To explore the feasibility of sample selection to predict … · 2013-12-24 · to estimate agricultural employment through an establishment reporting ... The purpose of the study

IDOCUMENT RESUME

ED 022 885 VT 004 813

ESTIMATING AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT FROM A SAMPLE OF EMPLOYERS. TECHNICAL PAPER

SERIES-M-73.California State Dept. of Education, Sacramento. Research and Statistics Section.

Pub Date 2 Nov 64Note-16p.EDRS Price MF-$025 HC-$0.72Descriptors-*AGRICULTURAL LABORERS, EMPLOYERS, *EMPLOYMENT PATTERNS, EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS,

*OCCUPATIONAL SURVEYS, *SAMPLING, SEASONAL EMPLOYMENTIdentifiers-California, Fresno County

To explore the feasibility of sample selection to predict agricultural employment, astratified sample of 360 employers was drawn from the employers reportingemployment in the Disability Insurance Program for agricultural workers in FresnoCounty. Month-to-month changes were examined for seven industry strata, andestimates were made by the link-relative method. Employment estimates werecompared with the reported universe employment for the corresponding month todetermine the accuracy of the sample as a means of estimating. Data indicated thatthe method may be feasible, but that the sample must be designed to includeemployers whose seasonal labor needs occur at different periods of the year. (JM)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

State of California THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE Teohnioal PaperDepartment of EmploymeniPERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSeriee M 7 3Researoh and Statistics STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION November 2, 1964

POSITION OR POLICY.

Estimating Agricultural Ehployment from a Sample of Ehployers

Current estimates of agricultural employment in California are based on FhrmLabor Representatives' estimates of the amount of labor needed in activitiescurrently in progress. Estimates of current employment in non-agricultural

vilindustries are based on responses from a sample of employers. Thus, the twoco kinds of estimates are not strictly comparable, and the agricultural estimates

may be subject to errors which do not affect the non-agricultural estimates.4.74! Another, and a particularly troublesome problem, is the likelihood of over-

estimating employment in certain agriculture-related industries, by countingr\J workers 45 belonging to both the agricultural and non-agricultural segments.(:) Attempts have been made in other states, e.g., Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington,

.4.4)to estimate agricultural employment through an establishment reporting system.

4, California is uniquely fortunate in having as a source of information theemployment and payroll figures submitted by agricultural employers for theadministration of the disability insurance program for agricultural workers. Thisinformation is not only useful for providing a frame from which to select asample, but it can also serve to check the reliability of the sample after ithad been selected.

o0

.1

This paper will describe the method by which a sample of agricultural employerswas selected, and the means used to validate the sample by comparison with knownuniverse values. The purpose of the study was to explore the feasibility ofsample selection and the accuracy with which a sample of a given size couldpredict employment over a period of months, and particularly for differentseasons of the year. Not considered were the technical and administrative problemsinvolved in initiating an establishment reports system in the field, of whichprobably the chief is obtaining the cooperation of employers in submitting accurateand timely reports. Also excluded from consideration was the validity of the datasubmitted by agricultural employers on Disability Insurance contribution returns.Fbr the purpose of this report, it is assumed that they are the most accuratesource of employment information, and that they are comparable to non-agriculturalcontribution returns.

I. SELECTION OF SAKPLE

A. Criteria for SelectionThe sample of employers selected was drawn from a frame consisting of employerswho reported employment covered by the Disability Insurance program foragricultural workers in Ftesno County during the third quarter of 1962. FresnoCounty was selected primarily because it is the looation of the Ftesno PhrmLabor Ptoject. It was expected that the additional facilities provided by theproject would assist in the implementation of field testing of establishmentreporting, once a Suitable sample was developed. In addition, Fresno County isthe most important agricultural county in California, and accounts for about12 percent of the total agricultural employment in the State, so that develop-

co ment of an adequate sample for Ftesno County would contribute materially toTml development of a sample for the State as a whole. September 1962, was chosen00 as a benohmark period because September is the month of maximum agricultural

CD

40

-2-

employment in Fresno County, and the selection of 1962 as a benchmark year

would allow a sufficient time following the period of selectian for universe

information to be available for validation of a complete year's data.

Initially, a sample design was tried in which the sample was stratified by

industry and size of firm in September 1962. However, when an attempt was

made to validate this sample it became apparent that a biaswas introduced

because employers whose highest employment was in months other than September

were underrepresented. As a result, employment for these months was seriously

underestimated.

