Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:15:36.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Counting and estimating hard-to-survey populations in the 2011 Census

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Owen Abbott
Affiliation:
Office for National Statistics, UK
Garnett Compton
Affiliation:
Office for National Statistics, UK
Roger Tourangeau
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Brad Edwards
Affiliation:
Westat Research Organisation, Maryland
Timothy P. Johnson
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Kirk M. Wolter
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Nancy Bates
Affiliation:
US Census Bureau
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The census provides a once-in-a decade opportunity to get an accurate, comprehensive, and consistent picture of the population of the United Kingdom. Every effort is made to ensure everyone is counted. The field operation includes many different methods for attempting to count everyone within its overall strategy, and this can include targeting populations that are known to be hard to count. However, no census is perfect and some people are missed, particularly those from hard-to-count groups. These are not uniformly distributed across geography or important subgroups of the population, such as age and sex groups.

A key output from the census is local authority population estimates by age and sex. Local authorities are the 348 local government areas that vary in size from 5,000 to 1 million people. It is important that these census outputs are fit for the purposes they will be put to – for example, resource allocation where hard-to-count minority groups can be those that attract higher levels of funding. To address the likely census nonresponse, a survey-based approach is used to estimate the population that is missed, and the results are used to adjust the census dataset to include representation for that nonresponse. This approach was used successfully in the 2001 Census.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, O. (2007). 2011 United Kingdom Census coverage assessment and adjustment strategy. Population Trends, 127, 7–14. Retrieved from .Google Scholar
Abbott, O. (2009a). Precision of census estimates for different levels and patterns of census response. Unpublished paper. Available on request.
Abbott, O. (2009b). 2011 United Kingdom Census coverage assessment and adjustment methodology. Population Trends, 137, 25–32. Retrieved from .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. J. (2000). Design of a census coverage survey and its use in the estimation and adjustment of census underenumeration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton.
Brown, J., Abbott, O., & Diamond, I. (2006). Dependence in the one-number census project. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 169, 883–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., Abbott, O., & Smith, P. (2011). Design of the 2001 and 2011 census coverage surveys for England and Wales. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174, Part 4, 881–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., & Sexton, C. (2009). Estimates from the Census and the Census Coverage Survey. Paper presented at the 14th Government Statistical Service Methodology Conference, London. Retrieved from .
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques (3rd edn.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (3rd edn.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hogan, H. (1993). The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: operations and results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1047–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogan, H. (2003). The accuracy and coverage evaluation: theory and design. Survey Methodology, 29, 129–38.Google Scholar
Office for National Statistics (2005). Census 2001 General Report for England and Wales. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2006). Census 2001 Quality Report for England and Wales. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2008). 2011 Census: Strategic Aim and Key Research in England and Wales. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2009a). 2011 Census Data Quality Assurance Strategy. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2009b). Predicting Patterns of Household Nonresponse in the 2011 Census. Census Advisory Group paper AG(09)17. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2009c). Report of a privacy impact assessment conducted by the Office for National Statistics for the 2011 Census of England and Wales. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2010a). Final Recommended Questions for the 2011 Census in England and Wales: Enumeration Base Questions, Usual Residence, Short-term UK Residents and Visitors. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2010b). Framework for Getting the Count Right for Key Population Target Groups. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2012a). 2011 Census Coverage Survey: Evaluation Report. Retrieved from .
Office for National Statistics.(2012b). Making a National Adjustment to the 2011 Census. Retrieved from .
Presser, S., Rothgeb, J. M., Couper, M. J., Lessler, J. T., Martin, E., Martin, J., et al. (2004). Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seber, G. A. F. (1982). The Estimation of Animal Abundance and Related Parameters (2nd edn.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Statistics Commission. (2004). Census and population estimates, and the 2001 Census in Westminster: final report. Report no. 22. London: Author.
Willis, G. B. (1999). Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×