1. The second wave of the new design of the Dutch EU-SILC: Possibilities and challenges
Judit Arends

2. Overview The Dutch EU-SILC (from 2005)
Reasons of redesign - new design
Redesign 2016 and 2017
Datacollection: introducing CAWI and incentives
Sampling design
Questionnaire design
Field-work design
Results of P and 2017: response rate, data quality (missings), incentives, some challenges
Design and results of P2 in 2017: response rate, quality
Plans and discussion points

3. EU-SILC: sources of data
Statistics Netherlands
Register country: most information from registers
Selected respondent: only one person is interviewed
Income component Mostly registers
Material deprivation variables Survey
Work intensity: employment status Register / Survey

4. Design EU-SILC: Statistics Netherlands
From registers:
Construct nearly all income target variables based on census income from the tax authorities in t-1
Some other target variables:
country of birth, citizenship, NUTS, ethnic origin
Calender of activities: main income source in a specific month
Employee status
From 2016: child care costs, rent, housing cost (HH070)
From survey/interview:
Child-support and students, income from other sources
All material deprivation items
Working hours and current (self-defined) status

5. Design EU-SILC from 2005 until 2016
Integrated in the LFS:
approaching EU-SILC respondents one month after the 5th wave of the LFS
CATI only, one person is chosen randomly as the respondent of EU-SILC
Respondents will be re-approached 3 times (1 year)
Advantage: Response rate is high (80%)
BUT:
Response is selective and design is complex
Changes in LFS: panel attrition in 2nd wave

6. Redesign – new design Aim:
Working with a new stand-alone design from 2016: ‘’uncoupled’’ from the LFS
New design for data-collection / fieldwork
New sampling design
Adapted questionnaire
New / adapted data processing
Longitudinal part: current design until 2019

7. Cross-sectional and longitudinal design
Cross-sectional 2016 Longitudinal 2016 Cross-sectional and longitudinal 2017 Cross-sectional and longitudinal 2019
P1 2016
P2 2015
P3 2014
P4 2013
P2 2015
P3 2014
P4 2013
P1 2017
P2 2016
P3 2015
P4 2014
P2 2016
P3 2015
P4 2014
P1 2019
P2 2018
P3 2017
P4 2016

8. Main features of the redesign
Subject
Design from 2005
Redesign from 2016
Sampling design
Persons from households LFS
Persons
Oversampling low income groups
Duration fieldwork
Four months
June - September
March - June
Data collection mode
CATI
CAWI and CATI
Questionnaire
Designed for CATI
Uni-mode design
Incentives No
Yes (split half in 2016)

9. Challenges (framework, development)
Data-collection:
Redesign: using mostly CAWI: 60-70% of the responses
Questionnaire design:
uni-mode design: CAWI and CATI
Respondents of 16/17 years old: difficulties with household questionnaire in CAWI-mode
Non-respons / panel attrition (incentives)

10. Main reasons: introducing web surveys
SN has issued a data collection strategy: combining administrative data and data from surveys
Data collection budgets: cheaper alternatives
Clients’ request
Many potential respondents cannot be reached:
CATI: 52% known telephone number, high noncontact
Respondents are not willing to participate in surveys in which an interviewer is involved
Increased access to internet and internet users in NL
“Experiments’’ from 2005 with web-surveys
Steps to enhance response rate CAWI

11. Sampling design 2016
Sample persons were drawn form the sampling frame of persons from the Population Register
Stratified sampling design
Strata: income, household size, and 16 years
30 strata:
10 decile income groups (t-2),
16 years
household size 17+

