Upload
daniella-goodman
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Impact of Disclosure Control on Labour Market Statistics (& other
issues)– the User’s Gripes
Jill Tuffnell
Head of Research
Cambridgeshire County Council
Local Authority lead, Labour Market Statistics CLIP Group
Overview of Impact
• The Labour Market – Workplace population & industry sectors– Commuting– Unemployment– Residents of working age
• Ethnicity & Religion• Inconsistencies• Census & other Official Statistics on the labour
market• Conclusions
The Labour Market – Workplace data requirements
• Industry sector employment data required:– Regional & local planning; the basis of employment
forecasts for sub-regions– Regeneration areas– Wards & Districts– Industry sectors
Labour Market Census– Workplace (1)
• Greater Cambridge sub-region has a workforce of 327,900 – but NO industry breakdown from Standard Tables in Census 2001! NO industry data for wards
• Benchmarking problems with ABI: No employee/self-employed split for workplace population by industry sector, even for districts.
• No published data below broad industry groups FOR ANY GEOGRAPHY, (what will commissioned tables provide?): means NO breakdown of manufacturing, ‘business activities’, retail & wholesale trade; transport & communications etc even for districts.
Labour Market Census – Workplace (2)
• East of England Labour Market Census project• There are 96 identified sub-regions – not one
has industry sector workplace employment data, as all are based on wards
• No industry cluster data available• Impossible to prepare reports on the region’s
key industries: transport, hi-tech manufacturing; tourism; R&D, computer services, communications, even at a district level
Fig 1: Comparison of ABI 2001 Employees, (Jobs) & Census 2001 Workplace Employees (Modelled Population), former County of
Cambridgeshire, Selected Industry Sectors
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Manuf
actu
re
Const
ruct
ion
Distrib
utio
n
Hotels
& ca
terin
g
Tran
spor
t & co
mm
s
Fina
ncial
serv
ices
Busin
ess a
ctivi
ties
Public
adm
in
Educa
tion
Health
& so
cial c
are
Other
serv
ices
ABI 2001, Defra - Employees
Census employees
Labour Market Census - Commuting
• Output Areas totally unreliable for our purposes• Even ward based analysis presents problems e.g.
former Cambridgeshire;– Ward ‘origin’ employed residents: 349,590– Former county Standard Table emp res: 348,980– Ward ‘destination’ workplace population: 359,584– Former county Standard Table work. Pop: 359,124
Problems are greater for smaller areas – e.g.Districts, wardsNo commuting flows by industry
Labour Market Census - Unemployment
• No Standard Table with economically active & unemployed covering all residents by gender & age; (‘student’ problem)
• Unemployed is derived from two Standard Tables – but which two? ‘Employed’ resident totals differ significantly
• Example of Abbey ward in Cambridge – large population, with over 4,250 employed residents; are there any elderly unemployed females at all?
• Data problems are even greater for smaller wards
Table 1: Unemployment - Cambridge Abbey Ward, females, Census 2001
Age BandEconomically active (ST28)
Working (ST33)
Difference = Unemployed
(1)Working (ST36)
Difference = Unemployed
(2)16-17 62 57 5 54 818-19 67 53 14 56 1120-24 247 228 19 227 2025-29 318 301 17 304 1430-39 518 489 29 489 2940-49 420 411 9 411 950-54 188 184 4 187 155-59 121 124 -3 118 360-64 57 54 3 52 565-69 24 26 -2 20 470-74 9 12 -3 12 -3Total 2,031 1,939 92 1,930 101
Labour Market Census – Residents of Working Age
• Industry sector employment only available at broad level
• Should be basis for calibrating with Labour Force Survey, Incapacity Benefit claimants etc
• Should establish base-lines for Development Agencies, Learning & Skills Councils, Connexions etc
• Problems with disclosure affect age/gender breakdown of economically inactive; ‘small number syndrome’
Ethnicity & Religion - Census
• Small numbers involved in most of Cambridgeshire, (only 1,130 non-white population in Fenland district)
• High imputation rates• Swapped records• Disclosure control• Do the results mean anything? – definitely not
for wards or Output Areas in most of Cambs
Table 1.1: Imputation rates by ethnic group and district Source: Office for National Statistics – One Number Census Imputation Rates by Key Variables
Ethnic Group Cambridge
City East
Cambs Fenland Hunts South
Cambs
White: British 7.8% 6.8% 2.9% 4.3% 3.4%
White: Irish 8.3% 8.9% 3.9% 4.3% 2.6%
White: Other White 6.9% 9.4% 2.3% 7.7% 2.9%
Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 6.9% 5.4% 0.0% 5.7% 3.1%
Mixed: White and Black African 5.8% 2.4% 4.3% 9.4% 6.5%
Mixed: White and Asian 5.8% 1.8% 0.6% 5.5% 2.7%
Mixed: Other Mixed 7.9% 8.0% 2.0% 4.7% 2.5%
Asian or Asian British: Indian 15.6% 9.7% 2.1% 8.6% 5.5%
Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 9.4% 2.2% 0.0% 9.0% 3.6%
Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 16.2% 24.2% 11.6% 5.4% 9.8%
Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 7.1% 2.2% 2.0% 5.4% 1.3%
Black or Black British: Black Caribbean 24.9% 14.3% 1.6% 7.0% 18.3%
Black or Black British: Black African 28.1% 22.7% 15.4% 11.1% 23.3%
Black or Black British: Other Black 13.0% 9.2% 0.0% 11.6% 9.3%
Other: Chinese 22.6% 22.7% 2.9% 10.6% 12.8%
Other: Other ethnic group 13.8% 9.9% 0.0% 8.2% 6.6%
Table 2: All dependent children by religion, East Cambs Wards, 2001
Ward Buddhist Hindu Jewish
Bottisham 0 0 4
Burwell 0 0 0
Cheveley 3 0 3
Downham Villages 3 9 0
Dullingham Villages 0 0 0
Ely East 0 0 0
Ely North 0 0 3
Ely South 3 0 0
Ely West 0 0 0
Fordham Villages 0 3 0
Haddenham 0 3 0
Isleham 0 0 0
Littleport East 6 3 0
Littleport West 3 0 0
Soham North 0 0 0
Soham South 0 3 3
Stretham 0 3 0
Sutton 0 0 0
The Swaffhams 0 0 0
Source: Census 2001 Standard table T52
Inconsistencies - Census
• Different totals from different tables• Small geographies do not add to large
geographies• Disproportionate impact on small area data –
which is the chief value of the census count• Disproportionate impact on small counts –
and hence aggregates of those counts
Census & Other ONS data
• Claimant unemployment count is now subject to disclosure control – small numbers renders it useless for analysis by age/gender for many wards
• Likely to be the same problem with Incapacity Benefit data
• The Census is the only reliable data set for small area workplace statistics – yet we cannot calibrate it at ward level against the ABI or IDBR
• Still no idea of what may be available from commissioned tables; likely to be minimal
Conclusions
• Census now almost 4 years old – so whose confidentiality are we respecting?
• Far more detail published in 1991 from a 10% sample about workplaces and industries
• Disclosure control applied to individual businesses has seriously diminished the value of the Census; it appears no ward data has been published because one school constitutes the ‘education’ sector
• There appears to be no sound official statistical series on workplace population at an industry level; how are we expected to monitor and plan for employment?