1 Disabilities: Census Vs. Administrative Sources Zohar Chessakov and Carole Feldmann Census and Demography Department Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem,

1

Disabilities:Census Vs. Administrative Sources

Zohar Chessakov and Carole Feldmann

Census and Demography Department

Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem, Israel

Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

2

Subjects

Study Goals Comparison of 2008 Population Census with

Administrative Sources Age patterns


3

Study Goals Determine target groups for the 2012 CBS

Disability Survey• Find and examine the population who was defined as

disabled in the Census and in Administrative sources • Census definition and limitation• Administrative sources definition and limitation• Harmonization and discrepancies between self report and

eligibility


4

Data sources 2008 Population Census- Four questions based on the

WG short set of questions for censuses + Persons registered as having heavy vision disabilities

NII- National Insurance Institute: Data on persons who receive handicap allowance, including of the amount of the grant

MOSA1- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons registered in municipal social services ; Including needs as defined by the social services

MOSA2- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons placed in institutions or receiving community services supplied or financed by the ministry

MOD- Ministry of Defense- Recipients of handicap allowances, severity percents


5

Methodology

Sumq- A continuous variable was computed based on the responses to the questions about disability in the census: response of “no difficulty” got a value of 0, response of “some difficulty” got a value of 0.1, response of “a lot of difficulty” got a value of 3 and response of “cannot at all” got a value of 20. This variable got a range from 0 to 100.


6

Disability: 2008 Census Vs. Administrative Sources (percents)

CBS NIIMOSA1– persons registered in municipal social services

who’s neediness was defined as:MOSA2 – persons in institutions and

persons placed in community services for:Ministry

of defense

CensusRecipients

of handicap allowances

Disability or health problem

Nursing care

Health problems (excluding

general disability

and autism)

HandicapMental illness

mental challenged

mental challenged

old agethe

blindhandicap Autism

Recipients of handicap

allowances

No difficulty at all 48.5 36.5 10.0 31.9 41.4 52.6 42.9 27.8 19.7 8.6 45.7 79.5 62.7

At least one some difficulty

19.8 20.0 18.6 21.1 14.7 22.3 15.3 16.0 29.1 1.7 16.1 7.6 23.5

At least one a lot of difficulty

23.0 29.4 46.5 33.5 24.0 20.1 21.1 25.4 39.8 25.0 20.5 8.2 12.0

At least one can not at all 8.7 14.1 24.9 13.5 19.9 5.0 20.7 30.8 11.4 64.7 17.7 4.7 1.8

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


7

Age 0-18

CBS NIIMOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social

services who’s neediness was defined as:MOSA2 – persons in institutions and

persons placed in community services for:Ministry

of defense

CensusRecipients



Nursing care


general disability

and autism)


mental challenged

mental challenged

old agethe

blindhandicap Autism


allowances

No difficulty at all 53.7 67.1 --- 78.6 60.7 80 43.1 29.2 --- 29.3 56.2 79.5 ---


10.1 8.4 --- 7.0 8.3 12.6 9.9 7.9 --- 3.0 10.9 6.8 ---


20.8 13.3 --- 9.0 15.8 5.8 21.1 24.9 --- 21.2 18.5 8.2 ---

At least one can not at all 15.4 11.2 --- 5.4 15.2 1.6 25.9 38.0 --- 46.5 14.4 5.5 ---

Total 100 100 --- 100 100 100 100 100 --- 100 100 100 ---


8

Age 19-64


services who’s neediness was defined as:

MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services

for:

Ministry of defense

CensusRecipients



Nursing care


general disability

and autism)


mental challenged

mental challenged

old age

the blind

handicap Autism


allowances

No difficulty at all 49.4 54.2 40.5 56.9 45.4 57.1 44.1 28.0 29.0 4.0 42.6 79.6 67.4


20.4 17.8 22.4 19.2 15.9 22.0 16.2 17.8 29.0 0.9 17.8 8.2 21.1


22.4 18.5 28.8 19.2 21.2 17.7 20.3 25.4 29.0 30.0 21.3 8.2 10.3

At least one can not at all 7.8 9.5 8.3 4.7 17.5 3.2 19.4 28.8 13.0 75.2 18.3 4.1 1.2

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


9

Minors who’s parents receiving handicap allowance from NII

Severity of disability: Number Percentage

No difficulty at all 12,576 97.54%

At least one domain with Some difficulty 188 1.46%

At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 99 0.77%

At least one domain with cannot at all 30 0.23%

total 12,893 100%


10

Age 65+


services who’s neediness was defined as:

MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services

for:

Ministry of defense

CensusRecipients



Nursing care


general disability

and autism)


mental challenged

mental challenged

old age

the blind

handicap Autism


allowances

No difficulty at all 26.6 16.9 9.4 15.9 13.3 17.4 20.7 8.2 19.5 1.4 --- --- 33.8


27.9 23.9 18.6 23.3 16.9 27.2 28.4 26.2 29.1 2.1 28.6 --- 38.2


35.0 41.0 46.8 42.5 38.9 39.1 34.6 31.2 40.0 35.5 14.3 --- 22.9

At least one can not at all 10.5 18.2 25.2 18.3 30.9 16.3 16.3 34.4 11.4 61.0 57.1 --- 5.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Average annual handicap allowance* (NII) 2008

Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 Census Percentage of Persons

NIS**

No difficulty at all 48.5% 24,564

At least one domain with Some difficulty 19.8% 30,102

At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 23.0% 35,761

At least one domain with cannot at all 8.7% 53,382

Total 100% 30,743

* The sum of allowance is related to average earning of the handicapped

** NIS – New Israeli Shekel

11Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

12

Average percentage of handicap (MOD)

Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 Census Percentage of Persons

Percentage of handicap

No difficulties at all 62.7% 13.3%

At least one domain with Some difficulty 23.5% 18.4%

At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 12.0% 25.9%

At least one domain with cannot at all 1.8% 54.8%

Total 100% 16.7%


Persons receiving allowances (NII)

Disability domains responded in 2008 census

Disability severity

No difficulty at all

Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 80.8% 12.2% 5.7% 1.3% 100%

Vision* 97.6% ------ 0.8% 1.6% 100%

“Cognition” 71.9% 16.3% 9.3% 2.5% 100%

ADL 78.0% 10.0% 7.5% 4.5% 100%

Mobility 62.0% 16.1% 17.2% 4.7% 100%

Total 48.5% 19.8% 23.0% 8.7% 100%

* Extended from administrative sources; includes persons with severe vision impairments and blind persons

13Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg

14

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as a disability or health problem


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 66.0% 20.0% 12.2% 1.8% 100%

Vision 95.8% ------ 1.7% 2.5% 100%

“Cognition” 60.0% 23.2% 13.0% 3.8% 100%

ADL 62.1% 15.0% 14.4% 8.5% 100%

Mobility 47.3% 19.3% 25.6% 7.8% 100%

Total 36.5% 20.0% 29.4% 14.1% 100%


15

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as nursing care


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 42.9% 31.8% 23.2% 2.1% 100%

Vision 96.2% ------ 1.6% 2.2% 100%

“Cognition” 38.6% 33.3% 21.8% 6.3% 100%

ADL 28.4% 23.8% 30.0% 17.8% 100%

Mobility 14.4% 22.4% 46.5% 16.7% 100%

Total 10.0% 18.6% 46.5% 24.9% 100%


16

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as health problem (excluding general disability and autism)


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 61.1% 23.0% 14.5% 1.4% 100%

