Download:
pdf |
pdfU.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages
The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) is a quarterly
count of employment and wages reported by employers. The QCEW covers
more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs available at the county, Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), state, and national level, by detailed industry. The
primary source for the QCEW is administrative data from state unemployment
insurance (UI) programs. These data are supplemented by data from two
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) surveys: the Annual Refiling Survey and the
Multiple Worksite Report. Before publication, BLS and state workforce
agencies review and enhance the QCEW data, converting errors to correct
values and confirming and annotating unusual movements.
Quick Facts: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Subject areas
Employment, Pay
Key measures
County employment, County wages, Number of
establishments
How the data are
obtained
Administrative records
Classification system
Industry
Periodicity of data
availability
Annual, Monthly, Quarterly
Geographic detail
County, Metro area
Scope
Government, Private sector, State and local
government
Key products
• County Employment and Wages news release
• Employment and Wages Online Annual
Averages
• Employment and Wages Archives
• QCEW Open Data Access
Program webpage
• www.bls.gov/cew
Table of Contents
CONCEPTS .....................1
DATA SOURCES..............6
DESIGN..........................10
CALCULATION...............18
PRESENTATION ............22
HISTORY........................26
MORE INFORMATION...32
Concepts
The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) consists of a monthly count of employment,
quarterly counts of wage levels and business establishments, and a count of workers’ average weekly wages at
1
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
multiple levels of geographic and industrial detail for use by academic researchers, local governments and other
federal agencies, and the public in general. An establishment is commonly understood as a single economic
unit, such as a farm, a mine, a factory, or a store, that produces goods or services. Establishments are typically
at one physical location and engaged in one, or predominantly one, type of economic activity for which a single
industrial classification may be applied. An establishment is in contrast to a firm, or a company, which is a
business and may consist of one or more establishments, where each establishment may participate in a
different predominant economic activity. The QCEW provides an employment benchmark and sample frames for
other Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) programs, as well as a basis of estimation of the wage and salary
component for the Bureau of Economic Analysis Personal Income statistic. Standard sources used by the
QCEW program are the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS, which replaced the Standard
Industrial Classification system in the fall of 2002 and was first used in the publication of 2001 QCEW data), for
industry detail; Federal Information Processing Standards, for geographic area codes; and the Office of
Management and Budget, for size classes.
The QCEW makes use of a number of key variables:
• Establishment count. Aggregation of establishments in a given geographic area, in a given industry, with a
given ownership status (that is, private or public), or any combination of the three.
• Employment. Counts only filled jobs, whether full or part time, and temporary or permanent, by place of
work. The quarterly reports include the establishment's monthly employment levels for the pay periods
that include the 12th of the month.
• Wages. Total compensation paid, including bonuses, stock options, severance pay, profit distributions, the
cash value of meals and lodging, tips and other gratuities, and, in some states, employer contributions to
certain deferred compensation plans (such as 401(k) plans), during the calendar quarter, regardless of
when the services were performed.
• Establishment size. Classification of an establishment on the basis of the number of employees reported.
• Industry. Classification applied to each establishment on the basis of its primary economic activity.
• County. The primary local geographic designation for an establishment. It is assigned based on physical
location.
• Township. A secondary local geographic designation, used primarily in the New England states and New
Jersey.
• Geocode. A set of longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates identifying the location of the establishment.
Establishments are asked to provide physical addresses for their business activities. The addresses are then
converted into geocodes by the BLS Office of Technology and Survey Processing and are provided to the states
to add to the data. The geocodes are entered into Geographic Information Software to create detailed maps of
the locations of establishments and their economic and administrative attributes.
Scope and exclusions
Private-industry employment. QCEW monthly employment data represent the number of covered workers who
worked during, or received pay for, the pay period that included the 12th day of the month. Covered privateindustry employees include most corporate officials, all executives, all supervisory personnel, all professionals,
all clerical workers, many farmworkers, all wage earners, all piece workers, and all part-time workers. Workers
2
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
on paid sick leave, paid holiday, paid vacation, and the like are also covered. Workers on the payroll of more
than one firm during the period are counted by each employer that is subject to UI, as long as those workers
satisfy the preceding definition of employment. Workers are counted even though their wages may not be
subject to UI tax in the latter months of the year. In this regard, the federal UI taxable wage base is the first
$7,000 paid in wages to each employee during a calendar year. Thus, at whatever point in the year an
employee reaches that accumulation of wages, he or she is no longer taxed in the months remaining.
Government employment. Employment at all federal agencies for any given month is based on the number of
people who worked during, or received pay for, the pay period that included the 12th of the month. Employment
data reported for federal civilian employees are a byproduct of the operations of state workforce agencies in
administering the provisions of Title XV of the Social Security Act the UCFE program. Federal employment data
are based reports of monthly employment and reports of quarterly wages, both submitted quarterly to state
agencies. Reports are submitted for all federal installations with employees covered by the act, except for
certain national security agencies, which are excluded for security reasons.
Besides excluding the aforementioned national security agencies, QCEW excludes proprietors, the
unincorporated self-employed, unpaid family members, certain farm and domestic workers from having to report
employment data, and railroad workers covered by the railroad unemployment insurance system. Excluded as
well are workers who earned no wages during the entire applicable pay period because of work stoppages,
temporary layoffs, illness, or unpaid vacations. Excluded from QCEW federal government employment are
elected officials in the executive or legislative branch, members of the armed forces or the Commissioned Corps
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, individuals serving on a temporary basis in case of fire,
storm, earthquake, or other similar emergency, and individuals employed under a Federal relief program to
relieve them from unemployment. For a complete list of federal government exclusions, see Appendix A of the
UCFE Instructions for Federal Agencies. Excluded from QCEW state and local government employment are
elected officials, members of a legislative body or members of the judiciary, members of the state National
Guard or Air National Guard, and employees serving on a temporary basis in case of fire, storm, snow,
earthquake, flood or similar declared emergency. For a complete list of state and local governments excluded
services, see the coverage section of the most recent Comparison of State UI Laws.
Wages. In most states, covered employers report total compensation paid during the calendar quarter,
regardless of when the services were performed. A few state laws, however, specify that wages be reported for
or be based on the period during which services are performed rather than the period during which
compensation is paid. Under most state laws or regulations, wages include bonuses, stock options, severance
pay, the cash value of meals and lodging, tips and other gratuities. In some states, wages also include employer
contributions to certain deferred compensation plans, such as 401(k) plans.
Covered employers’ contributions to old-age, survivors, and disability insurance; health insurance; UI; workers’
compensation; and private pension and welfare funds are not reported as wages. Employee contributions for
the same purposes, however, as well as money withheld for income taxes, union dues, and so forth, are
reported, even though they are deducted from the worker’s gross pay.
3
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Comparisons of related data series
For any given quarter, BLS publishes three different establishment-based employment measures. Each of the
three measures—the QCEW, Business Employment Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics
(CES)—is based on QCEW establishment reports, which are an enhanced and corrected version of quarterly
unemployment insurance (UI) employment reports. Each measure has a somewhat different universe of
coverage, estimation procedure, and publication product.
Differences in coverage and estimation methods can result in somewhat different measures of employment
change over time. It is important to understand program differences and the intended uses of the program
products. Exhibit 1 presents important differences among the three BLS employment measures.
Exhibit 1. Characteristics of Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Business Employment
Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES) employment measures
Characteristic
Source
Coverage
QCEW
• Count of UI administrative records
(submitted by 9.4 million establishments in
2014)
• Coverage for UI and Unemployment
Compensation for Federal Employees
(UCFE); coverage is required of all
employers subject to state and federal UI
laws
BED
• Count of longitudinally linked UI
administrative records (submitted by 7.6
million private sector employers in 2014)
CES
• Sample survey (588,000
establishments in 2014)
• UI coverage, excluding government, private
households, and establishments with zero
Nonfarm wage and salary jobs:
employment
• Jobs covered by UI; excluded are
agricultural jobs, jobs in private
households, and jobs held by selfemployed workers
• Jobs not covered by UI, including
railroad jobs, jobs in religious
organizations, and other non-UIcovered jobs
Publication
frequency • Quarterly, 6 months after the end of each • Quarterly, 7 months after the end of each
quarter
Use of UI file • Directly summarizes and publishes each
new quarter of UI data
Principal
product
Principal
uses
quarter
• Links each new UI quarter to longitudinal
database and directly summarizes gross job
gains and losses
• Monthly, usually the first Friday
of the next month
• Uses UI file as a sampling frame
and to annually realign samplebased estimates to population
counts (benchmarking)
• Quarterly employer dynamics data on
• A quarterly and annual universe count of
• Current monthly estimates of
establishment openings, closings, expansions,
establishments, employment, and wages at
employment, hours, and earnings
and contractions, at the national level by
the county, MSA, state, and national level,
at the MSA, state, and national
NAICS supersector and size of firm, and at
by detailed industry
level, by industry
the state private sector total level
• Future expansions to include data with
greater industry detail and data at the county
and MSA level
Provides
• Provides business cycle analysis: Analysis
• Is a Principal Federal Economic
of employer dynamics underlying economic
Indicator
expansions and contractions
• Detailed locality data
• Analysis of employment expansion and
contraction by size of firm
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
See footnotes at end of table.
