DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTANCY

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
MEMORANDUM

TO: Prof. Mark Peecher

FROM: Ruonan Tang, Yuna Wu, Shanshan Li, Xinyi Zhang
DATE: April 18, 2017
SUBJECT: Strategic & Process Analysis, Planning and Executing Substantive Verification
Procedures for DDS

Part 1(a)

INTRODUCTION

We will talk about strategic analysis of Dave’s Dating Service, which includes analysis of

strategic objectives and strategic risks. Then, it will conduct process and risk analysis of three

business processes: registration procedures, introduction procedures, and database controls.

STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

Dave’s Dating Service (DDS) is a top-notch organization that makes money by offering

dating services and products. Its strategy is to achieve high profits through high customer

satisfaction, since recurring membership fees is its main revenue source. Strategic objectives

include attracting new customers, retaining existing customers, providing and signalling high

quality service, and differentiating itself from competitors.

However, DDS faces several strategic risks that can adversely affect its profits and hinder

its success. The dating industry is known as a “maligned” industry. The bad press and high-

pressure tactics make the dating service industry trapped in a bad situation. Differently from its

competitors, DDS not only advertise through media, but also tried to use Better Business Bureau

to provide third-party assurance of their high quality service to customers. Nevertheless, the

effect is not optimistic since competitors also focus on advertising, and most customers do not

check or take the assurance for granted while choosing the dating company. Therefore, even

1
though DDS has higher quality than most of their competitors, the negative media coverage of

the dating industry still makes DDS face high risks of losing customers.

Additionally, the dating industry is a highly competitive market. This industry features

low switching costs, low barriers to entry, and a consistent stream of new products. There is no

single, dominant brand globally, and DDS competes with a lot of firms that provide similar

services. As a result, the competition is intense and new business models are highly likely to

continue to emerge. It is possible that a new entrant could gain the market share rapidly, which

could have an adverse effect on the operating performance of DDS.

It is also a social phenomenon that many people do not perceive the dating services as

trustworthy. Naturally, the dating service providers trust that their clients are honest and their

information is real. However, customers have the incentives to misrepresent themselves, which

leads to a perception that the dating services are not trustworthy. As a result, DDS faces the risk

of low credibility.

Lastly, there is a big risk related to agent-principal problem, which will further affect

DDS’s reputation. The associates may care more about their own interest than DDS’s interest, or

they don’t trust the organization’s claims. In this way, they are likely to make misstatements

intentionally and this will affect the company’s reputation in the long run.

PROCESS ANALYSIS & RISK ANALYSIS

Registration Procedures

In the registration procedures, DDS may run into various process risks. One significant

risk is the lack of segregation of duties in the procedures. Receptionists enter the data for paid

customers from the New Client Information Sheet (NCIS), and compare the database records to

NCIS to correct discrepancies. This will probably result in data entry errors. On the other side,

2
DDS also faces the agent-principal problem as the client representatives are salaried and receive

small bonuses when potential customers are referred by current clients. While the

representative’s income is not tightly correlated with the number of customers they bring in,

representatives may lose the incentive to encourage the current clients to bring in new customers,

thus result in the potential customer alienation. Moreover, DDS might also endure the risk of

payment failures by customers and accounting errors. Customers could choose to pay the

membership fee of $1500 by check or credit cards, which both need time for verification from

banks. A potential risk of insufficient bank balances or credit lines then exist in the procedure,

which may result in risks of payment failures and accounting errors. Most importantly, DDS

faces the problem of information asymmetry when new customers go through their registration

process. Customers may misreport their personal information while registering, and it might

harm the company’s credibility if the misreported client information is provided.

