Communal Establishments Survey
Findings of the Pilot Stage: Summary Report
Genevieve Groom, Louise Morris and Maria Tortoriello
November 2008 – May 2009
1
ISBN XXXXXXXXXX
Copyright and reproduction
ISSN XXXX–XXXX
© Crown copyright 2009
Published with the permission of the Office of Public Sector
A National Statistics publication
Information (OPSI)
National Statistics are produced to high professional standards
You may use this publication (excluding logos) free of charge in
any format for research, private study or internal circulation
within an organisation providing it is used accurately and not in
a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as
Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source
publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright
material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright
holders concerned.
set out in the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. They are
produced free from political influence.
About us
The Office for National Statistics
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is the executive office
For re-use of this material you must apply for a Click-Use
Public Sector Information (PSI) Licence from:
of the UK Statistics Authority, a non-ministerial department
which reports directly to Parliament. ONS is the UK
Office of Public Sector Information, Crown Copyright Licensing
and Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9
4DU
government’s single largest statistical producer. It compiles
information about the UK’s society and economy, and provides
Tel: 020 8876 3444
the evidence-base for policy and decision-making, the
www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/index.htm
allocation of resources, and public accountability. The DirectorGeneral of ONS reports directly to the National Statistician who
is the Authority's Chief Executive and the Head of the
Government Statistical Service.
The Government Statistical Service
The Government Statistical Service (GSS) is a network of
professional statisticians and their staff operating both within
the Office for National Statistics and across more than 30 other
government departments and agencies.
Contacts
This publication
For information about the content of this publication, contact
Louise Morris
Tel: 01633 456323
Email: louise.morris@ons.gsi.gov.uk
Other customer enquiries
ONS Customer Contact Centre
Tel: 0845 601 3034
International: +44 (0)845 601 3034
Minicom: 01633 815044
Email: info@statistics.gsi.gov.uk
Fax: 01633 652747
Post: Room 1015, Government Buildings,
Cardiff Road, Newport, South Wales NP10 8XG
www.ons.gov.uk
2
Media enquiries
Tel: 0845 604 1858
Email: press.office@ons.gsi.gov.uk
Contents
Executive Summary
Key recommendations
1. Overview
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Background
1.3
2011 Census Approach
1.4
Previous Studies
1.5
Purpose of the pilot
2
Stage 1: Get-in-touch Exercise
2.1
Survey Sample Design
2.1.1
Register Sources
2.1.2
Pilot Survey Sample Design
2.2
Get-in-touch Exercise (Telephone Unit)
2.2.1
Aims of the Stage 1 Pilot
2.2.2
Definitions
2.2.3
Fieldwork
2.2.4
Questionnaire
2.2.5
Training
2.2.6
Process
2.2.7
Post-interviewing
2.3
Results of the Stage 1 Pilot: The ‘Get-in-touch’ Exercise
2.3.1
Response
2.3.2
Type of Communal Establishment
2.3.3
Length of Interview
2.3.4
Non contacts
2.4
Summary Findings
3. Stage 2: Communal Establishment Manager and Resident Interviews
3.1
Sample and Fieldwork Design
3.2
Survey Procedures
3.2.1
NHS-Funded Accommodation
3.2.2
CAPI Questionnaire
3.2.3
Self-Completion Questionnaire
3.2.4
Data Collection and Methodology Cognitive Testing
3.2.5
Showcards
3.2.6
Training
3.3
Post-Interviewing
3.4
Findings – Manager Stage
3.4.1
Response
3.4.2
Eligibility of Communal Establishment
3.4.3
Type of Communal Establishment
3.4.4
Resident Selection
3.4.5
Eligibility of Residents
3.4.6
Proxy Interviews
3.5
Resident Stage
3.5.1
Sex, Age and Marital Status
3.5.3
Ethnicity and Religion
3.5.4
Employment Status
3.6
Migrants
3.6.1
Identification of Migrants
3.6.2
Analysis of Migrant Population
3
6
8
10
10
11
12
12
13
14
14
14
16
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
22
22
22
23
24
24
25
28
28
30
32
32
32
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
36
36
39
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
41
3.6.3
Migrants Excluding Halls of Residence
3.7
Self-Completion
3.7.1
Response
3.7.2
Type of Establishment
3.7.3
Sex, Age and Marital Status
3.7.4
Ethnicity and Religion
3.7.5
Employment Status
3.7.6
Migrants
3.8
Summary Conclusions
4.
Recommendations and Issues
4.1
Key Recommendations
4.1.1
Get-in-touch Stage
4.1.2
Main Interview Stage
4.2
Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Migrants
4.3
ONSCD requirements
Annex A – Advance Letters
TU Advance letter – with telephone number
TU Advance letter – no telephone number
TU Contact form
Main Interview Stage - Advance letter sent to Communal Establishment
Main Interview Stage - Advance letter sent to Communal Establishment ‘other
contact’
Resident Interview - Letter accompanying s/c questionnaire
Annex B – Table of Definitions
Annex C: Face-to-Face Questionnaire
Communal Establishment Questions
Resident Questions
Annex D: Self-Completion Questionnaire
Annex E: Summary Findings from Interviewer Debrief
4
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46
47
51
51
51
52
53
53
54
54
56
57
58
59
60
61
65
65
67
78
92
List of Tables
Table 1: 2001 Census Estimates of Communal Establishment Residents
11
Table 2: Sample Selection for CES Pilot Survey by Government Office Region (GOR)
17
Table 3: SIC Codes Included in the Pilot Sample
18
Table 4: Obtaining Telephone Contact Numbers for Sampled Units
22
Table 5: Get-in-Touch Response, by Source of Sample
23
Table 6: Completed Interviews by Type of Communal Establishment
24
Table 7: Selection of Residents within Communal Establishments
29
Table 8: Selection of Residents for Interview
29
Table 9 Eligibility of Communal Establishment
35
Table 10 Characteristics of Sample of Communal Establishments
36
Table 11 Face-to-face Resident Level Interview Outcomes, by Type of Communal
Establishment
37
Table 12: FtF Resident Contact, by Type of Communal Establishment
38
Table 13: Proportion of Migrants, by Type of Communal Establishment
41
Table 14: Number of migrants, by Residential Capacity of Communal Establishment
42
Table 15: Proportion of Migrants, by Government Office Region
42
Table 16: Proportion of recent migrants, by Government Office Region
43
5
Executive Summary
1. In response to a recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Taskforce on Migration
Statistics, Administrative Sources and Integration Division (ASID) were commissioned
in June 2008 by ONS Centre for Demography (ONSCD) to design, develop and test a
new Communal Establishment Survey (CES). The key purpose of the survey was to
provide estimates of the regional distribution of the CE migrant population and to
gather some information on this population sub-group and CE residents more
generally. The results of the survey would be used to establish: if there are differences
in the characteristics of the migrant household and CE populations; and if current
estimates of the regional distribution of the migrant population may be biased by
including only private households in the calibration of national International Passenger
Survey (IPS) data to provide a regional distribution of migrants. The recommendation
of the taskforce required delivery of mainstage survey outputs by the end of 2009.
This limited the survey design options and the time for survey development work.
2. A pilot CES survey was conducted that aimed to test, as far as possible, the end to end
survey process from drawing the survey sample through to collection and processing
of data. The pilot was based on a two stage design: stage 1 focussing on the sample
frame, selection and validation approach along with a get-in-touch exercise to make
initial contact with and collect basic information on the establishments included in the
sample; while stage 2 of the pilot tested the survey sampling procedures (at CE and
resident level), questionnaire and field materials. The stage 1 pilot was conducted
during November 2008 and the stage 2 pilot during April and May 2009.
3. The key issue identified in Stage 1 was the lack of a comprehensive sampling frame
from which to draw a sample for the CES. After an assessment of available frames
multiple address sources – the Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) and
Postcode Address File (PAF) – were used to draw the sample for the pilot survey.
There are issues relating to both data sources that limit their suitability for the survey
and these issues are discussed further in section 2.1. Due to time constraints, a
pragmatic approach was taken to the selection of the sample for the pilot. The
sampling strategy focussed on maximising the number of eligible addresses selected to
enable a thorough testing of survey procedures. This approach meant that not all
types of CEs (for example caravan parks and accommodation for agricultural workers)
that may be within scope of the survey were included in the pilot.
4. A sample of 384 addresses was selected for the get-in-touch stage, 234 of which were
selected from the PAF (addresses selected for Labour Force Survey but identified as
CEs and thus ineligible) and 150 selected from the IDBR. Limited contact information
was available on the selected addresses and despite use of several processes to
improve the level of information available to interviewers (e.g. tele-matching,) contact
was made with less than half of the selected sample. This high level of non-contact is a
significant cause for concern and the pilot survey highlighted the complexities of
6
sampling in the absence of a comprehensive address register. The pilot did however
also show that, when the appropriate respondent within a selected establishment could
be contacted, there was a high level of cooperation with very few refusals. The
questionnaire appeared to work well, although changes were made to definitions of
establishments and residents between the Telephone Unit (TU) and main interview
stage.
5. The need for a significant amount of further development work was identified, both to
improve sampling frame coverage and to address the issue of non-contact (although
some initial investigation of non-contacted addresses gave no indication of associated
bias). A number of options for improving current procedures have been identified but
it is not possible to assess the impact of implementing these improvements at this
stage.
6. Having made initial contact with selected CEs and collected basic information about
their eligibility for the survey at stage 1, stage 2 of the pilot aimed to achieve 250
resident interviews but actually achieved 117. The low level of contact at the TU stage
limited the scope to effectively cluster addresses for sub-sampling at the face-to-face
interview stage. The interview process was divided into two parts: an interview with
the establishment manager to collect basic information about the establishment,
confirm establishment eligibility and to determine the number of (eligible) residents
from which a sample of residents would be drawn; and interviews with the selected
residents. The number of residents selected for interview varied based on the size of
the selected establishment. (The need for ethical approval to interview in NHS funded
residential accommodation and for independent ethical review prior to interviewing
non-staff residents in all types of care or residential home limited the scope to
interview in these types of establishments. No interviewing was carried out in NHS
funded residential homes and in others interviewing was limited to resident staff).
7. The face to face manager interview worked well with a high level of cooperation and
manager’s able to provide the information required (both information on the
establishment itself and on the eligibility of residents). A 93% response rate was
achieved at the manager interview stage. Nine of the selected CEs were identified as
ineligible, although resident interviews were still conducted to test the survey
processes. Problems were experienced by some interviewers at the manager stage due
to incorrect addresses being provided (e.g. individual flat numbers allocated instead of
an establishment). Interviewers also experienced gatekeeper/access issues in halls of
residence which prevented them from establishing face to face contact with selected
residents.
8. 374 residents were selected for face to face interview, however, only a 37% response
rate was achieved with 117 face to face interviews completed. The main contributing
factor to the low level of response was that interviewers were unable to establish face
to face contact with students in halls of residence due to access issues. Excluding halls
of residence, the response rate was 53%, but caution is needed because of the small
7
number of interviews involved. There were no instances of interviews not taking place
due to language difficulties. Only 7% (8) interviews were carried out by proxy and 1%
(2) using an official interpreter. Where interviews were conducted the questionnaire
worked well. Three variables (Nationality, Country of Birth and National Identity) were
used to identify migrants in CEs. All three variables identified approximately two-thirds
of the sample as UK/British and one-third as migrant. Approximately two-thirds of
respondents identified as migrant lived in educational establishments and over 90%
were located in Scotland and London/South East England. Excluding students,
approximately 80% of the sample was UK/British and 20% were migrants.
9. ONSCD have reviewed their requirements for the survey in order to clarify key
objectives and ensure they could be met by a mainstage CES. As noted previously, the
main purpose of a mainstage survey would be to obtain a regional distribution of
migrant CE residents. Since the completion of the pilot further work has been
undertaken to assess the impact of inclusion of the migrant CE population in the
calibration of IPS data to produce a regional distribution. Work has also been
undertaken to consider an appropriate way forward for the development of the survey.
Based on the findings of the pilot survey and the subsequent work undertaken it is
recommended that alternative approaches to the survey design should be considered
before mainstage survey development work is progressed.
Key recommendations
Recommendation
Get-in-touch stage
R1
Undertake further work to evaluate potential register sources with a view to
developing a mainstage survey design:
- based on more comprehensive coverage of the communal establishment
population
- that adequately takes account of business reporting structures available.
R2
Discuss with LFS team potential to record additional information on CEs during
LFS fieldwork
R3
Introduce additional checking stage to improve quality of LFS address information
prior to TU interview stage.
R4
Introduce additional checking stage to provide supplementary information
including contact numbers in advance of TU contact. Consideration should also be
given to identification and exclusion of ineligible addresses as part of this process.
R5
Include contact sheets with advance letters for full sample, not just those with no
telephone number available.
R6
Review design of get-in-touch stage to ensure that, as far as possible, all required
information is captured for selected sample units (e.g. information on structure
and all communal establishments linked to a selected sampling unit is recorded).
R7
Develop an improved management information system for TU interview shifts in
the absence of electronic call scheduler.
Face-to-face interview stage
R8
Ensure consistent definitions and clear eligibility questions are applied at the TU
and FtF interview stage enabling the majority of ineligible addresses to be
8
R9
R10
R11
R12
R13
R14
R15
R16
excluded at the TU stage.
The time lag between the TU and FtF interview stage should be kept as short as
possible.
Additional guidance should be provided to interviewers on the data protection act
and its implications for CES and fieldwork procedures relating sub-sampling
residents in multiple-occupancy rooms should be refined.
Requirements for inclusion of residential and nursing home CE residents in the
survey should be confirmed and ethical approval sought, if required, for
mainstage survey.
Issues contributing to the low resident response level should be reviewed and
fieldwork procedures amended to address these issues. Consideration should be
given to tailoring the fieldwork design to better fit individual requirements of
different types of establishments.
Alternative data sources and/or methods to encourage participation in the survey
should be considered, in particular with a view to improving the level of response
from students in halls of residence.
Review potential improvements to questionnaire design identified during the pilot
and, if appropriate, implement changes for the mainstage survey.
Review the need for a self-completion component at the mainstage survey. If selfcompletion stage is retained improvements to the questionnaire design identified
during the pilot should be implemented.
Review the need for the inclusion of the national identity question for the
mainstage survey.
9
1.
Overview
1.1
Introduction
In June 2008 ONS Centre for Demography (ONSCD) commissioned Administrative Sources
and Integration Division (ASID) to design, develop and test a new Communal
Establishment Survey. The survey was commissioned to take forward the recommendation
of the Inter-Departmental Taskforce on Migration Statistics to obtain more comprehensive
and timely information about migrants living in the UK.
In particular, the recommendation stated that:
Development of a communal establishment component of the Integrated
Household Survey should be undertaken and a migration module included in the
survey on a regular basis. Suitable survey information collected by local
authorities or those covering the employers or agencies providing work for
migrants should be used by the National Statistics Centre for Demography to
provide a more complete national picture of migrants in the UK. Improvements to
statistics could be delivered in three years (Recommendation B1).
Broadly speaking the aims of the Communal Establishment Survey (CES) are to answer
the questions 'are we missing migrants by only going to the private household
population?' and, if yes, 'are there differences in the characteristics of migrants in the
private household and communal establishment (CE) population'? There is also a need to
produce estimates of migrant numbers in CEs. Areas of particular interest include 'missing
migrants' from the Labour Force Survey (LFS)/IHS. For example:

Foreign students in halls of residence - students in halls of residence who do not have
a UK parental address. (Students are eligible for the Labour Force Survey (LFS) if they
have a parental address that is selected as part of the LFS/Integrated Household
Survey (IHS) household sample)

Agricultural workers in migrant working accommodation (e.g. caravans)