4
• Serves as an official time series
for employment change measures
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Exhibit 1. Characteristics of Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Business Employment
Dynamics (BED), and Current Employment Statistics (CES) employment measures
Characteristic
QCEW
BED
CES
• Periodic universe counts for benchmarking
sample survey estimates
• Provides input into other major
economic indicators
• A sample frame for BLS establishment
surveys
Program
Websites
• www.bls.gov/cew/
• www.bls.gov/bdm/
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Last Modified Date: April 14, 2017
5
• www.bls.gov/ces/
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Data Sources
QCEW microdata. For each state,1 the microdata of the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW)
are the basis for the QCEW report and are fundamentally a byproduct of the unemployment insurance (UI)
accounting system in that state. The states receive a Quarterly Contributions Report (QCR) from all private
sector employers, as well as from state and local governments covered under the UI program. Along with these
accounting reports, employers provide funds for their contributions payable, which finance the UI benefits
system in each state. Federal government employers provide statistical reports via the Report of Federal
Employment and Wages; these reports contain only employment and wages data, for each employer’s
installations within each state. Normally, private sector employers submit one contribution report covering all of
their economic activities conducted in a given state. For employers having only a single physical location or
worksite in a state, and thus operating under a single assigned industry and geographic code, the data from the
accounting file are sufficient for statistical purposes.
However, such data are inadequate for statistical purposes for employers with multiple establishments in a given
state or for employers engaged in different industrial activities within a state. In these cases, the employer’s
QCR reflects only statewide employment and wages, so it is not disaggregated by establishment or worksite.
Although this level of data is sufficient for many purposes of the UI program, more detailed information is
required to create a sampling frame and to meet the needs of several ongoing federal–state statistical
programs. The QCEW report contains employer name and address information and serves as a sampling frame
for BLS establishment-based surveys.
Surveys. The QCEW conducts two surveys in addition to collecting administrative data. Approximately one-third
of all private sector businesses with more than three employees are contacted annually by the Annual Refiling
Survey (ARS), and establishments with multiple locations are given the Multiple Worksite Report (MWR). The
ARS verifies and collects geographic and industry information about businesses, and the MWR collects
employment and wage data about businesses in order to make geographic and industry estimates. Both
surveys collect data via paper forms and electronically. Data collection via paper forms uses the services of a
private contractor to handle various administrative aspects of the process. Electronic data collection is done
through MWRWeb, ARSWeb (for single-establishment employers), NVMWeb (for multiple-establishment
employers), and the Electronic Data Information (EDI) Center (for exceptionally large employers). There are
three ARS forms: BLS 3023-NVS (for single-establishment employers), BLS 3023-NVM (for multipleestablishment employers), and BLS 3023-NCA (for employers with unclassified industry establishments—that is,
establishments which are not assigned any NAICS Industry code). The ARS is designed to collect specific
information concerning the employer's industrial activity, geographic location, business mailing address, and
physical address. The information is used to ensure that each establishment is assigned to the correct industry
and that each address geocodes the correct geographic location of the establishment. The ARS also asks
employers to identify the locations of new worksites they have established in the state. If these employers meet
QCEW program reporting criteria, then an MWR requesting information on employment and wages for each
worksite each quarter is mailed to the employer. Thus, the ARS is also used to identify new potential MWReligible employers.
6
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
The MWR is collected on a quarterly basis from all eligible (that is, multiple-establishment) employers for data
from the previous quarter. The ARS is conducted on a 3-year cycle, with approximately one-third of all business
establishments sampled each year. During this cycle, BLS identifies which establishments have changed from
one type of business to another and reclassifies them under a different NAICS code. For example, brew pub
establishments can change from a pub establishment to an eating and drinking establishment, and because of
this change, they are placed on a 3-year cycle. Establishments that are classified into certain NAICS industries
and that traditionally do not change industries very often are put on a 6-year cycle. Cemeteries are an example
of such establishments. Still other establishments are assigned NAICS code 999999 (unclassified). These
establishment are unclassified because the state does not have enough data to categorize them definitively into
a particular NAICS code. There are a number of reasons for having insufficient data. For one, when originally
setting up the business, the establishment could have left out relevant details. Another possibility is that the
state deemed the NAICS code assigned to be incorrect and tried to contact the establishment but did not
receive a response. To reduce the number of unclassified establishments, the state surveys them annually.
Readers may find forms and information as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
MWR forms at https://www.bls.gov/cew/mwrforms.htm
General information on MWR at https://www.bls.gov/cew/cewmwr00.htm
Information on reporting MWR data via the Web at https://www.bls.gov/cew/cewmwr05.htm
ARS forms at https://www.bls.gov/respondents/ars/forms.htm
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) reporting at https://www.bls.gov/cew/cewmwr02.htm
Confidentiality. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA)
safeguards the confidentiality of individually identifiable information acquired under a pledge of confidentiality for
exclusively statistical purposes. CIPSEA limits access of such information to authorized individuals with a need
to know and levies fines and penalties for any knowing and willful disclosure of individually identifiable
information by any BLS officer, employee, or agent. BLS policy on the confidential nature of respondent
identifiable information (RII) states, “RII acquired or maintained by the BLS for exclusively statistical purposes
and under a pledge of confidentiality shall be treated in a manner that ensures the information will be used only
for statistical purposes and will be accessible only to authorized individuals with a need-to-know.” This policy
remains in effect; however, the extent of confidentiality maintained within each state varies in accordance with
the laws of that state. Accordingly, the statement on the ARS and MWR forms make no promise of
confidentiality. However, once the QCEW data are furnished to BLS and are in its possession, the data are
considered confidential and are covered by CIPSEA. BLS considers the maintenance of the confidentiality of
data collected under a pledge of confidentiality to be critical to QCEW program integrity.
Authorization and participation. The ARS and the MWR are authorized by federal law 29 U.S.C. 2. Although
employer cooperation is not required by federal law, 25 states2 have laws that mandate the completion of the
ARS, and 27 states3 have laws that mandate the completion of the MWR. To encourage respondents to report
their information, states offering them a number of ways to submit their data. By thus allowing respondents
several reporting options, states are able to relieve some of the burden from the respondents.
7
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
States are required to attain a 70-percent response rate to the ARS for the establishments they survey or an 80percent response rate among employees in those establishments. The ARS website email “blast” prior to the
first (hardcopy) mailing (to 2012 ARS Web respondents), an ARS one-page letter prior to the first mailing,
followup mailings of the ARS and MWR forms and cover letters to nonrespondents to the first mailing, and
ARSWeb and MWRWeb email solicitations to any nonrespondents whose email address is on file, as well as
telephone contact of key nonrespondents, are used to increase response rates. State agencies use specific
techniques for converting nonparticipants to participants and for partial collection. Another technique is to assign
codes to establishments that fail to respond after extensive followup efforts. The codes assigned are NAICS
codes based on (1) their distribution across other establishments with the same NAICS codes and (2) other
characteristics. States may review system-assigned NAICS codes and may overlay them with codes they have
assigned.
Quality control and validation. As data are collected through the ARS and MWR surveys, quality control
procedures ensure that the information collected is accurate. These procedures include followup of all
nonrespondents and validation of all edit failures, which are incorporated into the design of the QCEW. Edit
failures occur when State systems kick back any discrepancy in the data and state staff must resolve or bypass
the discrepancy manually before the data can be saved. The states and the BLS regional offices also receive
both training in industry coding and procedural assistance in conducting the survey. Regional offices conduct
yearly quality assurance reviews in each state that is under their jurisdiction. States and regional offices receive
training specifically in areas of industry coding and survey procedures in order to promote consistency within the
states. Consistency ensures that all states code industries in a similar manner. The procedural assistance that
states and regional offices receive is in the area of how to administer the survey. Included are protocols for
suggestions on how to increase response rates (for example, certain telephone guidelines may be issued
regarding the most effective way to turn a refusal into compliance) and how to maintain quality assurance (how
to deal with edit failures and why edit failures occur).
