Paper 1 TGK 2/01 Technical Group Minutes 25/11/2005
Page 1
SCOTTISH HOUSEHOLD SURVEY
TECHNICAL GROUP MEETING
25th November 2005
MINUTES OF MEETING
Present:
John Tibbitt (Chair- DD: ASD Senior Principal Researcher)
Elinor Devlin(DD: ASD Social Research, SHS Project Manager)
Lisa Taylor (DD: ASD Social Research, SHS Research Officer)
Frank Dixon (DD: ASD Transport Statistics)
Mairi MacAskill (DD: ASD Transport Statistics)
Duncan Gray (DD ASD Senior Statistician)
Robert Williams (ASG, Office of Chief Statistician)
Steven Hope (MORI Scotland)
Katherine Myant (MORI Scotland)
Pat MacLeod (TNS)
Candice Pires (TNS)
1. Welcome & Introductions
John Tibbitt welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted this was Elinor Devlin’s first
Technical Group meeting as the new SHS Project Manager.
2. Minutes and action points from previous meeting
Minutes


Robert Williams asked for a change in the previous minutes. The blanket
reference to central resource should be removed from the first paragraph of
page 7.
Frank Dixon asked that the acronym ‘DNA’ should not be used in future
papers, to avoid confusion.
Action Point Status
The group went through the status of the action points and noted progress. It was noted that
the outstanding action points on SHS management arrangements and data analysis would be
best dealt with in conjunction with the planned questionnaire consultation.
Action Point:


SHS Team to update minutes from meeting held on 7th September.
Duncan Gray to minute all lead analysts and ASD heads on general analytical
responsibility/topic ownership and highlight importance of the need for resources
to be put into questionnaire consultation.
Paper 1 TGK 2/01 Technical Group Minutes 25/11/2005
Page 2
3. Fieldwork Progress
Steven Hope up-dated the group on the fieldwork progress for 2005 to date as outlined in
paper 2. The response rate for the survey has been 64% based on the number of interviews
achieved on ‘closed’ months. He indicated that overall, the survey is in a similar position to
last year, when 93% of the target had been completed. It was expected by the time the 2005
data in closed, the fieldwork would be 97% complete with a response rate of 69%.
John Tibbitt noted the efforts both TNS and MORI had put into fieldwork progress
throughout 2005, particularly the efforts put into improving the targets at the beginning of the
year. It was noted that continued efforts needed to be made throughout next year.
Lisa Taylor noted that there would be a meeting of the contract/reporting group before the
end of the year to discuss end of year figures and timetable for next year.
4. Weighting Developments
Steven Hope reported that his initial paper on SHS weighting had been circulated around
colleagues in TNS and MORI for initial comment. He noted there had been discussion and
feedback on various weighting options.
Lisa Taylor noted that an external expert should still be invited to comment on an initial draft
of the weighting paper.
Action

Steven Hope to update the next Technical Group on weighting paper developments.
5. Changes to Current Questionnaire
Lisa Taylor summarised the suggested changes to the current volunteering question (due to
apparent ‘under-counting’ in respondents reporting volunteering activity) and response codes
to two current transport questions, as outlined in paper 4. It was proposed that the changes
should be made from January 2006.
The following was noted during discussion:


Clarification with policy colleagues is needed on the extent to which the SHS
questions are intended to include informal volunteering. Some of the “undercounting” in the new questions might be the loss of ‘informal volunteering’. Before
the possible reinstate of RF11, it needs to be clear whether the possible inclusion of
informal volunteering is intended.
What would be the effect on the estimates of moving the 2005 volunteering questions
so that they are not asked 40 minutes into the questionnaire? Lisa Taylor noted the
possibility of including volunteering question in the social policy monitor. She noted
it would potentially provide a comparator dataset against which to compare the level
Paper 1 TGK 2/01 Technical Group Minutes 25/11/2005
Page 3



of volunteering in the 2005 data and to test to see if respondent fatigue and the
question location in the questionnaire was indeed the problem. John Tibbitt noted that
this might be worthwhile scoping out.
Robert Williams noted that this raised a question about the quality and value of the
2005 volunteering data. Duncan Gray agreed that any dissemination of 2005
volunteering should be provided with an appropriate caveat.
John Tibbitt noted that changes to the current volunteering questions should have
policy sign off.
Frank Dixon noted that a list of the write in’s to the response code ‘other ‘ for
TGROW2 and CONGEST3 were needed to enable final agreement on codes with
policy colleagues.
The changes, in principle, were endorsed by the group.
Action Points:




