LFS Non-response Data on Migrants Laura Keyse Office for National Statistics.

LFS Non-response Data on Migrants

Laura KeyseOffice for National Statistics

Structure

1. Introduction to LFS Sample Design, Response Rate Trends and Characteristics of Non-responders

2. Non-response Data on Migrants

3. Conclusions

LFS Sample Design

• Systematic random sample – 53,000 responding households per quarter

• GB addresses sampled from the Postcode Address File

• Each quarter’s sample comprises five waves of households

• Wave 1 = face-to-face interview

• Waves 2-5 = telephone interview

Wave Specific Response Rates

Composition of Non-response

6.9 6.2 5.1

45.8 40.8 39.1

16.414.5 15.8

17.625.4 28.8

13.3 13.1 11.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

JS07 JS06 JA05

Non-contact

Refusal to re-interview

Refusal to HQ

Outrightrefusal

Circumstantialrefusal

Characteristics of Non-responders: Non-contacts

2001 Census-linked study (Freeth, 2004) showed non-contact in wave one of the LFS most likely to occur in households:

• located in the Midlands, East of England, London and the South East

• living in a purpose-built flat or converted/shared house• containing one adult only

The HRP of difficult-to-contact households tended to be:• single, separated, divorced or widowed• born outside the UK• an employee or self-employed

Characteristics of non-responders: Refusals

Refusal most likely to happen in households:

• located in the Midlands, East of England, London, South East, South West and Scotland

• whose HRP did not have degree level qualifications

NB: No relationship between country of birth and wave one refusal rate

Non-response on Migrants: Definitions

• Migrants defined as HRPs born outside the UK

• Non-migrants defined as UK-born HRPs

• Note - differs from UN definition:

“A person who moves to a country other than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual residence”

Non-response on Migrants : Method

• Attrition rate calculated for waves 2-5 of all quarters of the 2005 and 2006 LFS

• Attrition rate: how many HRPs failed to take part in a specific wave as a proportion of those which took part in the previous wave

• e.g. wave 2 attrition rate shows how many HRPs dropped out in wave 2 as a proportion of those that completed a wave 1 interview

Wave Specific Attrition Rates (Non-contacts + Refusals)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Migrants

Non-migrants

Wave Specific Non-contact Rates

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Migrants

Non-migrants

Wave Specific Refusal Rates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Migrants

Non-migrants

Composition of Non-response

Non-Migrants Migrants

0%10%20%

30%40%50%60%70%

80%90%

100%

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Non-contact

R efusal to re-interviewC ircumstantialrefusalO utrig ht refusal

HQ refusal

0%10%20%30%40%50%

60%70%80%90%

100%

Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Non-contact

R efusal to re-interviewC ircumstantialrefusalO utrig ht refusal

HQ refusal

Reasons for Refusal at Waves 2-5Reason for refusal Migrants Non-

migrants

Broken appointment 44.6 47.1

Too busy 15.0 13.9

About to go away 8.8 8.5

Other 7.7 5.4

Personal problems 6.3 9.9

Cannot be bothered 5.4 6.5

Language difficulties 3.7 0.2

Invasion of privacy 1.8 2.0

Doesn’t believe in surveys 1.6 1.7

Anti-government 0.4 0.4

Waves 2-5 Attrition Rates by Region

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ScotlandWales

South WestSouth East

LondonEastern

West MidlandsEast Midlands

YorkshireMerseysideNorth WestNorth East

Migrants Non-migrants

Summary

• LFS response rates have declined over the last decade

• Wave one non-contact rate higher for migrants• Attrition, non-contact and refusal rates higher for

migrants at waves 2-5• Composition of non-response is similar for

migrants and non-migrants at waves 2-5• Similar reasons for refusal given by migrants and

non-migrants• Migrant attrition rate is highest in London

email: [email protected]

Note on European Commission funding and information contained in presentation

• The project which has been reported in this presentation was funded by the European Commission.

• However, the information presented is the sole responsibility of the author.

• The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.