Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on The Employment Situation for September 2020

The improvements in the labor market data from the establishment and household surveys for September reflect the continued resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and efforts to contain it. The material below addresses some questions about the effect of the pandemic on The Employment Situation for September 2020, which presents national-level estimates from the establishment (Current Employment Statistics, or CES) and household (Current Population Survey, or CPS) surveys. (See prior assessments of the impact of the pandemic on The Employment Situation.)

Additional detail at the state and local area level will be available in forthcoming releases with data from the CES State and Metro Area and the Local Area Unemployment Statistics programs.

Establishment survey: Was there an impact on data collection in the establishment survey?
Establishment survey: How did the pandemic impact employment estimates?
Household survey: What was the impact on data collection in the household survey?
Household survey: How did the pandemic impact September estimates?
Household survey: How many employed people were not at work during the reference week?
Household survey: Did misclassification remain relatively low in September?
Household survey: Why doesn’t BLS adjust the unemployment rate to account for the misclassification?
Household survey: What would the unemployment rate be if the misclassified workers were included among the unemployed?
Household survey: What do we know about why people were at work part time?
Household survey: What were the effects of the pandemic on occupational employment and unemployment?
Household survey: How many people were not looking for work because of the pandemic?
Household survey: Are there any other data available about the impact of the pandemic on the labor market this month?

Additional Questions

1. Establishment survey: Was there an impact on data collection in the establishment survey?

Yes. Data collection for the establishment survey was impacted by the pandemic. Approximately one-fifth of the establishments are assigned to four regional data collection centers for collection. Although these centers were closed during the collection period, interviewers at these centers worked remotely to collect data by telephone. Additionally, BLS encouraged businesses to report their data electronically. About one-fifth of the data that are typically collected by the data collection centers were instead collected by web this month. As a result, web collection represented 28 percent of September data, and Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) represented 16 percent.

Table A. Establishment survey data by collection method at first preliminary release, September 2020 and recent months (percent distribution)
Collection method	September 2019	Average for 12 months ending February 2020	August 2020	September 2020
All methods	100	100	100	100
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI)	26	26	15	16
Web	20	20	27	28
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)	47	47	49	47
Touchtone Data Entry (TDE)	2	2	2	2
Fax	1	1	1	1
Other	4	3	7	7
Note: Estimates may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

The collection rate for the establishment survey was 70 percent in September. This is lower than the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020, before data collection was impacted, and lower than August (77 percent). Collection rates were impacted slightly by pandemic-related issues. As in the past, a larger influence on the establishment survey collection rates is the length of the collection period, which can range between 10 and 16 days. The September collection period had 11 days. Additional information and a full time series is available in the establishment survey collection rate documentation.

Table B. Establishment survey collection rate for first preliminary release, September 2020 and recent months (percent)
Period	Collection rate
September 2019	77
Average for 12 months ending February 2020	75
August 2020	77
September 2020	70
Note: See establishment survey collection rates over time.

When compared with the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020, the September collection rate for state government declined by nearly 40 percentage points, the September collection rate for financial activities declined by more than 20 percentage points, and the September collection rates for other services and manufacturing declined by more than 10 percentage points. The September collection rate for federal government increased by more than 10 percentage points. The collection rates for all other major industries were within 10 percentage points of the average.

BLS was able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability. The second preliminary collection rate for August and the final collection rate for July were slightly below the average range.

2. Establishment survey: How did the pandemic impact employment estimates?

As highlighted in The Employment Situation news release, total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 661,000 in September, reflecting the continued resumption of economic activity that had been curtailed due to the pandemic and efforts to contain it. In September, nonfarm employment was lower than its February level by 10.7 million, or 7.0 percent. (See table C.) (A full discussion can also be found in the BLS Commissioner’s statement on The Employment Situation. See also historical data from the establishment survey.)