DDS also provides several process controls to mitigate some of these risks. First of all,

DDS uses a verification service for payments made by check or credit card. It rejects credit card

transactions if the card has been reported stolen or lost, and rejects check transactions if there is a

history of non-sufficient-funds checks. This control process is to ensure the security and success

of payments, but it also has risks of accepting checks that has insufficient bank balances, maybe

for the first time. DDS also does Secure background check on 25% (1 in 4) of new clients to

check data such as age, marital status, number of children, education, salary, and so forth. If

clients are not honest, the personnel will temporarily deactivate those clients’ files until a sales

manager contact them. However, this process control contains risks as well. Checking only 25%

of all clients is not enough for a rigorous background checking, and the check should be done

prior to the registration process; otherwise, deactivating customers’ accounts due to random

3
background checking after the payment may cause DDS to enroll in more litigations. Even

though the personnel will reactivate the files if clients are able to explain the reasons of

discrepancy, incorrect deactivation of files may lead to complaints and low customer satisfaction.

In addition, information of old clients changes over time, which means periodic and continuing

background check is needed.

Introduction Procedures

Information asymmetry problem occurs in the introduction procedures as well. Clients

who actively choose other clients make their choices based on criterias like hobbies, education,

occupation, and so forth. However, these criterias, which are investigated on a sampling size of

25% of all clients, might contain misrepresented information. The misreported background

information might harm the credibility of DDS and its market share in the industry. In addition to

misrepresentation, there are risks associated with leaking clients’ private information during the

interested search phase.

The control system of DDS tries its best to use process control to protect the personal

information safety by only disclosing the most essential part of information of its clients, and

promises that they will never tell their identities. DDS also hide more sensitive and detailed

information for the clients, like address, telephone number, and salary from the clients who is

performing the search. However, the risk that will reveal the client identity still exists, because

DDS has the program to make appointment with the clients to make introduction videos for

them. More information can be revealed during the production of the videos. Although the

control system is effective to prevent information revealing for the clients, the team still need to

put more effort to check the safety of the multimedia sources.

Database Controls

4
 The DDS uses a local area network (LAN) for data processing, and it might risk the

disclosure of private information of clients by outsiders. In addition, Todd Huff is the only

employee who has the access to the file server, and it might put the company on risk because

there is no segregation of duties. While Mr. Huff is the only security officer who has access to

updating the software program and sets the access privileges and assigns passwords, there is a

risk that he could change the system without having to get authorization from other managers.

DDS conducts a process control in which Mr. Sanderson, owner and president of DDS, has

access to update the security and passwords and approves for the system program changes.

However, potential risks still exist as Mr. Huff, for the most time, works alone without

observation by Mr. Sanderson.

On top of that, all employees have general query and authorization to update current

client information in the system with a logon ID and a password. Therefore, there is a risk that

employees can change client information that is in favor of them, or they could give their

personal logon IDs and passwords to others in some situations. DDS has a process control that

Mr. Sanderson reviews passwords and logon IDs monthly to ensure that only employees access

the system, data file is backed up weekly, and program files are backed up when changes are

made. All files are stored safely on and off-site of the office. Though it prevents some access

from outsiders, it cannot prevent access and changes from inside employees without approval in

the first place. Therefore, more monitoring activities are needed in this case.

CONCLUSION

In this memorandum, we analyzed the strategic objectives and strategic risks of DDS. We

also conducted the process and risk analysis of three core business processes: registration

procedures, introduction procedures, and database controls.

5
Part 1(b)

INTRODUCTION

Our ultimate goal is to assess the risk of material misstatement (RMM) for three

identified assertions: average age, average income and smoking status. First, we will conduct

field research and compare our results with the reported figures to determine if the reported

figures are within our expectations. Second, we will run regression analysis to assess the

reasonableness of three identified assertions. Finally, we will use graphical representations of the

data to, again, review the reasonableness of the information provided by DDS.

AVERAGE AGE

According to U.S. Census Bureau, in 2016, 34.2% of all heterosexual married couples

have an age difference within 1 year, and 26.2% is 2 to 3 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). The

average age difference is about 2 to 3 years since people are more willing to date people with

similar age. As a result, the materiality threshold is set as 3 years for the misstatement.

