Individual respondents don't typically come into the data processing centre
and key in the data from their own forms here. I guess it must be
different in Britain.
One of the problems with the e-census is merging records from electronic
lodgements with the pencil and paper form from the rest of the household,
or so I understand. Determining relationship among persons enumerated on
different forms is particularly problematical.
"R.Thomas"
[log in to unmask]
Sent by: email list To
for Radical [log in to unmask]
Statistics cc
<[log in to unmask]
.UK> Subject
Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Protective Mark
05/11/2007 11:48 PM
Please respond to
"R.Thomas"
<[log in to unmask]>
Alison's message reveals, perhaps inadvertantly, on reason why census
return rates are declining.
Speaking on behalf of the GSS(?) Alison refers to data entry costs as
belonging the the GSS.
In fact the data entry is usually done by individual householders. The
ignoring of this cost by throwing the results away can hardly endear
members of the public to official statistics.
Ray Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Macfarlane, Alison
Sent: 05 November 2007 12:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
The 1966 census, the only mid term census ever done, was a ten per
sample. In somedecennial censuses, not all questions were analysed on
a 100 per cent basis, to save on data entry costs. There has never
been an income question.
Alison.
Alison Macfarlane
Department of Midwifery
City University
24 Chiswell Street
London EC1Y 4TY
Phone (0) (44) 207 040 5832
Fax (0) (44) 207 040 5866
Email [log in to unmask]
From: email list for Radical Statistics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Bibby
Sent: 05 November 2007 11:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
I think it was the income question in 1966 (1976?) which used a 10%
subsample of the whole census.
I remember being hooted at circa 1975 at an RSS meeting where I a
full count was not necessary. (Smaller but more often may be better.)
One advantage of a ‘full count’ is that it’s easy to understand.
Also, I guess the sampling fraction would have to be pretty low
(<40%) before you see any cost-gains. The problem is not in the
aggregates, but in the small cross-classifications.
Has anyone seen cost-=benefit analysis applied to this area i.e. What
is the ‘cost’ of this information? What are the ‘benefits’? (and what
are the marginal benefits for marginal changes in size or
reliability?)
JOHN BIBBY
From: email list for Radical Statistics
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Whittington
Sent: 02 November 2007 09:07
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More about Lockheed Martin and the census
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
At 07:26 02/11/2007 +0000, R.Thomas wrote (in small part):
It appears to be increasingly difficult to maintain the dual function
of the Census - as a basis for estimating the total population and as
a source of detailed information on the population. The Government
has already been obliged to use administrative sources for estimates
of the geographical distribution of the population. Surely that
trend will continue?
Surely the Census will increasingly be seen as a large scale social
survey? Wasn't the 1966 Census conducted on a 10% sample basis?
Might not such a solution be on the cards for 2011?
I must say that, perhaps because I'm naieve, I've never really
understood why the statistical community 'supports' (implictly and/or
explicitly) attempts at a 100% Census. If, in virtually any other
context, it was suggested to a statistician that one should conduct
a !00% census in order to estimate a count and/or characterise
(detailed information about) a population (whether of people, trees,
fish or whatever) of 60+ million, I suspect that (s)he would say that
the proposal was crazy, since high precision estimates could be
obtained from a sample survey of a tiny fraction of that population.
Is it not the case that the original concept of a Census (in Biblical
times before) arose because the need was not so much to count and/or
characterise, but actually to _identify_ all the individuals in the
population in order that they could 'be sent tax bills' - which is in
some senses the very sort of thing that many of the "don't want to be
counted" people fear about modern-day Censuses. In statistical
terms, I would have thought that for any purposes _other_ than that,
a relatively small sample survey (certainly no more than 10%, quite
possibly less) would be quite adequate.
However, whether one conducts a census or a survey, those fears about
'usage of the data' are still going to cause some people (presumably
roughly the same proption in samples and in the whole population) to
attempt to 'hide'. The statistical solution to that would presumably
be to offer total confidentiality/immunity to people in relation to
anything that wrote on the form (the easy part to implement) and to
convince them that no use would ever be made of that personal
information (next-to-impossible!). In other words, people would have
to be convinced that they could answer 'yes' to questions like "Are
you an illegal immigrant", "Are you a terrorist", "Have you ever
abused any children", "Are you evading any taxes" without any fear of
'having their collar felt', or even of being brought to the attention
of any 'relevant authorities'! That approach is therefore probably
little more than a pipe dream. Ironically, in view of how this
discussion started, it might well be easier to reassure people if the
census/survey was outsourced to a commercial organisation, who
'promised' not to pass on any individual-identifiable data to
government.
Kindest Regards,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr John Whittington, Voice: +44 (0) 1296 730225
Mediscience Services Fax: +44 (0) 1296 738893
Twyford Manor, Twyford, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Buckingham MK18 4EL, UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************** Please note
that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the
sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use
your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages
sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed
to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the
Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics
and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our
newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
****************************************************** Please note
that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the
sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use
your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages
sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed
to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the
Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics
and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our
newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
****************************************************** Please note
that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the
sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use
your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message
automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages
sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed
to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the
Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics
and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our
newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
? ????????? ?????????? ?????? SPAMfighter ??? ??????? ?????????????.
????????? ??????? 180 ??????????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????????? ???????.
???????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ? ?? ???????????
???????.
??????????? ?????????? ??????! SPAMfighter
****************************************************** Please note that if
you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of
this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to
[log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the
views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range
of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out
more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current
and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au
|