Table C. Changes in nonfarm payroll employment by industry, September 2020 and recent months (numbers in thousands)
Industry	March 2020 over-the-month change	April 2020 over-the-month change	March and April total change	March and April percentage change	May 2020 over-the-month change	June 2020 over-the-month change	July 2020 over-the-month change	August 2020 over-the-month change	September 2020 over-the-month change	May through September total change	Net change since February 2020	Percentage change since February 2020
Total nonfarm	-1,373	-20,787	-22,160	-14.5	2,725	4,781	1,761	1,489	661	11,417	-10,743	-7.0
Total private	-1,356	-19,835	-21,191	-16.3	3,236	4,729	1,526	1,022	877	11,390	-9,801	-7.6
Mining and logging	-8	-53	-61	-8.5	-20	-7	-6	-8	1	-40	-101	-14.1
Construction	-65	-1,018	-1,083	-14.2	456	159	31	17	26	689	-394	-5.2
Manufacturing	-46	-1,317	-1,363	-10.6	240	333	41	36	66	716	-647	-5.0
Wholesale trade	-12	-385	-397	-6.7	23	52	-19	11	19	86	-312	-5.3
Retail trade	-85	-2,299	-2,384	-15.2	386	858	254	261	142	1,901	-483	-3.1
Transportation and warehousing	-10	-560	-570	-10.0	-25	87	48	82	74	265	-304	-5.4
Utilities	0	-4	-4	-0.7	-2	-3	1	0	3	-1	-4	-0.8
Information	-6	-279	-285	-9.8	-40	7	-11	26	27	9	-276	-9.5
Financial activities	-18	-261	-279	-3.2	19	20	15	26	37	117	-162	-1.8
Professional and business services	-94	-2,202	-2,296	-10.7	160	311	162	188	89	910	-1,386	-6.4
Education and health services	-178	-2,603	-2,781	-11.3	388	567	219	170	40	1,384	-1,397	-5.7
Leisure and hospitality	-743	-7,575	-8,318	-49.3	1,405	1,979	633	143	318	4,478	-3,840	-22.8
Other services	-91	-1,279	-1,370	-23.1	245	366	158	70	36	875	-495	-8.3
Government	-17	-952	-969	-4.3	-511	52	235	467	-216	27	-942	-4.1
Note: Estimates for August and September are preliminary.

3. Household survey: What was the impact on data collection in the household survey?

The household survey is conducted by the Census Bureau and normally includes both in-person and telephone interviews, with the majority of interviews collected by telephone. Interviewing for the household survey began on September 13, 2020.

Households are in the survey’s sample for a total of 8 months, meaning that interviewers attempt to interview someone in the household each of those 8 months. Generally, households entering the sample for their first month are interviewed through a personal visit, and households in their fifth month also often receive a personal visit. Interviews for other months are generally conducted by telephone.

For the safety of both interviewers and respondents, in-person interviews were suspended on March 20, 2020. Starting in July, interviewers resumed conducting some in-person interviews on a limited basis in certain areas of the country. In September, interviewers in all areas of the country conducted in-person interviews, though only after first attempting to reach households by telephone. Also, a relatively small number of telephone interviews were conducted through two call centers in September. These call centers, which generally assist with telephone interviewing, had resumed activity on a limited basis in July.

The response rate for the household survey was 79 percent in September 2020. While the rate continued to be adversely affected by pandemic-related issues, it was considerably higher than the low of 65 percent in June 2020. The average response rate for the 12 months ending in February 2020 was 83 percent. (See table D.)

In September, the response rate for households entering the sample for their first month, which has a direct impact on response rates in successive months, was lower than average. The response rate for these households, which normally are interviewed in person, was 7 percentage points lower than the average for the 12 months ending in February 2020. However, this was a considerable improvement over August, when the response rate for households in their first month was 20 percentage points lower than the average prior to the pandemic.

Although the response rate was adversely affected by pandemic-related issues, BLS was able to obtain estimates that met our standards for accuracy and reliability.

