Measuring How People Spend Their Time

Linda L. Stinson

Office of Survey Methods Research,

Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Washington, DC 20212

telephone: 202-606-7528 FAX: 202-606-7426

Stinson_L@BLS.gov

Paper prepared for the Joint Statistical Meetings in Baltimore, Maryland

Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not

constitute policy of the Bureau of Labor Statistics

August, 1999
2

Abstract

Time-use studies typically have a single focus: the duration of human activities. That is, they ask

respondents to report everything they did during a 24-hour period along with some indication of

the starting and stopping times of those actions. This chronological reporting procedure avoids

many of the pitfalls of other survey estimation procedures and is less subject to distortion due to

social desirability bias. But there are many methodological considerations to take into account

when designing a time-use survey. Decisions concerning reporting procedures and mode of data

collection may influence data quality. Likewise, the choice of follow-up probes and the

treatment of simultaneous activities can determine the amount of information available for

accurate and reliable coding of activities. This paper will describe the methodological decisions

our working group faced when designing a time-use survey and introduce the choices that we

made.
3

Measuring How People Spend Their Time

Linda Stinson, Office of Survey Methods Research

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, DC 20212

Key Words: time-use survey, survey methodology

I. Introduction to Time-Use Surveys

No matter what academic discipline or scientific field one may pursue, sooner or later the

topic of “time” generally forces its way into the arena of discussion. Hence we find:

• physicists theorizing on the relationship between time and space;

• philosophers and theologians speculating on time and eternity;

• physicians and psychologists debating the nature of biological clocks;

• anthropologists describing the effect of time on cultural evolution;

• historians treating time like their own personal data set;

• statisticians conducting time-series analyses; and

• economists debating to what extent time is money.

Is it any wonder then that, since the early 1920s, one country after another has taken an interest

in measuring and understanding how its citizenry spends their time?

While time-use research (i.e., the actual enumeration of the activities people perform)

may have originated within the social sciences and the time management domain of the business

world, international governments have also been quick to recognize the value of this information.

Time-use surveys can be used to ask and answer such research questions as:

• How much time do people spend commuting to work?

• How much time is spent waiting for health care or other services?
4

• How much time is spent caring for children and who is doing it?

• Is inflation low because people spend time shopping around for

bargains?

• Would the amount of time spent on unpaid work alter the Gross

National Product?

• Has our increasing technology given us more leisure time or less?

• What do retirees do after leaving the workforce?

The list of policy-relevant issues of interest to governments worldwide and which can be

illuminated with time-use data could extend on and on. Consequently, the question at hand is not

so much “why?” time-use data should be collected, but rather, “how?” it can be collected well.

Typically, a time-use survey or time diary asks respondents for a sequential listing of all

the activities in which they have engaged during the course of a single 24-hour period. This

single focus upon “a day in the life of a respondent” is simple enough in principle. However, as

with any other survey design, there are a number of different approaches that may be followed

when collecting time-use data, each with their accompanying ramifications on data appearance

and quality.

The goal of this paper is, therefore, to document the series of methodological options

with which the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) time-use survey working group was faced. I

will also present some of the methodological choices that we suggested and provide insights into

the rationale for our selections.
5

II. Methodological Considerations

Time-use research may be rather unique in the world of social science analysis in that it

has a long history of international cooperation and is often animated by a desire to make crossnational comparisons (Szalai, 1972). Consequently, certain standards and procedures for timeuse data collection have been established and are generally recognized within the field as

successful practices (Harvey, 1993). However, within this normative framework, there still

remain several methodological options to be considered and challenges to be confronted.

A. Mode

Since time-use research began during the era of face-to-face interviews and continues to

be popular in localities where telephone data collection is non-normative, it is not surprising to

discover the widespread popularity of the paper diary. The “Time Clock” is an example of one

early attempt to use a paper and pencil format to collect time-budget information (see Exhibit 1)

in the United States. This data collection instrument was used by the United States Department

of Agriculture in the 1920s and 1930s to create a daily time record for homemakers.1

Homemakers were instructed to draw lines on the time wheels to mark the beginning and ending

times of their activities and to describe the activity inside the intervening spaces. Since those

early days, paper time diaries have continued to evolve until today we find examples such as that

prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (see Exhibit 2). But in all cases, the heart of the

time diary is preserved: a verbatim description of the day’s activities is collected along with an

assignment of the approximate starting and stopping times for each activity, recorded either in

free format or in fixed 5 – 10 minute intervals.
6

In both Canada and the United States, the drive for cheaper, faster, and easier data

collection has generally resulted in a great push for surveys to become both computerized and

telephone administered. In line with this trend, both the “1985 American’s Use of Time

Project” headed by John Robinson and conducted by the Survey Research Center at the

University of Maryland2 (Robinson and Godbey, 1997) and the Canadian General Social Survey

(Frederick, 1995) have demonstrated that in North America, information about the use of time

can be successfully collected over the telephone. Since our proposed sampling frame included a

ready-made list of telephone numbers,3 our working group followed the North American

precedent and opted for a computerized telephone format.