There is an auto check for respondents who complete the MWR online. If wages are too high or too low, or if
employment has changed drastically from the previous month or quarter, then the system asks the respondents,
in real time, the reason for the change. Other, similar auto checks are in place in the state systems when the
respondent enters data. MWR respondents are unable to save the data unless the checks are overridden or
amended.
Industries that are hard to measure or reach have specific protocols in place as well. Guidelines are given to
states for the most effective ways to reach companies in such industries and, once contact is made, how to ask
them for their information most effectively. For example, when companies are unable to be reached, looking at
what they do on their website helps. However, when what the website says is unclear, another idea is to look at
which positions the companies are recruiting for. This method usually helps with companies in scientific and
engineering industries, because the position descriptions listed reveal what type of specific work the company
does. There are many more ways of canvassing companies for information as well.
8
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
NOTES
1 Included in the QCEW microdata are data for U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. For simplicity, they are referred
to as states in this document.
2 ARS-mandatory states are California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico,
South Carolina (mandatory only for employers with more than 21 employees), Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and
West Virginia.
3 MWR-mandatory states are Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and West Virginia.
Last Modified Date: April 14, 2017
9
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Design
This section is based largely on the 2014 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of the Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. The program’s universe of business establishments
consists of those establishments which are respondents to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in
partnership with the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (a total of 53
entities). The original source of data is the Quarterly Contribution Reports (QCRs) submitted to State Workforce
Agencies (SWAs) by employers subject to state and federal unemployment insurance (UI) laws. The QCEW
data, which are compiled for each calendar quarter, provide a comprehensive business name-and-address file
with employment and wage information by industry at the six-digit North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) level and at the national, state, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and county levels for employers
subject to state UI laws. Similar data for federal government employees covered by the Unemployment
Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) program also are included. The QCEW data serve as the sample
frame for establishment surveys conducted by BLS and selected states. In addition, the QCEW has served as a
sample frame for other U.S. government surveys. The BLS role in the QCEW program is to establish and
enforce uniform methods and processes that yield consistent data quality for the multifaceted uses of the
QCEW data. In this role, BLS takes in raw UI administrative data, seeks to understand the error components
involved, and uses methods and processes to reduce error and yield a high-quality economic dataset and
sample frame.
The sampling frame
The QCEW is a virtual census of nonagricultural establishments’ employees and their wages. It also includes
about 53 percent of the workers in agricultural industries. The BLS process for enhancing the quality of the data
collected is completed by the state’s workforce agency staff. The process includes, but is not limited to, training
staff; collecting data efficiently from large multiple-establishment employers, achieved through Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI); applying statistically valid procedures for editing data, estimating missing reports and data
elements (imputation), addressing standardization, and linking records; and using standardized processing
systems for quality control procedures for data review. (See “Calculation” section for details about estimation
procedures and reliability of the data.)
After the data have been extensively reviewed at the state, regional, and national levels, BLS uses the resulting
file as a business establishment sample frame. The data also are summarized to produce counts of
establishments, employment, and wages for all counties; all Metropolitan Statistical Areas; each of the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and the nation, for all levels of
industrial aggregation.
As shown in table 1, the number of private business establishments (worksites) covered by the QCEW in 2014
was about 9.07 million and the covered employment was about 115.6 million. In addition, about 61,000 federal
government, 68,000 state government, and 165,000 local government establishments are covered; private
households are excluded, as is all agriculture except forestry. The total number of covered establishments was
10
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
about 9.36 million and covered employment about 136.61 million. The QCEW series has broad economic
significance in measuring labor trends and major industry developments, in time series analyses and industry
comparisons, and in special studies such as analyses of establishments, employment, and wages by size of
establishment.
Sampling weight. The QCEW is a census of establishments, or worksites; hence, every unit is in the sample and
represents itself only. That is, each unit has a sampling weight of 1.00 (absolute certainty).
Reliability
The QCEW is designed in such a way that it can identify industries by geographical location and link
establishments by multiple worksites in order to produce firm-level data. The QCEW has a longitudinal database
in which it can link data over time and capture business mergers and acquisitions. It can also link by UI number.
An inherent strength of the QCEW is its basis in mandatory UI reporting and the built-in potency of that system.
For example, each initial claim for UI benefits includes a check ensuring that the employer exists and is
contributing to the UI compensation fund. Based on a weekly survey of over 270,000 initial claims and more
than 14 million claims in total, the system ensures complete coverage.
The QCEW data are censuses of establishments and therefore are not subject to sampling error. However,
some other types of errors can occur, such as invalid county, industry, or ownership codes; data entry mistakes;
and over- or underreporting of employment and wages. To control for these errors, BLS has put in place
extensive quality control procedures. Among these procedures are (1) improving data collection methods,
including EDI and especially for large multiple-establishment employers; (2) standardizing data-processing
systems so that they include edits, imputation, record linkages (with standardization of addresses), and
industrial classification coding; and (3) standardizing training of staff at state, regional, and national levels in
reviewing data according to the guidelines provided by the QCEW program office and stated in official
memorandums.[1] Any reports that are identified as suspect after completing these procedures are individually
reviewed. Contact with respondents is frequently used to validate significant movements or to correct the data.
The two most important initiatives undertaken by BLS to enhance the quality of QCEW data are the
establishment of the Multiple Worksites Report (MWR) and the establishment of the Annual Refiling Survey
(ARS). Two separate OMB clearances are obtained for these surveys. The MWR is sent quarterly to multipleestablishment employers for the purpose of asking them to break out their consolidated reports to the
establishment level. For example, the UI system requires some employers to provide data for all of their
operations within a state; the MWR asks the employer to provide information on each establishment so that all
records on the file can be at the establishment level, which is generally the sampling unit for most BLS surveys.
The information improves the quality of local economic data by reporting the location and type of economic
activity more accurately.
The ARS is conducted annually on about one-third of the establishments in the sampling frame, for the purpose
of updating businesses’ industrial classification, name, and reporting and physical location addresses. The
11
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
establishments surveyed are selected randomly. State and regional staff are trained extensively in industrial
classification coding. In addition, standardized systems are provided to the states and regions to process the
data.
Methods for maximizing response rates
Because employers are required to file Quarterly Contributions Reports (QCRs) under state and federal UI laws,
response rates for these documents are generally very high. Response rates are about 95 percent for
employment (table 2) and about 96 percent (table 3) for wages (like filing of QCRs, reporting of wages is
required by UI law). Response rates for total covered employment are about 97 percent (table 3), because
nonresponse is mostly from small establishments.
The growth of EDI—the direct transfer of data from the firm to BLS—also provides a high level of response and
stability. BLS currently collects more than 432,000 reports from nearly 250 large firms with about 12.2 million
employees via EDI. Virtually all of these firms provide data that make up the final estimates.
New BLS initiatives
BLS has undertaken several new research initiatives in the control and measurement of nonsampling error. The
1991 Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey’s benchmark employment estimate transmitted to the QCEW
revealed a substantial nonsampling error problem caused by payroll-processing firms. The American Statistical
Association formed a committee to review BLS procedures and issued a report in January 1994.[2] BLS has
adopted most of the report’s recommendations. BLS has also conducted a Response Analysis Survey (RAS) of
payroll-processing firms.[3] The purpose of the survey was twofold: to identify practices that can affect the data
collected by the CES survey and the QCEW (the benchmark source data) and to educate payroll processors on
proper reporting procedures. In addition, BLS has conducted a RAS of CES and QCEW covered employment
reporting.[4] The survey identified factors that affect both CES and QCEW reporting within the same firm. On the
basis of these RAS studies, BLS has undertaken an extensive education program with CES respondents. The
program includes highlighting correct reporting of problematic items on the CES report form and including
special notices on correct reporting in the monthly advance notice fax message. A new RAS was conducted in
2008; a report details new findings of the survey.[5]
Table 1. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) summary data for 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 2014 annual averages
Description
Number of establishments
(thousands)
Total
Total private
Agriculture, forestry, fishing,
and hunting
Mining
Utilities
Construction
See footnotes at end of table.
