An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Bureau of Labor Statistics > Employment Projections > Data

Occupational Projections Evaluation: 2006–2016

The main factor affecting occupational growth rates is the growth rate of the industries in which they are employed. But over time, industries also change the mix of occupations used to create their output. Occupational projections incorporate changes to both those factors. For more information, refer to our evaluation methodology.

Measuring Accuracy

How often did BLS correctly project growth and decline for occupations?

BLS correctly projected whether an occupation would grow or decline 78 percent of the time.

What did BLS project as the average growth rate from 2006 to 2016?

The projected average growth rate for occupations from 2006 to 2016 was 10.4 percent.

What was the actual growth rate?

The actual average growth rate for occupations from 2006 to 2016 was 3.6 percent.

What contributed to the difference?

The recession of 2007–2009 reduced employment and slowed employment growth. Employment levels and the unemployment rate had not yet recovered from the recession. BLS projections assume full employment.

Was BLS able to project which occupations would grow relatively faster in spite of the differences between projected and actual growth?

BLS correctly projected which occupations would grow faster than the economy as a whole 57 percent of the time.

A standard for comparison

An important way to evaluate any projection is to compare it against other, similar projections. This is not possible for occupational projections because there are no comparable projections which are not in some way derived from BLS projections. When no comparable projection exists another way of evaluating is to compare against a naïve model. The occupational evaluation uses the occupational–share naïve model.

Different aspects of projections

In addition to detailed occupations, occupational projections were evaluated for:

Projections of major occupational groups
Projections of occupations combined based on the level of education and training BLS assigned in 2006

These two evaluations show how well BLS projected groups of related occupations. Each was compared to the occupational–share naïve model by summing the absolute differences from the actual result.

Table 1. Major occupational groups, combined scorecard
Measure	BLS	Naïve	Which performed better
Sum of absolute differences	6.7%	9.6%	BLS has a smaller sum of absolute differences for all major groups combined
Count of better score	15	7	BLS had a smaller sum of absolute differences for most major group

Table 2. Detailed occupations, combined scorecard
Measure	BLS	Naïve	Which performed better
Sum of absolute differences	14.5%	15.8%	BLS has a smaller sum of absolute differences for all detailed occupations combined
Count of better score	461	298	BLS had a smaller sum of absolute differences for most detailed occupations

Table 3. Major occupational groups, sum of absolute differences
Occupational group	BLS	Naïve	Which performed better
Management occupations	1.07	1.00	Occupational-Share Naïve
Business and financial operations occupations	0.33	0.48	BLS
Computer and mathematical occupations	0.35	0.53	BLS
Architecture and engineering occupations	0.29	0.31	BLS
Life, physical, and social science occupations	0.13	0.11	Occupational-Share Naïve
Community and social services occupations	0.30	0.32	BLS
Legal occupations	0.01	0.01	Occupational-Share Naïve
Education, training, and library occupations	0.61	0.66	BLS
Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations	0.33	0.34	BLS
Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations	0.44	0.59	BLS
Healthcare support occupations	0.28	0.32	BLS
Protective service occupations	0.11	0.09	Occupational-Share Naïve
Food preparation and serving related occupations	1.16	1.29	BLS
Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations	0.37	0.22	Occupational-Share Naïve
Personal care and service occupations	1.11	1.31	BLS
Sales and related occupations	1.21	1.14	Occupational-Share Naïve
Office and administrative support occupations	3.32	3.40	BLS
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations	0.17	0.22	BLS
Construction and extraction occupations	1.10	1.12	BLS
Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations	0.40	0.39	Occupational-Share Naïve
Production occupations	0.78	1.24	BLS
Transportation and material moving occupations	0.66	0.67	BLS

Table 4. Education & training, sum of absolute differences
Education and training classification	BLS	Naïve	Which performed better
Bachelor's or higher degree, plus work experience	0.91	0.95	BLS
Work experience in a related occupation	1.85	2.00	BLS
Long-term on-the-job training	1.25	1.31	BLS
Bachelor's degree	1.20	1.48	BLS
Associate degree	0.35	0.44	BLS
Postsecondary vocational award	0.54	0.61	BLS
Moderate-term on-the-job training	2.54	3.08	BLS
Doctoral degree	0.27	0.29	BLS
Master's degree	0.39	0.40	BLS
First professional degree	0.15	0.18	BLS
Short-term on-the-job training	5.07	5.00	Occupational-Share Naïve

Issues evaluating occupational projections

Data compared here were affected by the introduction of the 2010 Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) system which resulted in 81 out of 840 occupations not being comparable between 2006 and 2016. Definitional changes associated with the new classification system may also have had a limited impact on occupations that were deemed comparable.

Coverage of employment changed in 2008 when Employment Projections stopped producing estimates for secondary employment and again in 2014 when unpaid family workers were dropped.

Return to Projections Evaluation Homepage

Last Modified Date: March 16, 2020