General Register Office for Scotland
information about Scotland’s people

2011 CENSUS BUSINESS CASE

November 2006

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

This Document was

Prepared
John Aldridge
Consultant
Date: July
by:
2006

Reviewed
Duncan Macniven
Registrar General for Scotland
Date: June
by:
Peter Scrimgeour
2011 Census Programme Manager
to July 2006
Eddie Turnbull
Head of Corporate Services Division
Penni Martin
Head of Census IT
Valerie West
Head of Statistical Methodology &

Geography
Dave Garvie
Head of Fieldwork & Community

Involvement
Simon Hazlewood
Programme Support Office Manager

Authorised  Duncan Macniven
Registrar General for Scotland
Date:
by:

March 2006

Document Distribution

2011 Census Programme Board, SE Minister

Amendment Suggestion

If you have suggested amendments please make them to Peter Scrimgeour or
Simon Hazlewood.

Status Control

Version  Date
Status
Prepared by
Reason for Amendment
0.1
July 2006
Draft
John Aldridge

0.2
Aug 2006
Draft
Simon Hazlewood
Applying GROS
document publishing
standards
0.3
Nov 2006
Draft
Shirley Cameron
Applying changes agreed
by Peter Scrimgeour
1.0 Nov
2006
Final

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 2 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

link to page 39 GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

10. Annex 4 – Census testing and possible questions ..................................... 39

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 4 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

1.
Executive Summary

1.1
Although there has been a Census held in Scotland every ten years since
1801 (except in 1941), the development of many other collections of data about the
population, and the relatively high cost of a census, mean that the case for a Census
in 2011 needs to be established.

1.2
This paper first sets out the strategic case for a Census in 2011, and then
considers a number of options for delivering it.

1.3
Following the introduction (Chapter 2), Chapter 3 describes the many uses to
which Census data is put; explains how the data produced by the Census could not
be provided from other sources – at least at present; describes some of the
particular benefits that the comprehensive nature of Census data offer; and shows
how the conduct of a Census every 10 years helps the Government to meet
domestic policy requirements and certain international obligations. Key arguments
include:
•  Many of the other sources of data are not consistently collected, and it would
be very time consuming, and therefore costly, to seek to replicate the data
which can be collected by means of the Census from these other sources.
The task of cross-matching and validating the data would be substantial. This
would be an inefficient use of Government resources;
•  Because the Census uniquely covers every member of the public, the data
can be used for multivariate analysis at very local levels, particularly important
for targeting resources and policy initiatives at deprived and needy groups;
•  The Census data provides the basis for allocating resources to local
authorities and NHS Boards. Failing to carry out a Census in 2011 would lead
to potential misallocation of resources. The estimated amount of such
misallocation is such that it is estimated that one year’s misallocation would
cost more than the total cost of the Census;
•  The Government has obligations to provide data about the population to the
European Union and other international organisations. The Census currently
provides the only comprehensive source of that data.

1.4
Chapter 4 describes the major practical options for delivering the Census,
covering Censuses containing varying numbers of questions and describing the
characteristics of a sample, or a hybrid – part sample part universal – Census. It
also considers different means of conducting the Census – traditionally, using
enumerators; increased use of postout/postback; and use of the internet – and it
looks at options for carrying out more or less sophisticated analysis of the data; at
options for outsourcing elements of the work; and at the prospects for charging for
Census data.

1.5
Chapter 5 assesses these options and Chapter 6 summarises the conclusion
of this analysis. It concludes that the optimum option is to conduct a Census similar
in size and scope to that carried out in 2001; to rely primarily on the enumerator
network to guarantee a good response rate; and to maximise the opportunities for
outsourcing and charging within relevant policy constraints. It also concludes that
the option of allowing electronic completion of the Census form should be considered
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 5 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

further, although doing so could require at least £1.2million more than a wholly
traditional approach.

1.6
The cost of conducting the Census is currently estimated, simply by uprating
the 2001 Census for inflation, at some £43million (plus the additional cost of
providing any on-line completion option). However, GROS has carried out a Census
test in early 2006. The assessment of that test will enable more precise and fuller
costs to be submitted for Spending Review 2007.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 6 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

2.
Introduction

2.1
A population Census has been carried out in Great Britain every 10 years
since 1801 except in 1941. Separate but similar Censuses are conducted in
Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. Following the normal pattern,
the next Census in Scotland will take place in 2011. However, in order to ensure
that the Census is carried out successfully, it is important to allow time for research,
testing and preparation.

2.2
Accordingly, some preparatory work has already started - including a Census
Test in April 2006 - but the bulk of the work and expenditure will occur in the next few
years.