12. Sampling size Screening: - 7% 1.07*2.84*16.268=49.435 units
strata
age
Hh size
Income decil
total
population
over-sampling 1
17+
1301
441262
2.45 2
1402
409657
2.84 3
1229
389943
2.62 4
911
352467
2.15 5
613
311516
1.63 6
496
275288
1.50 7
402
245862
1.36 8
346
219692
1.31 9
287
190783
1.25 10
289
173555
1.38 11
2 or more
643
539456
0.99 12
788
575937
1.14 13
930
733345
1.05 14
896
849475
0.88 15
815
990995
0.68 16
851
0.63 17
859
0.58 18
898
0.56 19
931
0.54 20
1022
0.59 21
1 or 2 39
15017
2.18 22 52
18777
2.27 23 45
17759
2.10 24 35
16760
1.75 25 34
20404
1.37 26
22900
1.26 27 32
23481
1.16 28 31
22678
1.12 29
20753
1.08 30
20641
1.18
Tot
16268
1.00
Screening: - 7%
1.07*2.84*16.268= units
Thinning out: each strata

13. Questionnaire design: Uni-mode design
Uni-mode design: CAWI and CATI
Household composition (gender, birth year)
Personal questionnaire for selected respondent
Work and educational attainment
Personal material deprivation variables and health
Households questionnaire
Head of the household (CAWI?)

14. Design field work

15. Design field work PARTS START RAPPEL END CAWI 1 3-mrt 17-mrt 24-mrt
17-mrt
24-mrt
4-apr
CATI 1
29 -apr
CAWI2
31-mrt
14-apr
21-apr
2-mei
CATI 2
31-mei
CAWI 3
28-apr
12-mei
19-mei
30-mei
CATI 3
30-jun

16. Invitation letters
persons received a letter of invitation to complete an online questionnaire
URL
Username
Password

17. Questionnaire

18. Call centre in Heerlen

19. Response rate P1 2016
Total response: 42%: (incentive: 46%; no: 37%)
CAWI: Response: 29%: (incentive: 34%; no: 24%)
Non response: 3%
Goes to CATI: 37%
No tel.nr: 31%
CATI:
Response: % (35%-33%)
Sampling frame error (wrong tel.nr.): 16%
Refusal: %
Non-contact %
Others %

20. Response distribution income group
Strata
Age
Hhsize
Incomedecil
Response 1
17+
26% 2
29% 3
33% 4
37% 5
42% 6
41% 7 8
46% 9
47% 10
39% 11
2 or more
35% 12
31% 13 14
45% 15
49% 16 17
51% 18
54% 19
56% 20
57% 21
1 or 2
1 to 5 22
6 to 10
Total

21. Response distribution: income group

22. Response rate CAWI: 70% (4.763); CATI:30% (2.031)
Mean age: CAWI: 48 years; CATI 58 years
Participating next year:
Total: 78%
CAWI: 74%
CATI: 85%
With incentives: 81%
Without incentives: 73%

23. Results: General and Households
No differences between incentive and non-incentive groups regarding
Questionnaire/interview duration CAWI:
minutes (5% outliers)
Item non-respons/missings/refusals
More item non-response in CAWI than in CATI (3% loss)
Some problems with household composition in CAWI: students and mixed families
Missing birth year, especially students (3% loss)

24. Results: Missings Variabeles Totaal CAWI CATI CAWI incentive
no incentive
One-week annual holiday
5,2 7 1
6,2
8,1
Keeping home warm
3,7
5,1
0,3
4,6
5,9
Replacing furniture
6,7
9,2
0,8
8,5
10,2
Replacing cloths
4,9
0,9
6,1
7,6
Meeting family
6,9
9,5
8,9
10,3
Warm meal every second day
3,3
4,7
0,2
4,3
Unexpected expenses
7,7
9,8
2,5 10
9,6

25. Lessons learnt for 2017: P1 Sampling: 22 strata Challenges with CAWI:
Household composition: definition
Item non-response: no refusal
Instruction for interviewers regarding birth date
Incentives: less sample units
Half: iPad lottery
Half: 10 euros