12
Annual average
employment (thousands)
Total annual wages
(millions)
9,361
136,614
$7,016,975
9,067
115,569
5,928,257
100
1,231
37,691
36
842
85,987
17
549
53,869
752
6,109
336,206
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Table 1. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) summary data for 50 states, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 2014 annual averages
Number of establishments
(thousands)
Description
Manufacturing
Annual average
employment (thousands)
338
Wholesale trade
Total annual wages
(millions)
12,157
765,567
621
5,816
413,183
1,040
15,344
441,016
230
4,391
213,889
151
2,732
248,146
472
5,634
548,621
360
2,040
105,722
1,115
8,348
721,188
60
2,154
243,204
499
8,572
307,249
108
2,669
124,317
1,377
17,904
821,026
133
2,095
73,033
660
12,532
234,048
810
4,235
143,734
188
215
10,562
Federal government
61
2,730
206,897
State government
68
4,545
246,266
Local government
165
13,770
635,555
Retail trade
Transportation and
warehousing
Information
Finance and insurance
Real estate and rental and
leasing
Professional, scientific,
and technical services
Management of companies
and enterprises
Administrative and support and
waste management services
Educational services
Healthcare and social
assistance
Arts, entertainment, and
recreation
Accommodation and food
services
Other services, except public
administration
Unclassified
Note: Industries are categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 2. Percentage of imputed establishments, total private, January 2001–June 2014
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
2001
6.02
6.03
6.06
2002
5.57
5.58
5.58
2003
6.20
6.22
6.22
2004
5.93
5.93
5.93
2005
5.61
5.63
5.70
2006
5.91
5.93
2007
5.08
5.23
2008
5.28
2009
2010
2011
Apr
5.78
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
5.78
5.87
5.08
5.10
5.13
5.03
5.06
5.10
5.11
5.11
5.18
4.99
4.99
5.04
4.71
4.75
4.79
5.53
5.50
5.58
5.21
5.21
5.23
5.46
5.48
5.54
5.78
5.75
5.88
5.43
5.42
5.55
5.28
5.30
5.40
5.06
5.04
5.21
5.17
5.19
5.20
4.58
4.64
4.73
5.96
4.87
4.83
4.93
4.82
4.91
4.95
4.37
4.48
4.52
5.25
4.50
4.62
4.70
4.29
4.31
4.37
4.08
4.11
4.19
5.25
5.31
4.12
4.10
4.24
4.12
4.11
4.18
3.75
3.80
3.92
4.86
4.88
4.97
4.06
4.03
4.15
3.62
3.62
3.70
3.52
3.54
3.70
4.71
4.73
4.75
4.03
4.03
4.24
4.14
4.15
4.39
3.65
3.69
3.86
4.64
4.67
4.76
5.20
5.20
5.40
3.58
3.60
3.73
3.06
3.14
3.26
See footnotes at end of table.
13
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Table 2. Percentage of imputed establishments, total private, January 2001–June 2014
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012
3.90
3.90
3.96
3.89
3.88
4.02
3.50
3.50
3.64
3.88
3.91
4.02
2013
4.28
4.19
4.27
3.43
3.43
3.58
3.01
2.95
3.06
2.95
2.90
3.04
2014
4.11
4.04
4.12
4.07
4.00
4.14
…
…
…
…
…
…
Note: Data include total private establishments (excluding households) in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data do not include Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands. Data for July–December 2014 were unavailable at the time of publication.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 3. Percentage of imputed employment, total private, January 2001–June 2014
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2001
5.15
5.09
5.11
4.76
4.70
4.74
4.41
4.38
4.48
4.68
4.68 4.75
2002
4.41
4.42
4.38
4.16
4.13
4.24
4.49
4.45
4.47
4.26
4.20 4.23
2003
4.92
4.93
4.82
4.36
4.29
4.39
4.62
4.54
4.58
4.62
4.61 4.57
2004
4.52
4.42
4.35
4.70
4.59
4.77
5.07
5.02
5.24
4.54
4.49 4.49
2005
4.10
4.09
4.12
3.80
3.74
4.09
3.96
3.95
3.83
3.82
3.78 3.80
2006
3.77
3.74
3.75
3.14
3.04
3.06
3.30
3.31
3.28
3.23
3.28 3.28
2007
3.28
3.28
3.24
2.95
2.89
2.94
3.08
3.08
3.10
2.86
2.82 2.87
2008
3.07
2.97
3.00
2.60
2.52
2.68
2.69
2.58
2.68
2.49
2.44 2.57
2009
2.84
2.75
3.26
2.35
2.29
2.36
2.34
2.29
2.51
2.34
2.26 2.33
2010
2.84
2.80
2.78
2.31
2.25
2.43
2.70
2.67
3.09
2.42
2.44 2.56
2011
2.79
2.78
2.88
3.04
2.99
3.25
2.32
2.33
2.41
2.22
2.23 2.28
2012
2.50
2.41
2.45
2.37
2.31
2.45
2.31
2.18
2.29
2.70
2.52 2.63
2013
2.72
2.54
2.62
2.17
2.13
2.28
2.34
2.14
2.26
2.22
1.97 2.13
2014
2.46
2.31
2.37
2.26
2.18
2.27
…
…
…
…
…
…
Note: Data include total private establishments (excluding households) in 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data do not include Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands. Data for July–December 2014 were unavailable at the time of publication.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 4. Percentage of imputed wages in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by
quarter and year, first quarter 2001–second quarter 2014
Quarter and year
Total establishment count
Percentage imputed
First quarter 2001
7,533,242
4.21
Second quarter 2001
7,535,474
4.20
Third quarter 2001
7,566,812
2.97
Fourth quarter 2001
7,586,276
2.89
First quarter 2002
7,631,984
3.71
Second quarter 2002
7,649,629
3.19
Third quarter 2002
7,664,231
3.09
Fourth quarter 2002
7,685,069
2.90
First quarter 2003
7,707,204
4.46
Second quarter 2003
7,706,809
3.41
Third quarter 2003
7,743,683
3.13
Fourth quarter 2003
7,752,148
3.16
First quarter 2004
7,803,049
3.95
See footnotes at end of table.
14
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Table 4. Percentage of imputed wages in the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), by
quarter and year, first quarter 2001–second quarter 2014
Quarter and year
Total establishment count
Percentage imputed
Second quarter 2004
7,823,101
3.76
Third quarter 2004
7,863,531
3.33
Fourth quarter 2004
7,913,376
3.33
First quarter 2005
7,968,390
3.82
Second quarter 2005
8,003,698
3.28
Third quarter 2005
8,059,913
3.30
Fourth quarter 2005
8,100,643
2.76
First quarter 2006
8,172,857
4.02
Second quarter 2006
8,196,981
3.24
Third quarter 2006
8,245,992
3.15
Fourth quarter 2006
8,315,522
2.68
First quarter 2007
8,324,352
3.59
Second quarter 2007
8,341,021
3.12
Third quarter 2007
8,387,074
2.82
Fourth quarter 2007
8,419,513
2.58
First quarter 2008
8,449,855
3.69
Second quarter 2008
8,466,818
2.98
Third quarter 2008
8,487,339
2.87
Fourth quarter 2008
8,492,607
2.61
First quarter 2009
8,417,511
3.76
Second quarter 2009
8,375,322
2.90
Third quarter 2009
8,360,108
2.69
Fourth quarter 2009
8,363,041
2.49
First quarter 2010
8,311,829
3.49
Second quarter 2010
8,303,570
2.99
Third quarter 2010
8,317,390
2.75
Fourth quarter 2010
8,345,743
2.38
First quarter 2011
8,317,722
3.85
Second quarter 2011
8,315,303
4.25
Third quarter 2011
8,347,899
2.68
Fourth quarter 2011
8,379,571
2.02
First quarter 2012
8,392,646
3.00
Second quarter 2012
8,392,328
2.96
Third quarter 2012
8,437,774
2.67
Fourth quarter 2012
8,475,116
2.95
First quarter 2013
8,948,604
3.33
Second quarter 2013
9,004,895
2.69
Third quarter 2013
9,048,695
2.29
Fourth quarter 2013
9,052,010
2.46
First quarter 2014
9,045,602
3.46
Second quarter 2014
9,042,613
3.26
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
15
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Table 5. Revisions in published Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data for March
2013, U.S. total, September 2013–September 2014
Total
March 2013
March 2013 March 2013 March 2013 March 2013
revision
First
Second
Third
Fourth
(September
(December (March 2014 (June 2014 (September
since
revision revision revision revision
2013 release) 2013 release)
release)
release)
2014 release)
September
2013
132,338,943
132,327,062
132,314,263
132,304,485
132,300,622
June 2013
(December
2013
Release)
June 2013
(March
2014
Release)
June
2013(June
2014
Release)
June 2013
(September
2014
Release)
135,093,963
135,116,548
-11,881
-12,799
-9,778
First
Second
Third
revision revision revision
135,109,624
135,101,731
September
2013
(March
2014
release)
September
2013 (June
2014
release)
September
2013
(September
2014
release)
22,585
134,957,493
135,022,674
135,015,597
65,181
December
2013 (June
2014
release)
December
2013
(September
2014
release)
First
revision
136,129,407
136,171,103
41,696
-6,924
-3,823
-38,281
Revision
since
December
2013
-7,893
7,768
Revision
since
March
2014
First
Second
revision revision
-7,077
58,104
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 6. Percentage of revisions in published Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data
for March 2013, from original to next publication, December 2013–September 2014
Preliminary publication
March 13 (December
2013 Release)
Percentage of revision
from preliminary
published data
June 13 (March
2014 Release)
-0.009
September 13 (June
2014 Release)
0.0167
December 13 (September
2014 Release)
0.0483
0.0306
Note: Percentage for Mar-13 (December 2013 release) is negative because the revised value of the data was lower than the original published value; thus,
the net change was negative.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Table 7. Percentage of revision from original to final publication
Preliminary publication
March 13 (September June 13 (September
2014 release)
2014 release)
Percentage of revision
from preliminary
published data
-0.0289
0.0058
September 13
(September 2014
release)
0.0431
December 13
(September 2014
release)
0.0306
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
[1] Official memorandums to the states and regional staff about the QCEW program (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, various dates), available upon request by contacting QCEW, https://www.bls.gov/cew/cewcont.htm.
