User views Jo Wathan SARs Support team

Context Planning for 2011 To enable wide participation in early stage planning for 2011 microdata To provide a check on our understandings of user needs and preferences To generate ideas To provide evidence

Consultation survey To inform strategy for 2011 Learning from 2001: –Identify strengths and weaknesses of current arrangements –Identify obstacles to use at present Needs & preferences for 2011 microdata (or alternatives) –Type of data –Access mode –Content

…Not A sample survey Representative of users/potential users Generalisable Limited to current or past users

Method Short questionnaire –Awareness of SARs –Use of 1991/2001 data –Evaluation of 2001 data & access –Needs for 2011 Delivery: –Postal delivery to recipients of SARs newsletters (with option of online completion) –Online delivery for others Advertised through –Various lists –Advertised by ONS

130 valid responses Respondent typeTotal other/ unknown HE employee Research StudentFEVoluntary AwarenessNot aware Aware non user use 91 only use 01 data Total

Of those who were aware of the SARs…

No. of files used

Discouraged users?

2001: Strengths and obstacles Strengths –sample size (11) –Microdata (8) –Flexibility (4) –Suitable for ethnicity research (4) Obstacles to use –lack of geographical detail in the 2001 files (15) –lack of detail more generally (11) –Other variables which for which restrictions of detail were problematic; country of birth, ethnic group and age.

Satisfaction with the 2001 SARs

Flexible output options Real-time tabulations Bespoke tabulations Bespoke mini SARs Off the shelf topic based mini SARs LAD level general SAR, limited age & occupation Regional general SAR – more individual data General hierarchial SAR Secure sample data with LAD and fine detail Secure population data with LAD and fine detail

Flexible output preferences Prefs: –real-time flexible tabulation (49%) –general purpose hierarchical SAR (44%) Very useful, of poss use: –most methods respondents reporT usefulness, –Online real time tabulation that was reported as useful by 85 respondents

Importance of features 2011

Geography required AreaCount of respondents Of those aware of the SARs None53 UK as a whole1813 Country2319 GOR2116 District / UA4035 Lower/middle output area 2422 Ward3630 Small areas3933

Users have different needs… Detailed country of birth data for all countries, not aggregated i Detailed ethnicity. Some kind of income variable. Continuity with More information on relationships between household members Longitudinal variable i.e. linked to 1991 and 2001 SARs if possibl Migration status for individuals; migration status of individuals Much more detail on education, not just codes that capture varianc Single age bands, sex and ethnicity at high geographical detail Age, sex, employment Full information on key demographic variables simultaneously avail Migration, health, ethnicity, age, marital status, social class Detailed demographic/socio-economic information with disaggregated Detailed occupational data Demographic information at least at county level Transport elements (journey to work (time and distance), mode of t Ethnic group with clear definition Household characteristics eg number of persons (by type), number o Age,sex,,economic status, relationship to other household members, all variables from the census, I am willing to compromise on detai regional geography, detailed ethic group, religion, 5 year age gro Tenures and income (proxy) information 1 year age. Change of address including non-UK country of residenc Health, age, sex, ethnicity, economic activity, tenure, migrant st All diversity and migration variables A minimal amount of error. with respect to a high precision household sample: 3 digit ISC migration household change birthplace ethnicity illness age, sex, ethnicity, occupation, industry, hours worked, care prov The actual number of children in a household. The actual age of a Further detail in ethnic backgrounds and geographic data.

Summary Not possible to generalise from this, but we can reflect on what we have! Most dissatisfaction due to lack of geography Suggestion of lower level of use of 01 data than 91 data among respondents Considerable interest in flexible tabulation Wide range of needs