Social and cultural participation in EU-SILC and the problem of output harmonization

1. Social and cultural participation in EU-SILC and the problem of output harmonization • Hans Schmeets / Statistics Netherlands / Maastricht University • Bart Huynen / Statistics Netherlands • Q2010, Helsinki, 2010, May 4

2. Importance of EU-SILC • The SILC “is the main source for the compilation of comparable indicators on social cohesion used for policy monitoring at EU level…” (Eurostat, 2009).

3. Outline • 2 Problem examples • Eurostat • EU-Statistics on Income and Living Conditions • Social and cultural participation (2006) • Problems of comparability: • Questions • Data collection modes • Conclusions and discussion

4. Participation in activities of churches or other religious organisations (%)

5. Participation in informal voluntary activities (%)

6. Correlation with gender, age, education and disposable household income • Many across country differences in the strength of the correlations • E.g.: Informal voluntary activities by gender • No correlations in Belgium (0.02), Hungary (0.02) and France (0.03) • The Netherlands, UK, Iceland, Italy: substantially more women than men (> 0.10)

7. Eurostat: Mission Eurostatis the Statistical Office of the European Communities. Itsmissionis to provide the European Union withhigh-quality statistical information. For that purpose, it gathers and analyses figures from the national statistical offices across Europe andprovides comparable and harmonised datafor the European Union to use in the definition, implementation, and analysis of Community policies. Source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat

8. Eurostat: Output Harmonisation Output Harmonisation - Same definition and variables of the defined concepts Whereas Input Harmonisation requests also the same: - sample design - questions - data collection mode - rate of proxy-interviews - response rate and so on…..

9. Design of the EU-SILC • Various sample designs. • Most National Statistical Institutes use a 4-year rotational design (if EU-SILC is new survey); • Other countries integrate EU-SILC with an existing survey or incorporating it into an existing sample; • Four modes of data collection exist for the EU-SILC • Personal visits (CAPI); • Telephone interviews (CATI); • Paper interviews (PAPI); • Self-administrated questionnaires (Mail); • Interview duration: 15 minutes for CATI to over 60 minutes for CAPI;

10. How to assess the comparability? • Frequenciesand correlations • Data from 24 countries and 16 variables on social and cultural participation • Face validity (looking for ‘outliers’) • Conclusion: many implausible results • Explanations • Phrasing of the questions? • Mode-effects? • Response and non-response bias? • Answers by proxy? • Or… cultural differences? • Or….

11. How to assess the comparability? • Phrasing of the questions? • Collected and translated the questionnaires on social and cultural participation • 15 questionnaires translated • Compared the questions • Conclusion: many differences • Differences • One single and more than one question; • Follow-up questions; • The exact phrasing of the question; • Presenting a showcard or not; • Examples to clarify the meaning of the question; • Inclusion and exclusion of groups, e.g. household members; • And more….

14. Example 1. Participation in churches and religious organisations • Defined concept: • If the respondent, during the last twelve months, participated in activities related to churches, religious communions or associations. • Attending meetings connected with these activities is included. • Attending holy masses or similar religious acts or helping during these services is also included.

15. Example 1. Participation in churches and religious organisations • France: “Au cours des douze derniers mois…avez-vous été membre…” •  “are you a member” • France reports relatively low participation in most questions concerning participation in groups or organisations.

16. Example 1. Participation in churches and religious organisations In UK: The next question is about involvement in groups, clubs and organisations. These could be formally organised groups or just groups of people who get together to do an activity or talk about things. Please exclude just paying a subscription, giving money, and anything that was a requirement of jour job. In the last 12 months, have you been involved with any groups? Yes 1 No 2

17. Example 1. Participation in churches and religious organisations In UK: Which of the categories on this card best describe the groups you have taken part in? Showcard 32 Hobbies/social clubs Sport/exercise groups, including taking part, coaching or going to watch Local community or neighbourhood groups Environmental groups Political groups Religious groups, including going to place of worship or belonging to a religious based group Charitable organisation Professional associations Other group

18. Example 1. Participation in churches and religious organisations >> In The Netherlands In the last 12 months, have you been going to a church, mosque, or another religious meeting? Yes 1 No 2

19. Participation in activities of churches or other religious organisations (%)

20. Data collection modes

21. Permanent Survey on Living Conditions in the Netherlands

22. Participation in activities of political parties or trade unions (%)

23. Data collection modes • Comparison all 24 countries • > CATI-countries higher on all 16 participation variables than CAPI/PAPI • Comparison 15 ‘traditional’ EU-countries > CATI-countries higher on all 16 participation variables than CAPI/PAPI • Comparison of countries with identical questions • CATI-countries higher on all 16 participation variables than CAPI/PAPI • 3 examples >>>

24. Attending live sport events

25. Contacts with Friends

26. Participation in activities of charitable organisations

27. Conclusions and discussion • Eurostat Mission: • high-quality statistical information • comparable and harmonised data How? >>> Output harmonization However: • Statistics are hardly comparable • So: Quality is not high, but poor Solution: • Input harmonization by regulations

28. THANK YOU !