Table D. Household survey response rates by month in sample, September 2020 and recent months (percent)
Measure and period	Total	Month in sample interview
Measure and period	Total	First	Second	Third	Fourth	Fifth	Sixth	Seventh	Eighth
Response rate
Average for the 12 months ending in February 2020	82.5	80.1	83.1	83.7	83.8	80.7	82.4	82.7	83.6
March 2020	73.0	56.8	74.2	77.3	77.5	68.6	75.2	76.1	78.6
April 2020	69.9	46.7	63.5	75.7	78.2	68.6	72.7	76.2	78.1
May 2020	67.4	47.8	56.4	67.7	76.5	68.3	71.4	73.7	77.7
June 2020	64.9	48.4	55.8	60.7	68.9	68.4	70.9	72.0	74.3
July 2020	67.2	54.2	61.0	64.3	66.6	70.4	72.4	73.7	75.1
August 2020	70.2	60.0	65.1	67.5	69.1	72.9	74.8	75.7	76.9
September 2020	79.0	73.4	77.3	77.8	79.2	78.8	81.5	81.4	82.6
Percentage point difference from average for the 12 months ending in February 2020
March 2020	-9.5	-23.3	-8.9	-6.4	-6.3	-12.1	-7.2	-6.6	-5.0
April 2020	-12.6	-33.4	-19.6	-8.0	-5.6	-12.1	-9.7	-6.5	-5.5
May 2020	-15.1	-32.3	-26.7	-16.0	-7.3	-12.4	-11.0	-9.0	-5.9
June 2020	-17.6	-31.7	-27.3	-23.0	-14.9	-12.3	-11.5	-10.7	-9.3
July 2020	-15.3	-25.9	-22.1	-19.4	-17.2	-10.3	-10.0	-9.0	-8.5
August 2020	-12.3	-20.1	-18.0	-16.2	-14.7	-7.8	-7.6	-7.0	-6.7
September 2020	-3.5	-6.7	-5.8	-5.9	-4.6	-1.9	-0.9	-1.3	-1.0
Note: In the household survey, interviewers attempt to interview each household for 8 months total. The first month is generally an in-person interview; the fifth month is often an in-person interview.

4. Household survey: How did the pandemic impact September estimates?

As highlighted in The Employment Situation news release, unemployment fell in September for the fifth month in a row. However, the jobless rate and the number of unemployed people were 4.4 percentage points and 6.8 million, respectively, higher than in February, before the pandemic crisis unfolded in many parts of the United States. (A full discussion also can be found in the BLS Commissioner’s statement on The Employment Situation. Also see prior assessments of the pandemic’s impact on The Employment Situation and historical data from the household survey.)

Among the unemployed, the number of people on temporary layoff decreased in September, but remained higher than in February. However, as happened in earlier months, some workers who were not at work during the entire reference week were not classified as unemployed on temporary layoff in September. Rather, they were classified as employed but absent from work. BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggest that this group may still include some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff, although the degree of misclassification in July, August, and September was considerably lower than in prior months. (See details in item 6.)

5. Household survey: How many employed people were not at work during the reference week?

In September, 5.2 million workers were classified as employed with a job but not at work during the survey reference week (not seasonally adjusted). This measure for September is somewhat higher than the typical level for this time of the year. (See table E.) Differences among some of the reason categories likely reflect the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

Table E. Employed people with a job but not at work, August and September, selected years, not seasonally adjusted (numbers in thousands)
Year	August		September		Difference (September - August)
Year	Total employed	With a job not at work	Total employed	With a job not at work	Total employed	With a job not at work
2016	151,804	8,440	151,977	4,348	173	-4,092
2017	153,576	8,384	154,494	5,683	918	-2,701
2018	155,539	7,172	156,191	4,216	652	-2,956
2019	157,816	7,133	158,478	4,088	662	-3,045
2020	147,224	7,721	147,796	5,211	572	-2,510
Note: Users are generally cautioned against over-the-month comparisons of not seasonally adjusted data, as the change could be affected by some seasonal component.

There are many reasons why employed people are not at work for the entire survey reference week. BLS tabulates data on employed people not at work whose main reason for being absent was vacation, own illness, childcare problems, other family or personal obligations, labor dispute, bad weather, maternity or paternity leave, school or training, civic or military duty, and other reasons. Vacation and a person’s own illness are typically the most common reasons people are not at work. (See table F. All data about people with a job but not at work are not seasonally adjusted. See also data on absences from work for more information.)

Of the 5.2 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week in September 2020, 1.3 million people were included in the “own illness, injury, or medical problems” category. This was similar to the level in August, but higher than the average of 895,000 for September 2016–2019. People who were not at work to care for a sick family member should be counted in the “other family or personal obligations” category. This measure was little different from the average for September in recent years.

In September 2020, 1.6 million people were recorded as absent from work because of vacation. This is slightly lower than the average number usually recorded in the vacation category for September. In recent months, estimates of employed people absent from work due to vacation have been lower than usual, likely the result of the pandemic and efforts to contain it.