16
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
[2] American Statistical Association Panel for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Employment Statistics
Survey, “A research agenda to guide and improve the Current Employment Statistics survey” (Alexandria,
VA: American Statistical Association, January 1994), available upon request.
[3] Karen L. Goldenberg, Susan E. Moore, and Richard J. Rosen, “Commercial payroll software and the
quality of employment data," Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical
Association, August 13–18, 1994 (Toronto: American Statistical Association, 1994), http://www.amstat.org/
sections/SRMS/Proceedings/papers/1994_178.pdf.
[4] George S. Werking, Richard L. Clayton, and Richard J. Rosen, “Studying the causes of employment
count differences reported in two BLS programs,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section,
American Statistical Association, August 13–17, 1995 (Orlando, FL: American Statistical Association,
1995), http://www.amstat.org/sections/SRMS/Proceedings/papers/1995_137.pdf.
[5] Sally Anderson, Margaret Applebaum, Michele Eickman, Greg Erkens, Kristin Fairman, Jeffrey Groen,
Steve Kroll, Chris Manning, and Polly Phipps, “Differences in seasonality between the CES and QCEW
programs: results from the 2008 Response Analysis Survey” (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 21,
2009), http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?objectID=48010201.
Last Modified Date: October 03, 2016
17
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Calculation
Data from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) are aggregations of various kinds of
business establishment data, including geographical, industry, ownership, and establishment size data. QCEW
data are not estimates. On occasion, when business establishment data are of poor quality or missing entirely,
they may be imputed. (See “Design” section for more information on imputation in QCEW data.) Proration is
used to handle multiple-establishment employers for whom the top employment and wage levels are known but
distribution at the establishment level is unknown.
Editing and validating data
QCEW data are validated at BLS during a preestablished data review period after the completion of data
collection and editing conducted by state workforce agency staff. Edits reduce approximately 9.4 million records
to a manageable level. Establishments with no change or a statistically insignificant change to their economic
data are ignored. Economic data types include employment, wages, industry, and county. QCEW criteria for
reviewing individual establishment records are based on over-the-year changes to employment or wage levels
for the establishment relative to the total employment level of the county it is located in. Data are validated to
keep the number of establishment records that require review at a reasonable level while ensuring that detailed,
county-level aggregations remain accurate. Program analysts review only employment and wage changes that
exceed the criteria. Any large-scale changes that the analysts find in economic data need to be verified or
corrected by working with state workforce agency staff. One of several methods used to validate significant
changes is to seek corroboration with total wage-record counts. Wage records, provided directly by the
employer, can be used to confirm both current levels and year-ago levels. The availability of wage record counts
varies from state to state. As necessary, state staff contact respondents to obtain corrected data.
Calculation procedure
The aggregated totals of employment and wages for each subdomain (e.g., industry, geography, and size) of the
QCEW are simply the sum of the establishments belonging to that subdomain. Averages and other statistics for
each subdomain are derived by performing the appropriate arithmetic functions.
As mentioned, the BLS role is to impose quality on the raw data. One of the processes for doing so involves
editing the data and conducting validation checks. The basic monthly employment edit consists of a six-step
statistical test that includes the use of multiple t-tests for month-to-month changes, over-the-year changes, and
a 12-month variation in data; some tests are conducted on levels while others are conducted on rates of
change.[1]
Imputation
Although BLS receives QCEW files from all 53 entities in a timely manner, the files contain estimates for late
and missing respondents. Therefore, one step in the data process is to estimate the number of late
respondents, the number of missing respondents (i.e., unit nonresponse) and of the number of missing data
18
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
elements (i.e., item nonresponse). As shown in table 2, as of June 2014 about 4 percent of establishments
failed to respond to the QCEW in a timely manner and thus required imputation; the corresponding percentage
for employment in that same month and year was about 2 percent, as shown in table 3. The nonresponse rate
for wages was about 4 percent in the first quarter, 2014, as shown in table 4.
The current method of imputation applies, to the missing establishment, the change from a year earlier to the
previous month’s employment or quarterly wages in order to estimate the current month’s employment or
quarterly wages. That is, the current month’s employment for a missing establishment is equal to the previous
month’s employment multiplied by its change from a year earlier; a similar procedure is applied to estimate total
quarterly wages. A drawback to this procedure is that it uses the trend from a year earlier rather than the
current trend.[2]
BLS has conducted extensive research on alternative imputation methods for both employment and wages. The
findings of the research indicate that current trends exhibited by the reported data from similar cells should be
applied to nonrespondents. BLS defines the procedure for doing so as the ratio method. According to this
method, the ratio for a particular estimation cell is computed as the sum of a current month’s reported
employment divided by the sum of the previous month’s reported employment. To impute the current month’s
employment for a nonrespondent, the ratio is then multiplied by the nonrespondent’s previous month’s
employment. A similar procedure is applied to impute average quarterly wages. The ratio method of imputation
will be implemented in the new QCEW processing system.[3]
Another data-processing step is to link the QCEW data across quarters for various purposes, including (1)
editing and imputation; (2) separating establishments into new establishments (openings or births), continuous
establishments (existing businesses), and out-of-business establishments (closings or deaths); and (3)
performing longitudinal research.[4]
Changes in employment levels
While collecting data, analysts may see large increases or declines in employment levels within an
establishment. These changes may be verified by identifying a predecessor or successor establishment,
respectively. Any such change may be due to a number of factors, including a merger between companies, the
acquisition of one company by another, improved reporting by a multiple-establishment employer, and a
physical relocation of employees. Often, states contact the employer in question to verify the shifts in the data
and get an explanation as to why they occurred.
QCEW program analysts may also seek to validate data by asking questions of the State Workforce Agency
staff. The questions usually are about an unexpected or large change in the economic or administrative data of
a specific establishment or group of establishments. The agency provides the analysts with edited
unemployment insurance (UI) data and often has firsthand knowledge of the changes to the data.
19
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Other changes in economic activity
Breaks in published data—sudden shifts in employment or wage levels at the macrolevel—can occur for a
number of reasons. One major reason is a change in coding, due to either a physical relocation of an
establishment, a change in primary economic activity, a change in industry definition, or the correction of a
reporting error. Another reason is a change in the reporting status of an establishment. Some businesses with
multiple establishments incorrectly identify themselves as a single unit. Eventually, if they are able to provide a
breakout of economic and administrative detail for all of their subunits, it turns out that many of these units are in
different counties and may require different industry codes.
