National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25822.
×
Page R10

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs MEASURING ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS FOR RESEARCH AND POLICY Committee on Contingent Work and Alternative Work Arrangements Committee on National Statistics Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, under Sponsor Award #: 1625 DC-18- C-0007, Contract No.: 10004289. Support for the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation, a National Agricultural Statistics Service cooperative agreement, and several individual contracts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25822 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25822.

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs COMMITTEE ON CONTINGENT WORK AND ALTERNATIVE WORK ARRANGEMENTS SUSAN N. HOUSEMAN (Chair), W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, Michigan KATHARINE G. ABRAHAM, University of Maryland, College Park ANNETTE BERNHARDT, University of California–Berkeley JENNIFER DYKEMA, University of Wisconsin–Madison DIANA FARRELL, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington, DC ARNE L. KALLEBERG, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill KRISTEN M. OLSON, University of Nebraska–Lincoln BARBARA J. ROBLES, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC MICHAEL R. STRAIN, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC DAVID WEIL, Brandeis University CHRISTOPHER MACKIE, Study Director ANTHONY S. MANN, Program Associate FIONA GREIG, Consultant, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington, DC v

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS ROBERT M. GROVES, (Chair), Office of the Provost, Georgetown University ANNE C. CASE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University JANET M. CURRIE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University DONALD A. DILLMAN, Washington State University DIANA FARRELL, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington, DC ROBERT GOERGE, Chapin Hall at The University of Chicago HILARY HOYNES, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California–Berkeley DANIEL KIFER, The Pennsylvania State University SHARON LOHR, School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Emerita THOMAS L. MESENBOURG, Retired, Formerly U.S. Census Bureau SARAH M. NUSSER, Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University JEROME P. REITER, Duke University JUDITH A. SELTZER, University of California–Los Angeles C. MATTHEW SNIPP, School of the Humanities and Sciences, Stanford University JEANETTE WING, Data Science Institute, Columbia University BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Director CONNIE F. CITRO, Senior Scholar vi

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs Acknowledgments This report reflects the contributions of many colleagues who generously gave their time and expert advice. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) sponsored the project to help guide their efforts to improve and modernize the Contingent Worker Supplement (CWS) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). An integral component of the federal economic statistics system, the CPS provides critical information on U.S. labor market conditions and trends. The CWS was developed in the 1990s to measure aspects of the employment relationship— specifically, the temporary or contingent nature of jobs and certain nonstandard or alternative work arrangements. As outlined in this report, a somewhat broader measurement approach is now required to address research and policy information needs pertaining to the changing nature of work in the economy. The panel thanks BLS staff who helped shape the project scope. They provided comprehensive information about the CPS and CWS programs and conveyed the agency’s priorities for next steps in the development of the CWS. At the very first meeting of the panel, William J. Wiatrowski, Deputy Commissioner of Bureau of Labor Statistics, outlined the agency’s vision and strategy for measuring employment in the modern economy and articulated goals for this study. During subsequent meetings, BLS Commissioner William Beach (who began his tenure in the position March 2019) added clarity to this discussion. Anne Polivka, supervisory research economist in the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, shared her extensive knowledge of the CWS and the CPS—describing objectives of the survey, its strengths and limitations, and its design and methodology. Julie Hatch Maxfield, Associate Commissioner for the Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, presented findings from the May 2017 CWS and walked the panel through the agency’s experience adding questions about web-mediated employment. Finally, the panel benefitted from expert coordination and leadership throughout the project from Jennifer Edgar, Associate Commissioner for Survey Methods Research. The panel also benefited greatly from presentations on topics central to the panel’s charge by experts outside the BLS. Participants in open session meetings provided insights about the policy context for measuring alternative work, different measures of worker well-being, and the roles of non-BLS surveys and administrative data in measuring alternative work arrangements. Carolina F. Young, policy advisor, Office of U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner, discussed congressional developments such as proposed legislation that would direct the U.S. Treasury to study tax issues for web-mediated economy workers, and the kinds of data needed to inform this work. Alastair Fitzpayne, executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Future of Work Initiative, and Shelly Steward, research manager for the Initiative, informed the panel about their organization’s efforts to identify policy solutions to the challenges facing workers in the 21st century. They also described the Gig Economy Data Hub, developed in partnership with the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell, an online resource summarizing data sources relevant to the study of independent and nontraditional work. vii