In September 2020, 1.4 million people were included in the “other reasons” category—about one-fourth of the total 5.2 million employed people not at work during the survey reference week. This was lower than the 2.0 million people not at work for “other reasons” in August, but higher than the average of 590,000 for September in recent years.

As happened in earlier months, BLS and Census Bureau analyses of the underlying data suggest that this group not at work for “other reasons” may still include some workers affected by the pandemic who should have been classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, the degree of misclassification in July, August, and September was considerably lower than in prior months. (See item 6.)

Table F. Employed people with a job but not at work, September, selected years, not seasonally adjusted (numbers in thousands)
Month	Total not at work	Vacation	Own illness, injury, or medical problems	Childcare problems	Other family or personal obligations	Labor dispute	Bad weather	Maternity or paternity leave	School or training	Civic or military duty	Other reasons
September 2016	4,348	2,023	996	58	294	6	31	288	104	3	546
September 2017	5,683	1,932	805	18	235	4	1,489	304	137	9	750
September 2018	4,216	1,714	884	53	218	-	313	354	137	4	541
September 2019	4,088	1,837	893	29	255	16	17	363	142	12	524
September 2020	5,211	1,632	1,258	62	293	8	91	369	128	8	1,363
Note: Dash indicates no data.

6. Household survey: Did misclassification remain relatively low in September?

Other than those who were themselves ill, under quarantine, or self-isolating due to health concerns, most people who did not work during the survey reference week due to efforts to contain the spread of the coronavirus pandemic should have been, and were, classified as “unemployed on temporary layoff.” As happened in earlier months, some people who were not at work during the entire reference week for reasons related to the coronavirus pandemic were not included in this category but were instead misclassified as employed but not at work for “other reasons.” However, the degree of misclassification in July, August, and September was considerably lower than in prior months.

The misclassification hinges on a question about the main reason people were absent from their jobs. If people who were absent due to temporary, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks were recorded as absent due to “other reasons,” they could have been misclassified. According to special guidance provided to interviewers, most people absent due to temporary, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks should be recorded in the “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” category. (This response option is generally not available for people identified as business owners.)

Census Bureau training on this question improved interviewers’ understanding of the special instructions. When interviewers record a response of “other reason,” they also add a few words describing that other reason. BLS and Census Bureau staff have been reviewing survey responses that might have been misclassified. The review of these brief descriptions found that the share of responses that may have been misclassified was much smaller in July, August, and September than in prior months.

The obvious indication of misclassification is the number of people not at work for “other reasons.” This measure was smaller in July, August, and September than in the prior months, both in the number of people and as a percentage of the total not at work. For example, the number of people not at work for “other reasons” has fallen from 8.1 million in April to 1.4 million in September.

Even with this decline, the estimate of 1.4 million people not at work for the “other reasons” category was higher than the average of 590,000 for September 2016–2019. The difference between the current number and the average for the same month in prior years has been used to estimate the potential size of the misclassification. (See item 8.) The exact extent of the misclassification is unknown; however, this represents the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification.

It is important to realize that not everyone included in the “other reasons” category is necessarily misclassified. The category includes people who mention reasons other than those related to the pandemic. Moreover, the “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” response option is not available for business owners who have no other job, so the “other reasons” category could be the appropriate category for them.

BLS is continuing to evaluate the misclassification issue and will publish a detailed description of the findings in a forthcoming article.

According to usual practice, the data from the household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain data integrity, no ad hoc actions are taken to reassign survey responses.

7. Household survey: Why doesn’t BLS adjust the unemployment rate to account for the misclassification?

The misclassification hinges on a question about the main reason people were absent from their jobs. While some workers classified as absent from work for “other reasons” may have been misclassified, there is no easy correction that could have been made to the data to count these individuals as unemployed. Changing a person’s labor force classification would involve more than changing the response to the question about why people were absent from their jobs.

Although BLS and the Census Bureau believe some responses to the question on why people were absent from their jobs may have been incorrectly recorded, we do not have enough information to reclassify each person’s labor force status. To begin with, the exact information provided by the person responding to the survey is not known. The brief descriptions included in the “other reasons” category often appear to go against the guidance provided to the survey interviewers, but these descriptions are not full transcripts of the interaction between the interviewer and the person responding to the survey.