Based on the 2015 demographic data of San Diego county from Census Bureau's

Population Estimates Program website, the median age of whole population is 35.1 years old,

and 77.4% of the population is over 18 years old (American FactFinder, 2015). Thus, the median

age for the population of over 18 years old ranges from 44 to 46 years old, since we assume that

registered clients of DDS are at least 18 years old. Additionally, based on the Business of Dating

website, the largest online dating group ages from 45 to 54 years old (Business of Dating, n.d.).

Referencing the database, most clients age from 30 to 62 years old, with an average age

of 45.3 years old (Exhibit is illustrated in the appendix). The average age given on Form D-1 is

45.1 years old. Based on our research and observations, average age is at a low risk of material

misstatements. Specifically, the likelihood of deliberate misrepresentation errors is low due to

6
the overall tendency to date people with similar age. The risks of fictitious listing and omission

errors are also expected to be low because it is assumed that DDS understands the importance of

age in the dating process, so the company would not fictitiously report someone’s age or fail to

list the age in the database intentionally. The risk of data entry error is medium due to the lack of

segregation of duties during the registration procedures.

AVERAGE INCOME

In terms of assessing the overall reasonableness of the reported figures, personal income

is a very important index. According to the research by Eli J. Finkel, Paul W. Eastwick,

Benjamin R. Karney, Harry T. Reis, and Susan Sprecher, “users of both sexes were especially

likely to initiate contact with potential partners who were rated by objective observers as

physically attractive and who claimed to earn a higher income” (Finkel et al., 2012). Since it can

be a decisive aspect for people to choose partners, there will be a high risk of customers lying

about their salary levels, which leads to the inaccuracy of the database. According to our

research, the median household income in San Diego County is $64,309. Moreover, DDS reports

an average income of $60,025 in Form D-1 December 2016. Thus, we set the materiality level to

be around 10% for misstatement of average income level.

The average income of the customers in the database is $53,030. Compared with the

number $60,025 reported on the D-1 Form reported by DDS, the percentage of difference

between the researched result and reported result is approximately 11.65% ((53,030-

60,025)/60,025*100= -11.65%). Because the materiality level of misstatements of average

income is 10%, the difference between the reported data and our researched data indicates the

overall risk of average income is medium. As the median household income in San Diego

County is $64,309, which is higher than the average income of the database ($53,030), we

7
estimate that management of DDS may misrepresent the income. Therefore, the risks of fictitious

listing and omission errors are expected to be medium. We also believe there is a medium risk of

data entry errors due to the lack of segregation of duties in the checking process of information

discrepancies. Misrepresentation error is at a high risk of misstatements because of the nature

that clients have the tendency to overreport their salaries in order to be physically attractive.

In common sense, higher education level means more salary, so we expected that

educations are all highly related to the salary level. Thus, we select all the 1000 clients in the

database for the regression test. We use different education levels, high school (H), some

colleges (S), and Bachelor's degree (B), as independent variables to run the regression regarding

the average income, and the intercept represents Advanced degree (A). (See Appendix).

When we run the regression, we find out that the multiple R equals 34.4%, which is not

terribly high as a correlation coefficient. The R^2, coefficient of determination, is 12%, which

means that 12% of the variation in income is well explained by variation in education levels. It

seems that the data from education levels is not very representative to explain salary levels in the

dating service. Fortunately we notice that the p-value of the three independent variables are

approaching zero, so we can still conclude that education is in fact statistically significantly

explaining wage variation. Thus, we will use coefficient and standard error of variables to

estimate the reasonable range of salaries for each degree during the sampling plan process. The

results of the regression test further indicate an overall medium risk of average income.

SMOKING STATUS

According to the most recent health briefs survey conducted by Health and Human

Services Agency, in 2013, the smoking rate in San Diego county is 13.4% for people aged over

18 years old (HHSA, 2013). Referencing DDS’s Form D-1 as of December 31, 2016, the non-

8
smokers take the majority of the database by 85.6%, indicating the smoking rate is 14.4% in our

case. Considering the time lapse from 2013 to 2016 during which the population of smoking

might change, we set the materiality threshold to 5% for understatement and overstatement of the

smoking percentage report.

