Statistics Canada’s proposed Household Survey Strategy Sylvie Michaud, Statistics Canada Mannheim, Germany November 14, 2007

Why a household survey strategy  Too costly and too slow  Labour Force Survey – our traditional platform for ad hoc survey work -- is “maxed out”, restricting our ability to take on new surveys at reasonable cost  Increasing use of cell phones casts doubt on the future of Random Digit Dialing (RDD) surveys…  …as do declining response rates  Need to increase capacity to conduct surveys is a cost- effective way

Context : Budget review  Likely every four year for every department  STC in the first phase review  Actual target is not final yet  Direct impact on us; may be on cost recovery ?

Collection infrastructure  Three infrastructures for social surveys; most interviews done with computer assisted interviewing Decentralised field collection (CAPI) Centralised under 3 Regional Offices (CATI) Ottawa (small)  Collection done using Blaise Different management systems for different environments

Research to add efficiency on collection process : outside HSS

Stock-taking: overview of existing survey program  Study in 2005 on size, scope, cost of household survey program  Based on about 15 surveys  All used samples drawn from households  Either base funded or recurring cost-recovery

Scope: 5 monthly surveys  Labour Force Survey (LFS)  Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS)  General Social Survey (GSS)  Travel Survey of Residents of Canada (TSRC)  Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS)

Scope: annual and other surveys  Annual Survey of Household Spending (SHS) Canadian Internet Use Survey (CIUS) Residential Telephone Services Survey (RTSS)  Less frequent (examples) Survey of Financial Security (SFS) Adult Education and Training Survey (AETS) Survey of Household Energy Use (SHEU) Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID)

Some facts about these surveys  To collect the data, we contact about 300,000 households per year  Once selected, some households are contacted repeatedly (LFS)  About one third of budget comes from external sources  About two thirds of budget goes to data collection activities

Foundations for the strategy  Efficient use of field capacity  Frames for social surveys  Governance  Flexibility for contacting respondents

Spreading interviewing workload and response burden  Uneven interviewing workload increases cost – annual cycle of hiring, training, releasing interviewers to cope with peaks  Also between-year fluctuations  Over-burdened respondents cannot realistically be recontacted – and this is key to increasing capacity  Measures already taken: Redesign of Survey of Household Spending Uniform monthly workload for Canadian Community Health Survey

Annual distribution of field workload

Frames for supplements  Proposal to remove TSRC from LFS, to increase capacity  TSRC is constant LFS companion: Every month 1/3 of LFS sample gets TSRC One person per household, non-proxy  Feeds SNA (inter-provincial flow tables of domestic travel expenditures), TSA, provincial monitoring of tourism trends  Since inception in 1979, survey has consumed growing share of LFS capacity: Biennial  annual Quarterly  monthly One sixth of LFS sample  one third

Issues with frames Costly to run supplements because no capacity for supplements to LFS RDD may not be viable in medium term Difficult to select specific sub-populations Frames updates are costly and might not be efficient

LFS supplementary survey program before and after TSRC # topics# labour related topics

TSRC removed from LFS supplement should bring capacity  TSRC as a LFS supplement hinders capacity to quickly and efficiently conduct supplements related to Labour Market and synergy in topic not there  Pilot project May 2008  Fresh sample for TSRC Varying recall periods Longitudinal design If this was done, this would re-establish capacity to conduct supplements  Timing of the redesign is an issue

Integrated household survey platform Core content CCHS Core content SHS & Supplements Core content LFS & Supplements Core content TSRC Master Sample (Approx 260K hhlds per year, with standard core content) Core content GSS Ad hoc / smaller survey Ad hoc / smaller survey Ad hoc/ smaller survey Ad hoc / smaller survey

Survey integration  Identical core questions for all surveys (demographics, etc)  Create a master sample using households exiting from “1 st phase” surveys  Draw on master sample for other (2 nd phase) surveys  Harmonized content modules (18 groups of variables) for new surveys

Master sample integration  Pilot project April – May 2008  Conducted on an on-going survey currently done with RDD  Targetting population people aged 45 and over  Test logistics but also impact on estimates from the two methodologies

Sampling frames  Address Register becomes frame for selecting dwellings in urban areas (~65% of sample)  Dual frame in rural areas Telephone list frame Area frame  Dual frame combines quality of area frame with cost- effectiveness of telephone list frame  All innovations already partially in use: LFS has used Address Register CCHS has used telephone list frame in a dual frame context

AR GEO (NGD) LFS, etc. Updates (admin, listing) permanent NEW Links frames

Governance - internally  Standards Content system  Interactions with collection  Links with Census  Organisationnal impact ?

Governance –  Testing tripartite governance for longitudinal surveys Statistics Canada, policy departments, researchers Across surveys ?

Northern strategy  Opportunity to examine options for best approach in North  Aim is to manage burden and yield data that are as useful as possible  Co-development approach, involving territorial governments, other stakeholders and Statcan

Contact strategy  Need to be multi-mode Mode of choice varies depending on the age of respondents Trends are changing Cell phone only is increasing, along with Voice over IP

Which way would like to be contacted environics survey n=1965

Survey methods most preferred: respondents who prefer more than one way environics

Future Census completion – mode preference By age environics n=1965

Internet option for respondents  Build on success of Census Internet option  Assumptions: 1 st interview is interviewer-administered Respondent can opt for Internet after that Fallback to CATI Short supplements (with proxy) still viable  Two pilots with internet in November  Need to build a more robust master control system

Use of other information  Administrative files: How far and what is respondents perception ? How does it impact on access ?  Use of Census Geographic information As a frame As a data source for longitudinal analysis ?

Summary  We started two years ago We wanted to position our strategic thinking for the next five years Likely not be finished in year 5 however  Starting to see some cost savings with load levelling but it’s more than costs savings

Survey of Household Spending  Monthly collection  Key variables collected from all households (30 minutes)  Sample then divided into two subsamples, to respond to a subset of more detailed spending questions  Recall periods defined according to the type of expenditure  Capacity for rotating supplementary content (wealth, health, environment…)

Lining up activities and directions with original objectives  Increased capacity Master sample More monthly surveys LFS capacity freed up  Improved cost-effectiveness Increased use of AR & new sampling strategies Interviewer workload more uniform Harmonized content modules  Faster turnaround times Harmonized content modules

Lining up activities and directions with original objectives  Increasing prevalence of cell phones Dwelling-based approach  Rising non-response rates Multi-modal approach: more options for respondents Burden spread more uniformly (and managed)

declining response rates : Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics Wave Panel …… ……………

Context : Households with cell phone only  Nationally, 90% have a land line  Households with cell phones only increased from 1.9% to 5% in past 3 years  10.6% use voice over IP  Rate for low income household almost twice that of other households

Household survey strategy  Spread interviewer and response burden  Survey integration  Increase response options  Greater use of list frames for sampling