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs Susan Lambert of the University of Chicago’s School of Social Service Administration presented information to the panel about policy issues affecting worker well-being and provided key insights about the problem of unpredictable work schedules, particularly as they affect the well-being and security of low-income and low-skill workers. Tim Bushnell, Economic Research and Support Office, and Toni Alterman, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies, both of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, informed the panel about their agency’s efforts to develop a taxonomy of work arrangements to examine their relationships with worker safety, health, and well-being. Gene Zaino, founder and executive chairman of MBO Partners, provided details to the panel about his organization’s work on policy issues and research characterizing the independent workforce. Cynthia Davidson and Steve Berchem of the American Staffing Association presented information to the panel about survey and policy work at their organization—most notably the ASA Staffing Employment and Sales Survey, which collects information from firms to estimate temporary and contract staffing industry employment, sales, and payroll. Leif Jensen of Penn State University presented findings from his survey-based research exploring urban-rural variation in informal work activities and discussed strategies for measuring these patterns. Dmitri Koustas of the University of Chicago added to the panel’s knowledge base about what can be learned about alternative work arrangements from tax and from personal financial services data—particularly for jobs mediated through online platforms. Mike Udell and Diane Lim from the District Economics Group provided a rich accounting of the role of tax data in measuring alternative work arrangements, identifying advantages and limitations of such data to measure alternative employment. Jim Spletzer of the Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau detailed work being conducted at the Census Bureau that involves combining data sources; he assessed the potential of linking CPS micro-data to tax data, described how this kind of data linkage is done, and summarized what might be learned about alternative work arrangements using this approach. Additionally, Fiona Greig, from the JPMorgan Chase Institute and a consultant to the project, provided insights into the use of private sector data in understanding alternative work arrangements. The panel thanks all of these individuals for their contributions to the study process. The panel could not have conducted its work efficiently without the capable staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine: Brian Harris-Kojetin, director of the Committee on National Statistics, provided institutional leadership and substantive contributions during meetings; Kirsten Sampson-Snyder, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, coordinated the review process flawlessly; and Marc DeFrancis provided thorough final editing that improved the readability of the report. We also thank senior program associate Anthony Mann for his well-organized and efficient logistical support of the panel’s meetings, as well as his contribution formatting this report. The panel is especially indebted to Christopher Mackie of the Committee on National Statistics, who was the Study Director for the project. Chris played an invaluable role in organizing meetings; synthesizing input from panel members, outside experts, and reviewers; and helping to draft the report and response to external reviews. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to add a note of appreciation for fellow panel members who formed the core of the study team. This report reflects the collective expertise and commitment of all panel members: Katharine G. Abraham, University of Maryland; Annette Bernhardt, University of California–Berkeley; Jennifer Dykema, University of Wisconsin– Madison; Diana Farrell, JPMorgan Chase Institute; Arne L. Kalleberg, University of North viii

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs Carolina at Chapel Hill; Kristen M. Olson, University of Nebraska–Lincoln; Barbara J. Robles, Federal Reserve Board; Michael R. Strain, American Enterprise Institute; and David Weil, Brandeis University. This group—chosen for their diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and subject matter knowledge—gave generously of their time to attend meetings and to collaborate in the writing of this report. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Autor, David, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Lambert, Susan J., School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago; Mesenbourg, Thomas L., retired, U.S. Census Bureau; Mishel, Lawrence, Distinguished Fellow, Economic Policy Institute; Opsomer, Jean, Senior Statistician, Westat, Inc.; Presser, Stanley, Sociology Department and Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland; Ravanelle, Alexandrea J., Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Visiting Scholar, Institute for Public Knowledge, New York University; and Young, Carolina F., Policy Advisor, Office of U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of the report was overseen by Robert A. Moffitt, Department of Economics, Johns Hopkins University, and Alicia L. Carriquiry, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Susan N. Houseman, Chair Committee on Contingent Work and Alternative Work Arrangements ix

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs CONTENTS Summary 1 1. Introduction: Motivation for the Study 12 1.1. The Changing Nature of Work 12 1.2. Informing Research and Policy 15 1.3. The Measurement Role of the Contingent Worker Supplement 19 1.4. Charge to the Panel 23 2. Measurement Needs for Understanding the Changing Nature of Work 26 2.1. Employment: Measuring All ‘Significant’ Sources of Work Income 28 2.2. Job Types: Categories of Alternative Work Arrangements 31 2.3. Key Job Characteristics Affecting Worker Outcomes and Well-being, Employer 34 Strategies 2.4. Information about Alternative Work Arrangements That Could Be Provided by 38 Business 3. Role of the Contingent Worker Supplement in Fulfilling Measurement Needs 41 Related to Alternative Work Arrangements 3.1. Overview of the Contingent Worker Supplement 41 3.2. CWS Scope: Universe of Workers and Work Activities 44 3.3. Categorizing Work and Workers 52 3.4. Insecurity in Hours, Jobs, and Earnings 58 3.5. Other Information Needed for Understanding Alternative Work Arrangements 61 and Their Implications for Workers 4. The Role of Other Data Sources in Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements 67 4.1. Other Household Surveys 67 4.2. Establishment and Business Surveys 69 4.3. Government Administrative and Commercial Data 72 4.4. The Longer-term Promise of Combining Data Sources 77 References 79 Appendixes A. Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 88 B. Summary of June 10, 2019, Workshop 91 x

Next: Summary »
Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Business structures, employment relationships, job characteristics, and worker outcomes have changed in the United States over the last few decades—in some ways unpredictably. A high level of interest exists among policy makers and researchers in addressing concerns about the future of work in the United States. These concerns are heightened by the perceived fracturing of relationships between workers and employers, the loss of safety net protections and benefits to workers, the growing importance of access to skills and education as the impacts of new technologies and automation are felt, and the market-based pressure that companies face to produce short-term profits, sometimes at the expense of long-term value.

These issues, as well as related ones such as wage stagnation and job quality, are often associated with alternative work arrangements (AWAs)—which include independent-contractor and other nonemployee jobs, work through intermediaries such as temporary help agencies and other contract companies, and work with unpredictable schedules—although they also pertain to many standard jobs. A better understanding of the magnitude of and trends in AWAs, along with the implications for job quality, is needed to develop appropriate policies in response to the changing nature of work.

Measuring Alternative Work Arrangements for Research and Policy reviews the Contigent Worker Supplement (CWS) of the Current Population Survey (CPS) for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the U.S. Department of Labor. The CWS provides key measures of temporary (contingent) work, alternative work arrangements, and the “gig” economy. Disagreements, however, exist among researchers, policy makers, and other stakeholders about the definitions and measures of these concepts and priorities for future data collection. The report also reviews measures of employment, earnings, and worker well-being in temporary and alternative work arrangements that can be estimated using household survey data, such as those generated by the CWS, as well as measures that can be produced using administrative, commercial, and combined data sources. The comparative advantages and complementarities of different data sources will be assessed, as well as methodological issues underpinning BLS’s measurement objectives.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!