shepway district statistics

8/13/2019 shepway district statistics

1/26

2004 Local Authority studies

Analysis of data and evidence forShepway

Ofce for National Statistics, September 2004


2/26

2

Page

Contents

Executive summary 3

1 Introduction 4

2 Background Information on Population Estimates and One Number Census 4

3 Analysis 6

3.1 Enumeration 6

a) Analysis of Council Tax data 6

b) Analysis of Enumerator Record Books (ERBs) 6

c) Analysis of Council Tax based response rates by 2001 Ward 9

d) Enumeration information 9

e) Estimated response compared to other areas 10

f) Qualitative information obtained about the Census enumeration 10

3.2 Census Coverage Survey 10

a) Missing sample 10

b) Sample balance 11

Dummy form distribution 11

Recalculated Hard to Count score 13

c) Localised undercount and the CCS 14

d) CCS fieldwork and response rates 14

3.3 One Number Census process 19

a) Response rates 19

b) Collapsing in the ONC process 19

c) Outliers 19

d) Stratification 20

e) Household and person imputation results 21

4 Population definitions 24

5 Processing 24

6 Other - communal establishments 24

7 Other - administrative sources 25

8 Conclusions and recommendations 25


3/26

3

Executive summary

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has now concluded a series of studies designed to improvepopulation estimates in the areas that proved to be hardest to count in the 2001 Census in Englandand Wales. The results of this analysis, involving experts from local government and other bodies,has confirmed the findings contained in reports by the Statistics Commission and the LocalGovernment Association. These reports concluded that the One Number Census (ONC) workedwell in most areas but that there were a few cases where it was not able to sufficiently adjust forunder-enumeration in exceptional circumstances.

More information can be found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/census0704.pdf

A report was produced for each Local Authority examined, and this report sets out the analysisand conclusions for the Local Authority of Shepway. It provides background information aboutpopulation estimates and the Census, and describes analysis carried out in certain key areas -enumeration, Census Coverage Survey (CCS), One Number Census (ONC), population definitionsand processing. A comparison with administrative sources is also shown. Conclusions andrecommendations are detailed at the end of the analysis.

Shepway was one of the nine local authorities initially selected for study in 2004 and, on that basis,detailed analysis was completed. Subsequently a set of extended and refined criteria were used, toidentify areas where there was a significant risk of an under-estimate of the population by the 2001Census, which identified Shepway as one of these areas.

This detailed analysis highlighted that the ONC response rate was significantly lower (2.9%) than

the dummy form response rate. Further analysis reviewed the partial One Number Census (ONC)contingency strategy, which was used in Shepway, to assess how well this had adjusted for under-enumeration. The analysis concluded that this strategy had been used appropriately, and had notunder-estimated the population.

Further analysis identified no significant problems with Census enumeration, and afterconsideration of all the analysis, it was decided that the current estimate remains the best estimate ofthe population of Shepway in 2001. Therefore, no adjustment has been made.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/census0704.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/census0704.pdf


4/26

4

2004 Local Authority studies:Analysis of data and evidence for Shepway

1 Introduction

Shepway (Census 2001 population 96,241) hasa number of populations that are difficult tocount, for example, there are a large number oftourists & temporary people in Shepway, as wellas caravan parks. Shepway also contains the portsof Folkestone and Hythe. There has been a largeinflux of armed forces over the last decade plusasylum seekers (although there are no officialnumbers) with a high turnover. There are nouniversities although there is a technical collegeand a few language schools, but only a smallnumber of students are involved.

In order to estimate census undercount acrossEngland and Wales contiguous Local Authorities(LAs) were grouped together to form EstimationAreas (EAs) which consisted of about half amillion population. In most cases EAs consistedof several Local Authorities. Where an LA wassufficiently large the EA consisted only of thatone LA, i.e. the LA was an EA in itself. LAs weredivided into Enumeration Districts (EDs) which

were pre-planned workload areas of around200 households within which an individualenumerator worked. EDs did not cross wardboundaries.

Shepway is part of a Census Estimation Areacontaining three other Local Authorities (LAs),Canterbury, Dover, and Thanet.Shepway was selected for investigation for anumber of reasons:

The ONC response rate is 2.9 per centlower than that estimated by analysis of

dummy forms. Analysis of Council Tax data shows that

the Census estimated 1,028 (2.5 percent) fewer occupied households thanare recorded on Council Tax. This givesShepway a rank of 9th among all 376 LocalAuthorities for the proportional difference.

The design of the Census Coverage Survey(CCS) ensured that every LA containedat least some CCS sample, but there wasno guaranteed minimum sample size. TheCCS sample in Shepway went to three

postcodes that contained residents whowere living in rent-free accommodationprovided by the MOD. From examinationof the types of persons in these

households, it is likely that these residentswere part of the Ghurka contingent thatmoved to the area during 2000. Some ofthe comments on the CCS forms indicatethat some of the residents had only beenthere for a few days, and therefore were notcounted by the Census. For this reason,these postcodes were not used to allocatethe undercount between the LAs in theEA, as the allocation based on these threepostcodes was not a true representation

of the rest of Shepway. Therefore, a partialcontingency method was used whichborrowed strength from the other LAswithin the same Estimation Area. Thisinvolved excluding the part of the CCSsample that fell within Shepway, and thenre-running the estimation process. Theeffect of this was that the Census countfor Shepway was adjusted in line with theadjustments made to the surroundingLAs. It was considered appropriate tore-examine these decisions in order toassess whether they were correct in light ofadditional information emerging after theCensus.

2 Background Information on PopulationEstimates and One Number Census

Table 2.1 sets out the Census and mid yearestimates (MYEs) for Shepway for the period 2000- 2002. Note that the 2001 and 2002 mid yearestimates shown here are those based on 2001Census data, while the 2000 mid year estimateis based on rolled forward data from the 1991Census.

Table 2.1Mid Year Estimate (MYE) series and revisions

for 2000, 2001 and 2002

Population Change since 2000MYE

2000 MYE 102,600

Census 96,241 -6,400

2001 MYE 96,400 -6,200

Revised 2001 MYE 96,300 -6,300

Revised 2002 MYE 96,800 -5,800

NB: The numbers in the above table do not addup due to rounding.


