1. 2007 Census Test Design Dr. Jaime Collins Field Design, 2011 Census

2. 1. Research Objectives 2. General details of the design 3. Local Authority (LA) selection criteria 4. ED (Enumeration District) selection per LA 5. ED selection by Enumeration Targeting Categorisation (ETC) 6. Census Test Evaluation Survey (CTES) 7. Questions Overview

3. 3 key objectives: 1. Delivery method: post-out vs. hand-delivery 2. Income: Income questions vs. no income questions questions 3. Outsourcing field staff recruitment, training and pay and pay Research objectives

4. Date – Sunday 13 May 2007 *Reduced Sample – just over 100,000 households within 515 EDs within 5 LAs. 3 delivery attempts (hand-delivery only) and 3 follow-up attempts and reminder card 4 Treatment groups assigned at ED level – delivery method and income factors crossed. General details of the design 1

5. General details of the design 2 Balancing EDs in each treatment group balanced within each LA.EDs in each treatment group balanced within each LA. EDs and households balanced in each treatment group and ETC stratum,EDs and households balanced in each treatment group and ETC stratum, -i.e.5,000 households for each treatment group in each ETC strata: (5,000 x 4) x 5 = 100,000 (5,000 x 4) x 5 = 100,000 Power - Delivery method 6.7% within ETC stratum - Income 3% overall difference - Income 3% overall difference

6. LAs selected: Bath and North-East Somerset, Camden, Carmarthenshire, Liverpool and Stoke on Trent Key selection criteria: a ‘representative’ sample of LAs found withina ‘representative’ sample of LAs found within England and Wales; England and Wales; one LA in Wales;one LA in Wales; at least one LA that is enthusiastic for the Test;at least one LA that is enthusiastic for the Test; at least one LA with rapid population movement; andat least one LA with rapid population movement; and at least one LA with rapid development.at least one LA with rapid development. LA sample selection

7. ED selection per LA BathCamCarmLiverStoke Selected EDs 471515219669 Percent of LA 13%29%11%19%14% Table 1: Distribution of EDs per LA

8. ED sample selection ED selection 499 (97%) EDs randomly selected499 (97%) EDs randomly selected 16 (3%) EDs purposively selected to take into account specific operational and/or practical issues16 (3%) EDs purposively selected to take into account specific operational and/or practical issues * Original sample - 564 EDs. 48 randomly selected EDs dropped following Address Checking (8 from ETCs1-3, 12 from ETCs 4-5). 1 further ED dropped during data collection.

9. ED selection by ETC Table 2: Distribution of EDs by ETC ETCAll Eng and Wales EDs 2007 Test EDs PercFreqPerc 1 v. easy-to-count60%10019% 220%9218% 310%9619% 48%11122% 5 v. hard-to-count2%11623%

10. The Census Test Evaluation Survey 1 CAPI Survey carried out in June-July 2007 3 key objectives: Measure coverage Understanding/interpretation of new questions Reasons for non-response Sample: Sample of addresses within 87 EDs -25/05/07 early respondent sample -26/06/07 late respondent and non-respondent sample

11. The Census Test Evaluation Survey 2 CTES response Contact attemptAgreed 2007 Test response group Freq Perc Early response 99275276% Late response 70547167% No response 65224738% Table 3: CTES response rates by 2007 Test response

12. The Census Test Evaluation Survey 3 CTES 2007 Test respondent questions: 1.Coverage Captured 2007 Test data preloaded. Established usual residents/visitors in CTES and probed differences 2.Questionnaire design and content 3.Re-asked questions (language, qualifications and income) 4.Delivery ( appearance and condition of questionnaire package) 5.Publicity (Advance card, information leaflet, follow-up card) 6.Future response method (internet) CTES 2007 Test non-respondent questions: (Reasons for non-response, non-respondent characteristics, internet, advance card).

13. Any questions? Thank you

14. Appendix 1 Table A1: EDs by ETC and LA ETCCamLiverStokeBathCarm Total 1022192435 100 244027813 92 38591874 96 46830580 111 57145000 116 Total151196694752515

15. Appendix 2 Table A2: Removed EDs by ETC and LA ETCCamLiverStokeBathCarm Total 100044 8 204400 8 308000 8 484000 12 584000 Total162044448

16. Appendix 3 Table A3: CTES 2007 Test respondents by ETC and LA ETCCamLiverStokeBathCarm Total 1008358125 266 25317842573 252 33372315557 248 43372315557 229 5125103000 228 Total2112672592312551,223

17. Appendix 4 Table A4: CTES 2007 Test non-respondents by ETC and LA ETCCamLiverStokeBathCarm Total 100121110 33 2102201514 61 3712811 49 401410200 44 53624000 60 Total5352505735247

18. Appendix 5 VariableNumeratorDenominator Age Persons 19-29 years (2001 Census) All persons (2001 Census) Ethnicity HHs with Black or Asian persons (2001 Census) All HHs (2001 Census) HH type Rented and part-rented HHs (2001 Census) All HHs (2001 Census) HH tenure Rented and part-rented HHs (2001 Census) All HHs (2001 Census) Income JSA and income support claimants (DWP data) Persons 19-64 years (2001 Census) Table A5: Variables used in ETC calculation