2.3
In planning the next Census, the General Register Office for Scotland (GROS)
has drawn on the experience of previous Censuses, and is working closely with the
Office of National Statistics (for England and Wales) and the Northern Ireland
Statistical Research Agency (NISRA). This paper sets out the business case for a
Census, describing the benefits delivered by a Census, and considering a number of
options for delivery.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 7 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 8 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

3.
Background and general case for a Census

3.1
Since the Census was first conducted in 1801, the uses to which the data
collected have been put have become more sophisticated. Despite the enormously
increased demand for information about population characteristics in recent years,
no satisfactory alternative source of such basic data has been developed yet. The
Census remains the only comprehensive consistent source of national and local data
about people and their key characteristics, and about housing.

3.2
The output of the Census is used extensively by national and local
government; by the NHS; and by the private and voluntary sectors. It provides not
only statistics on the basic characteristics of population units – age and sex – and on
the make up of households and families, but also provides the opportunity for more
sophisticated multivariate analysis. The ability to analyse data covering a wide
range of variables at small area or postcode level is particularly valued. Currently
the Census provides the only comprehensive source of such data.

3.3
An indication of the perceived value of the Census is provided by the number
of times Census data have been accessed by various agencies. In the first year
following publication of the 2001 Census results (on 13 February 2003), the SCROL
(Scottish Census Results On Line) website recorded over 157,000 visits A wide
range of different sectors seek information from the Census database. For example,
by November 2003, there had been 15,535 visits by Central and local government
organisations, more than 45,000 by commercial organisations, and nearly 6,000 by
academic organisations. GROS Customer Services unit received 2,273 requests for
data in the year following publication. These requests ranged from the
straightforward reproduction of standard outputs to complex non-standard items,
such as a breakdown of the Census data by Church of Scotland parish. GROS
continues to deal with a very high level of requests for access to 2001 Census data,
via both telephone calls to the customer services unit and the SCROL website.

3.4
This indicates a strong demand and a prima facie case for the kind of data the
Census provides. But the 10 yearly Census is an expensive exercise, and it is
important to consider whether the same outcome could be achieved in different
ways. The 2001 Census cost £34.2million, split roughly evenly between printing and
preparation (including testing); enumeration; and coding and analysis. Allowing for
inflation, a similar Census in 2011 would cost about £43million spread over a number
of years.

3.5
When the Census was first conducted, Government played a smaller part in
the lives of individuals than it does today. Annex 1 gives more information about the
social history of Scotland, and the way in which the Census has reflected that. As
the welfare state has developed, Government agencies have had to collect and
retain more data about the people for whom services are provided. These various
data sets contain at least some, and arguably much, of the information collected
through the Census. If that information could be collated and made consistent, it
would be possible in theory to do without a separate Census every ten years.
Indeed, such an approach could provide a regularly updated or even continuous flow
of information, rather than the current 10 yearly snapshot.
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 9 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

3.6
However, the data collected by the various Government agencies are not
collected on a consistent basis; there are known inaccuracies in some of the data
sets (for example, more people are registered with the NHS than the population of
Scotland); and it is not currently permissible to exchange certain data between
Government departments. Allowing such exchanges would raise data protection
issues. Furthermore, before any data from such an approach could be used it would
be necessary to establish a clear baseline position so that the information arising
from the new system could be compared with past Census data. The only
practicable way of establishing a baseline for such a new approach would be through
a traditional Census carried out with that end in view. So using Government
administrative records to provide a “rolling census” is an aspiration for the future, but
is not practical as a replacement for the proposed 2011 Census.

3.7
The population in each of the local authorities and NHS Board areas is the
key criterion in determining how much expenditure needs to take place in their
respective areas. The Census information enables the GROS to produce mid-year
population estimates and population forecasts which are used for a wide range of
purposes. The mid year estimates are a key factor in allocating public expenditure
among local and health authorities. For example, the Arbuthnott Committee’s report,
which determined a new, more sophisticated formula for allocating resources to NHS
Boards, considered a range of options for assessing the population in each Board
area, and concluded after careful analysis that the GROS mid year population
estimates were the best option.

3.8
But the Census information provides more than simply a reliable population
count. The detailed breakdowns that are made possible by the Census allow
authorities and central government to achieve a number of further desirable
objectives:

•  Targeting resources at areas of greatest need for certain services
•  Planning for future population and demographic change
•  Understanding the demographic effects of policy developments
•  Identification of small areas with particular needs
• Meeting
parliamentary, public and media demand for population related
information
•  Helping business to plan for population change to improve its competitiveness
• Meeting
international
obligations.

