may 12-15, 2008 1 evaluating the integrated census -2008 israel pnina zadka central bureau of...

May 12-15, 2008May 12-15, 2008 11

Evaluating the Integrated Census -2008 Israel

Pnina ZADKAPnina ZADKA

Central Bureau of Statistics Central Bureau of Statistics

IsraelIsrael

May 12-15, 2008May 12-15, 2008 UNECE Geneva 2008UNECE Geneva 2008

Evaluating Integrated Census IsraelEvaluating Integrated Census Israel 22

Content ofContent of PresentationPresentation

Integrated census – integrated evaluationIntegrated census – integrated evaluation– Data sourcesData sources– Methodology in briefMethodology in brief

Evaluation methodsEvaluation methods Evaluation parametersEvaluation parameters 2006 evaluation results2006 evaluation results 2008 Evaluation procedures2008 Evaluation procedures



Integrated Census Data SourcesIntegrated Census Data Sources Administrative sources (IAF)Administrative sources (IAF)

Population Register Population Register

Electricity Meters registerElectricity Meters register Students’ register (Elementary schools, Students’ register (Elementary schools,

Secondary school and high school)Secondary school and high school) Vehicles’ register Vehicles’ register Geo-coded addressesGeo-coded addresses

++



Area based sampleArea based sample – Estimating under- – Estimating under-coverage within Statistical Area, and coverage within Statistical Area, and collecting socioeconomic information not collecting socioeconomic information not available in administrative sources.available in administrative sources.

Population Register SamplePopulation Register Sample – – Estimating over-overage within Statistical Estimating over-overage within Statistical Area Area

Integrated Census Data SourcesIntegrated Census Data Sources Direct Data CollectionDirect Data Collection



Integrated Census MethodologyIntegrated Census Methodology

1

574 444

5

11

23

6

Area sample “U” CAPI survey

1

2

3

54

5

6

7

IAF sample “O” CATI survey

Sampled enumeration cells



Integrated Evaluation Integrated Evaluation MethodologyMethodology

Evaluation of the IAFEvaluation of the IAF Evaluation of “U” enumeration procedureEvaluation of “U” enumeration procedure Evaluation of “O” enumeration ProcedureEvaluation of “O” enumeration Procedure Census weights – reflecting coverage ratesCensus weights – reflecting coverage rates

Weight =1-Weight =1- reflecting complete balance reflecting complete balance between over and under coveragebetween over and under coverageWeight >1 – reflecting more under coverageWeight >1 – reflecting more under coverageWeight<1 – reflecting more over coverageWeight<1 – reflecting more over coverage



Evaluation ParametersEvaluation Parameters

““Improvement” of residential status Improvement” of residential status ““Improvement” of addressesImprovement” of addresses ““Administrative Family” constructionAdministrative Family” construction omitted in the “U” survey & non-response ratesomitted in the “U” survey & non-response rates Availability of telephone numbers for the “O” Availability of telephone numbers for the “O”

sample & non-response rates sample & non-response rates Dual model – CV of the final estimates Dual model – CV of the final estimates



20062006 Pilot CensusPilot Census

≈ ≈ 50 thousand persons in the IAF sample50 thousand persons in the IAF sample ≈ ≈ 14 thousand “administrative families”14 thousand “administrative families” 25 Localities25 Localities 16 residential institutes (including one 16 residential institutes (including one

prison)prison)



20062006 Pilot Census Pilot Census Evaluation ResultsEvaluation Results

Administrative familiesAdministrative families– ≈≈90% correct construction90% correct construction– 0.5% improper split of family0.5% improper split of family– 1.4% individuals not unified with their actual family 1.4% individuals not unified with their actual family

even though living at the same addresseven though living at the same address– 3% improper merge of families3% improper merge of families– 4.5% incorrect addresses in the IAF4.5% incorrect addresses in the IAF

““Emigrants”Emigrants” – 19 persons not flagged as emigrants (0.04%)19 persons not flagged as emigrants (0.04%)– 9 persons flagged as emigrants improperly (0.02%)9 persons flagged as emigrants improperly (0.02%)



20062006 Pilot Census Evaluation Results Pilot Census Evaluation Results (cont.)(cont.)

““U” sample evaluationU” sample evaluation (“O” as pseudo PES)(“O” as pseudo PES)– ≈ ≈ 40 thousand persons were registered in sampled cells 40 thousand persons were registered in sampled cells

addressesaddresses– 27.2 thousand were interviewed in “U” (68%)27.2 thousand were interviewed in “U” (68%)– 4.3 thousand living in their registered address(11%)- 4.3 thousand living in their registered address(11%)-

omitted in the “U” enumeration omitted in the “U” enumeration – 5.7 thousand living at a different address (14%)5.7 thousand living at a different address (14%)– 7% not contacted7% not contacted