Adjustments and related changes
Both adjusted over-the-year growth rates for the third month of the quarter and average weekly wages are
published in the QCEW County Employment and Wages quarterly news release. These growth rates are not
published anywhere else. The over-the-year changes in employment and wages are adjusted to account for
most of the administrative corrections made to the underlying establishment reports. Adjustments are made by
modifying the previous-year levels used to calculate the over-the-year changes. Over-the-year percent changes
are calculated with the use of an adjusted version of the final, unpublished quarterly data of the previous year as
the base data. The unpublished previous-year levels do not match the unadjusted data maintained on the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) website. Over-the-year changes based on data from the website or from data
published in previous BLS news releases may differ substantially from the over-the-year changes presented in
the QCEW news release.
Other administrative changes
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year changes presented in the news release account for most
of the administrative changes: those occurring when employers update the industry, location, or ownership
information of their establishments. The most common administrative adjustments are the result of updated
information about which particular county a given establishment is located in. Included in these adjustments are
administrative changes involving the classification of establishments whose county was previously reported as
unknown or simply “statewide” or whose industry was reported as unknown. The classification “statewide” is
used primarily for multiple-establishment employers with locations in multiple counties. It appears on the
accounts master record that aggregates all establishment data. The classification is sometimes used by
establishments whose economic activity has no primary location. The classification “unknown” is used by a state
that is unable to identify the physical location of an establishment. Beginning with the first quarter of 2008,
adjusted data account for administrative changes caused by multiple-establishment employers that submit
reports for each of their establishments rather than reporting as a single entity. Beginning with the second
quarter of 2011, adjusted data account for selected large administrative changes in employment and wages.
These new adjustments allow the QCEW to include county employment and wage growth rates in the news
release that would otherwise not meet publication standards.
20
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
The adjusted data used to calculate the over-the-year changes presented in any County Employment and
Wages news release are valid for comparisons between the starting and ending points (a 12-month period)
used in that particular release. Comparisons may not be valid for any period other than the one featured in a
release even if the changes were calculated by using adjusted data.
Confidentiality
Finally, in accordance with BLS policy, data reported under a promise of confidentiality are published in a way so
as to protect the identifiable information of respondents. BLS withholds the publication of UI-covered
employment and wage data for any industry level when necessary to protect the identity of employers. Totals at
the industry level for the states and the nation include the undisclosed data suppressed within the detailed
tables without revealing those data. QCEW confidentiality concepts and practices are largely based on the
“Statistical Policy Working Paper 22”(PDF) developed by the Federal Committee on Statistical Methods.
NOTES
[1] The wage edit includes the use of an interquartile test developed by David Hoaglin, Boris Iglewicz, and
John Tukey in “Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling,” Journal of the American Statistical
Association, December 1986, pp. 991–999, http://amstat.tandfonline.com/toc/uasa20/81/396. The edit
conditions and formulas are described in “Appendix-F: Edit conditions and formulas,” QCEW Operating
Manual (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007), www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?
objectID=48010401.
[2] The imputation formulas used by BLS are described in Chapter 8, “Imputation of Missing and
Delinquent Data,” and Appendix J of the QCEW Operating Manual (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
[3] For details of the method, including various exceptions, see ICR documents (Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President), http://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=201406-1220-001.
[4] Details of the methodology are given in Ivan P. Fellegi and Alan B. Sunter, “A theory for record
linkage,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1969, vol. 64, no. 328, pp. 1183–1210; and
Kenneth Robertson, Larry Huff, Gordon Mikkelson, Timothy Pivetz, and Alice Winkler, “Improvement in
record linkage processes for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Business Establishment List,” in Wendy Alvey
and Bettye Jamerson, eds., Record linkage techniques—1997: Proceedings of an International Workshop
and Exposition, March 20–21, 1997, Arlington, VA. Washington, DC: Federal Committee on Statistical
Methodology, Office of Management and Budget, 1997. (For more information on establishment linkage,
births, and deaths, see “Business Employment Dynamics,” Handbook of Methods (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics), https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/bdm/home.htm.
Last Modified Date: April 14, 2017
21
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Presentation
This section provides some information on the ways Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data
are presented. It also provides more information on the users and uses of these data. Because the QCEW is a
census, there are confidentiality protection requirements that are different from those which apply to BLS survey
products. All QCEW products are evaluated for the presence of data that may provide sensitive information
regarding employment and wages reported by a particular employer. BLS withholds QCEW data to the extent
needed to protect the confidentiality of sensitive data. Details regarding the methods used to protect the data
are not shared so that the protection will maintain its strength.
Reliability
The QCEW is designed in such a way that it can identify industries by geographical location and link
establishments by multiple worksites in order to produce firm-level data. The QCEW has a longitudinal database
in which it can link data over time and capture business mergers and acquisitions. It can also link by UI number.
An inherent strength of the QCEW is its basis in mandatory UI reporting and the built-in potency of that system.
For example, each initial claim for UI benefits includes a check ensuring that the employer exists and is
contributing to the UI compensation fund. Based on a weekly survey of more than 270,000 initial claims and
more than 14 million claims in total, the system ensures complete coverage.
Publications
The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) news release County Employment and Wages is
published quarterly but lags the last month of the quarter by roughly 5 months. For example, first quarter,
covering January, February, and March, is published in early September. Data presented in the County
Employment and Wages release, which are adjusted, are not revised, unlike the fully released QCEW data,
which are not adjusted. County Employment and Wages focuses on large counties in the United States
(counties with an annual average employment level of 75,000 or greater) and their growth in employment and
wages in the third month of the quarter and in average weekly wages (AWW) for the quarter. Growth rates are
calculated on an over-the-year basis and are adjusted to mute the effects of noneconomic changes. A variety of
charts, tables, and maps in the release highlight the counties with the 10 highest and 5 lowest rates of growth in
employment and AWW. Another section of the release spotlights the 10 largest counties in the United States by
annual average employment level. The release also includes three tables, one showing adjusted employment
and wage growth for all counties with employment of 75,000 or greater, a second presenting adjusted
employment and wage growth for the 10 largest counties by level of employment, and a third displaying
adjusted employment and wage growth for every state.
The tables “Employment and Wages, Annual Averages” are published annually on the QCEW program’s
website the same day as the first-quarter news release is published for the next year (i.e., the 2013 Employment
and Wages, Annual Averages is published the same day as the 2014 first-quarter County Employment and
Wages news release.)
22
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
QCEW data are regularly updated after their initial release and are not considered final until the end of the first
quarter of the next reference year. Once data are final, they are not edited. If errors are found in publications
after particular data are released, a corrected version of the data is released along with a note on what was
changed. Such notes can be found in the “QCEW Special Notices” section of the program web page.
QCEW program analysts have published a number of articles in BLS publications, such as the Monthly Labor
Review[1] and Beyond the Numbers.[2] (Also, QCEW data are often used in the BLS Office of Publications daily
graphics-oriented publication TED: The Economics Daily[3] State partners of the QCEW use the data to write
features on local areas, to research industry-specific trends, and to promote economic activity happening in their
state.)
The QCEW has the benefit of a large, dataset in the form of 9.4 million employer reports. Users can easily
manipulate the dataset and create interesting, relevant, and useful data. This aspect, unique among BLS
programs, gives users the opportunity to create interesting, relevant, and useful new datasets:
Hurricane maps and tables. QCEW establishment data were matched with data from geographic files of
potential flood zones due to hurricanes. Matching was done for every state along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coasts and for more than 150 counties within those states. Geographic information software flagged individual
establishments as either in or not in flood zones, for a scale of increasing storm intensity. The establishments
were then aggregated by flood zone, and maps and tables were created to illustrate which states and counties
were at great economic risk due to hurricanes.
Nonprofit data. In accordance with unemployment insurance (UI) laws, some establishments are not required to
contribute to UI, but rather reimburse the UI system when a claim is made. In most states, these “reimbursable”
accounts are restricted to 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations. The QCEW flags establishments that are
“reimbursables” on its records. These records were matched against Internal Revenue Service data for
verification, then compiled to create a new dataset for private sector establishments, employment, and wages
for the portion of the nonprofit sector made up of 501(c)3 organizations.
Foreign direct investment. As of the end of 2015, the QCEW and the BEA were in the early stages of developing
improved measures of foreign direct investment. The intent of the measures is to identify the number of
establishments, the level of employment, and the amount of wages that result from foreign direct investment.
To contact the QCEW program, visit the QCEW website.