Also, people whose answers were recorded as absent from work for “other reasons” were not asked the follow-up questions needed to determine whether they should be classified as unemployed. Specifically, there is no information about whether they expected to be recalled to work and whether they could return to work if recalled. Therefore, shifting people’s answers from “other reasons” to “on layoff (temporary or indefinite)” would not have been enough to change their classification from employed to unemployed. Assumptions would have had to be made about how they would have responded to the follow-up questions. Changing answers based on incorrect assumptions would also have introduced error.

For the reasons above, the exact extent of the misclassification is unknown. In addition, BLS’s usual practice is to accept data from the household survey as recorded. In the 80-year history of the household survey, we do not know of any actions taken on an ad hoc basis to change respondents’ answers to the labor force questions. Any ad hoc adjustment would have relied on assumptions instead of being strictly based on what people answered during their interviews and also could appear to be a manipulation of the data.

8. Household survey: What would the unemployment rate be if the misclassified workers were included among the unemployed?

If the workers who were recorded as employed but not at work for the entire survey reference week had been classified as “unemployed on temporary layoff,” the overall unemployment rate would have been higher than reported. This kind of exercise requires some assumptions. For example, first one needs to determine how many workers might be misclassified.

We provided an estimate of the potential size of the misclassification error and its impact on the unemployment rate in March, April, May, June, July, and August. Because the exact extent of the misclassification is unknown, we had to make assumptions to construct these estimates. Specifically, we assumed that all of the increase in the number of employed people who were not at work for “other reasons” compared with the average for recent years was due solely to misclassification. We also assumed that all of these people expected to be recalled and were available to return to work.

Following this same approach, there were 1.4 million workers with a job but not at work who were included in the “other reasons” category in September 2020, 773,000 higher than the average for September 2016–2019. If we assume that this 773,000 increase was entirely due to misclassification and that all of these misclassified workers expected to be recalled and were available for work, the number of unemployed people in September (on a not seasonally adjusted basis) would increase from 12.3 million to 13.1 million. The number of people in the labor force would remain at 160.1 million in September (not seasonally adjusted) as people move from employed to unemployed but stay in the labor force. The resulting unemployment rate for September would be 8.2 percent (not seasonally adjusted), compared with the official estimate of 7.7 percent (not seasonally adjusted). Estimates of people with a job but not at work are not available on a seasonally adjusted basis, so seasonally adjusted data, such as the unemployment rate mentioned in The Employment Situation news release, are not used in this exercise. (Repeating this exercise, but combining the not seasonally adjusted data on additional people with a job but not at work in the “other reasons” category with the seasonally adjusted estimates reported in The Employment Situation news release yields 8.3 percent, compared with the official seasonally adjusted rate of 7.9 percent.) Comparable calculations were previously published for March, April, May, June, July, and August.

These broad assumptions represent the upper bound of our estimate of misclassification—the largest estimate of unemployment and correspondingly the largest unemployment rate. However, these assumptions probably overstate the size of the misclassification error. It is unlikely that everyone who was misclassified expected to be recalled and was available to return to work. It is also unlikely that all of the increase in the number of employed people not at work for “other reasons” was due to misclassification. Some people may be correctly classified in the “other reasons” category. For example, someone who owns a business (and does not have another job) is classified as employed in the household survey. Business owners who are not at work due to economic downturns (or in this case, pandemic-related business closures or cutbacks) should be classified as employed but absent from work for “other reasons.” Business owners are classified as employed because it is assumed that they have a job to return to even if their businesses are not able to currently function or if the business lacks customers; they can engage in some work activity related to maintaining the operation of that business.

Regardless of the assumptions made as to the degree of misclassification, the trend in the unemployment rate over the period in question is the same—that is, the rate increased in March and April and eased from May to September.

BLS is continuing to evaluate the misclassification issue and will publish a detailed description of the findings in a forthcoming article.

9. Household survey: What do we know about why people were at work part time?

The household survey includes questions about the number of hours people usually work and the number they actually worked during the survey reference week. If someone works part time (fewer than 35 hours per week), it also has questions about the main reason they were at work part time—regardless of whether they usually work full time or part time. Depending on the reason provided, these workers are then grouped into those at work part time for economic or noneconomic reasons. Economic reasons include working reduced hours due to slack work or business conditions, seasonal work, or starting or ending a job during the week. Noneconomic reasons include illness, vacation, holidays, schooling, childcare problems, labor dispute, bad weather, and other reasons.