Migrants in 'unusual' housing (e.g. hotel with converted area for migrants)
This report presents the findings of the pilot phase of the survey development. It also
attempts to summarise some of the complexities associated with designing and conducting
surveys of communal establishment residents more generally, many of which require
further consideration before the project can progress to the mainstage survey design.
The report is divided into 4 sections, this introductory section provides background to the
project and outlines its aims. Section 2 describes the design and objectives of the first
stage of the pilot study – the ‘get–in-touch exercise’, discusses some of the issues
considered in developing the pilot design and presents the results and evaluation of this
stage of the pilot. Section 3 describes the design and objectives of the second stage of the
10
pilot – the face to face interview stage. The analysis and conclusions of this stage of the
pilot are summarised. The final section of the report summarises the general conclusions
and considers issues to be addressed as work on the project is progressed.
1.2
Background
The Census is the only current source of information on communal establishment
residents. ONS social surveys are limited to collecting data from the private household
population which means residents living in communal establishments (i.e. hotels, guest
houses, nursing homes etc) are not included. At the time of the 2001 Census the CE
population was estimated to be approximately 1 million residents, around 51,000 (5%) of
which were living elsewhere outside the UK a year previously. The table below shows the
distribution of the CE population and the CE population living outside the UK a year
previously by Government Office Region and sex, based on 2001 Census estimates.
Table 1: 2001 Census Estimates of Communal Establishment Residents
thousands
Communal Establishment
Residents Living Outside
UK a Year Ago
Communal Establishment
Residents
Male
Female
Total
%
Male
Female
Total
%
43
36
42
19
49
94
55
17
37
38
49
40
52
24
65
97
62
27
44
46
92
77
93
43
114
191
116
44
81
84
10
8
10
5
12
20
12
5
9
9
3
1
4
1
2
6
3
1
2
2
3
1
5
1
3
6
3
1
2
1
6
3
9
2
5
13
5
2
4
3
12
5
18
3
9
25
10
4
8
6
429
506
934
100
51
100
Government Office Region
East
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
Wales
West Midlands
Yorkshire & Humber
Total
25
26
Since the 2001 Census the UK population has continued to become an increasingly mobile
population. Rapid changes in society make production of inter-censal population estimates
and, in particular, migrant estimates particularly challenging. The primary ONSCD
objective for a CES is for use in improving the process for production of migration
estimates. Depending on whether there are differences in the regional distributions of
migrants in the communal and household populations and the scale of any such
differences, results of a CES would be used to improve the calibration of national IPS data
11
which currently uses household (LFS) data alone to provide a regional distribution of
migrants.
The key objectives for the CES project as a whole are to:

identify key ONSCD requirements and statistical outputs

develop a survey design, using as a starting point the methodologies developed
through previous pilot surveys of CEs undertaken by ONS

develop appropriate fieldwork approaches

develop a questionnaire design for the migration information requirements based on
the IHS core questionnaire

develop appropriate IM systems to deliver the survey and outputs

identify opportunities to share methodologies/fieldwork approaches with other areas of
ONS activity that include a CE element (e.g. the new Life Opportunity Survey)

identify opportunities and consider synergies
developments for longer-term CES design
1.3
with
Census
and
Beyond
2011
2011 Census Approach
As part of the 2011 Census development work a large-scale project is being undertaken to
develop a comprehensive address register of communal establishments. This register is
being developed based on combining information from a range of national address register
and third-party sources. There will be significant stakeholder quality assurance during the
course of the register development. Development work for the 2011 Census address
register is due to be completed autumn 2010 and the register may be available for use as
a sampling frame after the 2011 Census. There are some differences in coverage of the
Census CE Address Register and CES and in the definitions used. These differences are
discussed further in section 2.2.2.
1.4
Previous Studies
As noted above there have been a number of previous pilot studies of CE residents
including studies reported on in 20021 and 20052. These studies focussed on collecting
labour market information rather than estimating the migrant CE population, but
concluded that the inclusion of CE residents in survey samples makes a statistically
significant difference to estimates produced. Although the design for this CES pilot builds
on these previous pilot surveys, there are some significant differences, particularly
regarding the scope of CEs covered and the construction of the sample.
1
Report of Pilot Work on Communal Establishment Surveys 2002 (R. Gatward, C. Lound, J. Bowman, Labour
Market Trends, April 2002.
2
Extending the LFS to Cater for Residents in Small Communal Establishments (W. Barnes, 2005).
12
1.5
Purpose of the pilot
This CES pilot aimed to test, as far as possible, the end to end survey process from
drawing the survey sample through to collection and processing of data (although the
scope to test survey outputs was limited). The key aims of the pilot being to ensure that:

the survey design, survey questionnaires, training and field materials, systems and
procedures will be fit for the purpose of a mainstage survey

the CES questionnaires are well received by the public and that no negative publicity is
generated as a result
Fieldwork for the pilot was split into two stages. The main focus of each stage can be
summarised as:
Stage 1 - sample selection, validation and get-in-touch exercise
Stage 1 of the pilot was designed to test the initial sample selection and validation
approach along with the initial get-in-touch exercise which was conducted November
2008. A separate report3 on the findings of this first stage of testing was prepared January
2009. For completeness the issues and summary findings are also included here.
Stage 2 – face-to-face interviews with selected establishment managers and residents
Stage 2 of the pilot survey was conducted March-April 2009. This phase aimed to test
survey sampling procedures (at CE and resident level), the survey questionnaire and field
materials and general field processes (e.g. respondent selection process and selfcompletion stage). The findings of this second stage of the pilot are reported here.
As noted above, this report also attempts to summarise some of the complexities
associated with designing a survey of communal establishment residents more generally,
many of which require further consideration before survey development work can be
progressed to the main survey stage.
3
Communal Establishment Survey: Get-in-touch Exercise; Summary Report. 2009 (L. Rickards, & C. Lound).
13
2
Stage 1: Get-in-touch Exercise
2.1
Survey Sample Design
2.1.1 Register Sources
Until work to develop a CE address register for the 2011 Census is complete, there is no
readily available, comprehensive sampling frame of communal establishments. To draw a
sample for the CES that could include establishments of all sizes and types within scope of
the survey it was therefore necessary to combine multiple register sources. A number of
address sources were considered as potential sampling frames for the survey, they
include:

Small-User Postcode Address File (via the LFS)

Large-User Postcode Address File

Census Address Register

Inter-Departmental Business Register
Small User Postcode Address File
The most appropriate data source to provide a sampling frame for smaller communal
establishments is likely to be the Small User Postcode Address File (SUF). Due to the
nature of the address information included on the file it will also include some information
on larger CEs, e.g. flats within a student hall of residence may be listed. Although
classificatory information is not included on the file it is possible to readily identify a
sample of CEs from the SUF – those identified as CEs by interviewers during the course of
their work on LFS and thus ineligible for inclusion in the LFS sample. It is estimated that
around 50 to 70 such ineligibles are identified each quarter by LFS interviewers and
several quarters of LFS data would therefore be required to yield a sample of sufficient
size for the CES pilot (and mainstage) survey. This could have implications for the design
of an ongoing CES (see section 4 for more details).
There is potential for overlap in coverage between the SUF and other register sources
which would need to be addressed at the sample selection stage when several sources are
used together.
Large User Postcode Address File
The Large User Postcode Address File (LUF) includes address information for all UK
addresses/businesses that receive 20 or more mail items per day and should provide a
fairly comprehensive source of information on larger communal establishments. The LUF
does not include any classificatory information and a large initial sample would therefore
need to be selected and filtered to exclude non-residential addresses and identify a CE
sample of the required size for the pilot survey. The 2002 pilot study aimed to draw the
14
same proportion of CE addresses from the LUF as was drawn from the SUF. Based on an
assumption that around 2.5% (55,000) of addresses on the file were CEs a sample of 560
addresses was drawn and filtered to yield a final sample of around 14 CEs.
Sample information for the SUF/LUF is limited to address details. Significant further work
is needed to establish the detailed contact information (CE name, contact number etc)
required. One significant benefit of using the LUF as the basis for a CE sampling frame is
the consistency in reporting structure of businesses listed on the file. Effectively the vast
majority of addresses listed relate to single businesses/establishments and the complex
reporting structures of the IDBR (see below) are largely avoided.
At the time of the CES pilot study the LUF was not available in a format that made it
readily usable as a sampling frame to the timescale required. Further investigation of LUF
as a possible CE sampling frame for the mainstage survey could be pursued.
Census address register
As noted in section 1.3, ONS Geography is currently developing the register of communal
establishments for the 2011 Census. An initial version of the register is due to be available
shortly but significant quality assurance will be required, including cross-checking against
the main household address register and validation by local authorities and data suppliers,
before the final register is available late 2010. It may be possible to use the Census
address register as a sampling frame for an ongoing CES following the 2011 Census, but it
could not be used to draw a sample at this stage. The issues of maintaining an up-to-date
register and definitional differences would need to be addressed if this approach were to
be adopted.
Inter-Departmental Business Register
A further potential source of CE address information is the Inter-Departmental Business
Register (IDBR). The IDBR does include classificatory and other information for each
business; every unit listed on the IDBR has an associated Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) indicating its main activity along with information on employment and
turnover. It is therefore possible to identify units classified to SICs that relate most closely
to CE categories and draw a more refined sample on this basis. There are however some
issues both for sample selection and weighting associated with use of the IDBR as a
sampling frame for CES, in particular relating to business reporting structures.
The IDBR holds a number of business structures, the main ones for sampling being:

reporting unit (RU) - corresponding (approximately) with a business and distributed in
one, several or many locations round the country

local unit (LU) – corresponding with a single site with a single activity (approximately)
15
As CES uses an interviewer-administered survey, a sample of individual communal
addresses is ideally required. LUs are closest to this but a one to one match between a
single CE and LU is not always guaranteed, for example a university may have only a
single LU covering teaching and accommodation or two LUs one covering teaching and the
other accommodation. Even if accommodation is identified separately, different halls of
residence are unlikely to be listed as separate LUs unless they are managed separately for
business purposes.
Many CEs will not be separately identifiable from IDBR information (e.g. farmhouse B&Bs
or accommodation for farm workers is unlikely to be separate from the agriculture
business they are connected with). It would be possible to draw a sample from IDBR
limited to specific SICs that relate to CE categories, but this approach would lead to
exclusion of some eligible CEs – such as the farm B&Bs and accommodation highlighted
above. As an alternative it would be possible to supplement this sample with units
selected from a broader range of SICs using a similar approach to sampling from the LUF.
An additional filtering stage would be required to determine which of the selected units
include CE elements.
It is also likely, as noted above, that in a number of cases a single LU listed on the IDBR
will relate to several CEs. Further consideration will need to be given to the level of
additional information that would need to be recorded for such LUs, and the approach to
sub-sampling of CEs linked to the selected LU.
The issues described above will require further consideration if a representative sample is
to be drawn for a mainstage survey.
2.1.2 Pilot Survey Sample Design
Recognising the limitations of the various register sources and the tight timetable for the
pilot survey, a pragmatic approach was taken to selection of the sample focussing on
drawing a sample that would maximise the number of eligible addresses, thus enabling
thorough testing of survey procedures. Two sources of address information were
combined to define the survey population, with the sample drawn from:

addresses selected from ONS’s extract of the SUF for the LFS (GB) but identified as
communal establishments and therefore ineligible for inclusion in the LFS sample

addresses selected from the IDBR, limited to SICs that related most closely to eligible
CE categories
It was acknowledged from the outset that the selected sample was limited in its coverage
and could not be expected to capture all CE types, particularly those operating informally
or seasonally.
The aim for the pilot survey was to select a set sample of 300 establishments at stage 1 the get-in-touch exercise (150 from each source). Following the initial contact stage the
16
remaining eligible sample would then be reduced to 50 to 80 establishments for Stage 2 the face-to-face interview stage. The decision to over-sample at Stage 1 was to allow
geographic outliers to be discarded at Stage 2, and also to achieve more confidence in the
process by testing for a mix of establishment types and sizes.
Initial scoping work suggested that approximately 50 to 70 addresses per quarter would
be generated by the LFS, thus taking 4 quarters for the pilot could give around 200
addresses. Although 3 quarters of LFS was likely to yield the required 150 CEs, 4 quarters
of LFS ineligibles were requested for the pilot to allow geographic outliers to be discarded.
The discarded LFS addresses used for the sample were derived from quarters 1 to 4 of
2006, and provided a total of 235 addresses. Using the 2006 LFS discarded addresses for
the pilot would allow the 2007 and 2008 ineligibles to be used for the mainstage survey,
which should provide a sufficiently large sample size. To assess overlap between the
register sources the LFS sample was also matched against the IDBR. Of the 234 LFS
sampled addresses 56 were also found on the IDBR.
The IDBR sample of 150 addresses was drawn on 6 October 2008. Addresses were
selected from the IDBR using pre-specified criteria based on SIC codes. As discussed
above, SIC codes were specified if they were considered likely to include relevant
communal establishments. Table 3 details the SIC 2007 codes specified, the types of
establishment they were expected to include and the associated population and sample
sizes. To draw the sample for the pilot, populations for the selected SICs were combined
and stratified by geography (to the level of Government Office Region); the sample was
drawn based on the same geographic proportions as for the LFS sample, as follows in
Table 2:
Table 2: Sample Selection for CES Pilot Survey by Government Office Region
(GOR)
Number of CEs
Sampled
Government Office Region
East
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
Wales
West Midlands
Yorkshire and The Humber
Scotland
15
12
16
6
18
30
15
6
13
13
6
Total
150
17
Information on number of employees was also included on the sample file provided by
IDBR and used as a proxy measure for establishment size.
Table 3:
SIC Codes Included in the Pilot Sample
SIC code
Description
Expected types of
CEs
55900
Other accommodation
University halls of
residence
Population
Size (RU
level)
Selected
Sample
Size
386
3
7,861
28
7,808
52
Boarding and
lodging houses
Workers hostels
55100
Other accommodation
B&Bs
Hotels
Guest houses
68201
Renting and operating of
Housing Association real
estate
Housing association
accommodation
87100
Residential nursing care
activities
Nursing/dual
registered homes
3,318
14
86102
Medical nursing home
activities (in patient
activities carried out under
the direct supervision of
Doctors)
Nursing/dual
registered homes
1,868
8
87200
Residential care activities
for mental retardation,
mental health and
substance abuse
Residential homes
1,831
1
87300
Residential care activities
for the elderly and disabled
Residential homes
11,457
24
87900
Other residential care
activities
Residential homes
10,466
21
2.2
Sheltered
accommodation
Get-in-touch Exercise (Telephone Unit)
2.2.1 Aims of the Stage 1 Pilot
The stage 1 pilot was primarily designed to ensure that:
18

the survey design, survey questionnaires, training and field materials, systems and
procedures will be fit for the purpose of a main CES

the CES questionnaires were well received by the CE managers and that no negative
publicity was generated as a result
Alongside testing the sample design process, the key aim of the get-in-touch exercise was
to make an initial contact with each selected address and collect some basic information
about the establishment, including:

confirming eligibility of the address for inclusion in the CES

collecting basic details about the establishment, such as establishment type and
number of residents