In assessing the risks associated with the reported smoking rate, we tested the smoking

rate in the excel database and compared it with the reported data on Form D-1. In the excel

database, 165 out of 1001 clients reported smoking, indicating a 16.5% smoking rate. Comparing

it with the rate of 14.4% reported on Form D-1, we found a discrepancy whopping 12.73%

(calculated as (14.4%-16.5%)/16.5%=%), which is much higher than the materiality of 5% we

set forward. This number indicates a high risk of material misstatement in the reported smoking

rate in Form D-1 by DDS on December 31, 2016.

Further speaking, the risks of three out of four types of misstatements are set to be high

pertain to the smoking rate. First, the risk of deliberately misrepresentation error is high. A recent

article on the Match.com website illustrates that a Match.com poll shows a clear trend for the

majority to choose non-smoking partners, regardless of their own smoking status (Nestor, n.d.).

Therefore, in order to increase their chances in dating, smoking clients might misreport their

status as “non-smoking”. On top of that, clients who view themselves on the verge of quitting

might also report themselves as “non-smoking”, which largely increase the risk of

misrepresentation errors. Other than that, the risks of fictitious listings and omission errors are

high, which are contributed by the large discrepancies between the smoking rate in Form D-1

and the excel database. Specifically, DDS might add some more non-smokers who do not belong

to the database into the system, or omit some smokers who should be in the database, for the

purpose of decreasing the overall smoking rate of registered clients. On the other hand, the risk

9
of data entry errors of smoking rate is medium due to the lack of segregation of duties in

checking the information discrepancies between the database and NCIS.

SAMPLING PLAN

Based on the analysis of materiality and risk assessment, we determine that 0% expected

population deviation rate, 5% tolerable deviation rate, and 90% desired confidence level (10%

ARIA) are appropriate. Thus, the sample size is 45 and the sampling unit is each individual

customer.

The samples are chosen based on the regression analysis of average income on education.

We first calculate the range of reasonable income with high school, some college, and bachelor

degrees by using the equation, which is coefficient of intercept + coefficient of dummy variables

+/- standard error*2. The range of salaries with advanced degree is calculated as coefficient of

intercept +/- standard error*2. Then, we apply the range to the database and find out all the

outliers. The amount of all outliers is 547 (See Appendix).

Because the database contains too many outliers for the regression , we decide to use the

unit sampling method to pick the 45 samples from them. First we calculate the sum of the

income of all 547 clients, which is 31,828,200, sort the outliers from lowest income to the

highest, and calculate the cumulative dollar amounts. Then, we divide this number by the sample

size 45 to get the sample interval, which is about 707,293. After that, we randomly select the

number 63,582 to start our sample picking and then the sampling interval is added to determine

the second sampling item and so on for every 707,293rd dollar in the 547 clients. Finally we pick

those whose cumulative dollars contain the sampling number we have as our samples.

These 45 samples drawn from database will be used to test risks of fictitious listings, data

entry errors, and misrepresentation errors through the comparison between the database and the

10
confirmation form. Meanwhile, omission errors will be tested by randomly selecting 45 sample

from NCIS and tracing those samples from NCIS to the database.

We believe that potential misstatements of average age, average income, and smoking

status are positively correlated. In other words, high likelihood of misstatements of average

income indicates high possibilities of misstatements of age and smoking status, because

customers who lie about salaries are more likely to misrepresent other information than people

who do not. Thus, the selection of our samples will be based on the unit sampling and the

outliers calculated from the regression analysis of average income.

We will then check whether discrepancies exist between the data reported in the database

and the records obtained from the confirmation form as well as the discrepancies between NCIS

and the database. Upper deviation rates (UDR) will be calculated and compared with tolerable

deviation rates (TDR) to determine whether it is needed to revise the assessed risks.