In September 2020, there were 6.3 million employed people at work part time for economic reasons (seasonally adjusted). These individuals wanted and were available to work full time, but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (People at work part time for economic reasons include those who usually work full time and those who usually work part time.) This measure declined by 1.3 million over the month, but was still 2.0 million higher than in February, clearly reflecting continued slack work or business conditions due to the pandemic.

Overall, about 4 percent of employed people were at work part time for economic reasons in September. The pandemic impact remained particularly acute in the accommodation and food services industry, where people working part time for economic reasons represented about 12 percent of those at work in that industry in September (not seasonally adjusted).

There was a sharp increase in the number of people working part time for noneconomic reasons in September, driven by a spike in the number of people working part time due to a holiday. The Labor Day holiday (September 7, 2020) fell during the reference week.

See additional information on people working part time for economic reasons, including historical time series and monthly tables. See also data on absences from work, including limitations of these data, historical time series, and monthly tables.

10. Household survey: What were the effects of the pandemic on occupational employment and unemployment?

Although unemployment fell for the fifth consecutive month, both the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed people remain substantially higher than their pre-pandemic values in February. A similar pattern can be seen across most of the occupation groups.

Notably, unemployment in September remains higher than in February across nearly all occupational categories. In September, unemployment rates remained highest for people whose last job was in service occupations (12.0 percent) and in production, transportation, and material moving occupations (9.7 percent). Within service occupations, food preparation and serving related occupations continued to have a particularly high unemployment rate (17.7 percent), as did personal care and service occupations (15.8 percent).

Learn more about using employment and unemployment data by occupation.

11. Household survey: How many people were not looking for work because of the pandemic?

People are categorized as either employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force based on how they respond to survey questions about their recent activities. People who have a job are employed, including those who may be temporarily absent (whether or not they are paid). People who do not have a job and are actively looking for and available for work are unemployed. People who are on temporary layoff and expect to be recalled to their job do not need to look for work to be counted as unemployed, but they do need to be available to return to work if recalled. Those who do not meet the criteria to be classified as either employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.

Among those not in the labor force in September, there were 4.5 million people who reported that they did not look for work in the last 4 weeks because of the coronavirus pandemic. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) This represents 4.5 percent of all people not in the labor force in September. The number of people not in the labor force who were prevented from looking for work by the pandemic has fallen from 9.7 million in May, the first month these data were collected. Among those not in the labor force, people who wanted a job were much more likely to report they were prevented from looking for work because of the pandemic than were people who did not want a job, 30 percent versus 3 percent in September.

Fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force wanted a job. There were 7.2 million people not in the labor force who wanted a job in September, little changed over the month. (The seasonally adjusted monthly series that dates back to 1994 reached a series high of 9.9 million in April 2020.) This measure was still considerably higher than in February (5.0 million).

The number of people not in the labor force who did not look for work because of the pandemic is also highlighted in The Employment Situation news release. This measure is part of new supplemental data on the effects of the coronavirus pandemic on the labor market that have been collected since May. See also other information on people not in the labor force.

12. Household survey: Are there any other data available about the impact of the pandemic on the labor market this month?

Yes. New questions were added to the household survey in May 2020 to measure the effects of the pandemic on the labor market. These questions ask whether people teleworked or worked from home because of the pandemic; whether people were unable to work because their employers closed or lost business due to the pandemic; whether they were paid for that missed work; and whether the pandemic prevented job-seeking activities. See supplemental data measuring the effects of the pandemic on the labor market, which includes an explanation of the concepts and limitations of these measures.

Beginning with the publication of August estimates, the new supplemental data are available at the same time as the other monthly data from the household survey. Key indicators from these data are discussed in The Employment Situation news release. See also tables for all months.

See additional questions related to the effects of the pandemic on the household and establishment survey data, including:

Where can I learn more about methodological changes to the birth-death model?

Where can I find information about job gains and losses by earnings?

Were household survey interviewers provided with any special guidance?

What’s the difference between a furlough and a layoff in the household survey?

How are these data different from the unemployment insurance (UI) claims data?

How can unemployment insurance (UI) claims be larger than the number of unemployed people?

How are workers under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) treated in these data?