5/26

5

www.statistics.gov.uk 2004 Local Authority studies: Shepway

Adjustments were made to the Mid YearEstimates in September 2003. More informationcan be found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asp

Table 2.2 shows the Confidence Intervalassociated with the ONC population estimate.

Table 2.295 per cent Confidence Interval for Shep-ways One Number Census estimate

Relative C.I +/- ConfidenceInterval

Range

1.0% 962 95,279 97,203

Mid Year Population Estimates

The following tables provide informationon Shepways population between 1991 and2000. These indicate whether the populationhas increased or decreased throughout theintercensal period, whether the area is one oflarge change and what effect migration has hadon the areas population.

Table 2.3Population profile for the MYE series up to 2000 (unrevised)

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Mid Year PopulationEstimate (thousands)

93.6 94.6 95.1 96.5 97.0 98.7 99.3 99.8 101.4 102.6

NB: The mid-year population estimates in this table are those that existed before the 2001 Census,and have since been revised.

Table 2.4Average annual changes in components of population estimates (unrevised)Average annual change since mid-91(thousands)

E & W Shepway

Average annual change 0.5 1.0

Average annual natural change 0.3 -0.2

Average annual change in migration 0.1 1.1

NB: The numbers in the above table do not add up due to rounding.

Table 2.5Migration profile for MYE series to 2000 (unrevised)

Migration Mid-92 Mid-93 Mid-94 Mid-95 Mid-96 Mid-97 Mid-98 Mid-99 Mid-00Net Internal 0.5 0.8 1.0

Net International 0.2 0.5 0.3

Total Net 1.2 1 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.8 0.7 1.3 1.3

Table 2.5 shows that Shepway has had highpositive migration between 1992 and 2000,and this has led to Shepway growing over theintercensal period.

One Number Census Quality Assuranceinformation

The One Number Census Quality AssuranceInformation Pack for Shepway, publishedin 2003, can be found in the link below, andincludes the following information:

Population Estimates

Confidence Intervals

Diagnostic Ranges

Dependency Ratios

Age-Sex Profiles depicting the abovefigures

Census Coverage Survey Maps includingHard to Count information

The map in the link below shows the location ofthe CCS Postcodes within the Local Authority.White circles show postcodes with a Hard toCount (HtC) index of 1 (the easiest areas toenumerate), light green circles have a HtC index
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/Revisions_to_Population_Estimates/default.asp


6/26


6

of 2 and dark green circles have a HtC indexof 3 (the hardest areas to enumerate). LocalAuthority boundaries are marked in blue andthe Estimation Area boundary in red.

www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdf

Information provided by the Local Authority

ONS has not received any correspondencefrom Shepway District Council since the 2001Census results were published in September2002. However, at a meeting between ONS andShepway in January 2004, initiated by ONS,Shepway stated that they had originally beenconcerned about the Census results and weresurprised by the extent of the reduction of

the MYE between 2000 and 2001, as they hadthought that the previous MYEs had been in linewith their expectations.

3 Analysis

This section of the report covers the detailedanalysis carried out for Shepway. Moreinformation on the overall approach to the LAstudies can be found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdf

3.1 EnumerationWhen looking at possible ward level undercount,it is necessary to consider that one of the keyassumptions underpinning the One NumberCensus (ONC) is that the undercount isapproximately randomly distributed - that is,the distribution of the undercount is mainlydetermined by the age and sex profile of anarea and the distribution of hard to countareas as measured by the hard to count index.The assumption is that there are no otherfactors that have a large influence, such as the

quality of the work carried out by the censusenumerators. If this assumption is not true theresulting ONC estimates of population may notadequately reflect the true undercount. TheCensus Coverage Survey (CCS), although a largesample nationally, is highly unlikely to be ableto measure this additional source of variabilityat low levels, i.e. Enumeration Districts orWards. The Local Authority studies have madedetailed comparisons with Council Tax data,and conducted in-depth analyses on enumeratorrecord books (ERBs). The findings of thesepieces of work are described below.

a) Analysis of Council Tax dataShepway shows an overall difference betweenCouncil Tax records and the Census results of

805 dwellings, a 1.82 per cent difference. Thisis the 61st largest positive numerical difference,and the 33rd largest positive proportionaldifference for the 376 LAs in England and Wales.

The map on page 7 highlights the differencesbetween Council Tax and Census by ward. CCSpostcodes are indicated by the red dots.

The map shows that the ward shaded darkestblue (New Romney Coast) is the one with thelargest percentage difference between Censusand Council Tax figures. The map also showsthat this ward does not contain any CCSpostcodes. This might normally be of concernbut is not in this case since the CCS samplein Shepway was excluded from the estimation

process and the borrowing strength contingencystrategy was used.

The table on page 8 shows the differencesbetween the Census and Council Tax for eachward, ordered by percentage difference, so thatthe ward at the top has the largest percentagedifference. As shown in table 3.1.1, New RomneyCoast ward has a large difference between the2 sources. Two other wards, Folkestone HarveyCentral and Folkestone Harvey West, have adifference of over 100 addresses.

Difference between Census and Council Tax occupied and

unoccupied dwelling counts

Shepway shows an overall difference betweenoccupied dwellings according to the CouncilTax records and the Census results of 1,028dwellings, a 2.5 per cent difference. Amongstall English LAs, this is the 54th largest positivenumerical difference, and the 9th largest positiveproportional difference, and so warrants furtherinvestigation, as detailed in the next section.