identifying any gate keeper and access issues
2.2.2 Definitions
The CES was designed to achieve coverage of the CEs and CE residents excluded from the
LFS. Therefore, the definitions developed were intended to complement the respective LFS
definitions. However, their design also took account of and, where possible, aligned with
the Census 2011 approach. A detailed table in Annex A compares the definitions used by
the CES, LFS and Census 2011.
A set of questions, based on the definitions, was developed in order to identify which
sampled CEs and CE residents were eligible for inclusion in the survey. The CE definition
was refined following stage 1 of the pilot (it is this revised definition that is provided at
Annex A) and therefore it was necessary to slightly alter the eligibility questions to reflect
these changes. As a result, some of the establishments that were fed through into stage 2
had been identified as ineligible for the survey at stage 1.
2.2.3 Fieldwork
Four experienced TU interviewers and two managers were selected for the get-in-touch
exercise. The planned fieldwork period took place over four working weeks in November
2008, with 15 minutes allocated to each of the 200 cases (50 hours in total). The TU
operates between the hours 9.30am to 9.30pm Monday to Thursday, from 9.30am to 8pm
on Fridays and 9.30am to 1.30pm on Saturdays. Calls for the CES were made during the
day, evening and at weekends to establish best contact times. An electronic call scheduler
was not available, so the cases were managed through a paper-based system. In total 81
interviewer hours were spent on the pilot, this reflects the increased number of cases in
the final sample provided to the TU, as well as the increased time spent on each call,
which was estimated at 20 to 25 minutes.
19
2.2.4 Questionnaire
A Blaise Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) approach was used for collecting
the data from the establishments. The questionnaire was designed to ascertain whether
the selected address was eligible for the survey and to collect information which would
assist at the face to face interview stage.
It was intended that the information collected at Stage 1 would feed through into a
number of aspects of the face to face interview stage: the CAPI instrument, the face-toface interviewer information sheets, and the ONS field work allocation system. Information
collected by the CATI was designed to inform stage 2 and included: the appropriate
person (e.g. the manager) for the face-to-face interviewer to contact; type of
establishment; capacity/number of beds; number of residents; number of potentially
eligible residents and gatekeeper issues.
2.2.5 Training
A training day was held prior to the field period which covered the background to the CES
and the purpose of the pilot; selling the survey; the questionnaire content; and a series of
group practice sessions with the CATI questionnaire. Interviewers also received a briefing
booklet which contained copies of the advance letters; the contact form; and a paper
version of the questionnaire.
2.2.6 Process
The procedure used for the TU stage is set out in Chart 1 below. TU contact with selected
addresses was preceded by an advance letter addressed to the manager of the
establishments (See Annex A). Establishing a contact telephone number was a particularly
problematic and time-consuming aspect of the get-in-touch process. Although this was
recognised as an issue for the LFS sample at the outset it was hoped that telephone
numbers would be more readily available for the IDBR portion of the sample. However,
provision of a contact telephone number is not a mandatory requirement for IDBR and the
majority of businesses choose not to provide a contact number. Consequently, only 5 out
of the 150 IDBR sample addresses had a telephone number attached.
20
Figure 1: Get-in-touch Exercise – Summary Process
Getting-in-Touch Exercise – Summary Process
Advance
letter
only
Interview
completed
TU
interview
process
yes
Pilot
Sample
Selection
•SUF based
sample
(via LFS)
Interview outcome
Refusal
Telephone
number
established?
Ineligible
yes
•IDBR based
sample
no
No contact
Advance
letter +
contact
sheet
Contact
sheet
returned?
yes
Internet
search to
obtain
telephone
number
no
no
Telephone
number
obtained?
Sampled addresses were run through a tele-matching process with some additional
internet searching. For establishments where a telephone number could not be found, an
initial contact form and pre-paid envelope were sent with the advance letter. The contact
form requested much of the information contained in the CATI questionnaire, as well as a
contact telephone number. Where a telephone number was provided on the returned
form, the establishment was subsequently contacted by the TU to verify the information
provided and complete the CATI questionnaire. If a form was returned completed but with
no telephone number provided and subsequent internet searching was not successful then
the CE was classed as a non-contact.
For businesses where tele-matching and issuing of contact forms failed to identify a
contact telephone number, further internet research was carried out to try to find
appropriate telephone numbers. Checking was much easier for the IDBR sample as
business names were available in addition to the address information. Overall, telephone
numbers were found for two-thirds of the sample. Table 4 below provides further details:
21
Table 4: Obtaining Telephone Contact Numbers for Sampled Units
number of sampled units
Sample
LFS
IDBR
ALL
235
150
385
contacted and identified as ineligible prior
to TU interview or refusal at initial contact
stage
_
_
21
telephone number
sample file
initial
0
5
5
telephone number identified through telematching exercise
77
45
122
provided telephone number on returned
contact forms
_
_
45
telephone number identified via internet
search
30
39
69
105
17
122
Total issued sample size
Of which:
included
on
No telephone number found
At the telephone interview stage it sometimes took several calls to speak to the
appropriate person within the establishment, but when an interview could be conducted
the survey procedures generally worked well with respondents able to provide the
information required.
2.2.7 Post-interviewing
After the TU exercise had been completed the interviewers were encouraged to complete a
feedback document covering the following issues: initial contact; briefing/training; field
documentation; questionnaire; and general comments. Two of the interviewers and one
field manager also attended a workshop which looked at how the exercise could be
improved for the main stage survey.
2.3
Results of the Stage 1 Pilot: The ‘Get-in-touch’ Exercise
2.3.1 Response
Of the sample of 385 addresses selected for the ‘get-in-touch’ exercise 92 resulted in a
completed telephone interview, giving an overall response rate of 29%. The response rate
was lower among the LFS sample (24%), compared with the IDBR sample (41%).
22
Around 56% of the selected sample could not be contacted. For over half of the noncontacts this was because telephone numbers could not be established. For those with a
telephone number, the most commonly reported reason for non-contact was that the
phone was not answered despite calling back on different days or at different times, which
may indicate that many of the obtained phone numbers were incorrect. Therefore, in
common with postal surveys in general, it was difficult to distinguish between non-contact
and ineligible addresses.
71 addresses were identified as ineligible for the survey. The most common reasons for
ineligibility were:

Private residence

Provided day care only

Offices or business that is not an establishment

Ceased trading
Only 5 of all contacted eligible establishments refused to take part in the get-in-touch
exercise (a very low refusal rate of 5%). See table 5 below for a more detailed breakdown
of response, by source of sample:
Table 5: Get-in-Touch Response, by Source of Sample
LFS
Number
Completed
Refusal
Non-contact
Ineligible
All
IDBR
All
%
Number
%
Number
%
54
23
38
25
92
24
4
2
1
1
5
1
163
69
54
36
217
56.5
14
6
57
38
71
18.5
235
100
150
100
385
100
2.3.2 Type of Communal Establishment
A good mix of CE types completed the get-in-touch exercise (see Table 6 below). Of the
establishments classified as ‘other’ the majority were supported housing (for example, a
group of people with learning difficulties living together, with a ‘house parent’ for
support).
23
Table 6: Completed Interviews by Type of Communal Establishment
Completed interview
Number
%
Type of communal establishment
Nursing/dual registered home
9
10
28
30
Hospital
1
1
Sheltered accommodation
4
4
Educational establishment
20
22
Hotel/Motel
8
9
B&B
4
4
Guest House
1
1
Boarding/lodging house
0
0
Hostel
6
7
Other
11
12
All
92
100
Residential home
2.3.3 Length of Interview
The interview itself was relatively quick and averaged 8 minutes however, calls averaged
15 to 20 minutes as often it took time to make contact with the appropriate person. The
most problematic cases were halls of residence where interviewers found themselves
passed back and forth between the main office of the halls and the building manager.
2.3.4 Non contacts
Internet research of TU non-contacts was carried out to investigate potential differences
between characteristics of the responding establishments and non-contacts that could lead
to a bias in the estimates produced. The investigation found information on many of the
non-contact addresses, in some cases enabling them to be ruled out as ineligible. No
obvious systematic differences were revealed between non-contacts and responders in
terms of how they were distributed between LFS and IDBR samples, establishment types
and survey eligibility. Analysis of the SIC codes from the non-contact IDBR addresses also
confirmed this finding.
24
However, the internet research did highlight specific issues with addresses derived from
each of the two sources. Ineligible addresses derived from the LFS often had contact
numbers and address details relating to a specific address within a larger communal
establishment, for example, an individual flat within a hall of residence. For ineligibles
derived from the IDBR one address could relate to several establishments, for example,
the head office responsible for a number of communal establishments. In these cases
individual communal establishments were not listed in their own right. For both sample
sources some quality assurance prior to the TU stage, in the form of a period of internet
research, would improve the usability of the sample.
2.4
Summary Findings
Key findings and recommendations from the get in touch stage of the pilot can be
summarised as:
Sample selection process
The pilot highlighted the complexities of sampling in the absence of a comprehensive upto-date address register for communal establishments. It has identified that a significant
amount of further development work is required to enable a representative sample to be
drawn for a mainstage survey, and to develop a systematic approach to sample selection
for an ongoing survey based on combining register sources.
Specific issues were
identified for addresses derived from the two different sources: the IDBR and the LFS.
These issues are discussed briefly below.
The complex structure of businesses selected from the IDBR was highlighted by the non
response analysis. Methods for overcoming the issues raised could add complexity at the
TU interview stage. For example it may be necessary to collect address and contact
information for all individual CEs linked to a selected unit. Interview length would be
significantly increased if information on individual CEs were to be recorded at this initial
contact stage and TU resource allocation and management becomes more complex
(contact with each individual CE may be required). It would also add complexity to the
sampling process if sub-sampling of the CEs linked to a selected address is required. For
SIC codes where CE activity is secondary, for example caravan parks located on
agricultural holdings, further consideration of an appropriate sampling procedure is
needed if these CE types are to be in scope for the survey. This again introduces
complexity to the sampling process.
Recommendation 1: Undertake further work to evaluate potential register
sources with a view to developing a mainstage survey design:
- based on more comprehensive coverage of the communal establishment
population;
- that adequately takes account of business reporting structures.
25
The information recorded on communal establishments by LFS interviewers is limited, and
often relates to an individual address within a CE rather than the communal establishment
as a whole. If the LFS addresses are to be used as part of an ongoing sample frame then
it would be beneficial if LFS interviewers recorded more detailed information on the
establishments that are identified as CEs. Also, some basic quality assurance such as
tidying the addresses to better fit the matching software and sampling system, would
further improve the contact process.
Recommendation 2: Discuss with LFS team potential to record additional
information on CEs during LFS fieldwork.
Recommendation 3: Introduce additional checking stage to improve quality of
LFS address information prior to TU interview stage.
Internet Search
Internet checks for non response analysis showed the potential to use this approach to
conduct some basic quality checks of selected addresses at the outset. It could also act as
a further source of information on telephone numbers that could be better utilised for
further surveys, and has potential to be used to identify some addresses as ineligible
without having to make contact at selected addresses.
Recommendation
4:
Introduce
additional
checking
stage
to
provide
supplementary information including contact numbers in advance of TU contact.
Consideration should also be given to identification and exclusion of ineligible
addresses as part of this process.
Contact Sheets
Using contact sheets improved the process at the TU interview stage with much of the
required information being collected in advance of the interviewer contact and the
interview then being used to confirm the information provided. It would be beneficial for
the mainstage survey to adopt this approach across the full sample not just addresses
with no telephone contact number.
Recommendation 5: Include contact sheets with advance letters for full sample,
not just those with no telephone number available.
TU interview
When contact could be made with the selected establishments, the TU exercise worked
well. However, it would be beneficial to develop a more effective mechanism for filtering
ineligible cases prior to the face-to-face (FtF) interview stage, and for recording
information to assist with work allocation for the FtF interviews. Ensuring definitions were
26
agreed in advance of the TU stage would be key to this. The scope to improve the
management process for the TU stage was identified during the pilot evaluation, and
should be taken forward as part of the mainstage survey development.
Recommendation 6: review design of get-in-touch stage to ensure that, as far as
possible, all required information is captured for selected sample units (e.g.
information on structure and all communal establishments linked to a selected
sampling unit is recorded).
Recommendation 7: develop an improved management information system for
TU interview shifts in the absence of electronic call scheduler.
27
3.
Stage 2: Communal Establishment Manager and
Resident Interviews
3.1
Sample and Fieldwork Design
Having made initial contact and collected some basic information about eligible CEs
contacted at Stage 1, Stage 2 of the pilot aimed to achieve 250 resident interviews from
the 63 selected CEs.
In addition, Stage 2 aimed to test survey procedures associated with:

the effectiveness of information gathered at Stage 1 for use on the information sheet
at Stage 2

conducting an interview with the CE manager to confirm CE details, obtain initial
indication of resident eligibility and test the proposed mechanism for listing and subsampling eligible residents

conducting resident level interviews, locating residents, confirming eligibility at the
doorstep, testing questionnaires