The sample design as finally adopted was based on the following considerations:

(1) The sample was stratified by industry group, and within' the industry

Fruit and Tree Nut Farms, (emeal citrus), by crop.

(2) All employers with over 100 employees at any time duriag the September,

1962 through September, 1963 period were included.

(3) Otherwise, allocation to,the strata was based on seasonal variability.

(4) The sample consisted of about 360 employers.

B. MethodoloaThe standard deviation of seasonal variability of employment was'calculated for

each four.:digit Standard Industrial Classification group in agrimlture in

Fresno County by using the employment totals by month as cumulated on group

prints of employer tax returns. In figuring the standard deviation, employment

for each Month was treated as one item in the frequency distribution. The

standard deviations in each stratum were weighted by the number'pf employers,

and the weights were pro-rated to 300 to give an approximation of the number of

cases needed in each stratum for a total sample of 300. Because of the,

necessity for augmenting the allocatian to the Fruit and.Tree Nut Atrms

:(astat citrus),stratuwthefinal'sample'consisted of 359 employers.

Control cards are maintained routinely in the Research and Statistics Section

showing mOnth-to-month changes in employment for all agricultural employers

who have had 100 or more employees at any time since the inceptiron of Pisability

Insurance agricultural coverage.These cards were used as an additional source

of.information, and any employer operating in Fresno County who had 100 or more

workers at any time between October, 1962 and September, 1963, was included in

the sample. The final sample allocation and determination of the strata,

therefore, was based on a combination of weighting by seasonal variability and

inclusion of all large employers. As finally selected, the sample included

359 employers, grouped into seven industry strata, of which one was an "all

. other" category including six employers in unrelated industries. There were

108 employers with 100 or more employees. Employers in four industry groups:

Fruit and Tree Nut Farms (except-1 citrus); General Farms; Cottaq, Farms; le:

ricultural Services, N.E.C., with a maximum of 50 to 99 employees were also

addod to the sample. When the number of employers in a size group exceeded

the number required for the sample, anunbiassedsubsample was taken by selecting

every all employer in the group. For one inaUstry group, Fruit and Nut 21as,

(emItat citrus) it was necessary to incLeee all employers with over 50 employees

and anunbiassed sample of employers with 40 to 49 employees. The methods of

weighting the strata, and the final allocation are shown in Table 1.

II. USING TIE SAMPLE TO ESTIMATE LIPLOYMENT

After the sample employers were selected, their reported employment for the

period from September 1962 through September 1963 was determined by reference

to the control cards and employer contribution returns. If a change of legal

entity occurred during the year, the reports of the successor employer were

used for the remainder of the year. Estimates of employment for the October

1962 - September 1963 period were made by the link-relative method, using

the September 1962 universe as a benchmark. The derivation of these estimates

appears in Table 2. Table 2a shows similar estimates for October 1963 through

March 1964 using September 1963 as a benchmaiik.

The largest industry group, Fruit and Tree Nut Farms, (sant citrus), presented

problems in estimating because of the large number of employers, relatively

small average employment and high seasonal variation. It was necessary to

divide this group into four categories of employers by type of crop: grapes,

figs, peaches, and other fruit and tree nuts. The classification wasbased on

the employer's statement on his registration form. The distribution of universe

employment among these four cat6gories in September 1962 was estimated by

drawing an additional sample of the employers on the basis of size categories,

as shown on Table 3. The sample results were then expanded to the September

1962 universe. Using this September 1962 universe, estimates 01 employment

were made by the link-relative method for each of these four groups for the

October 1962 through September 1963 period, as shown on Table 49 and the sum of

these estimates was used as the estimate fox the Preit and Tree Nut Farms, (g.xceDt

citrus)-category. Similarly the sample wa; expanded to the September, 1963,

universe, and this universe, shown on Table 3a, was used as a benchmark for

estimates of employment for the October, 1963 through March, 1944 perio0,

These estimates are shown on Table 4a.

III. VALIDATION OF THE SAMPLE

The employment estimates made by the link-relative method were compared veeth

the reported universe employment for the corresponding month, te determine

the accuracy of the sample as a means of estimating. As shown in Table 5,

errors of estimate ranged from +16.2 to -11.2 percent, or in absolute terms

from +3,752 to .6,775. For ten of the eighteen months, the sample estimates

were less than five percent in error.