Revisions
QCEW data for the first quarter of each year are published five times: the original data are first released in
September of that year and are followed by revisions in December of the same year and in March, June, and
September of the next year. For example, March 2013 data are first published in September 2013, and
revisions of the March data are published in December 2013 and then in March, June, and September of 2014.
Second-quarter data are published four times, third-quarter data three times, and fourth-quarter data twice.
23
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
Table 5 shows the path of data for March 2013 from their initial publication in September 2013 to their final
publication in September 2014. The initial published value of March 2013 employment (132,338,943 jobs) is
seen in the first column. In the same row in the four subsequent columns are the revised values of March 2013
employment in each of the subsequent four quarters. In the next four columns, the difference between the
current published value and the value of the previous quarter’s published value is shown. The final column
shows the difference between the original published value and the final value published 1 year later. As shown
in table 6, the largest revision generally occurs from initial publication to the first revision, as missing reports,
including reports of business deaths,[4] come in from employers responding late.[5] The magnitude of the
revisions is relatively small, less than 0.05 percentage point. Table 7 shows the percentage of revision from the
original value to the final publication value.
Data available
QCEW data are available online via Open Data Access or the BLS Database. Preliminary data are published
each quarter, with a lag of roughly 5 months after the third month of the publication quarter. All quarters are
considered open for updates until the publication of first-quarter data for the next year. Data are available at the
county, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state, and national level by industry, down to the six-digit level of
detail for privately owned establishments as well as local, state, and federal government agencies.
Through its Open Data Access/QCEW Data Viewer feature, the QCEW program provides a collection of
comma-separated values (CSV) files, designed to allow third-party programmers, developers, and organizations
to retrieve published QCEW data in CSV format. The Open Data Access webpage provides links to QCEW CSV
file documentation, as well as to sample code in several languages. QCEW CSV files are organized by industry,
by area, and by establishment size class. An industry file contains all the records associated with the industry
over a single period. An area file contains all the records associated with the area over a single period. A size
file contains all records published within a specific size class for the first quarter of a specified year. All published
QCEW data are provided by each set of files. The files contain precalculated location quotients, which are
values that quantify how concentrated a particular industry is in a county or state compared with how
concentrated that industry is in the nation. QCEW's Data Viewer interface uses these same CSV files to build
custom HTML tables based on selected criteria.
Users and uses of QCEW data
QCEW data are used by various organizations for various purposes:
The Employment and Training Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor uses QCEW data as it oversees
the UI program.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce uses QCEW wage data for the
wage and salary component of the personal income statistic.
The BLS Business Employment Dynamics program uses QCEW data to produce gross job gains and losses, as
well as maintain the Longitudinal Database of QCEW records.
24
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
The BLS Current Employment statistics program uses QCEW data as a sample frame, as well as an annual
benchmark.
The following BLS establishment surveys, censuses, and programs also use QCEW data as a sample frame:
Occupational Employment Statistics survey
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey
Current Population Survey
Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses
Local Area Unemployment Statistics program.
NOTES
[1] See,
for example, Jennifer Cruz, Peter W. Smith, and Sara Stanley, “The Marcellus Shale gas boom in
Pennsylvania: employment and wage trends,” February 2014, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/
the-marcellus-shale-gas-boom-in-pennsylvania-1.htm.
[2] See, for example, Paul Ferree and Peter W. Smith, “Employment and wage changes in oil-producing
counties in the Bakken Formation, 2007–2011,” April 2013, https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/
employment-wages-bakken-shale-region.htm.
[3] See, for example, “Average weekly wages among largest counties, third quarter 2014 to third quarter
2015,” March 11, 2016, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/average-weekly-wages-among-largest-countiesthird-quarter-2014-to-third-quarter-2015.htm; “Sweets for the sweet: employment at gift-related retailers,”
February 12, 2016, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2016/sweets-for-the-sweet-establishments-andemployment-of-gift-retailers.htm; and “Hurricane Katrina: a look back at employment and unemployment,”
August 25, 2015, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/hurricane-katrina-a-look-back-at-employment-andunemployment.htm.
[4] For a definition of “business deaths,” see “Business Employment Dynamics: concepts,” Handbook of
Methods (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 24, 2015), https://www.bls.gov/opub/hom/bdm/
concepts.htm.
[5] Note that the percentage for the first release is negative because the revised value was lower than the
previously published value.
Last Modified Date: April 14, 2017
25
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
History
The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) is an administrative dataset guided by
unemployment insurance (UI) coverage laws.[1] These laws vary across states. They have evolved over
time and continue to do so from state to state and year to year. The following time line presents important
events in the history of the QCEW programs:
Year
Event
1938
The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) becomes effective. Administered by U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
Manpower Administration.
1950
Employment and Wages is first issued as a semiannual report.
1972
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) assumes responsibility for publication of the now quarterly Employment and
Wages.
1975
Employment and Wages becomes an annual publication.
1988–
91
Business Establishment List Improvement project moves from data collection on a reporting unit basis to a worksite
basis.
1989
States begin providing data to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) at the business
establishment level.
1994–
97
1995
The Microdata/Macrodata (MIC/MAC) project creates a single file that combines the microdata and macrodata.
The Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Collection Center is established.
1997
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is developed to replace the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) system.
2002
QCEW data are published under NAICS 2002 codes.
2002
QCEW program begins publishing data quarterly.
2003
The Business Employment Dynamics (BED) program publishes first quarterly release using QCEW establishment
data.
2003
BLS begins releasing fully detailed industry data at the county, Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), state, and
national levels.
2007
QCEW data are published under revised NAICS 2007 codes.
2010
Last printed edition of Employment and Wages, Annual Averages is published.
2012
QCEW data are published under revised NAICS 2012 codes.
2014
QCEW data are made available publicly as an open data product.
The QCEW program was initially named Employment Security Report 202, after the form on which data were
collected. In 1998, to give some context to what the program produced, the name was changed to Covered
Employment and Wages (CEW). The program became known as the Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages in 2002, to describe the mission more accurately.
The Standard Industrial Classification system (SIC) was used by the QCEW program to code establishments by
industry until the fall of 2002, when the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) was utilized in
the publication of 2001 data.
26
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, special extracts and aggregations were provided via mainframe computer
tape and, later, on floppy disks. Alternatively, special print tables were produced with the information, as
requested by customers. Data were subject to basic disclosure limitation procedures.
Following the early 1980s and into the late 1990s, a similar pattern occurred, but with more sophisticated
disclosure limitation procedures. Some data requests were filled via CD, while more complicated requests
required that BLS be reimbursed. During this timeframe, QCEW established subscription agreements with some
of the larger private data companies. These companies would get updated files when they were available.
Although data were scheduled to be released quarterly, they were actually released irregularly. On occasion,
there were delays that pushed back file creation until more than one added quarter of data could be released at
once.
From the late 1990s forward, requests that required reimbursement slowed and then ceased. More
sophisticated disclosure limitation procedures were used. Early online tools offered annual average data for
1997 forward. In the early 2000s, a small number of downloadable files were posted on the BLS File Transfer
Protocol site.
In 2014, QCEW data were made available as an open data product via comma-separated values (CSV) files on
the program’s web page. Open data, as described in OMB memorandum M-13-13 (PDF), refers to publicly
available data structured in a way that enables the data to be fully discoverable and usable by end users. The
CSV files are designed to allow third-party programmers, developers, and organizations to retrieve published
QCEW data in CSV format. QCEW CSV files are organized by industry, by area, and by establishment size
class.
Major projects
The QCEW program has undertaken several major projects in its brief history.
Business Establishment List. The Business Establishment List (BEL) Improvement project was initiated to obtain
information on multiple-establishment employers on a quarterly basis. Under the project, the collection of data
on employment and wages for multiple-establishment employers was changed from a reporting unit (county or
industry total) basis to an individual worksite (establishment) basis. As part of this change, the size criterion
used to define multiple-establishment employers was lowered to include smaller employers. As a result, both the
number of establishments and the number of multiple-establishment employers increased. The State Statistical
Supplement forms that were previously used to collect county and industry summary-level data on multipleestablishment employers were replaced by the Multiple Worksite Report (MWR), a standardized form for use in
all states.
The project began in late 1988, using the Annual Refiling Survey (ARS). The survey obtained worksite
identification information for existing multiple-establishment employers and identified those multipleestablishment employers which were previously categorized as single-unit employers. To capture ARS physical
location address information for single-unit employers, the SIC Refiling Control System (SRCS) was modified in
27
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
mid-1988 and the new version was provided to the states. The new, standardized MWR received OMB
clearance and was mandated for state use beginning with data for the first quarter of 1991. (Note that, although
state use of the form was mandatory, depending on state UI laws, it was not mandatory that all employers in the
state use the form.) The MWR was intended to collect quarterly information on employment and wages from
multiple-establishment employers.