3.9
Government needs an effective means to allocate and target resources,
particularly in the context of the Efficient Government agenda, under which every
opportunity must be taken to provide services more efficiently. In 2006-07, local
authorities in Scotland are expected to spend some £9billion in revenue expenditure,
of which some £8.3billion comes from central government allocations (including non
domestic rate income). Scottish NHS Boards are expected to spend some
£9.3billion, virtually all of which is allocated by central government. Between them
they account for more than two thirds of Scottish Executive managed public
expenditure. A reliable source of population data is essential if allocations are to
reflect need.
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 10 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

3.10  GROS has conducted an exercise to estimate how much resource would
have been misallocated between NHS Boards over the ten year period from 2001 to
2011 if no Census had been carried out in 2001, and population estimates had been
extrapolated from the 1991 figures. Details are in Annex 2, but overall, the
misallocations would have comprised a total rising from £21million to £31million a
year, with some Boards consistently receiving more, and others consistently less
than their appropriate share. Though the misallocated money would not be
misspent, it would be spent sub-optimally and the cumulative effect of this would be
very significant. It is reasonable to assume that the position for local authorities
would be similar. This indicates that the total cost of the Census would be less than
the total amount of one year’s misallocation to the NHS and local authorities.

3.11  As well as avoiding misallocation of resources at the local authority and NHS
Board level, the Census information enables government at all levels to identify
trends in demographic change, not only within Scotland as a whole, but also within
smaller areas. That is an aid to policy making, allowing for more finely tuned policies
targeted more appropriately. In particular, the Census is the only nationally
consistent source of data relating to areas smaller than local authorities, even down
to post code level. This allows the identification of pockets of deprivation and
narrowly defined areas in need of special or more intensive services, important in
pursuing the Government’s equality agenda. It also facilitates the identification of
small population sub-groups, such as ethnic minorities, in a sufficiently specific way
to enable their needs to be targeted effectively. Similarly, the business sector
benefits from more accurate population and demographic data, which feeds in to
their research and development of new products to meet the needs and demands of
Scots in the future.

3.12 Increasingly,
everything that Government does is subject to scrutiny in
Parliament, by the media, and by members of the public, all of whom look to
Government to provide accurate and timely information. While expressing concern
about the need to protect individuals’ data from unauthorised and inappropriate use,
they nevertheless assume that comprehensive information, particularly on matters
like population numbers, will be readily available. The Census assists in meeting
Government’s obligations for this; and the fact that the Census is well established
and has a good record in keeping sensitive data confidential, while producing useful
information, helps to alleviate any concerns about data protection. At present, any
alternative means of providing equivalent information would be likely to raise
concerns about the confidentiality of sensitive data.

3.13  Scotland has both intra-UK and international obligations to provide certain
demographic data. Census information is used in policy development and
implementation by UK Government departments with responsibilities that cover
Scotland. Censuses traditionally take place simultaneously in Scotland, England
and Wales, and Northern Ireland. If any one or two of the Censuses did not take
place, not only would there be a need to find other ways of providing the necessary
data, but there would be a significant risk of inconsistencies between the data from
different parts of the UK. That in turn could result in distortions of policy,
disadvantaging one or more parts of the UK. Even if Censuses were carried out in
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 11 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

all parts of the UK a similar, although lesser, risk could arise if the questions asked
were greatly different in the different Censuses. That is why the Registrars General
within the UK and the three Census Departments work closely together to ensure
consistency wherever appropriate, while allowing for differences between the
countries where necessary. For example, there has been a perceived need for
different data about ethnicity in the English Census than in the Scottish and Northern
Irish Censuses; the secondary school examination systems, which lead to formal
qualifications, differ; and the Scottish Census includes specific questions on the
Gaelic language.

3.14  The statistics generated from Censuses are also used by the European
Commission to allocate funding to member states. Although there is not currently a
legal requirement to provide this information, the UK (like other member states) has
agreed to do so, and the agreement states that:

“…only population and housing censuses conducted at regular intervals….
will permit the collection of periodical and reliable statistical data, at different
geographical levels, on the population….”.