The option to collect time-budget information by telephone does have, however, certain

implications. One implication is that when information is collected by telephone from

centralized calling centers there are new opportunities to monitor interviews and improve the

quality of the entire data collection process. In any survey situation, the capacity to increase the

precision, efficiency, and accuracy of data collection is extremely valuable. It may be even more

valuable for time-use interviews built, as they are, upon the collection of verbatim accounts of

activities elicited from respondents by interviewers using skills that may best be referred to as

“flexible interviewing” (Schober and Conrad, 1997). A second implication is that telephone data

collection almost certainly precludes the possibility of collecting diaries from an entire

household due to the difficulties inherent in trying to make contact with all household members

 

1

 The author would like to express her thanks to Susan Chapman of the Reference Section at the National

Agricultural Library in Beltsville, Maryland for locating, reproducing, and sharing this early time diary from the

Department of Agriculture.
7

on a designated day.4 While statistical arguments may be made that the design effects produced

by collecting clusters of activities within households are detrimental to survey standard errors

and should be avoided (Guerts and De Ree, 1993), other social scientists may argue that the

social dynamism produced by the intertwining of household members’ activities demands that

households be studied in toto. At any rate, it seems most likely that any study design requiring

data collection from an entire household would not find our proposed method of telephone

collection optimal.

B. Follow-Up Probes

Throughout the years, it has become increasingly clear that accurate coding and the

complete analysis of activities requires more than a simple verbatim record of their content.

Other elements are deemed essential for providing the context necessary for interpreting these

verbatim accounts. This additional contextual information generally includes follow-up probes

asking for (1) the locations where activities occurred, (2) the identities of other persons who were

present and/or participating, and (3) other activities that may have been performed

simultaneously.5

The classic example typifying the importance of such additional contextual information is

found in the activity of “eating.” Based upon contextual circumstances, the classification of

“eating” can range from: (a) personal care when the activity is performed alone or with

 

2

 The University of Maryland team headed by John Robinson also used telephone data collection for their 1995

time-use survey sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency.

3

 Our proposed sampling frame is the list of month-in-sample 8 participants in the Current Population Survey.

4

 A “designated day” is statistically selected and assigned so that the activities recorded in time-use studies will be

representative. This is necessary in order that activities, such as those performed outside the home, are not

overestimated.
8

household members exclusively, (b) work time when eating on the job or during work-related

functions, or (c) socializing when food is consumed in a social situation or location with nonhousehold members (Becher, 1997). While it may be possible to glean some contextual

information from preceding activities (e.g., eating in a restaurant is preceded by travel to the

restaurant), nevertheless, this information may not always be sufficient (e.g., eating alone in a

restaurant versus joining friends at a restaurant to socialize).

In most paper diaries, this additional contextual information is recorded by checking an

appropriate column (see Exhibit 3). Studies suggest, however, that when respondents are

instructed to complete their own time-budget diaries, the information about the presence of other

people is not always recorded correctly. The 1979 nationwide time-use study conducted by the

Central Statistical Office of Finland found that only a third of the respondents correctly filled in

the column identifying time spent “in the company of others.” In many cases, respondents only

reported the time actively involved with others in mutual activities and failed to identify time

spent passively in the company of others. Many others made vague or careless entries rendering

the data unclear (Niemi, 1983). However, since we are proposing that our time-use information

will be collected by telephone, interviewers should have an opportunity to probe for complete

and accurate answers.

Following the example of Statistics Canada’s telephone administered time-use interview,

we propose that after each activity reported, interviewers will ask either, “Where were you?” or

 

5

 The final report issued by the Expert Group convened by the United Nations Statistical Division to discuss a “Trial

International Classification for Time-Use Activities” cited “for whom,” “with whom,” and “location” as the

important context variables that should be collected in time-use studies (United Nations Secretariat, 1997).
9

“Were you still... ?” For each activity, there will be only one answer collected and it will be

recorded in one of the following categories:

PLACE:

<1> at respondent’s home

<2> at work place

<3> at someone else’s home

<4> at other place (include park, neighborhood)

OR IN TRANSIT:

<5> in car (driver)

<6> in car (passenger)

<7> walking

<8> in bus or subway (includes street cars, commuter trains or other public transit)