IV. CONCLUSIONS

The data cited above and appearing in Tables 2, 2a, 4, 4a, and 5 indicate 6hat

drawing a sample of employers from Disability Insurance records may be feasible.

However, the sample must be designed to include employers whose seasonal labor

needs occur at different periods of the year, and therefore employment records

for a given month cannot be used as a frame. The data also indipate that the

sample drawn wae not euffioiee,i4r larco to provide the required degree of

precision. In this connection it should be noted that the degree of precision

added with the addition of each employer over the 359 finally selected would

tend to diminish, because the excluded employers are those with a smaller number

of employees than those included in the sample.

The method of verifying sample design by reference to accessible universe data

proved a very helpful device in evaluation of the accuracy of the sample. In

fact, it probably resulted in rejection of an insufficiently prease sample

which without this validation would likely have been accepted. This study may

prove helpful in evaluating de accuracy of estimates of agrio4tural workers

based on samples for which no universe figures are available. Perhaps the

methodology used for this study will also suggest applications far sample design

outside of agricultural labor force estimating, where estimates6ust be made in

advance of universe figures which are not accessible immediately but which become

available at a less timely date.

,Table 1

Allocation of Sample to Industry

Strata, Fresno Caunty

Employers

SIC

Code

--a--

Indus tx7

Total

.:.

==r-

Number of

Standard

Weight

employers with

deviation

Number of

of seasonality

employers

iieighting

factor

prorated 100 or more

Employers

to 300

employees

in sample

C".

"

0112

Cotton farms.. 000000000000 ,..,..,,..,...,.,...

0113

Cash gratm farms....

,

0119

Other field crop farms

-'

0....

0121(c)Citrus farms. 000000 ........... 000000 .....0.

0122

Fruit and tree nut farms

(except citrus)...

0123

Vegetable farms.... 000 0000 .. 00000...., 00000

0132

Dairy farms. o o 0-. o ..........................

0133

Poultry farms

.

0139

Beef cattle, hog, goatand sheep farms.....

014-2

General farms, primarily crop

%2

General farms, primarilylivestock

)1114

General crop and livestock

farms

.......,.

0192

Horticultural specialties

0193

Animal specialties. ......... 00000 ........,

0213

Residential farms ..................... 000000

0712

Cotton ginning and compressing

(d)

0714

Corn shelling, hay balingand threshing

(-)715

Non-citrus fruit packingarid vegetable

packing

.

0716(c)Citrus packing

0718(c)Labor contractors o

197.39

9.16

5.26

47.47

1,422.29

68.32

28.96

32.00

31.02

603.88

0.71

_ 95.90

3.60

0.33

0,55

9.11

3,16

8.06

2.45

598.80

0719

Agricultural services,

not elsewhere

classified

68.28

0722

Veterinarians

0.14

0723

Poultry hatcheries. 0000 00000000.,.........,

8.60

0729

Animal husbandry services,

not elsewhere

classified

lar

- 3.

16-

0731

Horticultural services

0.45

0753(c)Farm commodity associations,

other than

citrus

1.73

0754(c)Farm commodity association,

citrus o 0000

1,73

0761 c)Harvesting and. resale

of purchased crops

9.28

0398 c)Agricultura, activity,unknown

81.65

0399 c)Agricultural activityunknown

.

-

21.44

Less than 0.1 percent

(b) Included in "all

other"

d Includes custom harvestingof cotton

SOURCE:

Edit Listings

category of

2,15

.062

,2a.

300.0

1,005

198,377

3.8

aE3

6o

-

550

63

331

381

18,086

9,093

12,932,883

197

13,459

321

9,296-

265

8,480

370

11,477

3,064

1,850,288

14

10

658

63,102

26

9426

99

574

674

24

76

14 4

4,93

389 4

'

17

-213

11310

-295,208

26,5

611

146

88

0.4

250.8

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.2

350

(a)

1.2

(a)

(a)

(aS

(a)

(a)

5-7

0.5

MIN

IMI1

10.1

.11

2 1 24 2 1 51 4 1

3.52

. 5

250 2 W

O

1111

.

ear

Oa

4 4 321

449

144

2 7 5195

36,661

3,087

0.7

0.1

4111

110

1111

11P

4111

10

1111

11P

OM

.

OW

sample.

(c) Code assigned by Department

of Employment

Table 2

Estimated Agricultural Employment in Fresno County-October,

1962 through September, 1963

IndUstry

Universe

Employment

Sample

Sample

Sept 1962 .Segt 1962

OCt 1962

Oct Sample

Estimated

Employment

Oci_1962

Sample

Nov 1962

Nov Sample

Estimated.

