1. 1 Disabilities: Census Vs. Administrative Sources Zohar Chessakov and Carole Feldmann Census and Demography Department Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem, Israel Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

2. 2 Subjects Study Goals Comparison of 2008 Population Census with Administrative Sources Age patterns Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

3. 3 Study Goals Determine target groups for the 2012 CBS Disability Survey Find and examine the population who was defined as disabled in the Census and in Administrative sources Census definition and limitation Administrative sources definition and limitation Harmonization and discrepancies between self report and eligibility Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

4. 4 Data sources 2008 Population Census- Four questions based on the WG short set of questions for censuses + Persons registered as having heavy vision disabilities NII- National Insurance Institute: Data on persons who receive handicap allowance, including of the amount of the grant MOSA1- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons registered in municipal social services ; Including needs as defined by the social services MOSA2- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons placed in institutions or receiving community services supplied or financed by the ministry MOD- Ministry of Defense- Recipients of handicap allowances, severity percents Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

5. 5 Methodology Sumq- A continuous variable was computed based on the responses to the questions about disability in the census: response of “no difficulty” got a value of 0, response of “some difficulty” got a value of 0.1, response of “a lot of difficulty” got a value of 3 and response of “cannot at all” got a value of 20. This variable got a range from 0 to 100. Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

6. 6 Disability: 2008 Census Vs. Administrative Sources (percents) Ministry of defense MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for: MOSA1– persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as: NIICBS Recipients of handicap allowances Autismhandicap the blind old age mental challenged Mental illness Handicap Health problems (excluding general disability and autism) Nursing care Disability or health problem Recipients of handicap allowances Census 62.779.545.78.619.727.842.952.641.431.910.036.548.5 No difficulty at all 23.57.616.11.729.116.015.322.314.721.118.620.019.8 At least one some difficulty 12.08.220.525.039.825.421.120.124.033.546.529.423.0 At least one a lot of difficulty 1.84.717.764.711.430.820.75.019.913.524.914.18.7 At least one can not at all 100 Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

7. 7 Age 0-18 Ministry of defense MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for: MOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as: NIICBS Recipients of handicap allowances Autismhandicap the blind old age mental challenged Mental illness Handicap Health problems (excluding general disability and autism) Nursing care Disability or health problem Recipients of handicap allowances Census ---79.556.229.3---29.243.18060.778.6---67.153.7 No difficulty at all ---6.810.93.0---7.99.912.68.37.0---8.410.1 At least one some difficulty ---8.218.521.2---24.921.15.815.89.0---13.320.8 At least one a lot of difficulty ---5.514.446.5---38.025.91.615.25.4---11.215.4 At least one can not at all ---100 ---100 ---100 Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

8. 8 Age 19-64 Ministry of defense MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for: MOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as: NIICBS Recipients of handicap allowances Autismhandicap the blind old age mental challenged Mental illness Handicap Health problems (excluding general disability and autism) Nursing care Disability or health problem Recipients of handicap allowances Census 67.479.642.64.029.028.044.157.145.456.940.554.249.4 No difficulty at all 21.18.217.80.929.017.816.222.015.919.222.417.820.4 At least one some difficulty 10.38.221.330.029.025.420.317.721.219.228.818.522.4 At least one a lot of difficulty 1.24.118.375.213.028.819.43.217.54.78.39.57.8 At least one can not at all 100 Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

9. 9 Minors who’s parents receiving handicap allowance from NII Severity of disability:NumberPercentage No difficulty at all12,57697.54% At least one domain with Some difficulty1881.46% At least one domain with a lot of difficulty990.77% At least one domain with cannot at all300.23% total12,893100% Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

10. 10 Age 65+ Ministry of defense MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for: MOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as: NIICBS Recipients of handicap allowances Autismhandicap the blind old age mental challenged Mental illness Handicap Health problems (excluding general disability and autism) Nursing care Disability or health problem Recipients of handicap allowances Census 33.8--- 1.419.58.220.717.413.315.99.416.926.6 No difficulty at all 38.2---28.62.129.126.228.427.216.923.318.623.927.9 At least one some difficulty 22.9---14.335.540.031.234.639.138.942.546.841.035.0 At least one a lot of difficulty 5.1---57.161.011.434.416.3 30.918.325.218.210.5 At least one can not at all 100 Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

11. Average annual handicap allowance* (NII) 2008 Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 CensusPercentage of Persons NIS** No difficulty at all48.5%24,564 At least one domain with Some difficulty19.8%30,102 At least one domain with a lot of difficulty23.0%35,761 At least one domain with cannot at all8.7%53,382 Total100%30,743 * The sum of allowance is related to average earning of the handicapped ** NIS – New Israeli Shekel 11 Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

12. 12 Average percentage of handicap (MOD) Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 CensusPercentage of Persons Percentage of handicap No difficulties at all62.7%13.3% At least one domain with Some difficulty23.5%18.4% At least one domain with a lot of difficulty12.0%25.9% At least one domain with cannot at all1.8%54.8% Total100%16.7% Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

13. Persons receiving allowances (NII) Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%1.3%5.7%12.2%80.8%Hearing 100%1.6%0.8%------97.6%Vision* 100%2.5%9.3%16.3%71.9%“Cognition” 100%4.5%7.5%10.0%78.0%ADL 100%4.7%17.2%16.1%62.0%Mobility 100%8.7%23.0%19.8%48.5%Total * Extended from administrative sources; includes persons with severe vision impairments and blind persons 13 Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