Table 3.1.2Differences between Census and CouncilTax dwelling counts

Census CTB1 Difference %Difference

Occupied 41,155 42,183 1,028 2.5%

Unoccupied/Vacant

3,337 3,201 -136 -4.1%

b) Analysis of Enumerator Record Books (ERBs)Investigations were carried out for Wardswhere a high discrepancy in either direction

had been identified between the Census resultsand the Council Tax. This involved analysis ofEnumerator Record Books (ERBs), investigatingindividual records to assess the quality of the
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/LAStudy_FullReport.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdf


7/26

7


Figure 3.1Map showing the percentage difference between Council Tax and Census for Shepway

Lydd

Romney Marsh

Tolsford

North Downs West

North Downs East

Elham and Stelling Minnis

Lympne and Stanford

Hythe West

Hythe East

Dymchurch and St Mary`s Bay

New Romney Coast

Folkestone CheritonFolkestone East

New Romney Town

Hythe Central

Folkestone Park

Folkestone Sandgate

Folkestone HarbourFolkestone Morehall

Folkestone Harvey West

Legend

CCS Postcodes

2% - 3%

1% - 2% - 4%

>4% - 6%

>6% - 8%

>8% - 10%

>10% - 13%

Census figures higher in pink areas.Council Tax figures higher in blue areas.

Tolsford

Hythe East

North Downs East

Folkestone Cheriton

Folkestone East

Folkestone Park

Folkestone Sandgate

Folkestone HarbourFolkestone Morehall

Folkestone Harvey WestFolkestone Harvey Central

Folkestone Foord

Hythe Central


8/26


8

Table 3.1.Differences between Census and Council Tax dwelling counts by 2003 ward

2003 Ward Census Dwellings Council Tax Dwellings Difference Percentage Difference

New Romney Coast 1,518 1,710 192 12.6%

Folkestone Harvey Central 3,034 3,266 232 7.6%

Folkestone Harvey West 2,193 2,323 130 5.9%

Folkestone Sandgate 1,970 2,044 74 3.7%

Folkestone Harbour 2,496 2,552 56 2.2%

Folkestone Foord 2,349 2,398 49 2.0%

Folkestone Park 2,601 2,651 50 1.9%

Folkestone Cheriton 3,007 3,049 42 1.3%

Hythe Central 2,983 3,021 38 1.2%

Folkestone Morehall 1,770 1,789 19 1.0%

Romney Marsh 910 919 9 0.9%

Hythe East 1,801 1,815 14 0.7%

New Romney Town 1,488 1,498 10 0.6%

Hythe West 1,924 1,927 3 0.1%

Lydd 2,604 2,603 -1 -0.0%

Dymchurch and St Mary`s Bay 2,967 2,955 -12 -0.0%North Downs East 2,343 2,334 -9 -0.3%

Elham and Stelling Minnis 884 878 -6 -0.6%

North Downs West 1,824 1,810 -14 -0.7%

Tolsford 863 851 -12 -1.3%

Folkestone East 1,997 1,960 -37 -1.8%

Lympne and Stanford 798 776 -22 -2.7%

NB: Due to boundary changes between Census day and 2003, some wards on the above table will be different

to 2001 wards. Since Census day 2001, populations from the following wards have been combined into one new

ward (Folkestone Harvey Central): Folkestone Central, Folkestone Harbour, and Folkestone Harvey. Folkestone

Harvey Central ward did not exist in 2001 so does not appear on analyses carried out using 2001 Council Tax

data. New Romney Town and New Romney Coast make up the 2001 ward of New Romney.

enumeration in the area, to ensure that alladdresses had been accounted for and establishwhether the differences between the Census andCouncil Tax may be definitional (e.g. differencesin recording of vacant properties). This analysisalso allowed an estimate to be produced of thenumber of dummy forms that should have beencompleted by Enumerators.

Dummy forms are completed by censusenumerators to account for census forms thateither have not been returned (i.e. a non-

response) or for which the enumerator hasdetermined that they should not be returned(i.e. a valid non-response such as a vacanthousehold). For 2001, the types of dummy formwere:

Refusal

Absent Household

No contact

Vacant

Second/Holiday Home

The first three of these can be considered assome form of non-response. In addition, some

census forms are returned with no residents(and these are not all visitor households) whichcan also be considered as a type of dummy form(an empty household).

Investigation of the ERBs in Shepway wascarried out. There were no large differencesbetween the numbers of non-response dummyforms, household forms, and vacant and secondresidences on the Census database and in theERBs. However, there is evidence that non-response dummy forms were not completed

by the enumerators, with up to 15 per cent lessdummy forms recorded on the Census databasethan implied by the ERBs. There was one ward,Folkestone Harbour Central, which had a veryhigh percentage of non-response dummy forms(63.0 per cent of all household forms) and a highpercentage of vacant and second residences (22.2per cent of all household forms). There are alsoa number of caravan parks and holiday homes inthe area. Some of these will have been counted inthe Census as a single communal establishment,although they may be on Council Tax records

as multiple addresses. This may go some way toexplaining some of the differences between thetwo sources.


9/26

9


Thus, there is little evidence that enumeratorswere not doing their jobs correctly.

c) Analysis of Council Tax based response rates by2001 Ward

Table 3.1.3 shows a comparison of Council TaxFigures and households counted in the Census,broken down by ward. An implied Censusresponse rate has been calculated by taking thenumber of counted Census households anddividing this by the number of assumed occupiedCouncil Tax addresses (the total number ofCouncil Tax addresses minus those counted bythe Census as vacant, second homes and visitoronly households). In wards where the CouncilTax implied response rate is substantially lowerthan the ONC household response rate for the

LA, it is possible that significant enumerationfailings, for which the ONC may not have beenable to make a robust adjustment, may haveoccurred. The table is ordered by the impliedcensus response rate, with the wards with thelowest response rate at the top of the table.

The ONC household response rate for Shepwayis 96.0 per cent. Looking at table 3.1.3, thewards of Folkestone Central, Folkestone Harvey,and Folkestone Sandgate show quite a largedifference between the ONC household response

rate and the implied Census response rate,particularly Folkestone Central. The latter isaccounted for by the large proportion of non-residential and vacant addresses described above.

d) Enumeration informationCensus enumerators collected certaininformation on households where no contactwas made. According to this data, there were1,465 (3.3 per cent) vacant households and 508(1.14 per cent) second homes in Shepway.Census returns indicated that there were 86(0.19 per cent) visitor only households, and were

420 (0.95 per cent) empty households (returnedhousehold forms which have no usual residents,or very little information on the form).