Etployment

Nov 1962

Sept Sample

Oct Sample

Fruit and tree nut farms,

(except citrus)(a)

.0.1

.1...

Cotton farms...dim...m...4p

1,862

":147-7.-------

-456--

1,780-

473

1,037

1,846

Vegetable farms

580

339

287

.847

491

226

.787

386

General farms

8,680

2,764

1,641

.594

5,156

1,643

1.001

5,161

Labor contractors

7,335

5,355

4,417

.825

6,051

4,785

1.083

6,553

Lzricultural services, n.e.c.

745

233

249

1.069

796

123

.493

392

All other ***** *******

5,843

1,125

805

.716

4,184

475

.590

2,469

Industry

Sample

pee ftgle

Dec 1962

Nov Sample

ton farms

etable farms

Ccneral farms***** ***

La:Jor contractors

Agricultural services, n.e.c

All other.

*****

491

182

1,421

3,057

121

610

1.038

.805'

.865

.639

..984-

1.284

_

Estimated

Employment

Dec 1962

1,916

311

4,464

4,187

386

3,170

Sample

Jan sqmat

Jan 1963

Dec Sample

/140

.896

160

.879

1,724

1.213

1,520

.497

126

1.041

719

1.179

Estimated

Employment

Jan 1963

Sample

Feb 1963

Feb Sault

Jan Sample ....1

11...

1011

1,717

405

.920

273

153

.956

5,415

1,727

1.002

2,081

1,463

.962

402

52

.413

3,737

665

.925

..41

0.1.

0.1.

....1

.101

01.6

Industry

Estimated

Employment

Feb 1963

Cotton farmswee ********** lb

1,580

Vegetable farms

261

General farms

5,426

Labor contractors

22002


-166-,--

All other

3,457

Sample

Mar 1963

Mar Saulail.

Estimated

Employment

Mar 1963

Feb Sample

479

1.183

1,869

189

1.235

322

1,803

1.044

5,665,

2,870

1.962

3,928

69

1:327-

220

618

.929

3,212

Estimated

Sample

ARE_Aliale

Etployment

Sample

Apr 1963

Mar Sample

-Apr 1963

May 1963

490

233

1,328

4,01

7'38-

313

1.023

1:912

514

1.233

397

379

.737

4,175

1,747

1.400

5,499

7,535

.551

121

153

.506

1,625

305

(a)

See Table 4.

Table 2 - Estimated Agricultural

Employment in Fresno County

Industry

Cotton.farms

Va7etab1e farms

***** . OO

General farms..

Labor contractors

services, n.e.c

la/ other

aySan

_l_n_

Apr Sample

1.049

1.627.

1.316

1.876

4.026

.974

Estimated

Employment

--May 1963

2,006

646

5,494

10,316

487

1,583

7nau

stry farms *****

*****

sc3.12,1s farms

1-Jra1 farms........ ******* 0

'sor contractors... ...... .0.

icultural services, n.e.c.

All other ************ ........

...M

.IIRCE:

DE 7003's

Sample

June 1963

537

518

2,197

8,718

479

524

Estimated

Dmployment

June 1963

Sample

July 1963

m pj.

June Sample

liz7 Sample

1.045

2,096

563

1.04

81.367

883

257

.496

1.258

6,91/

2,717

1.237

1.157

11,936

5,060

.580

3.131

1,525

307

.641

1.718

2,720

355

.677

Estimated

EMployment

July 1963

Sample

Aug 1963

AUP SamDle

Sample

Sept 1963

Sept Sa..sfiAle

EstImated

Fraployment

Sept 1963

Emplcyment

Aug 1963

July Sample

AuG Sample

2,197

558

a -.

.....1

11,-

.a-.

...11

-.9

912,177

490

.878

1,911

438

293

1.140

499

254

.867

433

8,549

2,890

1.064

9,096

2,637

.912

8,296

6,923

4,712

6931

6,445

4,969

1.055

6,799

978

245

.798

780

249

1.016

792

1,841

363-

1.023

1,883

344

.948

1,785

ME

Na

mri

mea

!

Table 2a

Estimated DI-AG Employment

for Fresno County-October,

1963 through March,

1964

Industry

Universe

Enployment

Sept 1963

Fruit and tree nut farms,

(exCept citrus)(a)

.._

,

Cotton farms

1,957

Vegetable farms Of OOOOO me

633

General farms

9,813

Labor contractors

7:099


985

All other. OOOOO .000.041100.00 OOOOO

21994

.....