26. Response rate P1 2017 (total: 42%)
CAWI (14.000):
Response: 32%: (10 euro: 33%; iPad: 30%) (29%)
Non response: 2% ( 3%)
Goes to CATI: 33% (51%  thin out: 36%) (37%)
No tel.nr, no CATI: 33% (15% + 18%) (31%)
CATI (4.597)
Response: % (34%)
Sampling frame error (wrong tel.nr.): 16% (16%)
Refusal: % (21%)
Non-contact % (14%)
Others % (15%)

27. Response distribution income group
Stratum
age
hh size
income decil
oversampling
response 1
17+
2,75 2
2,90 3
2,42 4
2,02 5
1,75 6
1,72 7
1,81 8
1,66 9
1,48 10
1,64 11
2 or more
0,94 12
0,95 13
0,81 14
0,71 15
0,63 16 17
0,64 18
0,61 19
0,56 20 21
1 or 2
1-5
1,40 22
6-10
1,09
total

28. P2 in 2017 Field work: CAWI and CATI
Approaching in the same months in 2017 (M-M)
Working with incentives: 5 euros in advance for everyone
Taking over information about household, work and education: check (are there any changes?)

29. Response rate P2 2017 (total: 80%)
CAWI (n = 4.173):
Response: 65% (no differences between the P groups)
Non response: 2% ( )
Goes to CATI: 28% (1.188)
No tel.nr: 5% ( )
CATI (n = ; n = 922) CAWI-CATI CATI
Response: % 79%
Sampling frame error (wrong tel.nr.): 13% 5%
Refusal: % 2%
Non-contact % 7%
Others % 7%

30. Response rate P1 and P2 2017 Income groups: P1 P2 Low High Low High
CAWI 25% 39% CAWI 59% 69%
CATI 31% 33% CATI 67% 65%
Incentive in P1 (CAWI P2)
Yes 60% 69%
No 59% 70%
Participating next year in P1:
CAWI: 78% (78% - 77%) 2016:74%
CATI: 87% (88% - 87%) 2016: 85%
Participating next year in P2:
CAWI: 94%
CAWI/CATI: 92%
CATI: 95%

31. Results: Missings Variables P1 2016-2017 Total 2016 2017 CAWI CATI
One-week annual holiday
5,2
4,8
7,0
6.2
1,0
0,8
Keeping home warm
3,7
3,2
5,1
4,1
0,3
Replacing furniture
6,7
6,3
9,2
8,0
1,2
Replacing cloths
4,9
4,3
5,5
0,9
0,6
Meeting family
6,9
9,5
0,7
Warm meal every second day
3,3
2,9
4,7
3,8
0,2
0,4
Unexpected expenses
7,7
5,8
9,8
7,2
2,5
1,7
P2 2017
Total
CAWI
CATI
One-week annual holiday
2,0
2,9
0,3
Keeping home warm
1,0
1,4
0,1
Replacing furniture
2,8
3,9
0,6
Replacing cloths
1,9
2,6
0,4
Meeting family
4,2
0,2
Warm meal every second day
0,8
1,1
Unexpected expenses
3,6

32. Weighting models Cross sectional 2016 P1 Longitudinal: P2, P3 and P4
Two years longitudinal sample
Three years longitudinal sample

33. Weighting model: cross sectional
The revised cross-sectional weighting procedure includes the following population totals:
Personal level:
Gender (2 classes) x Age (15 classes)
NUTS2 (12 classes) x Age (2 classes)
Ethnicity (3 classes)
Household size (5 classes)
NUTS1 (4 classes) x Low income category (3 classes)
Degree of urbanisation (5 classes) x At-risk-of-poverty rate (2 classes)
NUTS2 (12 classes) x At-risk-of-poverty rate (2 classes)
NUTS2 (12 classes) x Activity status (5 classes)
Household level
NUTS2 (12 classes) x Household Income (deciles)
NUTS1 (4 classes) x Tenure status (3 classes)
Tenure status (3 classes)

34. Future plans and discussion points
Using incentives:
Design and field work P1: which incentives?
Design P2 and P3: incentives
Design for the future: CAWI and selected CATI/CAPI?
Using more register variables: child care, education
Reducing missing values in CAWI