These figures are not extreme and are consistentwith expectations.

Table 3.1.3Analysis of Council Tax based response rates by 2001 Ward

Ward Name 2001Council Tax

addresses

CensusVacants,

2nd homesand visitor

households

Assumedoccupied

Council Taxaddresses

CountedCensus

households

AbsoluteDifference

ImpliedCensus

ResponseRate

Folkestone Central 2,759 240 2,519 1,844 675 73%Folkestone Harvey 2,830 227 2,603 2,170 433 83%

Folkestone Sandgate 2,317 171 2,146 1,852 294 86%

Folkestone Harbour 2,552 169 2,383 2,117 266 89%

Folkestone East 1,960 47 1,913 1,730 183 90%

Folkestone Foord 2,398 89 2,309 2,075 234 90%

New Romney 3,208 164 3,044 2,753 291 90%

Hythe South 1,806 114 1,692 1,537 155 91%

Folkestone Morehall 2,077 45 2,032 1,891 141 93%

Hawkinge and Paddlesworth 1,768 26 1,742 1,615 127 93%

Swingfield and Acrise 566 13 553 516 37 93%

Folkestone Park 2,651 87 2,564 2,408 156 94%

Hythe North 1,485 59 1,426 1,338 88 94%

Elham 637 27 610 580 30 95%Folkestone Cheriton 2,488 41 2,447 2,349 98 96%

Lydd 2,603 180 2,423 2,334 89 96%

Saltwood and Newington 520 25 495 477 18 96%

Dymchurch and Burmarsh 1,822 82 1,740 1,680 60 97%

Hythe West 1,792 61 1,731 1,672 59 97%

Marsh 697 26 671 650 21 97%

St Mary in the Marsh 1,355 83 1,272 1,234 38 97%

Stone Street 1,660 57 1,603 1,557 46 97%

Sellindge 722 38 684 668 16 98%

Lympne and Stanford 776 51 725 722 3 100%

Hythe East 1,680 54 1,626 1,639 -13 101%

Totals 45,129 2,176 42,953 39,408 3,545 92%

NB: It should be noted that the above table shows a comparison with the wards as they were on Census day2001. Since then ward boundaries have changed, with populations from the following wards being combinedinto a new one (Folkestone Harvey Central ward): Folkestone Central, Folkestone Harbour, and FolkestoneHarvey. New Romney has been split into New Romney Town and New Romney Coast since Census day 2001.


10/26


10

e) Estimated response compared to other areasThe ONC contingency strategy used aclassification of similar areas (known asborrowing strength areas) which were to beused if it was judged the ONC process had

failed. This classification is useful for comparingresponse rates across areas, as we would expectthe response rates measured by the ONC to besimilar for these LAs. Further information on thecontingency and borrowing strength strategy canbe found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncinfopaper.pdf which includes theborrowing strength areas in Annex E.

The Borrowing Strength areas for Shepway andtheir associated ONC response rate figures areshown in Table 3.1.4 below. The response rate

for Shepway is in line with the mean responserate for its borrowing strength areas.

Table 3.1.4ONC Response rates for similar (borrowingstrength) areas

Area ONC ResponseRate

Shepway 95.4%

Borrowing Strength Areas

Dover 95.0%

Canterbury 96.0%

Isle of Wight 94.7%

Teignbridge 96.8%

Thanet 95.2%

Mean Response Rate for BS Areas 95.5%

The ONC response rates for the other localauthorities within the same Census estimationarea (EA) as Shepway are in the table below. Itshows that the response rate for Shepway isbroadly consistent with the other LAs in the EA.

Table 3.1.5Response rates for all LADs in the Estima-tion Area

Local Authority ONC Response Rate

Shepway 95.4%

Canterbury 96.0%

Dover 95.0%

Thanet 95.2%

f) Qualitative information obtained about the

Census enumerationThe analysis of fieldwork intelligence indicatesthat there were few problems, however therewere quite a high number (0.12 per cent) of

refusals. 3 of the 4 Census Districts (CDs) inthe LA were affected by foot and mouth duringCensus enumeration.

3.2 Census Coverage Survey

A key element of the One Number Censuswas the Census Coverage Survey (CCS) - apost enumeration survey that was designedto measure undercount in the Census. Theaim was to survey a representative sampleof postcodes across the country, whichwould allow differential undercount to bequantified. Because under-enumeration isdisproportionately distributed across areas, theCCS was stratified according to a Hard to Count(HtC) index, constructed from the following1991 Census variables which are associated with

undercount:

Multi -occupancy

Unemployment

Country of birth (which is associatedwith language difficulty)

Private rented accommodation

Number of households imputed in 1991

ONC imputation rates by key variables can be

found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/imputation_rates_by_variable.asp, andconfirm that the above variables were associatedwith undercount in the 2001 Census.

The index categorises Enumeration Districts(EDs) into 3 groups representing the easiest 40per cent, the next 40 per cent and the hardest20 per cent of EDs nationally. The sample wasthen selected separately within each of thesestrata. This meant that the CCS sample had goodcoverage of areas with each HtC index value,based on 1991 Census data, which was the onlyinformation available at the time of the 2001Census.

Shepway is unusual in that its CCS sample wasnot used in the ONC process, as described in(a) below. The subsequent sections of 3.2 andthe sections of 3.3 therefore focus on explainingthe operation of the CCS in the EA, to whichShepway belonged, Eastern Kent.

a) Missing sampleAs part of the ONC process, investigations

were carried out into sampled postcodes, withhigh levels of CCS only, or Census only counts.If it was found that the CCS or Census wereenumerated so poorly as to be out of scope of
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncinfopaper.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncinfopaper.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/imputation_rates_by_variable.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/imputation_rates_by_variable.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/imputation_rates_by_variable.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/imputation_rates_by_variable.asphttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncinfopaper.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncinfopaper.pdf


11/26

11


the ONC (ie the ONC would not be able tocompensate for the undercount), these postcodeswere removed from the sample.