Our initial guess on the overall risk of material misstatement is medium, since there is a

low risk of material misstatement pertain to customer age, a medium risk of average income, and

a high risk of smoking status. The aggregate result is shown in the Appendix below.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis of data entry errors, customer misrepresentation risks, fictitious

listing risks, and omission errors, we conclude that the overall risk of material misstatement for

age is low, income is medium, and smoking status is high. Audit procedures and sampling plans

are designed accordingly based on the assessed risks of potential misstatements.

11
Part 2

INTRODUCTION

In this memorandum, we will perform the procedures and sampling plans outlined in the

attest plan. We will then derive conclusions from the results of the attestation. Explanation of

conclusions regarding each type of misstatements will be discussed accordingly. Detailed

discrepancy charts are disclosed in the appendix.

FICTITIOUS LISTING

To test the risk of fictitious listing, we vouch samples from the database to the records

from the confirmation form. Among the 45 samples, 2 existence errors are found. Along with

90% confidence level and 2 actual deviations found, the upper deviation rate is equal to 11.4%,

which is higher than 5% tolerable deviation rate. As a result, we do not have reasonable

assurance that fictitious listing is at a low risk of material misstatements. Thus, the risks of

fictitious listings of average age, average income, and smoking status are assessed to be high.

OMISSION ERROR

Based on our sampling plan, we randomly select a sample of 45 clients from NCIS to test

if all of them are included in the database; if not, then the risk of omission errors exists. Among

the 45 clients retrieved from NCIS, we found 5 of them not existed in the Database. As the

confidence level is 90%, we determine that the upper deviation rate is equal to 19.7%, which is

larger than TDR of 5%. Therefore, we assess the risks of omission errors of average age, average

income, and smoking status are high.

MISREPRESENTATION ERROR & DATA ENTRY ERROR

During the process of assessing the risk of fictitious listing errors when comparing the

Database with confirmation forms, we found that out of 45 samples we selected, 3 of them

12
showed discrepancies in his income status, and these 3 clients are all from customer confirmation

instead of Secure confirmation. Thus, with a 90% confidence level and a sample size of 45, the

upper deviation rate is 14.3%, which is larger than the pre-set TDR of 5%. However, because

there is no way for us to retrieve the real information of that client, we cannot determine whether

the discrepancies are due to a deliberate misrepresentation by clients or data entry errors by the

receptionists during the registration process. Therefore, being conservative, we assess the risks of

both misrepresentation errors and data entry errors of average income to be high. Because we did

not found discrepancies in smoking status and age within the 45 samples, we assess the risks of

both misrepresentation errors and data entry errors to be low for age and smoking.

However, during the process of assessing the risk of omission errors when comparing the

Database with NCIS, we found much more frequent information discrepancies in between.

Specifically, we found 16 out of 45 discrepancies pertain to average age, 10 out of 45

discrepancies in smoking status, and 19 out of 45 discrepancies in terms of average income.

However, a discrepancy between NCIS a database is not 100% indicative of misstatement in the

database, since the Secure confirmation forms are more reliable when assessing the risks of

misrepresentation errors and data entry errors. Therefore, we determined that the risks assessed

by the comparison of Database and Confirmation forms will be more reliable in this case.

CONCLUSION

In summary, based on the number of discrepancies between Database and Confirmation

forms, and those between Database and New Client Information Sheets, we combine the risks of

all four types for each assertion, and conclude that the overall risk of average age is medium, the

risk of average income is high, and the risk of smoking status is medium.

13
APPENDIX

Data from U.S. Census Bureau: America’s Families and Living Arrangements, 2016

Distribution of age from the database

Regression analysis of average income

14
Calculation of outliers

Assessed risks before executing audit procedures

Data entry Misrepresentation Fictitious Omission Aggregate/
error error listing error overall
Age Medium Low Low Low Low
Income Medium High Medium Medium Medium
Smoking Status Medium High High High High

Assessed risks after executing audit procedures

Data entry Misrepresentation Fictitious Omission Aggregate/
error error listing error overall
Age Low Low High High Medium
Income High High High High High
Smoking Status Low Low High High Medium