identifying issues that could improve procedures for the mainstage survey
92 eligible addresses were identified through stage 1. These were sub-sampled for stage
2, by discarding geographical outliers and NHS establishments.
It was intended that the eligibility of both communal establishments and residents would
be established at the TU stage and fed through to the mainstage. However, this was not
possible due to alterations made to definitions between stages.
17 interviewers were selected to take part in the CES pilot. In order for an interviewer to
be considered for the pilot they were required to complete an additional level of vetting
via CRB or Disclosure Scotland. They were also required to be within reasonable travelling
distance of the CES address or cluster of addresses grouped together for allocation
purposes and that, in conjunction with other work commitments, they could be reasonably
expected to take on the CES work.
A random sub-sample of eligible residents was selected from within each communal
establishment. The number of individuals was selected in relation to the size of the
establishment, see Table 7 below:
28
Table 7: Selection of Residents within Communal Establishments
Number of residents in
establishment
Number of residents
selected
1-4
All
5-9
4
10-19
5
20-29
7
30-49
8
50-99
10
100-199
20
200+
20 ftf+20 paper
In the previous CES pilot a maximum of 20 residents were sampled which, in the largest
establishments, meant a small sampling rate and a high allocated weight, making the
sample less efficient. The limit was therefore increased in this pilot survey and up to 40
residents sampled. However, for the purpose of the pilot, a paper self-completion
questionnaire was used for half of these. This made effective use of interviewer resource
and also provided an opportunity to test the use of self-completion questionnaires.
Due to the additional burden of the manager interview and the uncertainty as to the
number of residents and their availability for interview, consideration was given to the
number of visits interviewers should make to each CE. A scale of recommended number
of visits was constructed for interviewers, based on the number of residents to interview
in the CE; see Table 8 below:
Table 8: Selection of Residents for Interview
Number of residents to
interview in communal
establishments
Recommended
number of visits
1–7
up to 4
8 – 14
up to 6
15 - 20 + Self Comp
up to 10
As mentioned in section 2.2.3, interviewers were provided with some basic information
about the CE gathered at the TU stage; potential number of residents, type of CE, contact
details of the Manager and (where appropriate) Headquarters. This information helped
interviewers to plan their work and estimate the possible number of visits they may need
to make to a CE.
29
Due to the additional burden and unknown element of the CES, the amount of time
allocated for admin was increased with a maximum of 20 minutes per CE for planning and
a maximum of 30 minutes per case for post interview admin.
A total of 6 hours study time was allowed: 4 hours for pre course study in preparation for
the interviewer briefing and 2 hours after the briefing for interviewers to consolidate their
learning from the briefing.
Due to the Case Management System (CMS) reports not providing the level of data
needed to monitor work progress effectively, Social Data Collection Division (SDC) created
a feedback form for interviewers. The form was created to provide a written summary of
the progress of interviewer's CES allocation on a weekly basis. The need for interviewers
to update the field office on a regular basis via the feedback form was emphasised at the
interviewer briefing. However, it was established during the pilot that the level of
information being recorded by interviewers was not sufficient for monitoring progress. The
field office therefore contacted interviewers on a weekly basis in the latter stages of the
pilot and produced a summary spreadsheet that included data on the number of noncontacts, refusals, manager/resident interviews and self completion forms used. An
alternative, automated process would be needed for a mainstage survey.
3.2
Survey Procedures
Fieldwork
The fieldwork period took place over 6 working weeks in March and April 2009. Stage 2
was split into two distinct phases: ‘The Manager Phase’ and ‘The Resident Phase’.
The Manager Phase
The Manager Phase was designed to record information on the communal establishments
and to identify and select the resident sample.
HQ sent advance letters to the contacts identified at the TU stage (CE manager and other
relevant contacts where applicable). The letters were sent out approximately one week
prior to the start of the field period. Interviewers were provided with an information sheet
for each communal establishment in their workload, containing details such as:
establishment name and address, telephone number, manager name, type of communal
establishment and the number of bedrooms.
The first step for the interviewers was to make telephone contact with the manager
identified at the get-in-touch exercise and book a face-to-face appointment. At the
appointment the manager was interviewed to confirm the basic information on the
establishment and its eligibility for inclusion in the sample. They were also asked a series
of questions designed to establish as much information as possible on the eligibility of the
CE residents. Following this, a list of [eligible] residents and identifying information e.g.
30
room number, was drawn up. The number of [eligible] residents was then recorded within
the Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) instrument and a random sub-sample
selected. A maximum number of 20 residents could be selected for face-to-face interview.
In large establishments (more than 200 residents), an additional 20 residents were also
selected for a self-completion questionnaire.
When designing the pilot it was unknown whether the CE managers would be in a position
to accurately answer questions on resident eligibility. However, if establishing eligibility
was left until the resident stage, following sample selection, then the number of eligible
residents selected within the sample was more likely to be low. Therefore, the set of
resident eligibility questions were asked twice: during the manager interview and via a
‘doorstep exercise’ with the selected residents (and at the front-end of the self-completion
questionnaire). This ‘two-tier’ approach established eligibility at the resident interview
phase in cases where the manager was unable to do so, as well as acting as a check for
the accuracy of eligibility information provided by managers.
The Resident Phase
The Resident Phase involved conducting face-to-face interviews (and self-completion
questionnaires) with a sub-sample of residents living within each communal
establishment. Interviewers attempted to make face-to-face contact with the selected
residents. If contact was made and their co-operation gained, the resident’s eligibility was
confirmed through conducting a doorstep exercise and, if they were found to be eligible,
an interview was conducted or a self-completion pack left. Interviewers were requested to
make up to 3 visits in order to make contact with each selected resident. In cases where
the selected residents could not be contacted, interviewers were instructed to leave a selfcompletion pack. If after leaving self-completion packs the interviewer made return visits
to the CE, then they were asked to attempt to collect the questionnaires in person.
Proxy interviews were permitted in cases where a resident was capable but unable to
answer the questionnaire directly e.g. where a resident was deaf or frail. The proxy
informant could have been the administrator; a member of staff responsible for their daily
care; or a relative. Co-residents not fulfilling these criteria could not be used as proxy
informants.
Provision was made for residents with language difficulties. Several options were available
to the interviewers:
1. If the interviewer was able to fluently speak the main language of the respondent,
they were permitted to translate the interview themselves
2. A family member of the respondent could act as an interpreter
3. Another CE resident could act as an interpreter
4. An official interpreter could be used
31
Interviewers were permitted to use the Language Line if necessary. For example, it could
be used to establish the main language of the respondent, to explain the purpose of the
survey to the respondent or to establish with the respondent whether there is an
interpreter available to assist with the interview e.g. a friend or family member. In
circumstances when an interviewer was unable to conduct the interview due to language
difficulties and an interpreter was not available, they were asked to identify the main
language of the respondent, using the translated language form where necessary. They
were instructed to record the language within the admin block.
3.2.1 NHS-Funded Accommodation
In order to interview on NHS premises ethical approval must be gained from the National
Research Ethics Service (NRES) via a Research Ethics Committee (REC). The experience of
other ONS survey teams has shown that this can be a lengthy and complex process.
Therefore, due to timetable constraints, the decision was taken not to seek ethical
approval for the CES pilot, and all NHS accommodation was excluded from the sample.
Furthermore, in accordance with Department of Health (DH) advice, independent ethical
review by the University Committee of the Social Care Institute for Excellence should be
sought prior to interviewing non-staff residents in any type of care or residential home,
including privately run establishments. In such cases interviewers were instructed to
interview the manager and live-in staff only i.e. not residents. However, in cases where
the sampled care or residential home was in receipt of partial NHS funding, only the
manager could be interviewed.
3.2.2 CAPI Questionnaire
A Blaise Computer Assisted Personal Interview (CAPI) approach was used for collecting
data. The questionnaire was in two sections, with the first section designed to collect
information from CE managers (completed once for each communal establishment) and
the second to collect information from CE residents. The resident questionnaire was
relatively short and straightforward, with the questions predominantly drawn or adapted
from the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) core module. The questionnaire covered the
topics requested in the initial specification from ONSCD: demographics, period at current
address, migration characteristics, economic activity status, looking for work, income,
education and health.
3.2.3 Self-Completion Questionnaire
The self-completion questionnaire had to be designed to fulfil the same data requirements
as the CAPI questionnaire, but the questions also needed to suit the specific demands of
the self-completion mode. Therefore, a proportion of the questions varied in format from
the CAPI questionnaire. The questions were predominantly drawn from the Census Dress
Rehearsal questionnaire, as they had been extensively tested by the Census team (albeit
within the context of a different survey).
32
3.2.4 Data Collection and Methodology Cognitive Testing
Whilst the two questionnaires were being developed they underwent a period of cognitive
testing by the Data Collection and Methodology (DCM) branch of ONS Methodology
Directorate. DCM advised on all aspects of the questionnaire design including: the
questions asked (their testing focussed on the migration questions and the economic
activity questions), question order, layout and formatting of the self-completion
questionnaire and factors such as instructions and showcards. DCM recommendations
informed the development of the questionnaires, with their suggested changes
incorporated wherever feasible within the boundaries of the project. Detailed results of the
testing and the recommendations are documented in two reports4. A number of
recommendations could not be incorporated due to the specific requirements of ONSCD.
Of particular note was the suggestion to remove the ‘nationality’ question due to concerns
that it may confuse respondents when asked alongside the question on ‘national identity’.
DCM also expressed general concerns over the ‘intention to stay’ question
3.2.5 Showcards
Showcards were provided for the following nine questions with complex response options:
type of communal establishment, type of residents, owner of communal establishment,
national identity, ethnicity, economic activity, sources of income, income, and life
opportunities.
3.2.6 Training
The interviewers were invited to a briefing day on 26 th February 2009. Prior to this event
they were sent detailed ‘Interviewer Instructions’ and a test version of the CAPI
questionnaire for familiarisation. The briefing day focused on the following issues:

Background and purpose to CES

Selling the survey

Survey processes

Questionnaire

Administration and field issues
Newman, E. and Davies, C. A. (December 2008). DCM Report – Cognitive Testing of the Communal
Establishment Survey
4
Newman, E. and Davies, C. A. (February 2009). DCM Wave Two Report – Cognitive Testing of the Communal
Establishment Survey
33
The issues were explored through a mixture of presentations by the research team, group
work and laptop exercises.
3.3
Post-Interviewing
Interviewers were invited to complete feedback forms at the end of the field period and to
attend a debriefing on the 21st April 2009. The feedback forms asked for comments on the
survey procedures, the questionnaires, the briefing and training materials, and on any
other relevant issues. They were used to structure communication between the field and
the office and to develop the debriefing agenda.
At the debriefing the interviewers were asked to consider ‘things that went well’ and
‘issues’ in relation to the following four topics:

Establishing contact with Managers

Manager co-operation

Establishing contact and eligibility with residents

The survey process
Some important issues were raised by the interviewers at the debriefing which will need to
be incorporated into the revised methodology and design for the mainstage. The issues
raised included: incorrect information on the contact sheets, difficulties gaining access to
managers and residents, the importance of gaining manager ‘buy-in’, and difficulties with
the listing process in larger establishments. More detailed information about the issues
raised is provided in Annex E.
The interviewer debrief also included a closed session with DCM. The aim of the session
being to provide an opportunity for interviewers to discuss issues that they felt the need
to cover or explore in greater depth, in a confidential environment. The discussion was
structured around work management issues and any other issues that had arisen during
the course of the debrief that interviewers wished to revisit. The main additional issues
arising from the DCM session are also summarised in Annex E.
3.4
Findings – Manager Stage
3.4.1 Response
It was not possible to include information for two of the selected 63 establishments in the
analysis. Of the remaining 61 establishments manager interviews were carried out in 57,
giving a response rate of 93%. 3 refusals were received and 1 establishment could not be
contacted.
34
3.4.2 Eligibility of Communal Establishment
In order to maximize the potential to test the survey processes it was decided for the pilot
to include CEs that failed to satisfy the eligibility definition (except where they did not
provide accommodation). CEs providing accommodation solely for students (during term
time) were eligible, regardless of whether they satisfied the other eligibility criteria.
Table 9 Eligibility of Communal Establishment*
Number of communal establishments
that did not satisfy criteria
Number
%
CE provides accommodation
0
0
CE is ‘managed’
3
5
Residents share cooking facilities
3
5
Residents share a living/sitting/dining room
4
7
CE has capacity for 4 or more people
3
5
9
16
Eligibility criteria
Total Number of Ineligible CEs**
*Data has been adjusted to account for 2 CEs that were incorrectly coded as ineligible.
**Total does not sum as CEs may be ineligible against one or more of the criteria
A CE is deemed ineligible if it fails to satisfy one or more of the eligibility criteria. Table 9,
above, shows a total of 9 CEs were ineligible. Of these, 5 were sheltered or supported
living accommodation, 3 were nursing/dual registered homes and 1 was a hostel. The
sheltered or supported living accommodation had most problems satisfying the definition,
the main reasons being that they did not provide shared cooking facilities for residents or
a shared living/sitting/dining room.
The eligibility questions were understood and answered by all managers and worked well
to identify ineligible establishments.
An aim of the pilot was to test whether eligibility of establishments could be identified at
the TU stage in order to filter out any ineligibles before the mainstage. However, analysis
of the results provides evidence that this filtering process requires refinement. For
example, four establishments were identified as ineligible at the TU stage as they did not
have a manager/supervisor. However, when asked this question at the mainstage they
reported that they did have a manager/supervisor. Improvements therefore need to be
made to this process for the main CES, in order that questions asked correctly interpret
35
and filter out ineligible
recommendation 8).
establishments
prior
to
main
interview
fieldwork
(see
3.4.3 Type of Communal Establishment
The maximum residential capacity of the CEs, excluding spaces used by people related to
the owner/manger/supervisor, ranges from 3 to 370, with a mean value of 36. However,
this analysis excludes student halls of residence because these questions were not asked
of them.
Approximately 50% of CEs are either Residential Homes or Educational Establishments,
30% (17) and 23% (13) respectively. Hostels and Sheltered Accommodation are the next
two most highly populated categories, with 12% and 11% of the sample falling into these
categories respectively.
Regarding the type of residents catered for by the CEs, 35% (20) of the CEs cater for
people with Physical Disabilities, 33% (19) for older people and 26% (15) for University
and College Students. This is unsurprising given that 50% of the sample is either an
Educational Establishment or a Residential Home.
The number of residents living at the sampled CEs at the time the pilot was conducted
ranged from 0 to 983, with a mean number of 73, and a median number of 16.
Table 10 Characteristics of Sample of Communal Establishments*
No. of CEs in
sample
Total
Residential
Capacity
Total No. of
eligible
residents
Nursing Home
4
175
125
Sheltered Accommodation
6
168
160
Educational Establishment
13
2883
Hotel
3
418
67
B&B
3
36
4
Hostel
7
210
198
Other
4
62
51
Communal Establishment Type
2883
**
*Residential homes have been excluded from the analysis as only resident staff could be interviewed.
**All residents were eligible
3.4.4 Resident Selection
Managers were asked how many ‘eligible’ residents lived in the CE. All of the managers
were able to provide a response. The number of eligible residents ranged from 0 to 983,
with the mean number being 65, and the median 11.
36
Excluding establishments that provided accommodation solely for students (i.e. those
where all residents would be eligible), the number of eligible residents ranged from 0 to
253, with the mean number being 23, and the median 7.
After educational establishments, the greatest number of eligible residents were found in
hostels, residential homes and sheltered accommodation (see Table 10 above).
The total number of residents selected for interview was 474, ranging from 0 to 40 within
an establishment, with an average of 8 residents selected for interview in each
establishment. 374 residents were selected for face-to-face (FtF) interview and 100 for
self-completion (SC) interview.
Table 11 Face-to-face Resident Level Interview Outcomes, by Type of Communal
Establishment
Establishment Type
Nursing
Res.
Shelt
Educ.
Estab.
Hotel
B&B
Hostel
Other
Total
Home
Home
Accom.
FtF Interview
completed
1
9
27
33
10
4
27
6
117
Refusal
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
2
Left SC form
0
2
0
73
1
0
9
5
90
Interview Outcome
Non-contact
0
14
0
44
0
0
0
0
58
In-eligible
13
25
10
0
0
0
3
8
59
Other nonresponse*
14
12
0
22
0
0
0
0
48
Total
28
62
37
173
11
4
40
19
374
*For example, residents ill/on holiday, no attempt made to establish contact
Table 11 provides a summary of interview outcomes for FtF residents, broken down by CE
type. Of those selected for FtF interviews (i.e. 374), 117 completed a face-to-face
interview. 90 were left a SC questionnaire, 59 were not eligible, 48 were coded as ‘other
non-response’, 2 refused, and 58 were non-contacts. This gave a response rate of 37% for
those originally selected for a FtF interview.
Those that refused, could not be contacted or were coded as ‘other non-response’, (i.e.
108 residents) were examined in more depth. Only 2 outright refusals were given, 44
could not be contacted, interviewers made no attempt to establish contact for 14
residents, 21 were away ill or on holiday and 27 were coded as ‘other’ (the code generally
used for residents in care homes who could not be interviewed). There were no instances
of interviews not taking place due to language difficulties or because the respondent was
physically or mentally unable.
37
Reasons for leaving a self-completion form were that respondents were too busy (8%), no
contact could be made with the respondent (31%) or for other reasons (61%) which was
generally used when problems gaining access to interview students were experienced in
Halls of Residence.
It became apparent during the fieldwork that Halls of Residence were a particular problem
both due to the field period falling over the Easter holiday period and also due to problems
interviewers experienced gaining access to residents. Looking at Table 11, 38% of those
selected for FtF interview in Educational Establishments were coded as non-contacts or
other non-response. It is therefore worthwhile noting the response rate excluding Halls of
Residence. Excluding Halls of Residence, 226 residents were originally selected for FtF
interview. 59 were ineligible, 37 were left a SC questionnaire, 14 were non-contacts and
88 completed face-to-face interviews. This gave a response rate of 53% for those
originally allocated a FtF interview.
Table 12 shows the proportion of the selected FtF sample with whom contact was made,
by type of establishment. Interviewers were very successful in making contact with
residents in sheltered accommodation, hotels and B&Bs. Slightly less success was
achieved in residential homes and hostels with 50% or more selected residents contacted
in just over two-thirds of the sample. Most problematic were educational establishments
where 50% or more of the sampled residents were contacted in only 33% of
establishments.
Table 12: FtF Resident Contact*, by Type of Communal Establishment
CEs in
sample
CEs with no
resident
contacts
number
number
%
4
2
2
50
2
50
13
4
4
31
9
69
6
0
0
0
6
100
12
6
8
67
4
33
Hotel
2
0
0
0
2
100
B&B
2
0
0
0
2
100
Hostel
7
0
2
29
5
71
Other
4
1
1
25
3
75
Total
50**
13
17
34
33
66
number
CEs where <50%
contacted
CEs where 50%
or more
contacted
Number
%
Establishment Type
Nursing Home
Residential Home
Sheltered
Accommodation
Educational
Establishment
*Contact defined as a full or partial FtF interview, or an ineligible.
**Only 50 CEs included in the analysis as 7 had no residents at the time of interviewing.
38
3.4.5 Eligibility of Residents
59 residents were coded as ineligible. However, none of the residents failed to satisfy the
eligibility criteria. This highlights the effectiveness of using the manager to establish
eligibility of residents and that there may not be a need to conduct a doorstep exercise in
addition to this. The reason for the vast majority of ineligibles was improper coding by
interviewers. Some interviewers coded residents as ineligible where the CE was a
care/residential home and therefore residents were not permitted to be interviewed.
3.4.6 Proxy Interviews
Of the 117 completed FtF interviews, 92% (107) were carried out in person, 7% (8) by
proxy and 1% (2) were carried out using an official interpreter.
3.5
Resident Stage
A total of 117 FtF interviews were completed, but, for various reasons, data for only 110
of these interviews have been included in the analysis. m
3.5.1 Sex, Age and Marital Status
53% of respondents (58) are male and 47% (52) are female. The age of respondents
ranges from 17 to 95, with a mean age of 42 and a median age of 31. 61% of the sample
(67) have never been married or registered a same-sex civil partnership. 16% (17) are
married and 16% (17) are widowed.
3.5.3 Ethnicity and Religion
The majority (72%) of the sample are of white ethnic origin, 16% are Asian/Asian British,
9% are Black/African/Caribbean/Black British, 2% are mixed and 1% other.
The majority of residents are Christian (63%) or follow no religion (26%).
3.5.4 Employment Status
The majority of the sample (79%) was not doing any paid work in the week prior to the
interview, either as an employee or self-employed (and only 6% of these had a job to
return to). Of those that did not have a job, 62% had worked previously in their life, 38%
had never worked. 19% had been looking for a job in the 4 weeks prior to the interview.
When asked for the reason why they were not looking for work, the main reasons given
were that they were students (64%) or were long term sick (21%).
Respondents were also asked to subjectively assess their economic status. The results
from this question are consistent with those from the objective questions, with only 22%
of the sample identified as ‘working’. 34% (37) were students, 23% (25) were retired and
39
the remainder fell across a number of categories such as ‘registered unemployed’,
‘seeking work’ and ‘on a government training scheme’.
3.6
Migrants
An aim of the CES was to identify the number of migrants living in communal
establishments. A number of variables can be used to identify migrants: Nationality,
Country of Birth and National Identity. Each will be explored in turn.
3.6.1 Identification of Migrants
Nationality
The Nationality of approximately 57% (63) of the sample was UK British and 42% (46)
were classified as ‘other’. Of those classified as ‘other’, the most highly populated
categories were Chinese (15%), English (11%), Polish (9%) and Indian (9 %). Therefore,
in summary, 62% of the sample was British or Irish Republic and 37% from elsewhere.
Country of Birth
Approximately 59% (65) of the sample were born in Britain and 41% (45) were born
elsewhere. Of those born elsewhere 13% were born in China, 9% in India and 9% in
Poland.
Of those born outside of the UK, the top reason for moving to the UK was for study 69%
(31), followed by employment 16% (7).
Of those born outside of the UK, the year in which they first arrived in the UK ranged from
1962 to 2009. Just over a quarter (29%) arrived in 2006 or earlier, with approximately
71% arriving 2007-2009. 40% (18) arrived in 2008 and 20% (9) arrived in 2009. All but
one respondent have continuously lived in the UK since they first moved here.
Those that had arrived recently (i.e. in 2008 or 2009) were asked how long they intended
to stay in the UK. Over half of respondents (56%) expected to stay here long term – 12
months or more. 30% expected to stay here between 6 and 12 months, and 15% between
3 and 6 months.
National Identity4
Respondents were also asked to state their National Identity. 67% of the sample identified
themselves as having UK National Identity and 33% as having a National Identity other
than that of the UK. Only 2% of the sample identified themselves as having a dual UK and
non-UK National Identity.
4
Only 91 of the 110 face-to-face respondents were asked this question
40
Of those that identified themselves as having a non-UK National Identity, the majority
were Asian 41% (13), followed by European 28% (9) or African 28% (9). One migrant
identified themselves as Australian. Generally, migrants identified themselves with a range
of countries across the continents. However, approximately 50% of Asian migrants were
Chinese.
3.6.2 Analysis of Migrant Population
Migrants, by type of communal establishment
The highest proportion of migrants were found in educational establishments (64%),
followed by hotels (20%). A few migrants were found in hostels and residential homes. No
migrants were found in any other type of Communal establishment.
Table 13: Proportion of Migrants*, by Type of Communal Establishment
Proportion of
migrant population
Number
%
29
64
Hostel
4
9
Hotel
9
20
Residential Home
3
7
45
100
Establishment Type
Educational Establishment
Total
*Migrants defined by Country of Birth
An aim of the CES was to establish whether migrants would be missed from CES if Census
definitions for hotels, guest houses and B&Bs were applied, i.e. coverage were limited to
establishments catering for 1 or more guests. The results of the CES pilot do not provide
any evidence to support this, however, due to small numbers, this analysis should be
interpreted with caution.
41
Table 14: Number
Establishment
of
migrants*,
by
Residential
Number of
migrants **
Maximum
residential
capacity
Hostel
4
108
Hotel
9
370
Residential home
1
3
Residential home
2
28
Capacity
of
Communal
Establishment Type
*
Migrants defined by Country of Birth
Migrants found in educational establishments (29) are excluded from the analysis as maximum residential capacity is not asked
of these establishments
**
Migrants, by area
The majority of migrants are located in Scotland (38%), the South East region (33%) or
London (22%).
Table 15: Proportion of Migrants*, by Government Office Region
Proportion of migrant
population
Number
%
Scotland
17
38
South East
15
33
London
10
22
South West
2
4
North West
1
2
45
100
Government Office Region
Total
*Migrants defined by Country of Birth
The distribution of migrants who arrived in the UK in the last 12 months differs slightly
from that of the migrant population as a whole. A larger proportion (approximately 60%)
of recent migrants are located in Scotland and a slightly smaller proportion live in the
South East (15%).
42
Table 16: Proportion of recent* migrants**, by Government Office Region
Proportion of migrant
population
Number
%
16
59
South East
4
15
London
6
22
South West
1
4
27
100
Government Office Region
Scotland
Total
*
Migrants that arrived in the UK in the 12 months prior to interview
defined by Country of Birth
**Migrants
Employment status of migrants
71% (32) of migrants5 were not doing any paid work in the week prior to the interview,
either as an employee or self-employed (5 had a job to return to). Of those that did not
have a job, 44% (12) had worked previously in their life, 56% (15) had never worked.
22% (6) were looking for a job in the 4 weeks prior to interview.
When asked for the reason why they were not looking for work, 95% (20) stated that they
were students.
When asked to subjectively assess their economic status, 31% (14) of migrants were
identified as working and 64% (29) were students. The remainder fell across a number of
categories, such as ‘seeking work’ or ‘unemployed’.
In summary, approximately the same proportion of migrants is identified from the sample
for the three variables used: Nationality, Country of Birth or National Identity. All three
identified approximately two thirds of the sample as UK/British and one third as migrant.
Approximately two-thirds of the migrant population lived in educational establishments,
and over 90% were located in Scotland or London/South East.
5
Migrants defined by country of birth
43
3.6.3 Migrants excluding Halls of Residence
Excluding students
Approximately two-thirds of identified migrants are students and almost all students
interviewed were migrants. This is likely to be because interviews took place very near to
the start of the Easter holidays. During this period UK students often return to their home
address, and halls of residence are most likely to be occupied by foreign students. Due to
this, we thought it would be of interest to explore the number of migrants living in
communal establishments, excluding students.
Students can be excluded in two ways; by excluding CEs catering solely for students or by
excluding respondents who identified themselves as students through the subjective
economic status question. The method chosen made little difference to the results of the
analysis, therefore the results of the former method only are discussed below.
Nationality
Excluding respondents in CEs that catered solely for students, the Nationality of
approximately 75% (61) of the sample was UK British and 25% (20) were classified as
‘other’ or Irish (1 respondent). Of those classified as ‘other’, the most highly populated
categories were English (26%), Indian (16%) and Polish (11%). Therefore, in summary,
83% of the sample was British or Irish Republic and 17% from elsewhere.
Country of Birth
Excluding students, approximately 78% (63) of the sample were born in Britain and 22%
(18) were born elsewhere. Of those born elsewhere 17% were born in India and 11% in
Poland.
Of those born outside of the UK, the top reason for moving to the UK was for employment
33% (6), followed by study 28% (5) and other reasons 22% (4).
As one might expect, analysis of the year in which they first arrived in the UK yielded
quite different results from the analysis including students. Approximately 50% of the
sample arrived 2007-2009, as compared with 71% in the sample including students.
3 residents that had arrived recently (i.e. in 2008 or 2009) intended to stay in the UK long
term – 12 months or more. 1 expected to stay here between 6 and 12 months.
National Identity
94% of the sample identified themselves as having UK National Identity and 6% as having
a National Identity other than that of the UK.
44
In summary, excluding students, when considering Nationality or Country of Birth
approximately 80% of the sample are UK/British and 20% are migrant. However, the
results are slightly different when considering National Identity. Only 6% identify
themselves as having a non-UK national identity. This difference could be due to
difficulties experienced by respondents when interpreting the National Identity question.
Feedback from DCM cognitive testing suggested respondents were unsure of the
difference between the two concepts of ‘nationality’ and ‘national identity’. The results of
the pilot and DCM feedback suggests there may not be a need to ask three questions to
establish migration status and that, in fact, three questions could potentially be confusing
to respondents.
3.7
Self-Completion
100 respondents were selected for self-completion (SC) interview. Another 90 were left a
SC questionnaire, for example, where FtF respondents could not be contacted or refused a
FtF interview. Therefore, in total, SC questionnaires were left with 190 respondents.
3.7.1 Response
Only 17 SC questionnaires were returned, giving a very low response rate of 9%. The
main type of establishment contributing to the poor response was halls of residence. The
majority of SC questionnaires were left in halls of residence (91%). As mentioned above,
the fieldwork was carried out very near to the start of the Easter holidays. By the time
students would have returned to their accommodation the closing date for completion of
the SC questionnaire would have passed.
Of the 17 self-completion respondents, 12 had originally been allocated a FtF interview,
and 5 had originally been allocated a SC questionnaire. 5 SC respondents undertook the
face-to-face doorstep exercise before they were left a SC questionnaire. All respondents
that undertook the doorstep exercise were eligible for interview. A brief analysis of the SC
data has been undertaken, though the results should be interpreted with caution due to
the low numbers involved.
3.7.2 Type of Establishment
12 SC respondents were residents of educational establishments, 4 were from residents of
hostels and 1 in a sheltered living project.
3.7.3 Sex, Age and Marital Status
7 respondents were male and 10 female. The age of respondents ranges from 17 to 42,
with a mean age of 24. 14 respondents have never been married or registered a same-sex
civil partnership.
45
3.7.4 Ethnicity and Religion
8, the majority of the sample, are of white British origin and 6 are of Asian origin. 9
respondents follow no religion, 4 are Christian, 2 are Buddhist and 2 Muslim.
3.7.5 Employment Status
Respondents were also asked to subjectively assess their economic status. The majority of
the sample (12) were students, 4 were not working due to long term sickness or a
disability. The remaining respondent was unemployed.
3.7.6 Migrants
Nationality
The Nationality of approximately 59% (10) of the sample was UK British and 41% (7)
were classified as ‘other’.
Country of Birth
10 respondents were born in England and 7 were born elsewhere. Of those born elsewhere
5 were from Asian countries.
Of those born outside of the UK, the top reason for moving to the UK was for study identified by 6 respondents.
Of those born outside of the UK, the year in which they first arrived in the UK ranged from
2003 to 2009, with 4 respondents arriving 2007-2009. All but two respondents have
continuously lived in the UK since they first moved here.
All who were born outside of the UK responded to the question regarding how long they
intended to stay in the UK. 5 respondents expected to stay long term – 12 months or
more. 2 expected to stay between 6 and 12 months, and 1 between 3 and 6 months.
National Identity
Respondents were also asked to state their National Identity. 53% (9) of the sample
identified themselves as having UK National Identity and 47% (8) as having a National
Identity other than that of the UK. Of those that identified themselves as having a non-UK
National Identity, 5 were Asian, 2 European and 1 African.
46
3.8
Summary Conclusions
Manager Stage
Results of the pilot evaluation, in particular feedback from interviewers identified potential
to make further improvements at the TU stage to improve effectiveness of the FtF
interview process. Some issues have already been highlighted in section 2 above, for
example the benefit of further quality assurance and tidying of address information in
advance of contact with selected addresses.
Of the 63 CEs included in the pilot 9 (16%) were identified as ineligible during the course
of the manager interview. One of the aims of the TU stage was to identify and exclude the
ineligible CEs. This filtering process failed to correctly identify ineligible establishments
highlighting a need for further work on refining the eligibility questions at the TU stage.
The filtering process was also limited by the changes that were made to definitions of a CE
and CE resident between the TU and FtF stages for the pilot. Agreeing definitions in
advance would ensure exclusion of ineligibles prior to FtF interviews, making best use of
interviewer resource. (Although it is recognised that circumstances within selected CEs
could change due to time lag between first contact and FtF interview – this is unavoidable
but could be minimised if time lag is as short as possible).
RECOMMENDATION
8:
Ensure
consistent
definitions
and
clear
eligibility
questions are applied at the TU and FtF interview stage enabling the majority of
ineligible addresses to be excluded at the TU stage.
RECOMMENDATION 9: The time lag between the TU and FtF interview stage
should be kept as short as possible.
Some issues that were potential causes for concern prior to the pilot in particular,
managers being asked to provide information on eligibility of residents and the resident
listing process were found to have worked well. Interviewers did not report any problems
with the manager’s ability to identify eligible residents and analysis has shown that
although 59 residents were coded as ineligible all 59 met the eligibility definition (the
majority of residents in the category having been incorrectly coded by interviewers). It
should be noted however that no information is available on residents incorrectly excluded
from the sample.
Interviewers did not experience any major problems with the resident listing/selection
process. Some minor issues were identified relating to:

last minute changes to procedures for selecting (staff) residents in care homes

data protection issues (cited by a small number of managers as a reason for not
complying with the interview process)
47

sub-sampling in multiple occupancy rooms
It should be possible to address all of these issues by making relatively small changes to
the pilot process and, in the case of care homes, clarifying requirements for interviewing
and seeking ethical approval, if required.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Additional guidance should be provided to interviewers
on the data protection act and its implications for CES and fieldwork procedures
relating to sub-sampling of residents in multiple-occupancy rooms should be
refined.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Requirements for inclusion of residential and nursing
home CE residents in the survey should be confirmed and ethical approval
sought, if required, for mainstage survey.
The most significant issue highlighted at the manager stage related to problems gaining
access to the individual CE residents selected for interview. These difficulties contributed
significantly to a low level of individual resident response (overall response rate of 37%).
In total 148 (around 40%) of the residents selected for face to face interview were either
left a self-completion questionnaire or could not be contacted. This was a particular issue
for educational establishments (halls of residence) where 68% of the sample fell into this
category.
There were a number of factors affecting the low resident response rate, some of which
were more relevant to specific types of establishments. The main factors can be
summarised as:

reliance on individual CE managers to gain access to and successfully interview
selected residents.
The level of cooperation from CE managers varied significantly from some managers
who actively encouraged residents to participate and organised appropriate times and
venues for interview to managers who were reluctant to allow interviewers any access
to residents, effectively providing a refusal on behalf of individual residents. Gaining
access to residents was a particularly significant issue for universities where strict
security/access procedures were in place and permission was often required at a more
senior level (interviewers suggested a top-down approach to gaining consent).

manager role in selling the survey to respondents.
Reliance on the cooperation of CE mangers also meant that in some cases residents
willingness to participate in the survey was dependent on the mangers ability to ‘sell
the survey’, replacing interviewers in this role.
48

