areas that had new geographical compositions 

under the new delineations. Non-AE data series were not reconstructed for areas for which only a title or code 

change occurred. Instead, this type of administrative information was updated, and the previously published data 

were published for the updated area.

Because the availability of microdata was limited, all new areas were assigned a start year of January 2011. The 

non-AE microdata were mapped to the new area delineations for the reconstructions. A weighted-link-and-taper 

estimator was used to create the non-AE time series.14 This estimator accounts for the over-the-month change in 
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

7

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

the sampled units, but also includes a tapering feature used to keep the estimates close to the overall sample 

average over time.

Areas that existed prior to the revised delineation maintained the same publication structures and start dates. Like 

the new areas, the preexisting areas used the existing microdata and the weighted-link-and-taper estimator from 

January 2011 forward. Monthly average ratios of the reconstructed series to the previously published series from 

January 2011 to September 2014 were created and then applied to the previously published history to develop 

reconstructed histories beginning with December 2010.

Summary

Every 10 years, metropolitan areas in the United States undergo a major redelineation.15 Subsequently, the CES 

program must construct employment, hours, and earnings data for new and changed areas to provide users with a 

time series. The most recent major change came in 2013, and CES data were published in accordance with the 

new delineations in March 2015.

Employment data were reconstructed back to January 1990, primarily with the use of administrative data adjusted 

to remove noneconomic breaks. Existing data were used when possible, to further minimize error. Because of 

different seasonal patterns in the CES survey and administrative data, and because of a lack of survey-based 

employment histories, seasonally adjusted employment data are currently not published for new areas and areas 

that have changed substantially. The CES program is currently evaluating the resumption of seasonal adjustment 

for the latter areas.

Hours and earnings data for new and changed areas were reconstructed with the use of CES survey data because 

there were no available administrative data. For hours and earnings series in changed areas, existing histories 

were spliced together; new hours and earnings could be reconstructed only back to 2011.

Metropolitan areas will continue to undergo periodic changes in delineation. When that happens, CES data will 

need to be periodically reconstructed in order to maintain their relevance.

Appendix 1
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

8

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

Appendix 2
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

9

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Steven M. Mance and John R. Stewart, "Reconstruction of CES time series: implementing the 2010 OMB 

metropolitan area delineations," Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 2016, https://

doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2016.45

NOTES

1 The CES national benchmarking method differs from the method used for states and areas. Instead of replacing each month's data 

with an adjusted QCEW value, national data are benchmarked with the use of a wedge method described in chapter 2 of the BLS 

Handbook of Methods (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch2.pdf.

2 A core population (alternatively, core county or core set of counties) (1) contains at least half of its population in urban areas of 

10,000 or more or (2) has a population of at least 5,000 people within its boundaries, which are located in an urban area of at least 

10,000. A full explanation of how OMB defined the areas used by the CES program can be found in “2010 standards for delineating 

Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,” Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 123, June 28, 2010, https://federalregister.gov/a/

2010-15605.

Task January 2005 redefinition January 2015 redefinition

Holding industry– 

area– ownership 

codes constant

Industry and ownership were held constant 

for establishments.

Industry, ownership, county, and township were held constant 

for establishments; economic code changes were reintroduced 

manually.

Construction 

method for 

changing areas

Areas with one county or town added or 

subtracted had employment for that county 

or town added or subtracted; areas with 

other changes were completely 

reconstructed from microdata.

Net changes in changing counties or towns were added or 

subtracted from the areas; only new areas were constructed 

completely from microdata.

Series breaks

X-12-ARIMA was used to identify level 

shifts; if State analysts believed that the 

shifts were noneconomic, the series was 

adjusted by the amount of the shift.

X-13ARIMA-SEATS was used to scan for anomalies in the net 

series changes; national office and state analysts investigated 

the microdata in these series and made adjustments when 

necessary.

Predecessor– 

successor 

transactions

Predecessor–successor transactions were 

smoothed primarily with the use of level 

shifts identified by X-12-ARIMA.

Linkage files were used to smooth predecessor– successor 

transactions when possible; complex transactions sometimes 

required manual adjustments.

Estimation of 

noncovered 

employment

Counties and townships were given 

estimates of noncovered employment that 

were proportional to their total employment 

in the state.