Samples from database to confirmation

Income
Sample # Database Confirmation Audit Value
102580 12300 Never heard of DDS -
107966 18600 18600 18600
105623 22400 22400 22400
101866 24100 24100 24100
106601 25700 25700 25700
104672 27000 27000 27000

15
 101982 28333 28333 28333
106440 28900 28900 28900
102801 30050 30050 30050
108781 31767 31767 31767
106479 32950 32950 32950
107770 34333 34333 34333
106270 35550 25000 25000
106028 37733 37733 37733
103912 50000 50000 50000
103881 58600 Once a member but cancelled -
101230 61900 61900 61900
110092 64400 64400 64400
103297 66300 66300 66300
100844 67700 67700 67700
101314 71100 71100 71100
102417 73000 73000 73000
102541 75400 75400 75400
109176 77800 77800 77800
105130 80400 80400 80400
100754 84050 84050 84050
107535 86600 86600 86600
102973 91400 91400 91400
105464 94000 94000 94000
109693 97200 97200 97200
104053 99200 99200 99200
107605 102600 102600 102600
107385 108600 108600 108600
104613 115400 115400 115400
105329 135000 145000 145000
103858 144200 144200 144200
106454 148000 148000 148000
103435 151400 151400 151400
107559 159600 159600 159600
105966 180400 180400 180400
101738 450000 450000 450000
110107 750000 750000 750000
102519 900000 90000 90000

Age
Sample # Database Confirmation Audit Value
102580 26 Never heard of DDS -
107966 50 50 50
105623 47 47 47

16
 101866 33 33 33
106601 47 47 47
104672 52 52 52
101982 47 47 47
106440 52 52 52
102801 32 32 32
108781 34 34 34
106479 33 33 33
107770 45 45 45
106270 59 59 59
106028 50 50 50
103912 54 54 54
103881 50 Once a member but cancelled -
101230 56 56 56
110092 48 48 48
103297 48 48 48
100844 30 30 30
101314 56 56 56
102417 59 59 59
102541 54 54 54
109176 29 29 29
105130 29 29 29
100754 61 61 61
107535 34 34 34
102973 40 40 40
105464 53 53 53
109693 49 49 49
104053 50 50 50
107605 49 49 49
107385 55 55 55
104613 61 61 61
105329 49 49 49
103858 57 57 57
106454 46 46 46
103435 36 36 36
107559 50 50 50
105966 34 34 34
101738 45 45 45
110107 36 36 36
102519 45 45 45

Smoking
Sample # Database Confirmation Audit Value

17
102580 N Never heard of DDS -
107966 N N N
105623 N N N
101866 N N N
106601 N N N
104672 Y N N
101982 N N N
106440 N N N
102801 N N N
108781 N N N
106479 Y Y Y
107770 N N N
106270 N N N
106028 N N N
103912 N N N
103881 N Once a member but cancelled -
101230 N N N
110092 N N N
103297 N N N
100844 N N N
101314 Y Y Y
102417 Y Y Y
102541 N N N
109176 N N N
105130 Y Y Y
100754 N N N
107535 Y Y Y
102973 Y Y Y
105464 N N N
109693 N N N
104053 N N N
107605 N N N
107385 N N N
104613 Y Y Y
105329 N N N
103858 N N N
106454 Y Y Y
103435 N N N
107559 N N N
105966 N N N
101738 N N N
110107 N N N

18
 102519 N N N

Samples from NCIS to the database

Age
Sample # NCIS Database Audit Value
101677 44 44 44
102647 36 36 36
103767 28 28 28
104099 25 not exist -
105080 54 54 54
106221 54 54 54
107153 25 25 25
107900 35 35 35
108908 46 65 46
110105 46 46 46
110352 31 35 31
101170 55 60 60
101572 59 60 59
102243 37 37 37
103092 40 50 40
104099 25 not exist -
105439 48 54 48
106333 29 29 29
107017 59 59 59
107900 35 35 35
109017 24 24 24
110158 35 35 35
100951 53 not exist -
102088 51 60 60
102495 31 40 31
103419 33 33 33
103956 37 44 37
105242 40 40 40
106165 38 50 50
107059 60 60 60
108084 26 26 26
109111 45 45 45
110279 55 65 55
100965 58 58 58
101214 47 50 50
101235 35 not exist -
102255 57 not exist -
103466 46 46 46