Although Shepway contained the smallest

CCS sample of households in relation to theother LAs in the Eastern Kent EstimationArea, it contained a high proportion of thehouseholds in the EA that were found in theCCS but missed by the Census. When this wasexamined further in the original ONC processin 2002, the estimate of undercount was judgedimplausible and not robust in Shepway. The CCSsample in Shepway went to three postcodes thatcontained residents who were living in rent-freeaccommodation provided by the MOD. Fromexamination of the types of persons in these

households, it is likely that these residents werepart of the Ghurka contingent that moved to thearea during 2000. Some of the comments on theCCS forms indicate that some of the residentshad only been there for a few days, and thereforewere not counted by the Census. For this reason,these postcodes were not used to allocate theundercount between the LAs in the EA, as theallocation based on these three postcodes wasnot a true representation of the rest of Shepway.Therefore, it was recommended that othermethods of estimation were investigated forShepway, and the CCS sample in Shepway was

removed from the original ONC estimationprocess.

Further information can be found atwww.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdf

b) Sample balanceThis analysis assessed whether the selectedsample was adequately balanced acrossindicators associated with undercount (acrossthe Estimation Area), and also whether the CCS

was successful in achieving high response rates,and therefore measuring the undercount in theCensus.

The analyses used 2001 Census data, in anattempt to examine the balance of the sampleacross a number of variables.

Dummy form distribution

As mentioned in section 3.1 (b), dummy formsare completed by census enumerators to accountfor census forms that either have not beenreturned (i.e. a non-response) or for which theenumerator has determined that they should notbe returned (i.e. a valid non-response such as avacant household).

The refusal, absent, no contact and emptyhouseholds (which can be thought of as non-response dummy forms) provide an indicationof response rates across an area, and can beused to assess whether there is any significant

imbalance within the CCS sample selection bycomparing the proportions of these dummyforms between the sample and the non-sampledareas. This would show whether the CCS islikely to provide a sample that underestimates oroverestimates undercount.

The proportions of census households that wereclassified as refusals, no-contact, absent or emptyhouseholds are examined. The data used are theunadjusted census records - that is prior to theONC adjustments. The CCS sampled postcodes

within an Estimation Area (EA) are comparedwith the whole of the EA. This is also carried outwithin the Hard to Count (HtC) strata, since wewould expect the proportions of dummy formsto be different across these strata. It is valuableto look at proportions of dummy forms at EAlevel. Normally, the ONC estimation systemproduced estimates first at the EA level and thenapportioned these estimates to the LAs withinthat EA. In the case of Shepway, estimates wereproduced at EA level using the sample acrosssthe EA but excluding the Shepway sample. Theywere then apportioned across the other LAs

excluding Shepway.

The map on page 12 shows the spread ofdummy non-response forms by ward, with CCSpostcodes indicated by red dots. The area withthe largest percentage of non-response dummyforms (i.e. the darkest ward on the map) doesnot contain any CCS postcodes. The CCS sampleis shown for Shepway, although it was excludedfrom the estimation process.

Table 3.2.1 on page 13 shows the proportion of

Census dummy forms across the Estimation areafor each Hard to Count stratum. The differencebetween proportions is not high so does not givecause for concern.

Table 3.2.2 on page 13 shows the proportion ofdummy forms for each Hard to Count stratumof each Local Authority in the Estimation area.As the CCS sample in Shepway was excludedfrom the LA estimation process, there are nofigures available for Shepway. Canterburys Hardto Count 3 stratum has the largest differencebetween proportions. This difference is negativeand does not give cause for concern. The rest ofthe differences are not large.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/onc_qa/pdfs/Shepway.pdf


12/26


12

Figure 3.2.1Map to show the percentage of non-response dummy forms for Shepway

Marsh

Lydd

Elham

Stone Street

Sellindge

Dymchurch and Burmarsh

Saltwood and Newington

Lympne and Stanford

St Mary in the Marsh

Swingfield and Acrise

New Romney

Hythe West

Hythe East

Hawkinge and Paddlesworth

Folkestone EastFolkestone Cheriton

Folkestone Park

Folkestone Sandgate

Folkestone Harbour

Folkestone Morehall

Hythe NorthHythe South

Folkestone Harvey

Legend

CCS Postcodes

0% - 2%

>2% - 4%

>4% - 6%

>6% - 8%

>8% - 10%

>10% - 12%

18% - 19%

Folkestone East

Folkestone ParkFolkestone Cheriton

Folkestone Sandgate

Folkestone Harbour

Folkestone Morehall

Folkestone Harvey

Hawkinge and Paddlesworth

Folkestone Central

Folkestone Foord

Saltwood and Newington


13/26

13


To explore this further, these LA reportsnormally provide a distribution of theproportions of dummy forms in figures 3.2.2 to3.2.3, with the proportion for the LA as a wholeshown in figure 3.2.2. and broken down by hard

to count stratum for figures 3.2.3 (a) and (b)and (c). In the case of Shepway, none of these areprovided because the CCS sample in Shepwaywas excluded from the estimation process andthe borrowing strength strategy used instead.

Figure 3.2.2 - Distributions of the proportionsof dummy forms in each 2001 EnumerationDistrict

Figure 3.2.2 is not available for Shepway as theCCS sample for Shepway was excluded from the

LA estimation process, as outlined in section 3.2(a).

Figure 3.2.3 (a) - Distributions of theproportions of dummy forms in each 2001Enumeration District for the HtC 1 stratumFigure 3.2.3 (a) is not available for Shepway asthe CCS sample for Shepway was excluded fromthe LA estimation process, as outlined in section3.2 (a).