Ale

.11.

1....

.011

.,....

0.0.

11.4

.0.4

1

Estimated

Estimateg.

Sample

Sample

(221.k..ap2e

EMployment

Sample

Nov Sample

Employ...-4nt

_Sept 1963

Oct 1963

Sept -Samp-re

:0ct-1963

Nov 1963

Oct'Sample- Nov 1963

: _ ...._

496

254

2,637

4,969

249.

344

Industry

Sample

Dec Sample

Dec 1963

Nbv Sample

Cotton farms OOOOOOOOOO

Vegetable farms...

General farms

Labor contractors... 0000.00000410

Agricultural serviceo,

All other.

OOOOO

434

109

1,656

3,768

55

323

1.000

.703

.904

-.943-

1.196

.890

467

251

.1,884

3,859

255

325

.953

.988

.714

.777

1.024

.945

P.1

1711

MM

IIIIN

IMM

INIM

NI.1

1111

001M

NIO

W

Estimated

Employment

Dec 1963

Sample

Jan 1964,

1,733

439

-

271

227

6,156

1,644

54389

2,566

218

76

2,812

414

1111

0110

00,7

MIN

IMIO

.IMIN

IMIN

MP

IIIIII

IINV

IMIII

IIMIO

WN

IVO

I.S

r...

.IIm

elln

.q..P

MO

MM

IMN

P.=

.MM

IOM

ll..f

.1...

..IM

IIIN

INW

MII1

11.1

110.

Ii

Industry

Estimated

Employment

Feb 19%

Sample

Mar 1964

Feb Sample

Cotton farms 0000 OOOOOOOOOO 00.00

1,807

472

1.044

Vegetable farms

571

233

1.013

General farms

6,944

1:777

.951

Labor contractors ollimodloomet.

3,252

1,764

.775


352

69

.775

All other

3:475

452

1.133

amift

s11/

1111

.111

1.11

11.1

11A

ben

(a)

See Table 4a

SOURCE:- DE 7003Is

1,865

625

7,006

5,516

1,009

2,829

434

155

1,831

3999746

363

.929

.618

.972

1.036

z.180

1.117

1:733

386

6,810

5:715

182

3,160 *f

...ra

ms.

1.1m

1011

1.1.

1101

.

Jan Sample.

Estimated

Employment

Jan 1964

Sample

Feb 1964

Feb fjpple

Dec Sample

Jan Sample

1.012

1,754

452

1.030

2.082

564

230

1.013

.993

6,113

1,868

1.136

..681

3,670

2,275

.886-

1.382

301

89

1.171

1.282

3,605

399

.964

Estimated

Enployment

Mar 1964

1,886

578

6,604

2,520

.273'

39937

Table 3

Estimated Employment by Crop in Fruit end Tree Nut Farms, Fresno County

September, 19621. 11111MROM.Size ofestablishment,employees-

Sample

(a)

OSII11111111111101NallimmMTotal 10,796

Grapes (0) ............100 and over.. ..

50 - 100 .......

20 -10- -

4 . 9..............O . 3. .. ...

ELM (0).,00 .... ***lb*

100 and over. op04,00

50 100009.441100.00)

20 -10 - 19 .. ..

4 .O . 3.... ..

Peaches (c).... .. ...

100 and over..50 - 100.. .... .

..Mixed and others

100 and over. .....

50 - 100. .....

20 - 49... .... .

10 ft 19.......

(0)..

4 . 9............... 3.... .........

7,170

7594,031,594

51222636

4491931843632

4

Percentsample touniverse

apandedsample

Percentoftotal

Universeemployment

(b)

Difference!, Adjuste

universe expansiand expanded of sampuniverse or univ

29,582 28,267 -1,315 28,26

(29,333)(d)(100)

21,828 (75) . 986 20,64

loo 759'100 4,03.18 8,926

10 5,120

10 2,260

5 720

939 (3) - 4o

loo 193

loo 184

18 202

10 320

10 40

249244 loo

5 loo

2,9281,0231,363

350877530

249244

5

6,566 (22) . 289

100 1,023

100 1,363

18 1,960

10 870

10 750

5 600

ia Source: DE 70031s

b Source: Edit listing

c EMployers classified by crop according to information on registration forms.

d Total expanded sample employment less 100% sample in Peaches category.