<9> on bicycle

<10> other (e.g., airplane, train, motorcycle)

Also following Statistics Canada, we propose that for each activity the interviewer will then

ask either, “Who was with you?” or “Were you still...?” in order to get a complete list of other

persons present. Interviewers will use the following list to record all that apply:

<1> alone

<2> spouse/partner

<3> child(ren) of the household under 15 years

<4> parent(s) or parent(s) in-law in the household

<5> other member(s) of the household (include children of 15 or more)

<6> child(ren) of the respondent less than 15 years old outside the household

<7> child(ren) of the respondent 15 or older outside the household

<8> parent(s) or parent(s) in-law outside the household

<9> other family member(s) outside the household

<10> friend(s)

<11> other persons(s)

Taken together these additional probes for “locations” and “other persons present” should

provide enough information for accurately identifying and coding social situations and any

ambiguous events. Beyond even that, however, these responses provide an opportunity for
10

further probing, should a specific interest ever arise. For example, if there was an interest in

having a supplemental “Child Care Module” attached to the time-use interview, response #3 (i.e.,

children of the household under 15) to the “Who was with you?” question could be programmed

to trigger additional child care questions attached either to the specific activity where the flag

was evoked or at the end of the completed 24-hour activity report as a separate battery of

questions. Likewise, the location “work place” could be used to trigger additional “work

schedule” questions or an “in-transit” response could be used to signal additional questions on

“commuting patterns.” The possibilities are almost limitless and confirm the importance of this

additional contextual information.

Finally, our working group is proposing that a final contextual probe should be added at

the end of the interview in order to identify clearly all the activities for which respondents were

paid.6 The exact wording of the question will, no doubt, need to be tested in order to assure us

that it also helps respondents identify “self-employed activities.” But despite the need for

additional clarification of the wording, the fundamental necessity for some type of “paid work”

question was abundantly clear during our 1997 time-use pilot test. Without it, we were not able

in all cases to separate “market” from “non-market” work, a coding distinction that will, most

likely, always be of paramount interest to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

C. Coding Schemes

Throughout the world, most of the currently used activity classification systems have evolved

from the original structure developed by Alexander Szalai for the Multinational Time-Use

 

6

 During the 1997 BLS pilot test, we tested the following “paid work” question: “Of all the activities that you did

yesterday, did you get paid for any of them?” The note to interviewers instructed them to only include work that

was paid to respondents in the form of money (cash, check, etc.) and to not include bartering or exchange services.
11

Project of the 1960s. These activity codes are typically arranged into mutually exclusive

behavior groups that cover all aspects of human activity. These primary divisions of behavior

generally include:

• personal care activities;

• employment related activities;

• education activities;

• domestic activities;

• child care activities;

• purchasing goods and services;

• voluntary work and care activities;

• social and community activities;

• recreation and leisure; and

• travel time.

Not only do the current classification systems attempt to reflect meaningful distinctions

between specific activities for the purposes of tabulation, but they also try to prioritize those

distinctions in such a way that they provide a solid conceptual basis for the analytic endeavor.

One such temporal typology developed by Dagfinn Ås (1978, 1982) and based on the

ideas of V.D. Patrushev (Niemi et al., 1986, p.13), identifies all time as either (a) necessary time

serving basic physiological needs, (b) explicitly contracted time related to gainful employment

and school attendance, (c) committed time to which one is obligated, but for which a substitute

service could be purchased, or (d) free time which remains when the other three types have been

accounted for. Within this over-arching scheme of “time commitment,” all the primary divisions

of activities are clustered and interpreted. Perhaps due to the cohesion of this system, time-use

studies from all over the world have been analyzing and reporting their results using this

structural framework. Such a typology should also assist coders in distinguishing between
12

activities that may have multiple layers of meaning and which may not be readily identifiable in

their classification.

Internationally, there are several existing coding schemes that are very appealing. Since

they have evolved from a common source, they share many similarities. By selecting an existing

classification system, we would benefit from their previous tests and code revisions, thereby

saving time and money. International coding consistency is also necessary for cross-national

comparisons. The following classification systems seem especially worthy of consideration:

Eurostat Classification System

The original version of the coding list adopted by Eurostat for the “Harmonized European

Time-Use Survey” was developed by Iiris Niemi of Statistics Finland in 1993. Since that time,

several workshops and expert panels have discussed the Eurostat coding system and refinements

were made in 1995. Further refinements and adaptations have been made in close collaboration

with coding experts in England, Finland, and Sweden.