Table 3.2.1Proportion of dummy forms across the Estimation area and within the CCS sample foreach Hard to Count stratum

Estimation Area Hard to CountIndex stratum

Count of dummyforms in CCS

Proportion ofdummy forms

across all areas


in CCS

Differencebetween

proportions

Eastern Kent 1 20 2.4% 2.5% -0.1%

Eastern Kent 2 38 4.2% 4.2% -0.1%

Eastern Kent 3 57 12.2% 12.9% -0.7%

Table 3.2.2Analysis of proportions of dummy forms across the Local Authorities for each Hard toCount stratum

Local AuthorityDistrict

Hard to CountIndex stratum

Count ofdummy forms

in CCS

Count ofhouseholds in

CCS


across all areas


in CCS

Differencebetween

proportions

Shepway 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Canterbury 1 9 379 2.0% 2.4% -0.4%

Canterbury 2 9 303 2.7% 3.0% -0.2%

Canterbury 3 16 168 5.7% 9.5% -3.8%

Dover 1 6 257 2.1% 2.3% -0.3%

Dover 2 13 283 5.2% 4.6% 0.6%

Dover 3 12 83 13.3% 14.5% -1.1%

Thanet 1 5 163 2.7% 3.1% -0.4%

Thanet 2 16 310 4.2% 5.2% -1.0%

Thanet 3 29 192 13.6% 15.1% -1.5%

Figure 3.2.3 (b) - Distributions of theproportions of dummy forms in each 2001Enumeration District for the HtC 2 stratumFigure 3.2.3 (b) is not available for Shepway asthe CCS sample for Shepway was excluded from

the LA estimation process, as outlined in section3.2 (a).

Figure 3.2.3 (c) Distributions of the proportionsof dummy forms in each 2001 EnumerationDistrict for the HtC 3 stratumFigure 3.2.3 (c) is not available for Shepway asthe CCS sample for Shepway was excluded fromthe LA estimation process, as outlined in section3.2 (a).

Recalculated Hard to Count score

The Hard to Count score was derived using anumber of 1991 Census variables which wereassociated with undercount. The score was usedto determine the level of the Hard to Countindex for each 1991 Enumeration District inEngland and Wales. The index was then usedwithin the CCS sampling strategy as the primarystratifier within each Estimation Area, and as astratum for estimation.


14/26


14

As the data used to derive the HtC index wasfrom the 1991 Census, there was a risk of thesample being unbalanced with respect to thereal hard to count information. We can assessthis by using a new hard to count score, derived

from the 2001 Census data, at postcode level.The assumption underpinning the analysis isthat the recalculated score is highly correlatedwith the real undercount - that is, that thesevariables are associated with undercount in2001. From the patterns observed in the CCS,there is evidence to suggest that this assumptionis reasonable. The score is calculated as the sumof the proportions of:

Unemployed persons

Persons whose country of birth was a

non-English speaking nation

Privately rented households

Dummy form non-response households

Multi-occupied dwellings

The derived score is calculated for all postcodesacross the Estimation Area, and comparisons canbe drawn between the score distributions for theEstimation Area/Local Authority and the CCSsampled postcodes.

Section 3.3 (d) Stratification, also looks at therecalculated hard to count scores but providesa general analysis on how the area has changedin terms of hard to count between 1991 and2001. This section focuses on comparing theproportions of hard to count areas in the CCSsample and the rest of the EA or LA

Figure 3.2.4 on page 15 shows the recalculatedHard to Count score distributions for the wholeEA and for CCS sample postcodes, except theShepway sample. The distributions are fairly

similar, indicating that the CCS sample wasbalanced across the EA as a whole.

Figures 3.2.5 (a) and (b) and (c) on pages 18 18 show the recalculated Hard to Count scoredistributions for the population and sampleacross the whole Estimation Area by 2001hard to count groups. Distributions are fairlysimilar for the population and the sample forall hard to count strata, which indicates that theCCS sample was balanced with respect to therecalculated Hard to Count score.

Figure 3.2.6 - Distributions of the recalculatedHard to Count score for the Local Authority

Figure 3.2.6 is not available for Shepway as theCCS sample for Shepway was excluded from the

LA estimation process, as outlined in section 3.2(a).

c) Localised undercount and the CCSPotential areas of localised undercount wereidentified in a number of ways includingcomparing the ONC household response ratewith the response rate implied by Council Tax(see section 3.1 (c), table 3.1.3). Areas withhigh proportions of dummy forms were alsoinvestigated. Where the CCS had visited thesewards, it was investigated to check the level

of undercount that had been observed by theCCS, and whether this looked plausible whencompared to the levels implied by the CouncilTax.

The CCS stage of this analysis was not carriedout for Shepway as the CCS sample for Shepwaywas excluded from the LA estimation process, asoutlined in section 3.2 (a).

Table 3.2.3 Census Coverage Survey impliedundercount by 2001 ward

This analysis was not carried out for Shepway asthe CCS sample for Shepway was excluded fromthe LA estimation process, as outlined in section3.2 (a).

d) CCS fieldwork and response ratesNo problems were reported with CCSenumeration in the Eastern Kent EstimationArea.

Table 3.2.4 on page 19 shows the response rates,matching outcomes and sum of the dual system

estimates by Hard to Count group. Again, thereare no figures for Shepway as the CCS sample forShepway was excluded from the LA estimationprocess.


15/26

15


Figure3.2.4

DistributionsoftherecalculatedHardtoCo

untscorefortheEstimationArea


16/26


16

Figure3.2.5(a)

DistributionoftherecalculatedHardtoCou

ntscorefortheEstimationAreabyHardtoCountgroup1


17/26

17


Figure3.2.5(b)




18/26


18

Figure3.2.5(c)




19/26

19


3.3 One Number Census process

The One Number Census project (ONC) wasset up by ONS for the 2001 Census to addressthe fact that it is inevitable that some peopleand households will not be counted in anypopulation census. By conducting a largepost-enumeration survey (the Census CoverageSurvey, CCS) and combining the results of boththe Census and CCS in what is known as a dualsystem approach, the aim of the project wasto estimate and adjust the Census database for

undercount, and to ensure that robust resultscould be obtained for each local authority area.Detailed information on the One NumberCensus can be found in the following links:

A Guide to the One Number Census:www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncguide.pdf

One Number Census methodology and QualityAssurance process report:www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_

qa_process.pdf

Analyses into how well the ONC process workedfor Shepway were carried out as detailed in thesections below.

a) Response ratesThe estimated person level response rate forShepway is 95.4 per cent.