6,27

Table 3a

Estimated Employment by Crop in Fruit and Tree Nut Farms;

Fresno County, September, 1963

-ms.geml 41~~~...sams~~amtNIMONNWINNw AINNIIMIIIIINN1~~~1IMOMMINN.1

Nilipeols

Sample employment

Universe by crop as Texcent 4Mp1oyment

Sept 1963 of universe, Sept,, by crop :

1962. Sept 1963

37,171 37,171

(371133)(a) 100

grapes ... ***** ................ 75 27,850

Figs3 1,114

(b) 38

Mixed and others, .......... *****22 8,169

IIMPIMIIMIMO.11.0111.

(a) Total employment less 10Q% sample in Peaches category.

(b) 100 percent sample.

SOURCE: Edit listing"

ANIIMEIMINNIMW

Typ

eof Crop

Estimated -Fruit- and Tree Nut Farms,(Except Citrus

Employment in Fresno County

October, 1962 through September,

1963

Universe

Em

ploy

men

tSa

mpl

eSept 1962(a)Sept

1962

Estimated.

Sample

004-Sample--

-Employment Sample

Oct 1962

Sept Sample

Oct 1962

Nov 1962

Estimated

-149M24.1.421t EraPloYeat

Oct Sample

Nov 1962

Te.: -al..

0000

0000.*0

::rapes..

****

****

***...e.....

Peaches O0000000000 ****** 00040

`Axed. and others

of Crop

28., 267

24,842

899

249

6,27

7

ffrIN

FA

MN

ON

O.M

.0.1

1.21

11.0

.11n

Sample

Dec 1962

6,319

413

249

2,699

2,233

.353

237

.574

111

.

1,911.

.708

Est

imat

edDeg Sample

Employment

Sample

Nov Sample

Dec

1962

Jan-

196

3

8,43

21.

582-

5,575

.800

.18

279

.956

2,59

6

apes

****

***

4104

1100

0,41

00

Peaches.. *

:Faxed and.

01,0

4100

4000

,410

****

*00040.010

**** 0004141410414140010

others

- sr

, Im

m.m

wom

orw

omm

iPm

mim

i.

Type of Crop

Total... * ****

Grapes

Figs

Peaches.

****

** *

****

...v

Mixed. and. others

1,69

1 84

79

1,117

12,428

7,357

516

111

4,4111!

Jari

Sample

Dec Sample

1,06

910

5 131,

168

6,480

.479

3,524

.443

228 13

.61/

2,71

5

Estimated

Employment Sample

Jan

1963

Feb

1963

Eek

skpe

.s...

..nJa

h Sa

mpl

e

9,085

1,80

81.

069

5,96

01,

632

93

1.10

720

183

84

84

46

1,22

21.094

2,84

01,

221

1.01

3.8

92

.999

Est

imat

edE

stim

ated

Employment

Sample

Mar Sample

Employment

Sample

Feb

1963

Mar

1963

Feb Sample

Mar

1963

Apr

1963

Estfriated

di in.:J.2_2_1n

le

Employment

Sample

Mar Sample Apr

1963

May

1963

9,099

6,037

179

.46

2,83

7

1,20

3 84 29 912

-.65

71.

012

.747

Esttnated

BALAInalt

EMployment Sample

Type. of Crop

Apr Sample

May

1963

June

1963

Total

8, 39

Grapes.....e ** **********

1.140

3,328

Figs

.666

159

Peaches

204

Nixed and

1.930

4,948

(a)

From Table 3

6,295

3,966

181 29

2,11

9

886

111

115

1,104

*!736

1.32

1

1.210

Estimated

June Sample

EMployment

Sample

May Sample

June

1963

July

196

3

5037

2,919

1,010

239

74

115

204

2,564

2,131

July Sample

June Sample

Estimated

Etployment

July

196

3

1,42

718

5190

3,023

1.41

32,

500

1.41

8

12,306

4,70

2398

:190

7,01

6

11,866

1,34

7.54k

4,439

244

1.51

9525

321

321

2,83

5.5

386,

581

Tab

le 4

Est

imat

ed F

ruit

and

Tre

e N

ut F

arm

s,(E

xcep

t Citr

us )

Rup

loym

ent i

n Fr

esno

Cou

nty

-(C

ontin

ued)

Typ

e of

Cro

p_

Tot

al...