MWR. The MWR was a major component of the BEL improvement project launched in 1989. The BEL moved
the BLS sampling frame from a reporting-unit to an establishment basis. The Longitudinal Data Base was
established and later became part of the popular Business Employment Dynamics (BED) program. As
mentioned earlier, the MWR replaced State Statistical Supplement forms. Several states had already collected
establishment-level data, and their forms served as a model for the MWR. The initial quarter during which MWR
establishment-level data were collected was the first quarter of 1991. The MWR enabled the QCEW program to
be the first in BLS to develop a standardized magnetic-media reporting format. The MWR was implemented in
September 1992, 3 years prior to the opening of the Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Collection Center in
Chicago.
In 1995, BLS established the EDI Collection Center to improve and to expedite the MWR collection process.
Employers who complete the MWR for multiple-location businesses submit information on employment and
wages via an electronic medium directly to the collection center, instead of submitting separate forms or files to
each individual state agency. The collection center then edits the employers’ data and forwards the data to the
appropriate state agency. The EDI Collection Center is geared toward firms that meet certain size thresholds.
Electronic and web-based filing has reduced costs considerably for large and midsized employers. MWR web
data collection started with data for the first quarter of 2007. The MWR electronic-reporting format is now
routinely included in the products of prominent payroll- and tax-reporting software developers. Since 2012, BLS
has successfully worked with a contractor to print, mail, receive and scan returned MWR forms to state
agencies, substantially reducing their workloads.
It is useful to examine some recent statistics regarding overall MWR data collection. In that regard, the numbers
in the following tabulation, for the fourth quarter of 2014, exhibit a stable pattern that has come to be seen as
the usual pattern for MWR statistics:
Fourth quarter 2014 (initial enhanced quarterly Unemployment Insurance file)
Number or percentage of employers
Percentage of employers filing the MWR
1.42
Percentage of national worksites
17.35
Percentage of national employment
41.03
28
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
As the table shows, approximately 1.4 percent of employers completed the MWR for about 17 percent of
national worksites and more than 41 percent of national employment. Moreover, nearly 49 percent of all MWR
employment came electronically, from either the EDI Center or MWRweb. Of this 49 percent, the EDI Center
collected 20 percent of total MWR employment while MWRweb accounted for almost 29 percent.
Microdata/Macrodata (MIC/MAC) Project. Prior to 1989, states submitted only an enhanced file containing
macrolevel employment and wage data. That meant that the highest level of detail received by the QCEW
program was aggregate data cells made up of a combination of industry, county, and ownership codes.
In the first quarter of 1989, states began delivering a quarterly microdata file that included individual business
establishment data. At the time, states were submitting nine separate deliverables per year: four quarterly
microdata files, four quarterly macrodata files, and the annual Control File, providing Code Change Supplement
data.
Development of the MIC/MAC project began in 1994. Teams consisting of BLS staff from both the national office
and regional offices, as well as state staff members, were established to define the new processing
requirements and deliverable standards. State and BLS systems were updated to reflect these major
operational changes. The mission was to create a single quarterly file that would make possible the creation of
macrolevel totals from the microdata. The project would promote more efficiency by eliminating duplication of
work in reviewing and correcting the micro- and macrodata files. The project would also create uniformity in the
micro- and macrolevel totals, as well as in the editing standards for the states and BLS. The first MIC/MAC files
were submitted to BLS in the third quarter of 1997, providing for a more efficient work process and producing
higher quality data.
SIC-to-NAICS conversion. The SIC system was established in the 1930s in order to classify establishments by
their primary type of activity. The system was updated multiple times in its history of being utilized by the QCEW
(formerly, ES-202) program; significant changes were made in 1967, 1972, and 1987. In July 1992, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) established the Economic Classification Policy Committee, chaired by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, with representatives from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census (now the U.S. Census Bureau) of the U.S. Department of Commerce and from BLS. The
OMB charged the committee with conducting a “fresh slate” examination of economic classifications for
statistical purposes and determining the desirability of developing a new industry classification system for the
United States that would be based on a single economic concept. In 1997, NAICS was introduced, the product
of a cooperative effort on the part of the official statistical agencies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
In the fall of 2002, the QCEW program published its 2001 data using NAICS 2002 classified industry data for the
first time. Over several years prior to that milestone, state agencies had worked to convert more than 8 million
establishments to NAICS. Along with the initial 1997 version of NAICS and the 2002 update, versions were
released in 2007 and 2012 also, to reflect changes to the economy.
29
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
One of the major changes to industry coding that was introduced by NAICS was the sector called information
(NAICS 51), which includes establishments producing and distributing information and cultural products,
establishments providing the means to transmit or distribute these products, and establishments providing data
or communications services, including data processing. Another new sector introduced by NAICS was
management of companies and enterprises (NAICS 55).
The BLS conversion to NAICS was notable for its detail. An example may be seen in the construction (NAICS
23) sector. Within the specialty trade contractors (NAICS 238) subsector in the BLS implementation of NAICS,
each base group in specialty trade contractors—for example, masonry contractors (NAICS 23814) or roofing
contractors (NAICS 23816)—is further divided, on the basis of whether the establishment’s predominant activity
is in residential construction or nonresidential construction.[2]
Early BEA finance data. BEA is responsible for producing quarterly estimates of gross domestic product (GDP)
and personal income (PI). A key component of the GDP and PI numbers is data on wages, from the QCEW
program. Prior to 2008, BEA had difficulty estimating wages in a number of industries. The most difficult industry
was finance (NAICS 52), because wage levels for that industry are greatly affected by irregular payments (for
example, bonuses and stock options). These irregular payments are usually made in either the fourth or first
quarter. In 2008, at BEA’s request, BLS agreed to deliver first-quarter macrodata earlier than is customary, in
order to enable BEA to adjust its estimates by means of QCEW total wage levels.
In early July of 2008, the 10 states with the largest proportion of national aggregate wages in the finance
industry participated in a pilot test of accelerated macrodata delivery to BEA. The early-delivery pilot proved to
be highly successful with major national users, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Council of
Economic Advisers, which noted a decrease in revisions. On the basis of this success, BEA asked the QCEW
program to provide early macrodata as a deliverable each first quarter, beginning with the first quarter of 2009.
The BEA wage estimates that are being improved with QCEW data are national, not state, metro, or local,
estimates.
Business Employment Dynamics
The Business Employment Dynamics (BED) program uses QCEW establishment data to produce a quarterly
series of gross job gains and gross job losses for the entire economy. The program published its first release in
2003. The data covered the period from 1992 through 2002, with subsequent quarterly updates published since
then. (For more on BED, see “Business Employment Dynamics” in the BLS Handbook of Methods.
NOTES
[1] For the most recent changes to federal and state UI legislation, see “State law information: comparison
of state UI laws” (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, July 10, 2015), http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/
unemploy/statelaws.asp#Statelaw.
[2] For more information on NAICS, see “North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) at
BLS,” in BLS information (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 22, 2014), https://www.bls.gov/bls/
30
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
naics.htm; and David R. H. Hiles, “A first look at employment and wages using NAICS,” Monthly Labor
Review, December 2001, pp. 22–31, https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/12/art3full.pdf.
Archives
Last Modified Date: October 03, 2016
31
U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
HANDBOOK OF METHODS
More Information
Additional information on the QCEW can be found online at https://
www.bls.gov/cew
For questions by Email, see here.
For questions by telephone, please call (202) 691-6567.
For BLS QCEW Survey Respondents:
Multiple Worksite Report (MWR): [email protected]
Industry Verification Form (ARS): please contact your respective state office.
For more information on data collection forms, please follow “QCEW Reporting” on the QCEW homepage.
For researchers of QCEW data
On-site Visiting Researcher program
For state-published data
The cooperating State Workforce Agencies (SWAs) have labor market information offices that publish and
disseminate QCEW data for their states.
For CES use of QCEW data
CES technical note
For OES use of QCEW data
OES survey methods and reliability statement
For BEA use of QCEW data
BEA wages and salary disbursements
Last Modified Date: April 14, 2017
32
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Modified | 2017-08-08 |
| File Created | 2017-08-08 |