Across the Local Authority, dummy formanalysis suggested a household response rateof 93.1 per cent, whereas the ONC estimateda response rate of 96 per cent (ranked 5thacross all LAs in terms of the difference).There were 1,276 unfilled dummy forms after

Table 3.2.4Response rates, matching outcomes and sum of the missed person estimates by Hard toCount group for the CCS sample areas in the Local Authority.

Local Authority Hard to Countgroup

CCS personresponse rate

CCS only count Census onlycount

Matched count Estimate ofpersons missed

in bothShepway 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A



Dover 1 79.8% 14 120 468 2.0

Dover 2 92.3% 32 51 628 3.8

Dover 3 83.0% 21 27 127 3.4

Thanet 1 87.0% 8 47 309 0.5

Thanet 2 91.5% 25 59 622 1.4

Thanet 3 90.2% 24 29 254 1.3

Canterbury 1 90.1% 51 92 830 4.9

Canterbury 2 79.3% 18 160 608 3.6

Canterbury 3 88.5% 25 48 369 3.2

the imputation process. No households wereimputed into random postcodes.Table 3.3.1 below shows the estimated responserates by Hard to Count group for this LocalAuthority.

Table 3.3.1Estimated Response rates by Hard to Countgroup for Shepway.

Hard to Count

group

Household

Response rate

Person Response

rate1 97.5% 96.3%

2 97.1% 96.3%

3 90.4% 91.4%

b) Collapsing in the ONC processFor the purposes of One Number Census (ONC)estimation the population was divided into37 age-sex groups. In addition, each postcodewas classified into one of three Hard to Count(HtC) levels, 1 being the easiest and 3 the

hardest. This means that there were 111 separateestimation strata in any given Estimation Area(EA). However, in some cases it was not possibleto produce good quality estimates of thesegroups separately. In these cases groups werecombined, referred to as collapsing strata.Moredetails of how this was applied can be foundatwww.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/collapsing_strata.pdf

No Hard to Count strata were collapsed forEastern Kent.

c) OutliersEach postcode in the CCS is used to representundercount in a number of postcodes in the
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncguide.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncguide.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_qa_process.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_qa_process.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/collapsing_strata.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/collapsing_strata.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/collapsing_strata.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/collapsing_strata.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_qa_process.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_qa_process.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncguide.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/oncguide.pdf


20/26


20

population. When an unusual observationoccurs in a postcode it is likely that it is notrepresentative of other postcodes. In order thatthe unusual postcode (referred to as an outlier)does not have an undue influence on the rest of

the population, it is removed from the sample.

Within the ONC strategy, outliers wereidentified using pre-defined ratio limits forindividual observations. The ratio was definedby the ratio of the dual system estimate to thecensus count for each age-sex observation ineach postcode. These limits were different foreach Hard to Count stratum. The limits werea ratio of 3 for the Hard to Count 1 stratum, aratio of 4 for the Hard to Count 2 stratum and aratio of 5 for the Hard to Count 3 stratum. If an

observation was classified as an outlier throughthis method, it was not used in the calculationof any model parameters. For example, the CCSfinds 6 people that the Census missed, and boththe Census and CCS find 1 person. The Censuswill show 1 person, and the dual system estimateis 7 persons. The ratio for this observation isthen 7, which is classified as an outlier. Thismethodology was based on the data from thesimulation studies, which assumed an overall 95per cent Census coverage.

Figure 3.3.1Distribution of 1991 and 2001 Hard to Count scores for EDs within the Estimation Area

Eastern Kent Estimation area had 1 outlier,ranked equal 74th across the 101 EstimationAreas. The outliers within this Estimation Areacontained 0.9 per cent of the persons found inthe CCS that were missed by the Census, ranked

equal 81st amongst all Estimation areas. This isnot a high figure and therefore was not cause forconcern.

d) StratificationThe ONC estimation process used pre-definedstratification. These were the Hard to Count(HtC) index and 37 five-year age-sex groups.The HtC index was based on 1991 Census data,and was used to draw the sample and to formestimation groups. Whilst this was the beststratification that could be used at the time,

there may be areas where the Hard to Countindex gave a poor stratification. Analyses havebeen undertaken to examine the change betweenthe 1991 HtC distribution and that implied bythe 2001 Census data.

Figure 3.3.1 below shows how the HtC scoredistribution for Enumeration Districts (EDs)has changed from the 1991 Census to the 2001Census for the whole Estimation Area. A scoreof greater than 0.43 on figure 3.3.1 indicates


21/26


22/26


22

Figure3.3.2

Distributionof1991and2001HardtoCoun

tscoreforShepway


23/26

23


Figure3.3.3

Scatterplotof1991and2001HardtoCountscoresforeachEnumerationDistrictinShepway


24/26


24

4 Population definitions

The 2001 Census was conducted on a usualresidence base, that is, people were asked tofill in details on a form at their place of usualresidence.

It is likely that areas which have high numbersof mobile people where usual address is not easyto define will be difficult to count. People withsecond homes, students who live at differentaddresses during term time and holidays fit thiscategory, as do many members of the armedforces who are often moved from base to base.Quantifying the numbers of people that arewrongly missed off forms for this reason isvery difficult, due to the lack of evidence that isavailable - the 2001 Census was conducted solely

on a usual residence base, with little informationon visitors collected, therefore comparisons withfigures collected on a different base cannot bemade.

Students

A quality assurance of student estimates wascarried out as part of the ONC process. Moreinformation can be found in the following links:www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/students.pdf

www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_key_findings.pdf (under section 4.2)

The number of students that live in Shepwayduring vacation time but were living away interm-time was 882. This is ranked 225th amongall LAs, so is not particularly high.

An analysis on student numbers based oncomparisons with census figures and counciltax records has been conducted. This analysishighlights areas that have a large differencebetween these two figures.