Lisa Taylor to liaise with Voluntary Issues research on the issues concerning the
intention of informal volunteering in the questionnaire.
Lisa Taylor to liaise with Voluntary Issues research on possibility of inclusion of
volunteer questions in the social policy monitor and relevant contact in OCR.
Steven Hope to provide analysis on the whole volunteer set for quarters 1 & 2 2005.
Steven Hope to produce list of ‘other’ response codes for TGROW2 and
CONGEST3.
6. Questionnaire Consultation Process
Lisa Taylor summarised the draft guidance note and proformas and thanked Frank Dixon for
his time in producing the draft guidance notes for lead analysts.
The Technical Group endorsed the general approach and timetable outlined in the papers. The
following was noted during discussion:




A sub-group of the Technical Group would need to meet for agreement of the
‘background’ questions and final agreement of topic modules.
It was agreed that current question times should be highlighted to give analysts an
indicative idea of how much time they have at present.
Robert Williams noted that analysts should be given the option to highlight analysis
by population sub-group.
A separate note would have to be disseminated on the SHS website to catch any
external interest.
Action

SHS Team to amend questionnaire consultation papers before distribution to lead
analysts.
Paper 1 TGK 2/01 Technical Group Minutes 25/11/2005
Page 4
7. Any Other Business
Cultural Participation Survey:
Robert Williams noted that funding for this survey is still awaiting Ministerial approval.
Given the SHS’s movement towards a more flexible design, Robert noted the feasibility of
there being a module on cultural participation in the SHS.
The group agreed that Sandra Campbell would be invited to bid for questions via the
questionnaire consultation process.
Large Scale Survey: Metadata and Question Coverage Database Contract
Robert Williams briefed the group on the above contract which OCS hoped to fund. He
highlighted the need for a database that could be used by the large scale surveys to store
information about each of the surveys. The database would be used by large scale surveys to
manage content reviews and help harmonisation.
He noted that OCS do not have the staff at present to manage the contract and that he was
awaiting feedback from the other surveys and from OCR on their willingness and resource
capacity to lead this project.
Follow-up Survey Request- MVA:
Elinor Devlin asked the group to consider a follow-up survey request by MVA, who wish to
conduct follow-up research (focus group and potentially a survey). The technical group
endorsed this request as it was for the long-distance commuting topic report.
8. Date of next meeting
General Technical Group meetings will commence early to mid- January 2006.
It was noted by members that ad hoc Technical group meetings (or sub-groups of) would be
useful throughout the questionnaire consultation process.
Action Point

SHS Team to organise meeting dates and rooms for 2006 and confirm dates.
9. Analytical Topic Reports

Mode Choice, Accessibility & Transport
Paper 1 TGK 2/01 Technical Group Minutes 25/11/2005
Page 5
Lisa Taylor reported that these topic reports had now been published via the website and via
hard copy distribution. Many people wanted hard copies of the main findings.

Childcare
Lisa Taylor reported that this was slightly behind schedule due to problems with the 2004
data. These were now rectified and a draft report has been produced for comment.

Carers
Lisa Taylor reported that proposals had been received and a meeting had been scheduled for
discussion of proposals and decision on winning tender with community care policy
colleagues and Health Research.

Long-distance Commuters
Frank Dixon reported that an inception meeting had taken place with the contractors and that
analysis would be starting soon.
10. SHS Review Update
Duncan Gray gave a brief summary of the last Review Board meeting. The majority of the
options put forward by the review contractors were discussed (via an options paper) and
agreed in principle by the Review Board. It was noted that there was a final Review Board
meeting scheduled at the beginning of December to discuss next steps. However it was
suggested it would be better to have this meeting when the business case had been produced.
Ministerial approval of budget is needed before review options can be taken forward. Duncan
Gray and John Tibbitt noted that the previous SHS business case should be exhumed and
updated as a starting point for discussion at the next Review Board. John Tibbitt noted that
discussions with SPD about the next SHS contract had been initiated.
Lisa Taylor noted that the contractor’s final report was ready to put onto the SHS website.
The final report had been circulated to Technical Group members for final comment and for
suggestions on appropriate wording for the caveat.
Technical Group members agreed on dissemination of the final contactors review report via
the SHS website.
Action Point
 SHS Team to put final review report onto SHS Website for general dissemination
with appropriate caveat.
 John Tibbitt & Duncan Gray to update SHS business case for Ministerial
agreement on SHS budget and to report back at next Review Board and Technical
Group.