Counties and townships were assumed to have the same ratio 

of covered-to-noncovered employment as the statewide ratio at 

the NAICS or ownership level, except for NAICS 482 (rail 

transportation) and 813 (religious, grantmaking, civic, 

professional, and similar organizations). For these industries, 

counties and towns were given estimates of noncovered 

employment that were proportional to their total employment in 

the state.

Seasonal 

adjustment

Substate areas were not seasonally 

adjusted at this time. Areas that did not 

change with this redefinition were 

seasonally adjusted starting in 2007.

Seasonal adjustment of unchanged areas and areas that 

changed by less than ±4 percent as of March 2013 would 

continue to be adjusted; areas that exceeded this threshold and 

new areas were not seasonally adjusted in 2015.

Hours and 

earnings

There was no reconstruction of hours and 

earnings series. Hours and earnings series 

were not produced for new areas. Hours 

and earnings series for areas that split into 

multiple areas were evaluated individually.

Two methods were used for reconstructing non–all-employee 

estimates, one for new areas and one for preexisting areas.

Comparison of methodologies from January 2005 redefinition to January 2015 redefinition
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

10

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

3 In 2014, the CES program published data on 374 MSAs, 29 MDs, 22 NECTAs, 9 NECTA Divisions, and 9 nonstandard areas. In 

2015, the program published data on 373 MSAs, 28 MDs, 21 NECTAs, 10 NECTA Divisions, and 11 nonstandard areas. In both 

years, the CES program published data on a total of 443 areas.

4 The new delineations are outlined in Revised delineations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Micropolitan Statistical Areas, and 

Combined Statistical Areas, and guidance on uses of the delineations of these areas, OMB Bulletin 13-01 (U.S. Office of Management 

and Budget, February 28, 2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/bulletins/2013/b13-01.pdf.

5 Microdata in the LDB may be missing county, township, or industry codes.

6 Industry is determined by NAICS code; area by state, county and township. Ownership is broken down by private industry and 

federal, state, and local government.

7 Because NAICS 492 (rail transportation) and NAICS 813 (religious organizations) had no covered employment, the method just 

described was not used for them. Ratios of noncovered employment in those industries to total nonfarm employment were calculated 

at the statewide level and applied to substate jurisdictions.

8 See appendix 1 for detailed examples of changes to three areas, including the Grand Rapids MSA.

9 The X-13ARIMA-SEATS program is available for free from the U.S. Census Bureau. (See “X-13ARIMA-SEATS seasonal adjustment 

program” (U.S. Census Bureau), https://www.census.gov/data/software/x13as.About_X-13.html.

10 See County Business Patterns (CBP) (U.S. Census Bureau, last revised September 7, 2016), https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/cbp/about.html.

11 See Franklin D. Berger and Keith R. Phillips, “Solving the mystery of the disappearing January blip in state employment 

data” (Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Economic Review, Second Quarter 1994, pp. 53–62, http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/

documents/research/er/1994/er9402d.pdf.

12 The two-step seasonal adjustment process is explained in detail in Stuart Scott, George Stamas, Thomas J. Sullivan, and Paul 

Chester, Seasonal adjustment of hybrid economic time series (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), https://www.bls.gov/osmr/researchpapers/1994/pdf/st940350.pdf.

13 For more information, see Larry Akinyooye, Ryan Arbuckle, and Albert Kleine, Revisions in state establishment-based employment 

estimates effective January 2015 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), https://www.bls.gov/sae/benchmark2015.pdf, especially “Seasonal 

adjustment,” p. 5.

14 See BLS Handbook of Methods, chapter 2.

15 See appendix 2 for a comparison of the methodology described in this article with the methodology the CES program used to 

incorporate the previous set of area delineations in January 2005.

RELATED CONTENT

Related Articles

Current Employment Statistics data and their contributions as key economic indicators, Monthly Labor Review, March 2016.

Comparing with the original: a look at Current Employment Statistics vintage data, Monthly Labor Review, April 2015.

Analysis of the Current Employment Statistics program using customer outreach survey results, Monthly Labor Review, January 

2015.

Current Employment Statistics seasonal adjustment and the 2007–2009 recession, Monthly Labor Review, October 2012.
 U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

11

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW 

Related Subjects

Statistical methods BLS Programs and surveys Hours of work Benchmarking Seasonal adjustment

Employment