89% - upper limit of coverage rate for the field 89% - upper limit of coverage rate for the field enumeration procedureenumeration procedure



““O” sample evaluationO” sample evaluation– 11, 360 families11, 360 families

1,413 unknown telephone number1,413 unknown telephone number

– 22,809 individuals22,809 individuals 2,032 unknown telephone numbers2,032 unknown telephone numbers

– 14, 754 full interview (72%)14, 754 full interview (72%)– 1,524 partial interview or mismatched (7%)1,524 partial interview or mismatched (7%)– 4,326 not interviewed (21%)4,326 not interviewed (21%)

20062006 Pilot Census Evaluation Results Pilot Census Evaluation Results (cont.)(cont.)



Statistical estimates evaluationStatistical estimates evaluation CV calculated by both methods yielded CV calculated by both methods yielded

similar results within expected limits.similar results within expected limits. If combined response rates (“U” + “O”) are If combined response rates (“U” + “O”) are

less than 50% for a SA the model less than 50% for a SA the model does notdoes not yield valid estimates. yield valid estimates.

20062006 Pilot Census Evaluation Results (cont.)Pilot Census Evaluation Results (cont.)



Implications applied for 2008Implications applied for 2008

No modification in the Emigrant flagging No modification in the Emigrant flagging algorithmalgorithm

Improve algorithm for “administrative Improve algorithm for “administrative families”families”

Improve field enumeration resultsImprove field enumeration results Improve geo-coding in all sub-filesImprove geo-coding in all sub-files



20082008 Census EvaluationCensus Evaluation

All examined evaluation procedures will be All examined evaluation procedures will be repeatedrepeated

Evaluation of Socio-Economic data with Evaluation of Socio-Economic data with auxiliary sources (National Insurance auxiliary sources (National Insurance Institute, LFS, Household Expenditure Institute, LFS, Household Expenditure Survey, Social Survey)Survey, Social Survey)



Thank YouThank You



““Improvement” of residential statusImprovement” of residential status

The PR consists of all residents with a long term visa The PR consists of all residents with a long term visa who received an ID card (number). Registered who received an ID card (number). Registered residents who live permanently abroad are not residents who live permanently abroad are not deleted from the register. deleted from the register.

A special algorithm based on border control A special algorithm based on border control registrations, updates from the NII, extreme age registrations, updates from the NII, extreme age and 1995 census files, was used to identify “non-and 1995 census files, was used to identify “non-residents” in the PR and flag them in the IAF residents” in the PR and flag them in the IAF

☜☜



““Improvement” of addressesImprovement” of addresses

PR addresses were added from the the PR addresses were added from the the other administrative files, primary address other administrative files, primary address was selected by an algorithm for the all was selected by an algorithm for the all records IAF.records IAF.

☜☜



““Administrative Family” constructionAdministrative Family” construction

““Administrative families” were constructed Administrative families” were constructed based on kinship relations registered in the based on kinship relations registered in the PR. PR.

Families living in different “improved Families living in different “improved addresses” were unified using a set of rules addresses” were unified using a set of rules and a preference and a preference algorithm.algorithm.

☜☜



Omitted in the enumeration of “U” Omitted in the enumeration of “U” surveysurvey

People registered properly in the IAF who People registered properly in the IAF who were missed in the “U” survey enumeration were missed in the “U” survey enumeration and were found in the “O” survey and were found in the “O” survey enumeration. enumeration.

☜☜



““O” Sample SurveyO” Sample Survey

Administrative families with no telephone Administrative families with no telephone numbernumber

Wrong number or no response after 15 callsWrong number or no response after 15 calls No response to mail questionnaire No response to mail questionnaire

☜☜



Dual model – CV of the final Dual model – CV of the final estimatesestimates

Impute probabilities for each person in Impute probabilities for each person in estimation groupestimation group to reside at their to reside at their registered address.registered address.

Compatibility with current population Compatibility with current population estimatesestimates

Convergence of proportional CV of the Convergence of proportional CV of the estimates calculated using “Taylor estimates calculated using “Taylor expansion” and “Jackknife” methods. expansion” and “Jackknife” methods. ☜☜

may 12-15, 2008 1 evaluating the integrated census -2008 israel pnina zadka central bureau of...

Documents

integrated census israel

integrated census methodology

evaluation procedures

evaluation results

unece geneva

coverage weight

area based sample

coverage rates weight