InGRID summer THE INSTITUTIONAL school POPULATION - Leuven (BE), - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

European Social Survey

ESS is a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ESS ERIC)

THE INSTITUTIONAL POPULATION

• HOW EUROPEAN SURVEYS

COULD EXTEND THE COVERAGE Jan-Lucas Schanze (GESIS)

InGRID summer school

Leuven (BE), 31/05/16

Contents

I. SERISS work package 2.5 II. The institutional population in Europe – an elusive population III. Sampling frames and ineligible cases in the ESS-R6 IV. Fieldwork – Adapting standards & procedures

2

• I. SERISS WP 2.5

Including the institutional population into a sample survey of the general population

3

SERISS work package 2.5

Including the institutional population into a sample survey of the general population “Report on sampling practices for the institutionalised population in social surveys” (until 12/2016) “Report on what persons live in institutions and the most relevant institution types they live in, the availability of data to select them their ability to be reached in practice” (until 07/2018) Work package partners:

• European Social Survey (ESS)
• Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE)
• Generations and Gender Programme (GGP)

4

Key questions for SERISS 2.5

Who lives in institutions?

• Coming up with a clear, cross-national definition that minimizes
• verlaps with the private population

To what extent does the institutional population differ from the private population? Does an inclusion of the proportionally rather small institutional population have an impact on statistical estimates? How can we sample the institutional population?

• Institutions-only sampling vs. general population sampling

Do we need to adapt our fieldwork instruments? What are differences and similarities between EU+ countries in this respect?

5

• II. THE INSTITUTIONAL

POPULATION

6

Defining and describing an elusive population

Definition

According to the OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms institutions can be classified as:

Educational institutions Health care institutions Institutions for retired and elderly persons Military institutions Religious institutions Other institutions (e.g. penal facilities, refugee accommodations, hotels)

If they offer “managed accommodation” to a group of (mostly) unrelated inhabitants who cannot run their own household A definition should enable interviewers to identify institutions in the field (and exclude institutional residents if required by survey guidelines)

7

An elusive population?

Most social surveys and administrative data collections only include the population in private households Hard-to-sample

• A rare, but not a hidden population
• Using sampling frames for a probability sampling requires extensive

screenings

• Availability of multiple sampling frames?

Hard-to-identify (sometimes)

• It can be a sensitive information if a household member lives in an

institution

• Defining borderline cases

Hard-to-contact

• Operators of institutions and relatives as gatekeepers

Hard-to-interview

• Language barriers, functional and cognitive impairments (dementia)

8

Quantifying the institutional population

0,43 0,52 0,79 1,18 1,32 1,78 2,09 2,46 1 2 3 4 5

EU-28: 5,703,263 (2011)

% of entire population

9

Institutional population >=85 years old

Share of population aged 85 years and over living in an institutional household, by NUTS-2, 2011 Among those >=85: 12:6% (1.35 million persons) Among those 65-84: 1.7% (1.34 million persons) Source: Eurostat. 2015. People in the EU - Who are we and how do we live.

10

Rationales for an inclusion

It is not the quantitative size of the institutional population that might demand an inclusion but the distinctiveness of this subpopulation The British ONS calculated significant differences (between CES estimates and LFS estimates) in terms of:

• Gender and age distribution
• Economic activity
• Medical condition

Luppa et al. compared nursing home institutionalization in a meta- analysis, further explanatory variables are:

• Housing (not own house)
• Ethnicity (white Americans)
• Low income and low education

Huge differences between different types of institution

11

• III. ESS SAMPLING

FRAMES

12

The institutional population within a gross sample of the general population

ESS: Sampling frames and the institutional population

The specifications of the ESS define institutional households as ineligible

• Contact form data reveal how many sampling units were defined as

ineligible institutions (var. outinval): N = 257 (0.28%)

Classification of sampling frames in the ESS (R6)

• Frames of individuals: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany,

Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland

• Frames of dwelling units/households: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech

Republic, France, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, United Kingdom

• No frame available, random route technique or listing required:

Lithuania, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine

13

Institutions in the ESS R6 contact data

RU FR LT DE NL NO

0,0% 0,5% 1,0% 1,5% 2,0%

Frame of individuals Frame of dwelling units Frame of buildings/Random route % of the gross sample

14

Sampling the institutional population

Hard-to-sample? Generally an inclusion is possible if the institutional population is defined as part of the target population in the survey

• Institutional population underrepresented in the national gross samples
• f the ESS

BUT: Data collection in institutions depends upon country-specific sampling frame affect the data collection in institutions?

• How are institutional residents registered (taking into account the

different types of institutions)?

• Does the frame exclude institutional residents?
• Does the frame allow an identification of institutional residents?

Oversampling required (as in the Dutch ESS survey) as the institutional population is too rare

15

• IV. FIELDWORK

Adapting standards & procedures

16

Which adaptations of fieldwork instruments are necessary in

• rder to meet the specific requirements of institutional residents?

Reminder: Hard-to-contact & Hard-to-interview

Acknowledging the role of gatekeepers (operator of the institution, relatives) and obtain their consent and support (advance letters etc.) to boost the response rate Cognitive screeners prior to an interview in order to exclude respondents who are not able to answer questions ( dementia) Facilitating the task to answer (questionnaire design; question wording; question types, e.g. yes/no-dummies, numbered ratings) Be ready to relax standards and standard procedures Hire very experienced interviewers and provide them with special training

• II. Fieldwork

17

SERISS 2.5 relies on (national) expertise and collects information. Fundamental questions need to be answered for each country, information about some of the following aspects are highly appreciated: Are you aware of surveys that included the institutional population in your country? How could surveys sample the institutional population (in your country)? How could they adapt their fieldwork instruments?

Questions

18

CONTACT

0049 621 1246 293 P.O. Box 12 21 55 68072 Mannheim (GER) jan-lucas.schanze@gesis.org