Timing
The fieldwork period coincided with university Easter holidays and thus student
availability was limited.
The findings of the pilot and interviewer feedback highlighted the different issues
impacting on response in the different types of establishments indicating that approaches
may need to vary for different types of CEs in order to improve the overall level of
response. In particular the pilot fieldwork design seemed particularly ineffective in
university halls of residence. Further work is needed to review all of the factors
contributing to the low level of response from students in halls of residence with a view to
tailoring procedures to better fit requirements. For example, introducing an alternative
approach to obtaining consent for the survey and ensuring fieldwork periods do not
coincide with student holidays could result in better access to student residents.
Recommendation 12: Issues contributing to the low resident response level
should be reviewed and fieldwork procedures amended to address these issues.
Consideration should be given to tailoring the fieldwork design to better fit
individual requirements of different types of establishments.
Resident Stage
Where CE managers did contact students and encourage them to participate in the survey
response remained low. Alternative administrative data sources may be able to provide
the information needed on migrants living in student halls of residence, removing the need
for their inclusion in the CE survey and this approach should be investigated further. If
not, ways to encourage participation in the survey (e.g. incentives) may need to be
considered.
Recommendation 13: Alternative data sources and/or methods to encourage
participation in the survey should be considered, in particular with a view to
improving the level of response from students in halls of residence.
A small number of potential improvements to the questionnaire design were identified
during the pilot evaluation phase, in particular the need for more cognitive testing of
questionnaires, especially regarding issues of measurement error and mode effects and
improvements to showcards. All such issues could be addressed at the mainstage survey
development.
Recommendation 14: Review potential improvements to questionnaire design
identified during the pilot and, if appropriate, implement changes for the
mainstage survey.
49
The number of residents selected for face-to-face interview at this pilot stage was limited
to 20 residents per establishment. This approach ensured effective use of interviewer
resource in covering a range of establishments and resident types. It is intended that the
number of residents selected within larger CEs selected for face-to-face interview be
increased at mainstage and the use of self-completion questionnaires reduced. The pilot
has highlighted the poor level of response to the self-completion questionnaires both by
residents selected initially for self-completion and also residents who did not complete a
face-to-face interview and were instead left a self-completion questionnaire.
Circumstances in which self-completion questionnaires may be appropriate at the main
survey stage, for example where respondent’s have language difficulties and interpreters
are not available, did not cause problems at the pilot stage and therefore the need for a
self-completion stage should be reviewed. If self-completion forms continue to be used
then a number of potential improvements to the questionnaire have been identified for
implementation.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Review the need for a self-completion component at the
mainstage survey. If self-completion stage is retained improvements to the
questionnaire design identified during the pilot should be implemented.
Migrants
A key aim of the pilot was to see whether migrants could be identified and, if identified,
whether they could provide the required information. Although the pilot sample size is
limited, 41% of those interviewed had a non-British nationality and 47% of the responders
were born outside England (three-quarters of these being Asian). As noted above no
language difficulties were reported and there did not appear to be any difficulty in any
respondents providing most of the information requested. The only question that raised
some concern was national identity and in some (19) cases respondents were not asked
the question by interviewers. The need for inclusion of the national identity question in
addition to nationality and country of birth should be reviewed.
RECOMMENDATION 16: Review the need for the inclusion of the national identity
question for the mainstage survey.
50
4.
Recommendations and Issues
The key recommendations based on the findings of the pilot stage are summarised in the
Executive Summary. Some of these recommendations relate to detailed changes to the
procedures implemented for the pilot that could realise small-scale improvements at the
mainstage. However, a number of the recommendations highlight broader issues relating
to conduct of a communal establishment survey more generally, indicating that a
mainstage survey based on a modified pilot survey design is unlikely to meet ONSCD
requirements in terms of the quality of outputs delivered.
Issues of particular concern are the lack of a readily available sampling frame, high level
of non contact at the get-in-touch stage and low level of resident response. These issues
are discussed further in the following section.
4.1
Key Recommendations
4.1.1 Get-in-touch Stage
There are two key issues that need to be addressed at stage 1 of the survey process: the
lack of a readily available sampling frame and the high level of non-contact at the get-intouch stage.
Sampling frame
The most significant issue to be addressed if a CES survey is to be conducted on an
ongoing basis is the lack of a readily available sampling frame and each of the register
sources available has associated limitations. The PAF does not include classificatory
information and therefore a large-scale filtering exercise is required to identify a sample of
sufficient size for a CES. Selection for LFS has been used to filter CEs on the Small User
PAF but several quarters of LFS data is needed to generate a sample of sufficient size for
the CES. It is estimated, based on current requirements, that 8 quarters of LFS data
would be needed to generate a sample of sufficient size for a mainstage CES. This
obviously has implications if a CES is to be conducted on an ongoing basis or if an
increase in survey sample size is required to enable the survey to deliver outputs of the
required accuracy.
Using the IDBR as a sampling frame also has associated limitations. The structure of
businesses listed on the IDBR does not sit well with CES requirements to identify
individual establishments – some selected units covered several establishments. In
addition, for the pilot sample, selection was limited to the SIC codes that related most
closely to eligible CE categories (hotels, care homes etc) but it was recognised that
adopting such an approach to sample selection meant that the more difficult to identify
establishments (e.g. agricultural accommodation for workers, educational accommodation
51
not separately listed etc) were not covered for the pilot. A refined selection procedure
would be needed for the mainstage survey to ensure full coverage of all CE types.
The most obvious solution, if a CES is to be run an ongoing basis, is to use the Census
Address Register as a sampling frame for the survey. However, there are definitional
differences that need to be considered. A Census address register would also provide an
accurate sampling frame for a survey conducted around the time of the next Census, but
if it is to be used on an ongoing basis then the register would need to be maintained.
There are currently no plans in place to maintain the register, but this is an issue that may
need to be addressed if a CES survey to meet ONSCD requirements is to be conducted on
an ongoing basis.
Get-in-touch exercise
Limited contact information was available on many of the sampled addresses in advance
of the TU get-in-touch exercise. Structures of selected businesses from the IDBR portion
of the sample and quality of address information for LFS based addresses was not fully
taken into account at the pilot get-in-touch stage. As a consequence, given the tight
timetable and limited resources available a large proportion of the sampled addresses
were not contacted during the pilot.
The high level of non contact at the get in touch stage needs to be significantly reduced if
the CES is to be fit for purpose. Tailoring of current procedures and introduction of
additional processes is needed to enable better quality information to be collected at stage
1 and the level of non-contact to be reduced. Such changes add significant complexity to
the survey design and field procedures at the get in-touch stage and, potentially, add
further complexity to the weighting process. Increases in resource levels (both
development and operational) are needed to implement any such changes. The need for
such changes would need to be assessed based on decisions taken as to an appropriate
survey sampling frame.
4.1.2 Main Interview Stage
At the face-to-face interview stage the resident response rate was very low. There were a
number of contributing factors, the most significant of which was gaining access to
individual residents and this was particularly problematic in Halls of Residence. There is
potential to improve current fieldwork procedures with a view to improving the resident
response rate, but the impact of any such changes is not known at this stage. It is likely
that the fieldwork design will need to be tailored to better fit the different requirements of
the different types of establishments. The potential bias associated with such a low level
of response has not been assessed for the pilot but would be a key concern for a
mainstage survey.
52
4.2
Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Migrants
Alongside the pilot survey work has been undertaken by Methodology Directorate to
assess what effect the inclusion of the CE migrant population could have on the estimates
of the regional distribution of migrants, currently based on household (LFS) estimates. An
initial sensitivity analysis using 2001 Census estimates for the CE population and 2008 LFS
data for the household population indicated that the number of migrants in communals (as
estimated in the Census) has little impact on the regional distribution of migrants,
4.3
ONSCD requirements
As work on the CES pilot survey has progressed and issues have emerged ONSCD have
continued to assess how the outputs of a CES could be used to improve migration
estimates and whether the survey in its current form would be fit for purpose. The
analysis of the pilot survey results has shown that the procedures developed for the pilot
can be used to conduct a survey of CE residents and the questionnaire used to collect the
required information – respondents did not experience any significant difficulties in
providing the information requested. However, the lack of a sampling frame, high level of
non contact at the initial telephone unit contact stage and low response at the resident
interview stage indicate that a survey based on a modified pilot design will be unlikely to
deliver outputs to the level of quality required.
ONSCD have confirmed that the need for CE survey remains and further work now needs
to be undertaken to develop and assess a range of options for taking the development
work forward. This work will not only consider options to develop an improved survey
design but also the scope to use alternative sources and procedures (e.g. administrative
data) to deliver required outputs. All areas of work are being taken forward as part of a
broader exercise to determine the most appropriate design for a CES to meet ONSCD
requirements. This may lead to more fundamental changes to the production of outputs.
53
Annex A – Advance Letters
TU Advance letter – with telephone number
To The Proprietor/Manager
I am writing to ask for your help with an important study being carried out by the Office for National
Statistics (ONS). The ONS is the government department responsible for collecting information and
publishing statistics on almost all aspects of life in the UK. We also carry out the 10-yearly Census in
England and Wales.
Some of our large-scale surveys are carried out every month of the year, contacting residents at private
addresses. However more people now are using communal establishments for their
accommodation/residence. People living in these establishments make an important contribution to the
output of the country, and we want to understand more about this group of people to help with, for
example, planning and resource allocation. Your address has been selected at random from the Royal
Mail’s list because of its classification as a communal establishment.
One of our telephone interviewers will contact you in the next few weeks in order to obtain a small
amount of information about the establishment and the people who reside there. If you are busy when
they call, the interviewer will be happy to arrange a more convenient time to suit you.
If you have any further questions, please call our Public Enquiry Line on
0800 298 5313. Opening times are: Monday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm; Friday – 9am to 8pm; and
Saturday – 9am to 1pm.
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully
Leicha Rickards
Principal Researcher
54
55
TU Advance letter – no telephone number
To The Proprietor/Manager
I am writing to ask for your help with an important study being carried out by the Office for National
Statistics (ONS). The ONS is the government department responsible for collecting information and
publishing statistics on almost all aspects of life in the UK. We also carry out the 10-yearly Census in
England and Wales.
Some of our large-scale surveys are carried out every month of the year, contacting residents at private
addresses. However, more people now are using communal establishments for their
accommodation/residence. People living in these establishments make an important contribution to the
output of the country, and we want to understand more about this group to help with, for example,
planning and resource allocation. Your address has been selected at random from the Royal Mail’s list
because of its classification as a communal establishment.
Please complete the enclosed form and post it back by 14 November 2008. One of our interviewers will
then call you to obtain further information about the establishment that you are responsible for.
If you have any further questions, please call our Public Enquiry Line on
0800 298 5313. Opening times are: Monday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm; Friday – 9am to 8pm; and
Saturday – 9am to 1pm.
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully
Leicha Rickards
Principal Researcher
56
TU Contact form
57
Main Interview Stage - Advance letter sent to Communal Establishment
Dear {named individual},
I am writing to ask for your help with the final stage of the Communal Establishment Survey being
carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). You may recall that you were contacted by our
telephone unit during November 2008 where you provided some preliminary information for this study.
The ONS is the government department responsible for collecting information and publishing statistics
on almost all aspects of life in the UK. We also carry out the 10-yearly Census in England and Wales.
Some of our large-scale surveys are carried out every month of the year, contacting residents at private
addresses. However, a need has been identified to extend the population coverage to residents of
communal establishments.
One of our interviewers will contact you by telephone in the next few weeks in order to introduce
themselves and to arrange a suitable time for their visit. Please take this opportunity to ask any
questions that you may have.
If you have any further questions, please call our Public Enquiry Line on
0800 298 5313. Opening times are: Monday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm; Friday – 9am to 8pm; and
Saturday – 9am to 1pm.
We are very grateful to you for taking part in the first stage of the study and very much hope that you
will help us complete this study.
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully
Louise Morris
Principal Researcher
58
Main Interview Stage - Advance letter sent to Communal Establishment ‘other
contact’
To The Proprietor/Manager/ {named person}
Re Communal Establishment address:
I am writing to inform you about an important study called the Communal Establishment Survey
being carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The ONS is the government department
responsible for collecting information and publishing statistics on almost all aspects of life in the UK. We
also carry out the 10-yearly Census in England and Wales.
Some of our large-scale surveys are carried out every month of the year, contacting residents at private
addresses. However, more people are now using communal establishments for their
accommodation/residence. People living in these establishments are an important part of our society,
and we want to understand more about this group to help with, for example, planning and resource
allocation.
The address highlighted above was selected at random from the Royal Mail’s list of addresses, due to
its classification as a communal establishment. Some preliminary information was provided by the
establishment in a telephone contact exercise in November 2008. For the final part of the study, we
would like one of our interviewers to visit the establishment during March or April 2009 to conduct
interviews with a selected number of its residents. An interviewer will be contacting the named
establishment directly by telephone in the next few weeks in order to introduce themselves, and to
arrange with management and residents a suitable time for their visit.
If you have any questions about this study, please call our Public Enquiry Line on
0800 298 5313. Opening times are: Monday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm; Friday – 9am to 8pm; and
Saturday – 9am to 1pm.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Yours faithfully
Louise Morris
Principal Researcher
59
Resident Interview - Letter accompanying s/c questionnaire
Dear Resident
I am writing to ask for your help with an important new study being carried out by the Office for National
Statistics (ONS). The ONS is the government department responsible for collecting information and
publishing statistics on almost all aspects of life in the UK. We also carry out the 10-yearly Census in
England and Wales.
The manager has already provided information on this accommodation, and has allowed us to try and
contact you in person. Your participation in this study is very important to us in ensuring that people
living within this type of accommodation are properly represented.
You were unable or unavailable to take part in the survey when our interviewer called. Therefore, I
would ask you to complete the enclosed questionnaire and post it back in the pre-paid envelope by 31st
March 2009. All information you provide will be treated in the strictest confidence and will be used for
statistical purposes only.
If you have any further questions, please call our Public Enquiry Line on
0800 298 5313. Opening times are: Monday to Thursday – 9am to 9pm; Friday – 9am to 8pm; and
Saturday – 9am to 1pm.
Thank you for your help.
Yours faithfully
Louise Morris
Principal Researcher
Office for National Statistics
Segensworth Road, Titchfield, Fareham, PO15 5RR
www.statistics.gov.uk
60
Annex B – Table of Definitions
CES
Census 2011
LFS
Definition of Communal Establishment
An address is a CE if:
1) It is student accommodation
An establishment providing managed
residential accommodation. ‘Managed’ in
this context means full-time or part-time
supervision of the accommodation.
or if
2) All of the following apply:
a) People can live at the address
AND
Inclusions:
Sheltered Accommodation

b) The accommodation is
‘managed’/there is full-time or parttime supervision of the
accommodation
AND
c) People (not necessarily related)
who live at the address share cooking
facilities.
AND
d) People (not necessarily related)
who live at the address share a living
room or sitting room or dining room.
AND
e) There is capacity at the
accommodation for 4 or more people
who are not related to any
Sheltered accommodation units
where fewer than 50 per cent of
the units in the establishment
have their own cooking facilities,
or similar accommodation where
elderly people have their own
rooms, but lunch is provided
should be defined as communal
establishments.
Small Hotels, Guest Houses and B&Bs

Hotels, Guest Houses and B&Bs
with room for 10 or more guests
should be defined as communal
establishments.
Student Accommodation
All accommodation provided solely for
61
An establishment in which there are 4
or more residents who are unrelated to
the owner/manager.
owner/manager/supervisor who lives
at the address.
students (during term-time) should be
defined as communal. This should
include university-owned cluster flats,
houses and apartments located within
student villages, and similar
accommodation owned by a private
company and provided solely for
students.
Exceptions:

A pragmatic approach will need to
be taken with university-owned
student houses that are difficult to
identify and are not clearly located
with other student residences. In
this case, they should be
enumerated as households.