..:e

apes

..fi

gsPe

ache

s0004114,410004114,410

/Axe

d an

d ot

hers

.. **

****

SOU

RC

E:

DE

700

3ts

...11

1111

1.11

/001

1...

Sam

ple

Auf

c_ S

ampl

eA

ug 1

9_63

_ A

uly_

.Sam

ple

300

1.23

032

23,

034

1.07

0

Est

imat

edD

mpl

oym

ent

Sem

ple

attS

axm

l...e

Aug

196

3Se

pt_

1963

.A

ug S

ampl

e

15,4

507

****

*64

632

27,

04-2

7477

050

2 383,

069

3,44

31.

673

1.01

2

Est

imat

edE

kupl

oym

ent

Sept

196

3

33, 8

61

25, 6

16 081 38

7,12

6

Table 4a

Estimated Fruit and Tree Nut

Farms,(Except Oitrus)EMployment in

Fresno County

October, 1963 through December,

1963

Type of Crop

4

Estimated

Estimated

Dmployment

Sample

Sample

p_staajLp...11e

Employment

Sample.

Nov SaiRat

EMployment

Sept 1963

Sept 1963

Oct 1963

Sept Sample

Oct 1963

Nov 1963

Oct Sample

Nov 1963

Total.. oo OOO 001,1610 OOOOOOOOOO 00

37.,171,._

Grapes.

OOOOO 0.000.0004,4,

27,850

Figs OOOOOOOOOO mew.. OOOOO

1,114

Peaches

OOOOO .............

38

Mixed and others... 00 OOOOO OS

8,169

7,77

050

2 38

3,069

3,537

318 94

2,099-

.455

.633

.684 ..

19,059

12,672

1,668

705

253

94

39

5,588

1,454

.472

10,453

5,981

.796

561 39

3,872

.693

Type of Crop

Estimated

Sample

112.2E1114 Employment

Sample

Dec 1963

Nov Sample

Dec 1963

Jan 1964

Estimated

Jan Sample

Employment

Sample

Dec Sample

Jan 1964

Feb 1964

Feb Saap

Jan Sample

To sl

10,065

9,667

'drapes

1,817

1.089

6,513

1,805

.993--

6,467

1,872

1.037

2igs OOOOO

***** ..........

78

.308

173

78'

1.000

173

87

1.115

Peaches

99

-99

78

78

94

Lixed and others *

1,231

.847

3,280

1,107

.899

-

2,949

1,144

1.033

Type of Crop

Estimated

Estimated

Employment

Sample

Mar Sample

Employment

Feb 1964

Mar 1964

Feb Sample

Mar.1964

Total

102039

6,463

Grapes

6,706

1,119

.598

4,010

Figs.... *

0000 ..=....******

193

132

1.517

293

Peaches..

94

16

16

Mixed and others.

3,046

-805

.704

2,144

(a)

From Table 3a

SOURCE:

DE 7003's

r

.Comparison.of Estimated and Actual

Agricultural 4mployment in Fresno

County


1963

Total

Cotton farms

Fruit and tree nut.farms

Vegetable farms .

General farms. 041100 *****

Labor contractors

Ag services, n.e.c

All other

(inc. unknown)

October

November

Actual

Estimated

Difference

Percent

Difference

Actual

Estimated

----,........

.........

Percent

Difference

Difference

30,235

30,886

651

2.2.

23,604

2392

87-1.3

2,221

1,780

2,454

1,846

10,689

12,428

59593

6,480

513

491

548

386

6,364

5,156

51954

5,161

5,526

6,051

5,195

,.69553

842

796

568

392

4,080

4,184

3,292

2,469

December

*************

259031

22,866

-2,165

-8.6

Cotton farms * 000000

1,822

1,916


99893

6,432

Vegetable farms

000000

46o

311

General farms

59293

-4;464

Labor contractors

3,686

-4,187

Ag services, n.e c

441

386

All other (inc.

unknown).

3,436

39170

Total

22,927

21,9

91-936

-4.1

Cotton farms

1,341

1,580

Fruit and tree nutfarms

10,758

9,099

Vegetable farms

General farms

44D4

5,322

261

Labor contractors

2,142

21002

Ag services, n.e c

353

166

All other (inc.

unknown).