14. 14 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as a disability or health problem Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%1.8%12.2%20.0%66.0%Hearing 100%2.5%1.7%------95.8%Vision 100%3.8%13.0%23.2%60.0%“Cognition” 100%8.5%14.4%15.0%62.1%ADL 100%7.8%25.6%19.3%47.3%Mobility 100%14.1%29.4%20.0%36.5%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

15. 15 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as nursing care Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%2.1%23.2%31.8%42.9%Hearing 100%2.2%1.6%------96.2%Vision 100%6.3%21.8%33.3%38.6%“Cognition” 100%17.8%30.0%23.8%28.4%ADL 100%16.7%46.5%22.4%14.4%Mobility 100%24.9%46.5%18.6%10.0%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

16. 16 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as health problem (excluding general disability and autism) Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%1.4%14.5%23.0%61.1%Hearing 100%1.4% ------97.2%Vision 100%3.4%13.5%25.7%57.4%“Cognition” 100%9.1%16.8%16.9%57.2%ADL 100%8.5%30.7%21.4%39.4%Mobility 100%13.4%33.6%21.1%31.9%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

17. 17 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as handicap Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%3.9%9.1%13.9%73.1%Hearing 100%7.6%4.5%------87.9%Vision 100%3.2%10.3%17.6%68.9%“Cognition” 100%8.1%10.6%11.3%70.0%ADL 100%8.5%19.2%14.8%57.5%Mobility 100%19.9%24.0%14.7%41.4%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

18. 18 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental illness Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%0.6%5.2%11.9%82.3%Hearing 100%0.5%0.3%------99.2%Vision 100%1.9%11.6%21.6%64.9%“Cognition” 100%3.1%6.3%9.7%80.9%ADL 100%2.6%13.3%16.3%67.8%Mobility 100%5.0%20.1%22.3%52.6%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

19. 19 Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental challenged Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%2.9%6.4%10.8%79.9%Hearing 100%1.4%0.5%------98.1%Vision 100%14.3%23.1%17.4%45.2%“Cognition” 100%16.7%14.6%13.8%54.9%ADL 100%10.6%12.1%13.9%63.4%Mobility 100%20.7%21.1%15.3%42.9%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

20. 20 Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for mental challenged Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%3.4%8.5%12.2%75.9%Hearing 100%1.7%0.6%------97.7%Vision 100%23.7%34.6%21.7%20.0%“Cognition” 100%26.8%22.2%21.9%29.1%ADL 100%16.9%14.1%17.1%51.9%Mobility 100%30.8%25.4%16.0%27.8%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

21. 21 Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for old age Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%1.3%17.1%32.3%49.3%Hearing 100%2.0%1.8%------96.2%Vision 100%2.7%17.2%35.9%44.2%“Cognition” 100%6.7%18.7%25.9%48.7%ADL 100%5.4%34.8%30.7%29.1%Mobility 100%11.4%39.8%29.1%19.7%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

22. 22 Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for the blind Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%1.1%9.5%14.1%75.3%Hearing 100%61.9%22.4%------15.7%Vision 100%1.7%7.4%19.3%71.6%“Cognition” 100%5.2%11.2%17.1%66.5%ADL 100%5.9%24.5%18.8%50.8%Mobility 100%64.7%25.0%1.7%8.6%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

23. 23 Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for handicap Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%5.6%6.7%9.7%77.8%Hearing 100%3.3%1.1%------95.6%Vision 100%2.4%14.9%23.2%59.5%“Cognition” 100%11.0%10.5%11.9%66.6%ADL 100%12.8%14.1%12.7%60.4%Mobility 100%17.7%20.5%16.1%45.7%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

24. 24 Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for autism Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%2.3%3.4%------94.3%Hearing 100%------ 100%Vision 100%10.9%21.8%25.5%41.8%“Cognition” 100%3.6%20.0%18.2%58.2%ADL 100%------1.8%7.3%90.9%Mobility 100%4.7%8.2%7.6%79.5%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

25. 25 Persons receiving disability allowance (MOD) Disability severityDisability domains responded in 2008 census TotalNot able at all A lot of difficulty Some difficulty No difficulty at all 100%0.2%0.2%6.7%6.7%18.9%74.2%Hearing 100%0.2%0.2%0.2%0.2%------99.6%Vision 100%0.3%2.6%9.0%88.1%“Cognition” 100%0.9%0.9%1.4%1.4%2.9%2.9%94.8%ADL 100%1.2%6.0%6.0%10.1%82.7%Mobility 100%1.8%12.0%23.5%62.7%Total Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

26. Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - rows percentages Difficulty Hearing in Census Not eligibleEligibleTotal No difficulty at all*99.8%0.2%100% Some difficulty99.0%1.0%100% A lot of difficulty97.3%2.7%100% Can not at all72.7%27.3%100% Total99.5%0.5%100% * With hearing aid 26 * With hearing aid Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

27. 27 Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - columns percentages Difficulty Hearing in Census Not eligibleEligibleTotal No difficulty at all86.0%25.1%85.6% Some difficulty8.8%16.5%8.9% A lot of difficulty4.7%24.0%4.8% Can not at all0.5%34.4%0.7% Total100% Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

28. 28 Conclusions (1) Nursing care and health problems are relatively well covered by the census questions Mental illness and handicap are under covered Severe disability are covered relatively well Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

29. 29 Conclusions (2) Under coverage at the younger age group (0-18) Good coverage at the older age group (65+) (almost in all the disability domains) Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

30. 30 Conclusions (3) The domain with the highest minor severity frequency is cognition. The domain with the intermediate severity frequency is mobility. The domain with the high severity frequency is ADL (self-care). Zohar Chessakov, WG 10 th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

31. 31 THANK YOU