Vision 97.2% ------ 1.4% 1.4% 100%

“Cognition” 57.4% 25.7% 13.5% 3.4% 100%

ADL 57.2% 16.9% 16.8% 9.1% 100%

Mobility 39.4% 21.4% 30.7% 8.5% 100%

Total 31.9% 21.1% 33.6% 13.4% 100%


17

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as handicap


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 73.1% 13.9% 9.1% 3.9% 100%

Vision 87.9% ------ 4.5% 7.6% 100%

“Cognition” 68.9% 17.6% 10.3% 3.2% 100%

ADL 70.0% 11.3% 10.6% 8.1% 100%

Mobility 57.5% 14.8% 19.2% 8.5% 100%

Total 41.4% 14.7% 24.0% 19.9% 100%


18

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental illness


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 82.3% 11.9% 5.2% 0.6% 100%

Vision 99.2% ------ 0.3% 0.5% 100%

“Cognition” 64.9% 21.6% 11.6% 1.9% 100%

ADL 80.9% 9.7% 6.3% 3.1% 100%

Mobility 67.8% 16.3% 13.3% 2.6% 100%

Total 52.6% 22.3% 20.1% 5.0% 100%


19

Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental challenged


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 79.9% 10.8% 6.4% 2.9% 100%

Vision 98.1% ------ 0.5% 1.4% 100%

“Cognition” 45.2% 17.4% 23.1% 14.3% 100%

ADL 54.9% 13.8% 14.6% 16.7% 100%

Mobility 63.4% 13.9% 12.1% 10.6% 100%

Total 42.9% 15.3% 21.1% 20.7% 100%


20

Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for mental challenged


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 75.9% 12.2% 8.5% 3.4% 100%

Vision 97.7% ------ 0.6% 1.7% 100%

“Cognition” 20.0% 21.7% 34.6% 23.7% 100%

ADL 29.1% 21.9% 22.2% 26.8% 100%

Mobility 51.9% 17.1% 14.1% 16.9% 100%

Total 27.8% 16.0% 25.4% 30.8% 100%


21

Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for old age


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 49.3% 32.3% 17.1% 1.3% 100%

Vision 96.2% ------ 1.8% 2.0% 100%

“Cognition” 44.2% 35.9% 17.2% 2.7% 100%

ADL 48.7% 25.9% 18.7% 6.7% 100%

Mobility 29.1% 30.7% 34.8% 5.4% 100%

Total 19.7% 29.1% 39.8% 11.4% 100%


22

Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for the blind


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 75.3% 14.1% 9.5% 1.1% 100%

Vision 15.7% ------ 22.4% 61.9% 100%

“Cognition” 71.6% 19.3% 7.4% 1.7% 100%

ADL 66.5% 17.1% 11.2% 5.2% 100%

Mobility 50.8% 18.8% 24.5% 5.9% 100%

Total 8.6% 1.7% 25.0% 64.7% 100%


23

Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for handicap


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 77.8% 9.7% 6.7% 5.6% 100%

Vision 95.6% ------ 1.1% 3.3% 100%

“Cognition” 59.5% 23.2% 14.9% 2.4% 100%

ADL 66.6% 11.9% 10.5% 11.0% 100%

Mobility 60.4% 12.7% 14.1% 12.8% 100%

Total 45.7% 16.1% 20.5% 17.7% 100%


24

Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for autism


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 94.3% ------ 3.4% 2.3% 100%

Vision 100% ------ ------ ------ 100%

“Cognition” 41.8% 25.5% 21.8% 10.9% 100%

ADL 58.2% 18.2% 20.0% 3.6% 100%

Mobility 90.9% 7.3% 1.8% ------ 100%

Total 79.5% 7.6% 8.2% 4.7% 100%


25

Persons receiving disability allowance (MOD)


Disability severity


Some difficulty

A lot of difficulty

Not able at all

Total

Hearing 74.2% 18.9% 6.7% 0.2% 100%

Vision 99.6% ------ 0.2% 0.2% 100%

“Cognition” 88.1% 9.0% 2.6% 0.3% 100%

ADL 94.8% 2.9% 1.4% 0.9% 100%

Mobility 82.7% 10.1% 6.0% 1.2% 100%

Total 62.7% 23.5% 12.0% 1.8% 100%


Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - rows

percentages

Difficulty Hearing in Census

Not eligible Eligible Total

No difficulty at all* 99.8% 0.2% 100%

Some difficulty 99.0% 1.0% 100%

A lot of difficulty 97.3% 2.7% 100%

Can not at all 72.7% 27.3% 100%

Total 99.5% 0.5% 100%

* With hearing aid

26

* With hearing aid


27

Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - columns percentages

Difficulty Hearing in Census

Not eligible Eligible Total

No difficulty at all 86.0% 25.1% 85.6%

Some difficulty 8.8% 16.5% 8.9%

A lot of difficulty 4.7% 24.0% 4.8%

Can not at all 0.5% 34.4% 0.7%

Total 100% 100% 100%


28

Conclusions (1) Nursing care and health problems are

relatively well covered by the census questions

Mental illness and handicap are under covered Severe disability are covered relatively well


29

Conclusions (2) Under coverage at the younger age

group (0-18)Good coverage at the older age group

(65+) (almost in all the disability domains)


30

Conclusions (3) The domain with the highest minor severity

frequency is cognition. The domain with the intermediate severity

frequency is mobility. The domain with the high severity frequency

is ADL (self-care).


31

THANK YOU

1 Disabilities: Census Vs. Administrative Sources Zohar Chessakov and Carole Feldmann Census and Demography Department Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem,

Documents

social services persons

mosa1 persons

luxemburg slide

population census

th meeting

community services

censuses persons

israel zohar chessakov