Beyond the effort invested in continuous improvement, the Eurostat system offers the

advantage of direct international comparability. To date, eighteen countries7 have participated in

the “Harmonized Time-Use Project” and share the common coding scheme at the level of oneand two-digit codes, while maintaining the opportunity for country-specific adaptations at the

third-digit level of coding.

 

7

 These countries participating in the 1996/1997 pilot test include Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Ireland, Italy,

Spain, Portugal, Greece, United Kingdom, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia

and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. France and Germany have also expressed interest in joining the

“Harmonized Project” and are negotiating possibilities for financing their participation. Likewise, Austria,
13

Australian Classification System

This system has the advantage of having been tested and critiqued since 1992, resulting

in a number of revisions in 1997. The overall structure is very similar to the Eurostat system and

provides international comparability, while attempting to adjust the uneven distribution of time

within the major categories by redefining some of the primary categories. Some of the most

interesting revisions include:

• combining “domestic activities,” “child or adult care,” and “purchasing” together into a

single domain of “household and family care,” reflecting the common thread of “time

committed to the household,”

• separating “free time activities” into the four clearly distinguishable sub-categories of (1)

social life and entertainment, (2) sports participation, (3) hobbies and games, and (4) mass

media,

• disentangling the category of “voluntary work” so that “committed activities” and “free time

activities” are more easily distinguished, thereby allowing “unpaid work activities” to be

more accurately identified.

United Nations (UN) International Trial Classification System

In the autumn of 1997, the United Nations Statistical Division convened an expert panel

of time-use researchers to design a “trial classification system” that would provide an

international coding scheme for analyzing and understanding the use of time in all different

societies. The proposed classification system differs from other existing systems in three main

ways:

• The basic framework for distinguishing the economic nature of activities is the System of

National Accounts (SNA).

 

Denmark, and the Netherlands are engaged in ongoing discussions, but have not yet reached decisions about future

participation.
14

• All non-market production has been brought together into a single one-digit category and

then further specified at the two- and three-digit levels.

• “Paid work” activities, which are normally undefined at the two- and three-digit level, have

been given more detailed breakdown (See UN Report, 1997).

While aiming for international comparability, the main feature of the UN system is

clearly its economic conceptualization. This classification is meant to be useful in the (a)

assessment of national labor inputs into production of goods and services, (b) compilation of

household satellite accounts and, above all, (c) analysis of time use within the framework of the

SNA. This system was designed to be especially useful for developing countries that may lack

labor force or expenditure surveys and may need to use a single national survey to address many

different research and policy issues. It seems less likely to be adopted by other countries that

already have years of experience with their own time-use coding schemes, as well as fully

developed national statistical survey programs to address specific research needs.

Assessment

While other national classification systems are similar to these three systems because

they all share a common origin, these three stand out. The Australian system is strong because it

seems to have moved the furthest beyond a simple structure for the tabulation of activities and

has evolved into an analytically cohesive and theoretically strong “explanation” of time use. The

Eurostat system draws strength from the breath and scope of its application throughout the

unified Europe. The United Nations system is appealing because of the economic foundation on

which it rests.
15

After considering each of these coding schemes, our working group recommended a

slightly modified version of the Australian system because it provides international coding

comparability even while redefining some of the primary categories to be more logically

consistent with the four-fold typology of time. The proposed BLS system (see Exhibit 4) shows

minimal changes at the level of first-digit codes, such as expanding “child care” to include “care

of all household dependents, including children, the elderly, and the disabled.” At the two-digit

level, there would be a few codes added to provide additional classification for the expanded

one-digit categories. Finally, at the three-digit level, useful codes from other international

systems would be added to provide additional clarifications.

D. Simultaneous activities

One of the most difficult problems that all time-use researchers must deal with is how to

record with accuracy and completeness the pulsing dynamism of human activity. As pointed out

so clearly by Alexander Szalai, there are practical limits to how well this can be done. While

there are many “parallel and criss-crossing threads of activity,” we are generally constrained by

the linear flow of time itself to view activities as predominantly sequential in nature, rather than

as pulsating energetic moments extending backwards from and forwards into their surrounding

activities (Szalai, 1972). As he wrote:

“...for whatever level of accuracy one may reach, still more minute observations

could possibly prove that some activities which seemed to be carried out

simultaneously were in effect alternating with one another, or that some activities

which seemed to be performed consecutively were factually overlapping to some

extent. Nevertheless, any time-budget study which does not grapple in some way

with the problem of recording secondary or parallel activities is essentially unable

to give a balanced account of the great variety of activities which fill up everyday

life (p.3). “
16

Typically time-use studies provide respondents with an opportunity to report at least one

“simultaneous” or “secondary” activity in parallel with each sequential activity mentioned (see

Exhibits 2 and 3). Such studies report finding as much as three to four hours per day being spent

doing more than one activity at a time (INSTRAW, 1995). Child-care activities, in particular,

seem especially subject to simultaneity. However, as mentioned earlier in the discussion of

follow-up probes, when respondents are left to self-record their own activities in paper diaries,

the collection of simultaneous activities often suffers.8

Our own 1997 BLS Time-Use Pilot test found that most reports of simultaneous activities

were coded either as social or personal care activities or were classified as “non-market work.”