This analysis shows that Shepway (shown below)is ranked equal 142nd highest of the 376 LAs interms of the difference between student housesin council tax records and student propertiescounted in the Census. The second columnshows households which are occupied solely bystudents and therefore gaining an exemptionfrom council tax. There will also be manyhouseholds in Shepway which contain studentsliving with non-students that will not appear in

these figures.

Table 4.1Comparison of students in the Census andCouncil Tax records

Shepway Total

ExemptionClass N

(CTB1Student

Exemption)

2001 Census

- All StudentProperties

Difference

59 0 59

5 Processing

As the data was processed, checks were carriedout to ensure that the delivery of the data forthe Estimation Area data was complete. Thedata was checked to ensure that the CensusHousehold form numbers were in sequence with

no unexpected gaps. The identities of the missedforms were then compared to other data andinformation (Enumerator Record Books (ERB),enumerator completed summary forms and thegeography database). If Household forms hadbeen missed for a valid reason (i.e. non residential,demolished, derelict or Late returns (i.e. returnedafter the processing cut off date) these wereexcluded from the analysis. If, however, theabsence could not be explained the details of theindividual records were recorded and summaryreports were produced for each Estimation Area

(EA), recording the number of forms missed.

The main reasons for forms not being processedwere:

Forms were not received from the field orreceived too late

Forms lost in the system during systemcrashes

Some forms misrecognised and thereforedelivered as part of a different EA/LA

For the Eastern Kent EA as a whole, there were 353unprocessed forms, 207 of which were late forms.There was no evidence of a significant number ofunprocessed forms in Shepway.

6 Other - communal establishments

This section contains information on communalestablishments (such as residential homes, studenthalls).

The 2001 Census shows that Shepway has

1,993 persons living within 154 CommunalEstablishments. There is no evidence of problemswith enumeration of Communal Establishmentsin Shepway.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/students.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/students.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_key_findings.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_key_findings.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_key_findings.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/onc_key_findings.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/students.pdfhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/students.pdf


25/26

25


7 Other - administrative sources

The ONC Quality Assurance (QA) processinvolved comparisons with variousadministrative data sources, as detailed in theindividual QA information packs for each LocalAuthority.

Further analysis of administrative sources wascompleted as part of the LA Studies program.The administrative sources used, both by theONC QA processes and the LA Studies, aredetailed below.

Council Tax - Council Tax dwelling countsfor 2001 were compared with the Censusresults for each Local Authority. More detailedcomparisons of Council Tax counts of occupied

and vacant dwellings with the Census resultswere also completed.

Electoral Roll- The revised 2001 Mid -YearEstimates (MYEs) for people aged 18 years andover were compared with the Electoral Roll data.

Patient Register- The revised 2001 MYEs havebeen compared with the NHS Patient Registerdata (adjusted and unadjusted) for 2001.

Pensions- The revised 2001 MYEs for people

aged 65 years and over have been comparedwith the year 2000 Department for Work andPensions (DWP) Pensions data.

Child Benefit - The revised 2001 MYEs forpeople aged 0 14 were compared with the 2001Child Benefits data.

Schools Census- The revised 2001 MYEsfor people aged 5 14 years inclusive werecompared with the 2001 Schools Census data.

Table 7.1 compares the 2001 MYEs and Census

counts, as appropriate, with each of theadministrative data sources and the previous(2000) MYE. This table also gives Shepwaysranking amongst local authorities in Englandand Wales, for each comparison, with LAsranked first having the largest difference betweenthe two counts.

The differences between Shepways 2001 MYEand most of the administrative sources shownin the table above are lower than the nationalaverages. The difference is largest in comparisons

with the 2000 MYE, the 2001 school census,and the adjusted patient records. However, thisis true of many LA figures, and is not a causefor concern given the variability in the qualityof the administrative sources, mainly due todefinitional and timing differences.

8 Conclusions and recommendations

Dummy form analysis suggested a response rate2.9% lower than that measured by the ONC.However, following the ONC process dummyforms were reclassified as vacant properties andthe number of Census vacants is approximatelythe same as the Council Tax counts. It ispossible that, as the ERB analysis showed,enumerators did not always accurate distinguishbetween vacant and non-response households,particularly in an area with holiday and secondhomes.

Table 7.1Comparisons of Revised 2001 MYE with administrative sources

Source compared to 2001 MYE Ranking (/376) SourcePopulation

Revised 2001MYE

Source as % ofMYE

Average ofsource as % of

MYE

2000 MYE data 20 102,600 96,300 106.5% 101.3%

2001 Electoral Roll data (18+ only) 286 73,426 75,200 97.6% 98.5%

2000 Pensions data (65+ only) 106 19,185 19,300 99.4% 98.5%

2001 School census data (5-14 only) 279 12,023 12,400 97.0% 100.6%

2001 Child Benefit records data

(0-14 only) 151 17,629 17,700 99.6% 99.2%

2001 Health register data 85 101,769 96,300 105.6% 105.0%

2001 Adjusted patient records data 40 103,533 96,300 107.5% 104.4%

Source compared to Census Data Ranking (/376) SourceHouseholds

CensusHouseholds

Source as % ofCensus

NationalAverage

2003-04 Council Tax Data 26 45,714 44,500 102.7% 101.2%

NB: The Mid Year Estimates in this table have been rounded.


26/26


There are definitional differences between theCensus and Council Tax, which may explainthe remaining difference between the two setsof figures. This is due to the large number ofcaravan parks and holiday homes in the area

which will have been counted in the Censusas a single communal establishment, althoughthey may be on Council Tax records as multipleaddresses. This will result in differences betweenthe two figures.

Although the CCS in Shepway was excludedfrom the estimation process, the CCSrepresented the spread of dummy forms wellover the rest of the Estimation Area, and thedummy form distribution within Shepway wassimilar to that of the rest of Estimation Area.

Analysis of processing, communalestablishments, administrative sources, andstudent households did not identify anyproblems or areas for concern.

None of the other analyses carried out in thisreport have highlighted significant risks, andwe have found no basis on which to make anadjustment to the estimate of the population ofShepway.

Documents

shepway district statistics