Houses rented to students by
private landlords should be
enumerated as households."
(Note: accommodation available only to
students may include a small number of
caretaking/maintenance staff or academic
staff).
Definition of Communal Establishment Resident
A person is a CE resident if:
1) The CE is their only residence in
this country.
OR
2) The CE is their current main
address.
If a person has already spent or expects
to spend six months or more in a
communal establishment then their usual
residence is that communal
establishment*. Otherwise usual
residence would be at the UK home
address and the person should be
classified as a visitor at the communal
62
A person who lives in a CE in which
there are 4 or more residents who are
unrelated to the owner/manager.
AND
establishment.
3) They are not a visitor to the UK.
Include the following, regardless of
above:

Students away at university or
college who live in a hall of
residence during term time or who
rent a room in a house owned by a
university.

People living at a CE temporarily
whilst they search for permanent
accommodation in the UK, even if
they do not consider it to be their
main residence.

People who have spent 6 months
or more in a CE, even if they do
not consider it to be their main
residence.
*People from outside the UK who intend
to stay in the UK for 3 months or more in
total and do not have another address at
which they usually live in the UK should
be included as a usual resident at that
communal establishment. If they intend
to stay in the UK for less than 3 months
in total they should be counted as a
visitor in the communal establishment.
For 2011, the communal population
consists of all those usually resident in
communal establishments (including
resident staff and owners), subject to the
further clarification points below.
Further Clarification:

Residents in self-contained flats
within the communal
establishment are classified as
communal residents.

Residents of communal
establishments that reside in a
totally separate building (for
example a caretaker living in a
house in the grounds of the
communal establishment) are
classified as residents of private
households not communal
residents.

Nurses’ accommodation on a
hospital site – if the
accommodation does not also
63
contain patients then the
accommodation should be treated
as separate communal
establishment from the hospital
(and not categorised as a
hospital), hence the nurses would
be treated as ‘residents’ and not
‘resident staff’ or ‘patients’. This
ensures consistency with similar
nurses’ accommodation off the
hospital site.

Accommodation available only to
nurses (and not to anybody else)
should be defined as communal.
This would include cluster flats
and similar accommodation,
provided solely for nurses.
Definition of a Migrant
NA – various definition used for analysis
purposes
Anyone who has stayed or intends to stay
in the UK for between 3 and 6 months is
defined as a short-term migrant.
64
Anyone over the age of 16 who is non-UK
born.
Annex C: Face-to-Face Questionnaire
Communal Establishment Questions
Note to interviewer: Accommodation available only
to students may include a small number of
caretaking/maintenance staff or academic staff who
should be included as residents.
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF CECheck1 = 1
Eligibility of Communal Establishment
NmeCE
Please could you confirm the name of this
establishment is …?
(1) Yes
(2) No – amend if No
CEChk2
Is there someone at (NameCE) (at least some of the
time) who is a manager or supervisor of the
accommodation or the people living there?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF StudentACC=2
Applies TO ALL
TtleA
Please enter the preferred title of the respondent
Applies TO ALL
CEChk3
Do the residents of (NameCE) share cooking
facilities or have their meals provided for them?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: CECheck2= 1
FstNmeA
Please enter their first name
Applies TO ALL
SurNmeA
CEChk4
Please enter their surname
Applies TO ALL
What is your job title?
Applies TO ALL
Do the residents of (NameCE) share a
living/sitting/dining room?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: CECheck3 = 1
CEChk1
CEChk5
Does (NameCE) provide accommodation for people?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies TO ALL
What is the maximum residential capacity of
(NameCE), excluding spaces used by people related
to the owner/manager/supervisor?
Instruction to interviewer: ‘residential capacity’
means how many bed spaces there are available
Record number
Applies IF: CECheck4 = 1
JobTit
StdntA
During term time, does (NameCE) provide
accommodation solely for students ?
65
OwnCE
Communal Establishment Information
Who owns (NameCE), is it the…
(1) NHS
(2) Local authority or council
(3) Education authority
(4) Educational organisation
(5) Voluntary or charitable
organisation
(6) Housing Association
(7) Privately owned
(8) Other?
Applies TO ALL
TypeCE
How would you describe (NameCE), is it a…
(1) Nursing/dual registered home
(2) Residential home
(3) Hospital
(4) Sheltered accommodation
(5) Educational establishment
(including university halls of
residence/student accommodation)
(6) Hotel/Motel
(7) B&B
(8) Guest House
(9) Boarding/lodging house
(10) Hostel (including youth hostel,
hostels for the homeless)
(11) Other?
Applies TO ALL
OwnCEspec
Please specify
Applies IF: OwnCE=8
NamOwnCE
What is the name of the (main) owner of (NameCE)
(this could be an individual or an organisation)?
Applies TO ALL
TypeCESpec
Please specify
Applies IF: TypeCE=11
Eligibility of residents
Note to Interviewer: The next part of the interview
collects information to enable you to obtain a sample
of eligible residents (or simply residents if not
enough information is available on eligibility).
TypeRes
Which groups does this establishment cater for?
Code all that apply
(1) Physical disability
(2) Learning disability
(3) Psychiatric Illness
(4) Intermediate Care
(5) Substance misuse
(6) End of life care
(7) Respite care
(8) Chronic illness care
(9) Acute illness care
(10) Older people
(11) School children
(12) University and college students
(13) Armed forces personnel
(14) Prisoners/offenders
(15) Paying guests
(16) Asylum seekers
(17) Homeless people
(18) Staff
(19) Nurses/doctors
(20) Seasonal/temporary workers
(21) Other?
Applies TO ALL
NumRes
How many residents currently live at (NameCE)
(including staff and family members)?
Record number
Applies IF StudentAcc = 1 or CECheck5 is greater
or equal to 4
NumCE1
How many residents age 16 or over permanently live
in (NameCE), that is it is their only or main address
in this country (including staff and family members)?
Record number
Don’t know
Applies TO ALL
NumCE2
Are there any other residents age 16 or over who
have lived continuously at (NameCE) for the last 6
months or more?
Yes
No
Don’t know
Applies IF: NumResCE1 = recorded number
TypeResSpec
Please specify
Applies IF: TypeRes=21
66
Instruction to interviewer: Record/mark these
numbers on your resident list. Please refer to your
field instructions for information on how to do this.
Once a list has been created you will need to
confirm that the respondent’s answers to NumRes,
NumResCE1, NumResCE2 and NumCont are
correct.
NumCon
How many other residents age 16 or over have lived
continuously at (NameCE) for the last 6 months or
more?
Record number
Applies IF: NumResCE2 = 1
Blaise will calculate the sample size at this point and
randomly select a sample of residents.
Instruction to interviewer: At this point you will
need to record which residents have been selected
for the sample on your systematic list of residents.
Please refer to your field instructions for
information on how to do this.
Resident Questions
MarStatC
Personal details
On (insert date), what is your legal marital or samesex civil partnership status?
(1) Never married and never registered
a same-sex civil partnership
(2) Married
(3) Separated, but still legally married
(4) Divorced
(5) Widowed
(6) In a registered same-sex civil
partnership
(7) Separated, but still legally in a
same-sex civil partnership
(8) Formerly in a same-sex civil
partnership which is now legally
dissolved
(9) Surviving partner from a same-sex
civil partnership
Applies TO ALL
Name
Enter the preferred title of the respondent
Applies TO ALL
Sex
Code first that applies
(1) Male
(2) Female
Applies TO ALL
DteofBth
What is your date of birth?
For day not given... enter 15 for day
For month not given... enter 6 for month
Applies TO ALL
AgeIf
LivWthC
What was your age last birthday?
98 or more = Code 97
0..97
Applies IF: (DteofBth = DONTKNOW) OR
(DteofBth = REFUSAL)
Ask or record
May I just check, do you have a partner/spouse who
is a resident of (NameCE)?
(1) Yes
(2) No, partner/spouse lives elsewhere
(3) No partner/spouse
Applies TO ALL
67
LivWth2
CryO
Ask or record
Do you have any other relative living with you at
(NameCE) (excluding your partner/spouse)?
(1) Son/Daughter (including stepchildren and adopted children, excluding
fostered children)
(2) Other relative
(3) No other relative
Applies TO ALL
Press <Space bar> to enter the coding frame
Press <Enter> to select code and <Enter> again to
continue
Applies IF: Cry01 = 997
WhyUKC
What was your main reason for coming to the UK
(your most recent arrival)?
Code one main reason only
(1) (Paid) Employment
(2) Study
(3) To get married or form a civil
partnership in the UK
(4) To accompany family or join a
spouse or other family already in UK
(5) Asylum, or
(6) Some other reason?
Applies IF: Cry01 = 372 or 997
PrivAdd
Do you have a private residential address in the UK?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: EconAct = 9
Nationality
Ntnlty
What is your nationality?
926 UK, British
372 Irish Republic
997 Other
Applies TO ALL
WhyUKOC
Type in reason
Applies IF: WhyUK = Some other reason
CameYr
Which year did you first arrive in this country?
Enter in 4 digit format e.g.: 2000
Applies IF: Cry01=372 or 997
NatSpec
Type in (main) nationality
Applies IF: Ntnlty = 997
ContUK
Press <Space Bar> to enter the coding frame
Press <Enter> to select code and <Enter> again to
continue
Applies IF: Ntnlty = 997
Apart from holidays and short visits have you lived
in the UK continuously since then?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: Cry01=372 or 997
Country of Birth
CameY2
NatO
Which year did you last arrive in this country?
Enter in 4 digit format e.g.: 2000
Applies IF: ContUK = 2 (No)
Cry01
In which country were you born?
921 England
924 Wales
923 Scotland
922 Northern Ireland
926 UK, Britain
372 Republic of Ireland
997 Other
Applies TO ALL
CrySpec
Type in country
Applies IF: Cry01 = 997
68
CameMt
NatldW
And which month was that
(1) January
(2) February
(3) March
(4) April
(5) May
(6) June
(7) July
(8) August
(9) September
(10) October
(11) November
(12) December
Applies IF: ((the current year – CameYr) <2) or (the
current year – CameY2) < 2))
Code all that apply
1
Welsh
2
English
3
Scottish
4
Irish
5
British
6
Other?
ExpLosC
Period at Current Address
APPLIES TO ALL
Natldo
How would you describe your national identity?
Enter description of national identity
APPLIES IF: (NtldE=6) OR (NtldW=6) OR
(NtldS=6)
Including the time you have already spent here, how
long do you intend to stay in the United Kingdom?
(1) Less than 3 months
(2) 3 months or more but less than 6
months
(3) 6 months or more but less than 12
months
(4) Long term - 12 months or more
Applies IF:
RestMe
How long have you lived at this address?
(1) Less than 12 months
(2) 12 months but less than 2 years
(3) 2 years but less than 3 years
(4) 3 years but less than 5 years
(5) 5 years but less than 10 years
(6) 10 years or more
Applies TO ALL
NatldE
ResMth
What do you consider your national identity to be,
you may choose as many or as few as apply, is it…
Code all that apply
1
English
2
Scottish
3
Welsh
4
Irish
5
British
6
Other?
Applies to all
How many months have you lived here?
1..12
Applies IF: RestMe =1
M3Cry
Ask or record
Three months ago, were you living in...
Running prompt
(1) the UK
(2) or somewhere else?
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3)
NatldS
What do you consider your national identity to be,
you may choose as many or as few as apply, is it…
Code all that apply
1
Scottish
2
English
3
Welsh
4
Irish
5
British
6
Other?
M3CrySpec
Ask or record
Which country was that?
Applies IF: M3Cry = 2
M3CryO
Press <Space bar> to enter coding frame
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3) AND (M3Cry = 2)
APPLIES TO ALL
69
M3Area
OYCty
Ask or record
Which town or village were you living in
then?
Take nearest
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3) AND (M3Cry =
1)
Ask or record
Which county or borough is that in?
Applies IF: OYCry = 1
OYResC
Press <Space bar> to enter the coding frame
If there is more than one code for the place, enter the
first listed code
Applies IF: OYCry = 1
M3Cty
Ask or record
Which county or borough is that in?
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3) AND (M3Cry = 1)
M3ResC
Ethnicity
Press <Space bar> to enter coding frame
If there is more than one code for the place, enter the
first listed code
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3) AND (M3Cry = 1)
Eth01
To which of these ethnic groups do you consider you
belong. Is it…
(1) White
(2) Mixed/multiple ethnic groups
(3) Asian/Asian British
(4) Black/African/Caribbean/Black
British
(5) Other ethnic group?
Applies TO ALL
OYEqM3C
Ask or record
May I just check, were you also living at that address
12 months ago, that is on [date] last year?
(1) Yes, same place
(2) No
Applies IF: (ResMth < 3)
EthWh
OYCryC
And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider
you belong…
(1) English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern
Irish/British
(2) Irish
(3) Gypsy or Irish Traveller
(4) Any other white Background?
Applies IF: Eth01 = 1
Ask or record
Twelve months ago were you living in...
(1) the UK,
(2) somewhere else?
Applies IF: ((ResMth > 2) AND (ResMth <= 11))
OR (OYEqM3 = 2)
OYCrySpec
Ask or record
Which country was that?
Applies IF: OYCryC = 2
EthMx
And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider
you belong…
(1) White and Black Caribbean,
(2) White and Black African,
(3) White and Asian or,
(4) Any other Mixed/multiple ethnic
background?
Applies IF: Eth01= 2
OYCryO
Press <Space Bar> to enter the coding frame
Applies IF: OYCryC = 2
OYArea
Ask or record
Which town or village were you living in
then?
Take nearest
Applies IF: OYCry = 1
70
EthAs
Religion
And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider
you belong…
(1) Indian,
(2) Pakistani,
(3) Bangladeshi
(4) Chinese
(5) Any other Asian background?
Applies IF: Eth01 = 3
Relig
What is your religion, even if you are not currently
practising?
Prompt as necessary
(1) Christian
(2) Buddhist
(3) Hindu
(4) Jewish
(5) Muslim
(6) Sikh
(7) Any other religion
(8) No religion at all
Applies TO ALL
EthBl
And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider
you belong…
(1) African
(2) Caribbean
(3) Any other Black/African/Caribbean
background
Applies IF: Eth01 = 4
Economic Activity
Wrking
EthArb
And to which of these ethnic groups do you consider
you belong…
(1)
Arab
(2)
Any other ethnic group
Applies IF: Eth01 = 5
Did you do any paid work last week, either as an
employee or as self-employed?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies TO ALL
EthOth
JbAway
Even though you were not doing paid work, did you
have a job or business that you were away from in the
last week (and that you expect to return to)?
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Waiting to take up a new
job/business already obtained
Applies IF : Wrking = 2
Please can you describe your ethnic group?…
Applies IF: (Eth01 = 5) OR (EthWh = 2) OR
(EthMx = 4) OR (EthBl = 3) OR (EthAs = 5) OR
(EthArb = 2)
Eth02
Press <Space bar> to enter the coding frame
Press <Enter> to select code and <Enter> again to
continue
Applies IF: (Eth01 = 5) OR (EthWh = 2) OR
(EthMx = 4) OR (EthBl = 3) OR (EthAs = 5) OR
(EthOth = 2)
OwnBus
Did you do any unpaid work last week for any
business that you own?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: (JbAway = 2 OR 3)
RelBus
...or (any unpaid work for a business) that a relative
owns?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: OwnBus = 2
71
WkTownC
LeftM
Ask or record
Which city, town or village is your place of work in?
Take nearest, in London try to get name of area (e.g.
place within borough, not just the borough)
If working overseas enter ‘abroad’ and enter the
country at the next question
Applies IF: Wrking=1 OR JbAway=1 OR
OwnBus=1 OR RelBus=1
Ask or record
And which county/city is that in?
If abroad then enter the name of the country
Applies IF: Wrking=1 OR JbAway=1 OR
OwnBus=1 OR RelBus=1
Which month in that year did you leave?
(1) January
(2) February
(3) March
(4) April
(5) May
(6) June
(7) July
(8) August
(9) September
(10) October
(11) November
(12) December
Applies IF: LeftYr <= 8 (not in work in ref wk-left
last job within 8 yrs of ref week)
WkPI99C
IState
WkCtyC
If LEFTYR<=8 then the following questions about
employment details apply to the respondents last paid
job, excluding casual or holiday work.
If LEFTYR NOT <=8 then: I am going to be asking
some questions in which the terms ‘work’, ‘job’,
‘employed’ are used. In your case could you please
regard these questions as referring to your time
spent…
Code <1> to continue
Applies IF: (LEFTYR<= 8)
Ask or record
Press <space bar> to enter the coding frame
If there is more than one code for the place, enter the
first listed code
Enter a numeric value between 1 and 135
Applies IF: Wrking=1 OR JbAway=1 OR
OwnBus=1 OR RelBus=1
WkAbrC
Press <space bar> to enter the coding frame
Enter a numeric value between 1 and 135
IndD
What did the firm/organisation you worked for
mainly make or do (at the place where you worked)?
Describe fully - probe manufacturing or processing
or distribution etc.
Include main goods produced, materials used,
wholesale or retail etc
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). IF (LEFTYR<=
8)
EverWk
Have you ever (in your life) had paid work, apart
from casual or holiday work (or the job you are
waiting to begin)?
Please include self-employment or a government
scheme.
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: (RelBus = 2)
IndT
LeftYr
Enter a title for the industry
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). IF LEFTYR<=
8)
Which year did you leave your last PAID job?
(Exclude casual / Holiday work)
If left last job before 1900, enter 1900
1900..2100
Applies IF: (EverWk = 1)
Sector
And was that…
(1) A private form or business, a limited
company
(2) Or some other kind of organisation
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). IF LEFTYR<=
8)
72
Sectro03
What kind of non-private organisation was it?
(1) A public limited company (plc)
Check it is not code 2
(2) A nationalised industry/state
corporation?
Check it is not code 1
(3) Central government or civil service
(4) Local government or council (including
police, fire services and loca authority
controlled schools/colleges)
(5) A university, or other grant funded
education establishment (include opted-out
schools)
(6) A health authority or NHS Trust
(7) A charity, voluntary organisation or trust
(8) The armed forces
(9) Some other kind of organisation
Supvis
In your job do you have formal responsibility for
supervising the work of other employees?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: Stat = 1
Manage
Ask or record
Do you have any managerial duties?
(1) Manager
(2) Foreman/supervisor
(3) Not manager/supervisor
Applies IF: Stat = 1
MPnE02
Ask or record
How many people worked for your employer at the
place where you worked?
(1) 1-10
(2) 11-19
(3) 20-24
(4) Don’t know under 25
(5) 25-49
(6) 50-249
(7) 250-499
(8) Don’t know between 50and 499
(9) 500 or more
Applies IF: Stat = 1
Applies if Sector = 2
OccT
What was your (main) job (last week)?
Enter job title
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). IF (LEFTYR<=
8)
OccD
What did you mainly do in your job?
Check special qualifications/ training needed to do
the job
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). IF (LEFTYR<=
8)
Solo
Ask or record
Were you working on your own or did you have
employees?
(1) On own/with partner(s) but no
employees
(2) With employees
Applies IF: Stat = 2
Stat
Ask (or record if on government scheme or doing
unpaid work)
Were you working as an employee or were you selfemployed?
(1) Employee
(2) Self-employed
(3) Government Scheme
(4) Unpaid family worker
Applies IF: (WRKING =1) OR (JBAWAY=1) OR
(OWNBUS=1) OR (RELBUS=1). (LEFTYR<= 8)
MpnSO2
How many people did you employ at the place where
you worked?
(1) 1 – 10
(2) 11 – 29
(3) 20 – 24
(4) Don’t know but under 25
(5) 25 – 49
(6) 50 – 249
(7) 250 – 499
(8) Don’t know between 50 and 499
(9) 500 or more
Applies IF Stat = 2 and Solo = 2
PdWage
(May I just check,) Are/Were you paid either a salary
or a wage by an employer?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: Stat = 1
73
FtPtWk
NoLoWa
In your (main) job were you working...
Let respondent decide whether job is full time or part
time.
(1) full-time
(2) or part-time?
Applies IF: ((Stat = 1 OR 2 OR 4) AND (EverWk
=-9)) OR ((Stat = 1 OR 2) AND (YrLess <= 8))
May I just check, what were the reasons you did not
look for work in the last 4 weeks?
Code all that apply
(1) Waiting for the results of an
application for a job/being assessed by an
ET training agent
(2) Student
(3) Looking after the family/home
(4) Temporarily sick or injured
(5) Long-term sick or disabled
(6) Believes no jobs available
(7) Not yet started looking
(8) Doesn't need employment
(9) Retired from paid work
(10) Any other reason
Applies IF: Wait = 2
YPtJob
I would like to ask you why you took a parttime rather than a full-time job. Was it
because….
Code first that applies
(1) you were a student/you were at
school?
(2) You were ill or disabled?
(3) You could not find a full-time job?
(4) You did not want a full-time job?
Applies IF: FTPTWK = 2
NoLWM (this is a routine blaise check on the
last question)
Start
Looking for Work
If a job or a place on a government scheme had been
available in the last 4 weeks, would you have been
able to start within 2 weeks?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: (Look4 = 1) OR (LkYt4 = 1)) OR
(LikeWk = 1)) OR (JbAway = 3) OR (Wait = 1)
Look4
Were you looking for any kind of paid work at any
time in the last 4 weeks?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: (EVERWK =RESPONSE) OR
(RELBUS=1) OR (OWNBUS=1)
LkTimA
How long have you been looking for paid work/a
place on a government scheme/an additional or
replacement job?
(1) Not yet started
(2) Less than 1 month
(3) 1 month but less than 3 months
(4) 3 months but less than 6 months
(5) 6 months but less than 12 months
(6) 12 months but less than 18 months
(7) 18 months but less than 2 years
(8) 2 years but less than 3 years
(9) 3 years but less than 4 years
(10) 4 years but less than 5 years
(11) 5 years or more
Applies IF: ((Look4 = 1) OR (LkYt4 = 1)) AND
(JbAway <> 3))
LkYt4
Were you looking for any kind of government
training scheme at any time in the last 4 weeks?
(3) Yes
(4) No
Applies IF: (EVERWK =RESPONSE) OR
(RELBUS=1) OR (OWNBUS=1)
Wait
Were you waiting to take up a job that you had
already obtained?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: (LkYt4 = 2) OR ((Look4 = 2) AND
(Age >59 AND <70))
74
EconAct
GrossTel
How would you describe your situation in the last
7 days?
Tick all that apply
It is the respondent’s perception of their economic
status that is required
If waiting to start a job or government training
scheme, code as seeking work. Code those with a job
who were away from work (e.g. on holiday) as
working.
(1) Working: 30 hours a week or more
(2) Working: less than 30 hours a week
(3) Government Training Scheme
(4) Not working because of long term
sickness or disability
(5) Registered unemployed
(6) Not registered unemployed but
seeking work
(7) At home/not seeking work
(including looking after the home or
family)
(8) Retired (including retired early)
(9) Full-time student
(10) Other
Applies TO ALL
Thinking of the sources you have mentioned, what is
your total personal income before deductions for
income tax, National Insurance etc, (that can be
weekly, monthly or an annual amount)?
Prompt only if necessary. An estimate is acceptable.
Applies TO ALL
GrssTime
Ask or record
Is that a weekly, monthly or annual amount?
(1) Weekly
(2) Monthly
(3) Annually
Applies IF GrossTel = response and GrossTel <=
99999997
TelBand (2 showcards)
Income
"We put answers into income bands. Would you tell
me which band represents your total personal income
before all deductions"
Interviewer Note: Ask respondent whether they
prefer to state their income in a weekly or annual
amount before giving them the relevant
showcard.
Applies IF: GrossTel = Refusal or GrossTel =
Don’t know
SrcInc08
Education
This card shows various possible sources of income.
Can you please tell me which kinds of income you
personally receive?
Code all that apply
(1) Earnings from employment
(2) Earnings from self-employment
(3) Pension from former employer
(4) Personal pension
(5) State pension
(6) Child benefit
(7) Income support
(8) Tax credits
(9) Other state benefits
(10) Interest from savings
(11) Interest from investments
(12) Other kinds of regular allowance
from outside the household
(13) Income from rent
(14) Other sources e.g. rent
(15) No source of income
Applies TO ALL
Qualchcr
I would now like to ask you about education and
work-related training, do you have any
qualifications...
Individual prompt - Code all that apply
Include traditional trade and modern apprenticeships
at code 4.
(1) from school, college or university?
(2) connected with work?
(3) from government schemes?,
(4) from a Modern Apprenticeship?,
(5) from having been educated at home,
when you were of school age?,
(6) No qualifications,
(7) Don't know
Applies IF : Age <70
75
HighEd1
CoursCor
What is the highest level of qualification that you
have received from school, college or since leaving
education? Please include any work-based training.
Use Q-by-Q to help code qualification
(1) Degree level qualification (or
equivalent),
(2) Higher educational qualification
below degree level,
(3) A-Levels or Highers,
(4) ONC / National Level BTEC,
(5) O Level or GCSE equivalent (Grade
A-C) or O Grade/CSE equivalent (Grade
1) or Standard Grade level 1-3,
(6) GCSE grade D-G or CSE grade 2-5 or
Standard Grade level 4-6,
(7) Other qualifications (including foreign
qualifications below degree level). Please
specify
(8) No formal qualifications
Applies IF : Age <70
And are you on a full or part-time course, a medical
or nursing course, a sandwich course or some other
kind of course?
(1) (School/full-time) (CODE NOT
APPLICABLE-AGED 20+)
(2) (School/part-time) (CODE NOT
APPLICABLE-AGED 20+)
(3) Sandwich course
(4) Studying at university or college
including 6th form college full time
(5) Training for a qualification in
nursing, physiotherapy or a similar
medical subject
(6) On a part time course at university
or college, including day release and
block release
(7) On an Open College course
(8) On an Open University course
(9) Any other correspondence course
(10) Any other self/open learning
course
Applies IF: AttenCor=1 OR 2
TypQul
You said you have some 'other qualification', is this
a...
Individual prompt - Code all that apply
(1) work related or vocational
qualifications,
(2) a professional qualification?,
(3) a foreign qualification?,
(4) None of these
Applies IF: HighEd1=7
EdAgeCor
How old were you when you finished your
continuous full-time education?
Code as 96 if still in education
Code as 97 if no education
1..97
Applies IF: Age <70
EnrolCor
Health
Are you at present enrolled on any full-time or parttime education course, excluding leisure classes?
(Include correspondence courses and open learning
as well as other forms of full-time or part-time
education.)
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF: Age<70
ICFLim
I would now like to ask you about the opportunities
you have in your daily life.
There are many reasons why people can’t take part in
activities as much as they would like to. Are you
limited in the following areas of life for any reason…
Individual Prompt – Code all that apply
(1) Education?
(2) Work?
(3) Transport?
(4) Personal relationships?
(5) Leisure?
(6) None of these
Applies TO ALL
AttenCor
And are you...
Running prompt
(1) still attending
(2) waiting for term to (re)start
(3) or have you stopped going?
Applies IF: EnrolCor=1
76
ICFWhy
What limits you in these areas?
Code all that apply
(1) Financial reasons
(2) Too busy/not enough time
(3) A health condition, illness or
impairment
(4) A disability
(5) Poor services
(6) Lack of assistance or equipment
(7) Badly designed buildings
(8) Attitudes of others
(9) Lack of information
(10) Other reasons
Applies IF: ICFLim <6
QHealth1
How is your health in general; would you say it was...
Running prompt
(1) very good,
(2) good,
(3) fair,
(4) bad,
(5) or very bad?
Applies TO ALL
LSIll
Do you have any long-standing illness, disability or
infirmity - by long-standing I mean anything that has
troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to
affect you over a period of time?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies TO ALL
IllLim
Does this illness or disability (Do any of these
illnesses or disabilities) limit your activities in any
way?
(1) Yes
(2) No
Applies IF : LSIll = 1
77
Annex D: Self-Completion Questionnaire
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Annex E: Summary Findings from Interviewer Debrief
92
Issue raised at debriefing
Reasons for issue
Possible solutions for
Manager Stage: Establishing contact
Contact sheet