On average, we found nearly two hours of either social or personal activities and an additional

hour of non-market work occurring simultaneously with other activities per day. Consequently,

we recognize the importance of providing a forum whereby respondents are able to report

activities that may have been performed in tandem with other actions. We propose collecting

this information by asking respondents, “Were you doing anything else during that time?” after

recording (a) the starting and stopping times, (b) the location and (c) other persons present for

each recorded activity.9 By standardizing the collection of simultaneous activity through

scripted questions administered by interviewers, we hope to avoid some of the measurement

difficulties encountered by the self-administered paper diaries. We likewise hope to avoid undue

 

8

In the minutes of the November, 1998 meeting of the Eurostat Task Force on their “Time Use Survey” pilot tests,

the recommendation was made that secondary activities should not be included in satellite accounts because of the

lack of data quality and the variability in reporting simultaneous housework activities between countries. Our

survey hopes to avoid this pitfall by standardizing the collection of simultaneous activity through scripted questions

administered by interviewers.

9

 The dilemma that follows upon the collection of secondary activities is the problem of constraining everything to

total into a 24-hour day for analytic purposes. One approach would be to ask respondents to somehow apportion

“weights” to any activities performed simultaneously so the overlapping time can be re-distributed. Due to the

magnitude of the respondent burden and issues of measurement error, we have decided not to follow this approach.
17

respondent burden by not asking respondents to provide a subjective assessment of how they

think their parallel activities should be apportioned for analytic purposes.

III. Conclusion

When making methodological decisions one is always reminded of delicately woven

fabric that unravels easily when interlocking threads are pulled. In just such a way, even gentle

tugs to the methodological threads that are knit together into study designs can cause inestimable

damage to the fabric of a study. Therefore, it is necessary, as much as possible, to consider all

the possible ramifications when changing tried and true methods. For these reasons, we do not

suggest changes to traditional time-use approaches lightly. Instead, we look gratefully to the

work of leaders in the field and value their many and varied experiences with different modes of

data collection, follow-up probes, coding schemes, and treatments of simultaneous activities. In

all cases, we have tried to begin by studying the methodological work that has gone on before us;

we have tried to stand on the backs of giants.

 

Instead we are investigating post hoc analytic procedures that would take advantage of aggregate information to

create utility functions that would supply the necessary weights.
18

REFERENCES

Ås, Dagfinn. 1978. “Studies of Time-Use: Problems and Prospects.” Acta Sociologica

2:125-141.

Ås, Dagfinn. 1982. “Designs for Large Scale Time-Use Studies of the 24-Hour Day,” It’s

About Time, International Research Group on Time Budgets and Social Activities.

Becher, Angie. 1997. “Identifying Non-Market Work: A Look at Coding Issues.” Paper

presented at the Time Use, Non-Market Work, and Family Well-being Conference cosponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistic and the MacArthur Network on the Family

and the Economy, Washington, D.C., November 20-21, 1997.

Frederick, Judith. 1995. As Time Goes By. Time Use by Canadians. (Catalogue 89-544E)

Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.

Geurts, Jose, and Jos De Ree. 1993. “Influence of Research Design on Time Use Estimates.”

Social Indicators Research 30:245-284.

Harvey, Andrew. 1993. “Guidelines for Time Use Data Collection.” Social Indicators Research

30: 197-228.

International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women. 1995.

Measurement and Valuation of Unpaid Contribution. Accounting Through Time and

Output. Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic: United Nations INSTRAW.

Niemi, Iiris. 1983. The 1979 Time Use Study Method. (No. 91) Helsinki: Central Statistical

Office of Finland.

Niemi, Iiris, Salme Kiiski, and Mirja Liikkanen. 1986. Use of Time in Finland 1979. Helsinki:

Central Statistical Office of Finland.

Robinson, John, and Geoffrey Godbey. 1997. Time For Life. The Surprising Ways Americans

Use Their Time. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Schober, Michael, and Frederick Conrad. 1997. “Conversational Interviewing.” Public Opinion

Quarterly 61:576-602.

Szalai, Alexander, ed. 1972. The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban

Populations in Twelve Countries. The Hague: Mouton.

