1. Towards Census 2021 in Hungary
Marcell Kovács - Ferenc Urbán Population Census and Demographic Statistics Department Hungarian Central Statistical Office
WG Population and Housing Census - Luxembourg, 12 June 2018

2. Or identified question-naires? Or only electronic question-naires?
1. Census 2011
Traditional full-scope enumeration
Multi-mode data collection
Anonymous questionnaires
Reference date: 0 o’clock 1 October 2011.
Data collection period: 1 October – 8 November 2011.
Respondent package delivered to addresses by enumerators: Dwelling questionnaire + 1 Personal questionnaire + internet login code
Multi-mode data collection simultaneously in time:
Self-response (online): 1–16 October, 2011
Self-response (paper): 1–16 October, 2011
Interview (paper): 1–31 October, 2011
Supplementary data collection 1–8 November 2011
Or identified question-naires?
Or by postal service?
Or separated periods?
Or only electronic question-naires?
The 2011 census in Hungary was a traditional census with full-scope enumeration. An important characteristic of the Hungarian census since 2001 that it is anonymous, no names or other identifiers are questioned on the questionnaire census using several technical innovations. It vas a multi-mode data collection: the respondents could complete the questionnaires online or on paper by themselves or with the help of an enumerator. The respondent package was delivered to the addresses by the enumerator. In the first 17 days of the census the three channels worked simultaneously.
The census in considered a successful one, however there were some problematic issues to consider to change in the future.
Anonymity is an important aspect of our communication but it generates serious difficulties in the completeness check and penalization.
The simultaneity of the channels and the delivery by enumerator resulted in lower online response rate, because the enumerators were interested financially to conduct a personal interview.
Paper questionnaires took a long time to process, and self-completed paper questionnaires were of low quality.

3. Question-naires remained anonymous
2. Microcensus 2016
Question-naires remained anonymous
10% sample
Reference date: 0 o’clock 1 October 2016.
Data collection period: 1 October – 8 November 2016.
Invite letters delivered by the post: 26 – 30 September
Two-step data collection:
Self-response (online): 1–9 October
Interviews (electronic): 10 October – 8 November
Using only electronic devices without any paper questionnaires
Enumerators used laptops and tablets - private devices and Statistical Office owned devices.
In 2016 a Micorcensus was carried out in Hungary. Microcenuses have a tradition in Hungary, it was the 7. Microcensus held since 1960.
The Microcensus was executed on a unusually large 10% sample in order to be supplemented with 5 socio-statistical surveys (about migration, disability, social stratification, occupational prestige and subjective well-being). The microcensus also provided the opportunity to try new census techniques based on lessons learnt in 2011.
The microcensus was completely electronic without paper questionnaires. A risky idea was to let the enumerators use their own devices. 2/3 of the devices used were private devices. In the end it worked, the data collection had been carried out without serious problems. Although monitoring the enumerators work based on GPS data was not possible because a large part of private devices didn’t have this function.
The invite letters were delivered by Hungarian Post. And online and personal interview periods were separated in time.
The one thing that remained unchanged was the anonymity. Because the use of names considered a serious risk that can endanger the success of the Microcensus.

4. 3. Response rates by modes
Rate of responding households in Census 2011:
Self-response (online): 19%
Self-response (paper): 16% bad quality
Interview (paper): 65%
Rate of responding households in Microcensus 2016:
Interview (electronic): 81% best quality
The online response rate of the microcensus was equal to that of the census, even after the change in the process.
The low level of the promotion compared to the census can be the reason for the online response rate not being higher.

5. 4. Data processing of Microcensus 2016
The electronic data collection enabled much faster data processing than in 2011.
Final database ready at the end of March 2017,
6 months after reference date.
Final results of Microcensus published in May 2017,
8 months after reference date.
Final results of Census 2011 published in March 2013
18 months after reference date
Microcensus is evaluated as a successful data collection. The electronic approach made data processing and dissemination faster. Compared to the 18 months it took to publish final data from Census 2011, the results of Microcensus were published 8 months after the reference date.

6. 5. Tasks after Microcensus 2016
Quality analysis of the microcensus
Executed between Jan 2017 – March 2018 with financial support from the Grant Improvement of the quality of EU census (2021 and post-2021)
To improve the use of administrative sources
Analysis executed between Aug 2018 – Aug 2019 with financial support from the Grant Improvement of the use of administrative sources (ESS.VIP ADMIN WP6 pilot studies and applications)
To analyse the possible effects of the introduction of personally identified questionnaires
Executed between Oct 2017 – Nov 2019 with financial support from the Grant Improvement of the quality of EU census (2021 and post- 2021)
Microcensus 2016 is evaluated as a successful data collection. The quality was examined in detail and all the methodological developments used in Microcensus are planned to be used in census 2021 as well.
Our other tasks to do in order to be able to decide about the exact methodology of Census 2021 are
- to analyse further the possibilities of improving the use of administrative data
- and to analyse the possible effects of the introduction of personally identified questionnaires
All three actions are executed with financial support from the European Union.

7. 6. To improve the use of administrative data
Administrative data used in Census 2011:
addresses from HCSO’s Address Register for the frame, information from Population Register for non-response imputation
Tasks to do to improve:
to examine the usability of administrative data sources for census purposes, linking data sets from various registers.
11 of 48 census topics are covered fully in admin registers
new statistical law gives authority to take over register data
the required cooperation agreements take a long time to make
In Census 2011 administrative data were used from HCSO’s Address Register for the frame and from the Population Register to gain information for non-response imputation.
To improve the use of register data we are examining the usability of administrative data for census purposes, linking data sets from various registers.
We detected 11 census topics of the total 48 that are covered fully in administrative registers. Quality analysis is still ahead of us.
The new statistical law gives HCSO the authority to take over personally identified register data, however the details of the data takeover must be defined in cooperation agreement between the register owner and the statistical office.
These cooperation agreements take long to make, and we are still waiting for data sets to analyse. To this date we only have demo data sets for testing.

8. 7. Attitude survey 2018
To measure the attitude of respondents about a census executed with personal identification and taking over information from official registers. To examine the attitude of the respondents towards the statistical use of personal administrative data.
New statistical law in Hungary (2016) gives Statistical Office the authority to handle personally identified data
But the public is sensitive towards the safety of personal data because of national traditions, and now for GDPR, Facebook scandal)
Another work that is going on at the moment is the preparation of the decision about anonymity/identification of the questionnaires.
Hungarian Central Statistical Office don’t use names or other identifiers in household surveys and in censuses. It is a sensitive issue in Hungary which has its roots in our history and the fall of communism. Anonymity plays central role in our communication and is the basis of the cooperation with the data providers.
But it is very difficult to evaluate the sensitivity of the public. In June-July we shall do a survey to measure the attitude of the respondents about a census executed with personal identification. The timing is not the most fortunate because of the GDPR and the Facebook scandal. But we are optimistic.
So to summarise: we plan a combined census but the extent of administrative data that can be used is still not clear. And anonymity is also an important issue to deal with.

9. Thank you for your attention!