2,607

31457

January

22,925

1,462

10,453

436

-59137

2,279

431

2,787

22,710

1,717

9,085

273

5,415

2,081

402

31737

-215

-0.9

March

-534

22,045

21,511

1,546

1,869

7.272

6,295

_573

322

-5,471

5,665

31965

3,928

417

220

2,801

3,212

Table 5

Comparison of Estimatedana Actual Agricultural

Employment in Fresno

County


1963 - (Continued)

Industry

Actual

Tfttimated

Total . .... .00 ..... 4 ..... 40.0

20,642

19,566

Cotton farms ........i...:-

1, 629

c---- -1-9-91Z-

Fruit and tree nut farms.

5,749

5,837

Vegetable farms

622

397

General farms

.5,191

4,175

Labor contractors

4,641

5,499

Ag services, n.e.c

364

121

Al/ other

(inc: unknown)

2,446

1,625

SIO

NN

YIN

NIII

III00

101.

710.

..I.P

IIIIM

IIIIW

INIO

NIV

IllaN

IIIM

IPIIM

III.4

*/.1

01.1

Aril

1.963.

11a

Difference

Percent

Difference

Actual-

Estimated

Difference

-1,076

g 2

31,170

-12,112

8,395

801

7,304

9,047

597

2,914

29,171

21006

8,639

646

5,494

10,316

487

1,583

-1,999

June

37,833

38,377

-544

,1:otton farms

1,629

11912


9,815

12,306

Vegetable farms... 00.0411,41

1,150

883

General farms

8,918

6.911

Labor contractors

10,620

11,936

Ag services, n.e.c

1,079

1,525

All other

(inc. unknown)

3,611

2,720

August

Percent

DiMrence

-6.4

July

30,092

32,792

2,700

9.0

2,130

2,197

10,202

11,866

813

438

7,840

8,549

5,910

6,923

847

978

2,350

1,841

September

Total

36,446

36,330

-116

-0.3

60,620

53,877

-6,775

-11.2

Cotton farms

2,084

2,177


15,659

15,450

Vegetable farms. ..... 10.0

805

499

.

General farms.. .....

8,362

9,096

Labor contractors .... .

612Q3

6,445

Ag servicdd, n.e.6-

856

780

All other (inc.

unknown)

2,483

1,883

1,957

1,911

37,171

33,861

633

433

9,813

8,296

7,099

6,799

-985

792

2,994

1,785

Table 5

Compax.ison of Estimatedand Actual

APTicultural Etriploymen,Xin Fresno County

Octobei., 1962 throughDecember, 1963 -

(Continued)

.1 oes.dMigew

aloo

k.A

.

Industry

October

1963

November

Actual

Estimated

Difference

Percent

Difference

Actual

Estimated

Difference

Percent

Differc.nce

Total.

*****

37,411

37,909

498

1*3

24,741

28,493

3,752

15.2

Cotton farms....

1,928

-14-865

1,962

1,733

Fruit and tree nutfarms

18,399

19,059

8,002

10,453

Vegetable farms

578

625

533

386

General farms

7,237

7,006

6,146

6010

Labor contraotors *** ** 40.40

6,102

5,516

5,017

5,715

As servicest n.e.c.

1,149

1,009

637

182

All other

(inc. unknown)

2,018

2,829

2,444

3,160

126a

December

4Janus,

2.21

.,ft.e

nasi

mes

Olu

p

TA

tal.m

401,

***

****

s0.

011,

0000

024,998

26,644

1,64

66.

625,227

25,674

447

1.8

Lotton farms

1,514

1,733

1,503

1,754

Yruit and tree nut

farms

9,885

101065

11,242

9,667

Vegetable farms

458

271

540

564

General farms

5,612

6,156

5,06-

6,113

Labor contractors . OOOOO

4,768

5,369

3,472

3,670

Ag services, n.e.c

445

218

386

301

All other

(inc. unknown)

2,316

2, 812

2,378

3,605

Feb

rua

Mar

ch

Total

26,031

26,442

411

1.6

19,154

22,21

3,10

716

.2

Cotton farms

1,677

1,807

1,511

1,886


11,856

10,039

6,762

6,463

Vegetable farms... **

***

574

571

580

578

General farms

6,426

6,944

5,365

6,604

Labor contractors.. *****

2,695

3,252

2,332

2,520

Ag services, n.e.c

398

352

335

273

All other

(inc. unknown).:

2,405

3,475

2,269

3,937

SOURCES:

Actual, Edit

listings;

Estimated, Tables

2, 2a,

4 and 4a*

Documents

To explore the feasibility of sample selection to predict … · 2013-12-24 · to estimate agricultural employment through an establishment reporting ... The purpose of the study