United Nations Secretariat, Statistical Division. 1997. Expert Group Meeting on Trial

International classification for Time-Use Activities. Report of the meeting held in New

York, October 13-16, 1997.
19

Exhibit 1
20

Exhibit 2
21

Exhibit 3
22

Exhibit 4

Proposed Classification System

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

Necessary Time 1. Personal care activities

11 Sleeping

111 Sleeping

112 Nap, rest

12 Sleeplessness

121 Insomnia, sleeplessness, “toss/turn” in bed

13 Personal hygiene and grooming

131 showering, bathing, washing hands, brushing teeth

132 going to the bathroom

133 dressing or undressing

134 shaving, putting on make-up, combing hair etc.

139 hygiene and grooming NEC

14 Non-professional health care

141 personal medical care (taking medication, vomiting,

experiencing pain, exercise for medical conditions

142 rest because of illness, being in bed sick

143 receiving (unpurchased) health treatments from nonprofessionals

149 non-prof. health care/treatments NEC

15 Eating / drinking

151 eating a meal

152 eating a snack

153 drinking non alcoholic beverages

159 eating/drinking NEC

16 Waiting related to personal care

161 waiting to go to bed or fall asleep

163 waiting to go to the bathroom or groom

164 waiting for non-professional health care

165 waiting to eat or drink

17 Communication about per.care

171 communication about personal care/self-maintenance

18 Travel about personal care

181 travel related to personal care/self-maintenance

19 Personal care NEC

191 respondent says ‘personal,’ ‘private,’ ‘none of your

business’ or reports sexual activity

199 personal care/self-maintenance activities NEC

Contracted Time 2. Employment activities

21 Work for pay at main job

211 main job-usual hours- at work

212 main job-extra hours- overtime

213 main job-extra hours-work brought home

219 main job NEC

22 Work for pay at other job(s)

221 other job-usual hours- at work

222 other job-extra hours- overtime

223 other job-extra hours-work brought home

229 other job NEC
23

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

23 Primary production and services

for income not for establishments

231 unpaid work in family business or farm

232 preparing food or drink for sale

233 domestic home crafts or hobbies done for sale or

exchange

234 building work done for income (“freelance work”)

235 petty trading, street vending, collecting, scavenging

items for sale (collecting aluminum cans etc.)

236 providing services for income (child care, computing,

cosmetic services, transport or delivery etc.)

24 Work breaks

241 work breaks

25 Job search and related activity

251 looking at job listings

252 filling out applications or preparing resumes

253 interviewing for a job

254 applying for / collecting unemployment benefits /

compensation

255 applying for / collecting welfare, food stamps or

income subsidies

259 other job search activities NEC

26 Waiting /delays related to work

or job search

261 waiting or delay during work hours (fire drills, shut

downs, waiting for appointments or meetings etc)

262 waiting on-site for job interviews or to fill out forms

for jobs, subsidies, compensation etc.

27 Communication about work or

job search

271 communication associated with but not part of work

(calling in sick)

272 communication associated with job interviews,

subsidies, compensation etc.

28 Travel/commuting to/from work

or job search

281 travel in motion

286 waiting for buses, trains, taxis etc. related to work or

job search

29 Employment activities NEC

299 employment or job search activities NEC

3. Education activities

31 Gen education: school/ university

311 attending class

312 viewing education programs on TV for course credit

313 unpaid student teaching; practicums

314 special lectures outside the regular class time

315 attending science or language labs

316 registration activities or other administrative aspects

of attending classes

319 other school related activities NEC

32 Job related training

321 job related training, career education, professional

conferences
24

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

33 Homework/study/research

331 self study (not with computers), reading etc.

332 computing or assignment work done on computer

333 group study

334 working with tutors

36 Waiting related to education

361 breaks at place of education

362 waiting for class/training/tutorials to begin or resume

37 Communication about education

371 communication about education

38 Travel related to education

381 travel to classes, training, study groups

39 Educational activities NEC

399 educational activities NEC

Committed Time 4. Domestic activities

41 Food/drink preparation/cleanup

411 food/ drink preparation or service (include packing

lunches, making meals or snacks, cooking for parties)

412 preserving, freezing, drying food

413 home brewing

414 setting or clearing the table

415 cleanup after food preparation or meals

419 food and drink prep or cleanup NEC

42 Laundry, care of textiles

421 washing, loading, unloading washing machine

422 hanging out or bringing in washing

423 ironing

424 sorting, folding textiles (clothes, linens etc.)