19
103946 36 29 29
105080 54 54 54
106113 52 60 60
107007 42 42 42
107874 37 47 47
108922 61 61 61
110102 51 56 56

Income
Sample # NCIS Database Audit Value
101677 40,700 36,700 40,700
102647 60,900 60,900 60,900
103767 12,500 12,500 12,500
104099 44,700 not exist -
105080 34,700 24,700 34,700
106221 73,100 63,100 73,100
107153 14,600 14,600 14,600
107900 85,700 85,700 85,700
108908 29,200 61,333 29,200
110105 96,000 96,000 96,000
110352 25,400 25,400 25,400
101170 52,000 42,000 52,000
101572 52500 85700 52500
102243 98600 40000 98600
103092 46900 43900 46900
104099 44700 not exist -
105439 90300 81300 90300
106333 28800 28800 28800
107017 50700 45700 50700
107900 85700 85700 85700
109017 40000 40000 40000
110158 43900 43900 43900
100951 59300 not exist -
102088 62400 62400 62400
102495 26100 16100 26100
103419 104000 90000 104000
103956 24100 24100 24100
105242 51800 51800 51800
106165 32600 32600 32600
107059 41559 36550 41559
108084 26850 26850 26850
109111 112200 98200 112200
110279 40900 40900 40900

20
100965 92000 92000 92000
101214 46500 46500 46500
101235 32900 not exist -
102255 44600 not exist -
103466 67800 63800 67800
103946 30500 25500 30500
105080 24700 24700 24700
106113 51550 46550 51550
107007 39950 39450 39950
107874 63100 57100 63100
108922 50100 50100 50100
110102 64000 64000 64000

Smoking
Sample # NCIS Database Audit Value
101677 N N N
102647 N Y N
103767 N Y N
104099 Y not exist -
105080 N N N
106221 N N N
107153 N N N
107900 N N N
108908 N N N
110105 N N N
110352 N N N
101170 N N N
101572 N N N
102243 N Y N
103092 N N N
104099 Y not exist -
105439 N N N
106333 N Y N
107017 N N N
107900 N Y N
109017 N Y N
110158 N Y Y
100951 N not exist -
102088 N N N
102495 N N N
103419 N N N
103956 N N N
105242 N Y N

21
 106165 N N N
107059 N N N
108084 N Y N
109111 N N N
110279 N N N
100965 N Y Y
101214 N N N
101235 Y not exist -
102255 N not exist -
103466 N N N
103946 N N N
105080 N N N
106113 N N N
107007 Y Y Y
107874 N N N
108922 N N N
110102 N N N

REFERENCE

American FactFinder. (2015). ACS demographic and housing estimates: 2015. Retrieved May 1,

2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?

src=CF

The Business of Dating. (n.d.). Demographic. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from

http://thebusinessofdating.wikidot.com/demographic

U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements (2016). Married couple

family groups, by presence of own children under 18, and age, earnings, education, and

22
 race and Hispanic origin of both spouses. Retrieved May 1, 2017 from

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps-2016.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Average income of people per household, by race and Hispanic

origin, marital status, age, and education of householder: 2016. Retrieved May 1, 2017,

from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/families/cps-2016.html

Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating:

A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psychological Science

in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3-66.

CDC. (2016, December 1). Current cigarette smoking among adults in the United States.

Retrieved May 1, 2017, from

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.ht

HHSA. (2013). San Diego County health briefs south region, 2013. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from

http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/hhsa/programs/phs/CHS/Health

%20Briefs/FINAL_Health%20Briefs_South_2015.pdf

Nestor, T. P. (n.d.). Is your love life going up in smoke? Retrieved May 1, 2017, from

http://www.match.com/cp.aspx?cpp=%2Fcppp%2Fmagazine

%2Farticle0.html&articleid=12830

23