Incorrect manager details

Change of staff

Reduce lag between

Incorrect address



Inappropriate person identified
Quality issue for LFS
interviewers
Improvements to LF
details recorded by i

Ineligible CEs

Questions asked at Stage 1

Refine questions ask

Evidence of CRB requested

Quality of LFS/IDBR sample

Improve IDBR specif

Interviewers routine

Ask about best call t

Increase interviewer
the survey to manag

Develop a two-tier a
larger institutions su
of residence

Continue asking elig
(at the manager stag
stage)

Clarify data protectio
interviewers

Improve procedures
rooms have multiple

Develop a two-tier p
establishments i.e. g
to enter
Telephone contact

Difficulty making contact with correct
person

Lack of knowledge of best call
times
Manager Stage: Manager co-operation
Selling the survey

Gaining manager co-operation was vital

Additional permission required

Managers ability to provide accurate
resident eligibility information varied

Large organisations with
complex management
structures
Listing process

Listing was problematic in larger
establishments

Data protection issues

Room plans difficult where a number of
people were sharing e.g. hostels
Resident Stage: Establishing contact and eligibility
Locating residents

In some cases locating selected
residents and selling the survey was
done by the manager

93
Managers unsure about
allowing interviewers access to
buildings
Issue raised at debriefing
Reasons for issue
Possible solutions for


Poor timing of field period

Ensure field period d
holidays or exam pe

Lack of direct contact in some
cases

Provide an advance l

Consider incentives

Develop a standard o
guide for interviewer
survey

Improve training ma
proxies
Difficult in universities, due to clash
with exam period and Easter break
Resident Stage: The survey process
Selling the survey

Lack of buy-in by residents, particularly
students
Proxies

Interviewers unconfident about correct
use of proxies
DCM Session
Work management
Clarification is needed on how Taxi rules
Broader than CES – to b
and codes apply to CES
Review requirements wh
Information provided to field managers
mainstage survey agree
needs to be improved and standardised
Develop automated syst
The amount of planning and
survey
administration/study time should be
increased
Improve the method of weekly feedback to
the field office
Training
Review design of briefing
training and supplement
The briefing should be simplified, focusing
on general guidelines and the most
Agree requirements for i
important features of the project
funded CES and seek eth
94
Issue raised at debriefing
Reasons for issue
Improvements should be made to the
Possible solutions for
needed
Interviewer pack, but further input from
See comments in previo
interviewers is required on what changes
they recommend
NHS funding rules need to be reinforced
clearly and explicitly
General
Improvements need to be made to a
number of the procedures, including the
multiple occupancy rules, the selfcompletion questionnaire and developing a
set of rules for manager involvement
95
Issue raised at debriefing
Reasons for issue
Possible solutions for mainstage
Manager Stage: Establishing contact
Contact sheet

Incorrect manager details

Change of staff

Reduce lag between Stage 1 and 2

Incorrect address



Inappropriate person identified
Quality issue for LFS
interviewers
Improvements to LFS sample address and
details recorded by interviewer

Ineligible CEs

Questions asked at Stage 1

Refine questions asked at Stage 1

Evidence of CRB requested

Quality of LFS/IDBR sample

Improve IDBR specification

Interviewers routinely show CRB check

Ask about best call times at TU stage
Telephone contact

Difficulty making contact with correct
person

Lack of knowledge of best call
times
Manager Stage: Manager co-operation










96
97