425 mending textiles, polishing shoes or other upkeep

426 making clothes, knitting, sewing (not as hobby)

427 sorting clothes for disposal; throwing out clothes

429 laundry and textile care NEC

43 Other housework

431 interior cleaning of dwelling or related buildings

432 exterior cleaning of dwelling or related buildings

439 other housework NEC

44 Grounds / animal care

441 gardening

442 yard or lawn care

443 harvesting home production, hunting, fishing or

gathering food for household consumption

444 grounds maintenance, garage cleaning etc

445 pool care

446 care for household pets

447 care for livestock for household use only

449 other grounds or animal care NEC

45 Home maintenance, construction,

and repair

451 equipment repairs or maintenance

452 dwelling construction or design

453 interior maintenance or repair

454 exterior maintenance or repair

455 making furniture or other household goods

456 making household furnishings

457 heat/water/power maintenance, repair or provision

(include gathering, cutting or stacking firewood)

458 vehicle maintenance or repair

459 home maintenance NEC
25

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

46 Household management

461 paperwork, bills, tax returns etc

462 budgeting money/time, organizing rosters/lists,

planning/organizing/decorating for family/household

events

463 selling, donating, disposing of household assets

(including selling house or showing house for sale)

464 recycling

465 collecting, sorting, mail/parcels, checking messages

and answering machines

466 packing/unpacking for a journey or move

467 putting away goods (groceries etc.)

468 disposing of rubbish

469 other household management NEC

47 Communication rel. to dom. act.

471 communication, discussion, “fights” about domestic

activities

48 Travel related to domestic act.

481 travel related to household work, maintenance, or

management

49 Domestic activity NEC

499 domestic activity NEC

5. Care for “dependent”

household members

(children, sick/disabled or

elderly)

51 Physical or emotional care of

“dependent” household members

511 washing, dressing, feeding, grooming children

512 medical/ health care of children

513 emotional care of children

514 washing, dressing, feeding, grooming dependent hh

adults

515 medical/health care of dependent hh adults

516 emotional care of dependent hh adults

52 Teaching/ helping/reprimanding

“dependent” household members

521 teaching, helping, reprimanding, training children

522 teaching, helping, reprimanding, training dependent

hh adults

53 Playing, reading, talking with

“dependent” household members

531 playing, reading, talking with children

532 playing, reading, talking with dependent hh adults
26

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

54 Minding (supervising) dependent

household members

541 supervision of children within the same room or play

area

542 supervision of children within the house, but not in

the same room

543 “passive” supervision of children not in the house

(being ‘on call’)

544 supervision of dependent hh adults within the same

room or play area

545 supervision of dependent hh adults within the house,

but not in the same room

546 “passive” supervision of dependent hh adults not in

the house (being ‘on call’)

549 other supervision of dependent hh members NEC

55 Visiting care related

establishments / schools

551 accompanying a child to school, daycare, sports,

lessons etc

552 accompanying a dependent hh adult to school, sports,

lessons etc.

56 Waiting associated with care of

“dependent” household members

561 waiting associated with care of children

562 waiting associated with “dependent” adult care

57 Communication associated with

care of “dependent” hh members

571 communication associated with care of children

572 communication associated with “dependent” adult

care

58 Travel associated with care of

“dependent” household members

581 travel associated with care of children

582 travel associated with “dependent” adult care

59 Care of “dependent” household

members NEC

598 care of children NEC

599 care of “dependent” adults NEC

6. Purchasing activities

61 Purchasing or returning goods

611 purchasing/returning everyday consumer goods

612 purchasing/returning durable household goods

613 window shopping

619 other purchasing of goods NEC

62 Purchasing services

621 purchasing repair services

622 purchasing/obtaining professional, government,

administrative services

623 purchasing personal care services

624 purchasing medical or dental care services

625 purchasing child or adult care services

626 purchasing domestic/garden services

629 other purchasing of service NEC
27

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

66 Waiting associated with

purchases (5 minutes or more?)

661 waiting at stores, shops, markets

662 waiting in offices or for professional services

663 waiting for maintenance, repair, or cleaning services

664 waiting for personal care services

665 waiting for medical or dental care

666 waiting for deliveries of purchased goods

669 waiting related to purchases NEC

67 Communication associated with

purchases

671 scheduling appointments for service or purchases

672 placing orders for goods or services by telephone, fax

or internet

673 discussing shipments, products, returned items

674 other communication about purchases NEC

68 Travel associated with purchases

681 travel associate with purchases of goods or services

69 Purchasing goods or services

NEC

699 purchasing goods or services NEC

7. Voluntary work & care

72 Unpaid helping / doing favors

(for households)

721 housework or cooking assistance

722 house maintenance or repair assistance

723 babysitting

724 care for disabled or ill adults

725 correspondence assistance (letters, bills, forms)

73 Unpaid voluntary work (with org.)

731 participating with an organization working directly

with recipients

732 participating with an organization not working

directly with recipients

76 Waiting associated with

voluntary work or care

761 waiting related to help to other households

762 waiting related to volunteering with an organization

77 Communication associated with

voluntary work or care

771 communication related to help to other households

772 communication related to volunteering with an

organization

78 Travel associated with voluntary

work or care

781 travel related to help to other households

782 travel related to volunteering with an organization

79 Voluntary work or care NEC

798 help to other households NEC

799 voluntary work with organizations NEC
28

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

Free Time 8. Social & Community

interaction

81 Socializing

811 talking, chatting, social conversation

812 celebrating, having parties with friends or family

813 eating, drinking with non hh members in own home

814 eating, drinking with non hh members OR hh

members in public place

819 other socializing NEC

82 Entertainment

821 attending musical performances, concerts,

symphonies

822 attending plays, ballet, opera

823 attending cinema, art films, drive-in movies

824 attending fairs, circuses, parades, amusement parks,

ice follies, fireworks

825 visiting zoos, botanical gardens, planetariums,

observatories

826 visiting museums, art galleries, exhibitions, libraries

827 visiting historical or archeological sites etc

828 visiting casinos, bingo halls, arcades

829 entertainment NEC

83 Attendance at sports events

831 attendance at professional or amateur sporting events

832 attendance at professional or amateur racing events

839 attendance at sports events NEC

84 Religious / ritual activities

841 personal religious practice (meditation, prayer etc)

842 religious ceremonies, rituals

843 planning, practicing, rehearsing, decorating,

preparing for religious ceremonies, celebrations, rituals

844 socializing associated with religious

ceremonies/rituals

845 cleaning up after religious ceremonies , celebrations,

rituals

849 religious activities NEC

85 Community participation

851 attending meetings

852 civic ceremonies or celebrations (civil weddings,

ribbon cuttings, parades, inaugurations)

853 planning, practicing, rehearsing, decorating,

preparing for civic ceremonies, celebrations

854 socializing associated civic ceremonies or

celebrations

855 cleaning up after civic ceremonies , celebrations

856 civic obligations (jury duty)

857 answering surveys, polls, censuses

859 community participation NEC

86 Waiting related to social &

community interaction

861 waiting for social or community interaction to begin

87 Communication related to social

& community interaction

871 communication about social or community

interaction (checking on times, preparations etc.)
29

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

88 Travel related to social &

community interaction

881 travel associated with social or community

interaction

89 Social & community interaction

NEC

899 social and community interaction NEC

9. Recreation and leisure

91 Sport and outdoor activity

911 walking hiking, jogging, running

912 biking, cycling, skiing, skating, skate or snow

boarding, horseback riding

913 ball games

914 gymnastics, aerobics, work-outs, martial arts,

wrestling, yoga, ballet or other dance

915 swimming, water gymnastics, water skiing

916 boating, sailing, canoeing, rafting

917 gliding, balloning, flying

918 camping, hunting, fishing for sport

919 other sport or exercise NEC

92 Games, hobbies, arts, crafts

921 card, paper, board, parlor games/crosswords

922 computer games or computing as hobby

923 hobbies, collections, albums etc

924 handiwork and crafts (sewing, knitting, weaving)

925 visual or graphic arts

926 performing arts/music

929 games, hobbies, arts, crafts NEC

93 Reading / writing

931 reading book, magazine, newspaper

932 reading CD Rom

933 being read to (in-person or books-on-tape)

934 writing for leisure/pleasure (letters, poetry, diaries,

cards, books, short stories etc.)

939 reading/writing NEC

94 Audio/visual media

941 tv watching/listening

942 video watching

943 listening to radio

944 listening to records/tapes/CDs (other than books)

945 accessing internet

949 other media use NEC

95 Attendance at courses (except

school or university)

951 attendance at personal development courses

952 attendance at art/craft/hobby courses

959 attendance at courses (ex. school/university) NEC
30

Time Type Major Group

(1 digit codes)

2 digit codes 3 digit codes

96 Other free time

961 relaxing resting

962 doing nothing

963 thinking

964 worrying

965 drinking alcohol / social drinking

966 smoking

967 looking at memorabilia

968 teasing, joking around, messing around, laughing,

pestering

969 other free time NEC

97 Communication associated with

free time

971 communicating about free time

98 Travel associated with free time

981 recreational driving/riding for pleasure

982 holiday travel

989 other travel associated with free time NEC

99 Leisure and recreation NEC

999 leisure and recreation NEC

0. No activity

00 No activity

001 time gap with no reported activity

002 uncodeable activity