3.15  The strategic case for a Census is strong. It supports policy making,
development and implementation; it ensures more accurate allocation of resources
in line with needs; it provides useful information for the business sector in designing
and developing new products and markets; and it helps Scotland to meet its
obligations both within the UK and internationally. While in theory much of the
information emerging from the Census could be derived from other sources, in
practice there are obstacles to that approach which could not be resolved before
2011 when the next Census would fall due.  The absence of a Census would be
likely to result in an increasing level of misallocation of resources, less available
support for policy making and implementation, and difficulty in meeting international
obligations.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 12 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

4.
The options

4.1
Introducing the options

4.1.1  GROS has considered a range of options for the content, coverage, and
means of data collection of the Census. The content could vary from a minimum
number of questions to a substantial increase in questions compared with 2001. In
terms of coverage, options could range from not carrying out a Census at all through
sample Censuses of varying lengths, to a rolling Census based on other sources of
data. Data collection could be electronic or paper based. The Census could be
conducted electronically, by phone, by post, or by various deployments of
enumerators; and there are also options around the degree of analysis of the
emerging data to be carried out.

4.1.2  The earlier section discussed the strategic case for the Census. By
implication, that discussion has made some of the theoretical range of options
unlikely to be serious runners in 2011. Accordingly, this section concentrates on the
most practical options. Others are discussed briefly in Annex 3. The options
discussed in this section are:

•  Option 1a
Modified version of 2001 Census
•  Option 1b
Enhanced Census
•  Option 1c
Mini Census
•  Option 2a
Sample Census
•  Option 2b
Part sample, part full Census

4.1.3  This section also includes consideration of the options for data collection and
analysis of the data collected.

4.2
Questionnaire content

4.2.1  The number of questions included in the Census has increased since the first
Census in 1801. There is always a balance to be struck between maximising the
benefit of the unique opportunity which a Census offers to collect data about the
population with the need to keep the Census manageable so as to ensure that as
high a response rate as possible is achieved. Therefore while a Census could in
principle be of any length, the three main options which are considered here are:

1a: a Census similar in length to the 2001 Census, including much the same
range of questions, with improvements and adjustments where desirable.

1b: an enhanced Census, including perhaps a page more of questions per
individual enabling a wider range of data to be collected.

1c: a Census limited to collecting the basic data needed to meet international
obligations – head count, sex and age etc. i.e. a ‘mini’ Census.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 13 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

4.3
Option 1a

4.3.1  A Census similar to that carried out in 2001 would be a traditional Census
taking place on a single day and seeking to enumerate every household in Scotland.
The intention would be to have a 3 page per person form, including questions
covering basic information about the number of people in each household and their
characteristics in terms of age and sex as well as other data such as ethnic origin,
religion, type of accommodation and the facilities available in the house.

4.3.2  This option has a number of benefits. Following the model of previous
Censuses would ensure a high degree of continuity, make for easier planning and
enable comparisons to be drawn and trends to be detected reasonably
straightforwardly. Furthermore, since the Censuses in England and Wales and
Northern Ireland are likely to be on similar lines, it would enable UK wide data to be
collated. A full Census ensures that consistent data is available across virtually the
whole population, which allows analysis to be carried out at postcode level, a facility
which is much valued.

4.3.3  However, there are some potential disadvantages. In order to enumerate the
whole population on a single day, the Census requires substantial expenditure to
cover, among other things, a large number of field staff who are employed around
the date of the Census. This expenditure is not spread evenly over many years but
is inevitably concentrated at various points in the development of the Census work.
This means that there is a premium on sound financial planning and forecasting and
an early commitment to budget. Second, a form comprising three pages of
questions will appear onerous to some of those being asked to complete it.
Obtaining a substantial enough return rate of completed forms is a major task, and
one that appears to be becoming harder in the current climate. Third, although most
of the population is relatively easy to contact there is a minority which is harder to
locate.

4.4
Option 1b

4.4.1  An enhanced Census would expand the number of questions, resulting in a
form of about four pages per person instead of three. In preparation for the Census,
Government Departments are asked to indicate what questions they would like
included. This option would allow more of those requests to be met. Most of the
other benefits associated with Option 1a would continue to apply – there would still
be continuity with earlier Censuses, and an ability to collate data across the UK
where appropriate. Data would still be available at postcode level.

4.4.2  But the disadvantages would also apply, and in some cases would be greater.
The cost would still be concentrated at various points in the process. But those
costs would be greater. Not only would there be the extra cost of an extra page
(which could increase printing costs by up to 20%-25% and also processing costs),
but the costs of analysing the data emerging would also be commensurately higher.

4.4.3  Furthermore a longer form would be likely to meet more resistance from those
asked to complete it, with the potential for either reducing the comprehensive nature
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 14 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

of the information, or requiring additional expenditure on follow up work by
enumerators or other means to chase up those forms not completed.

4.5
Option 1c

4.5.1  A mini Census would seek to collect only the data which is required for a
basic head count. It would be a much shorter form asking for name, age, gender
ethnicity and household relationships. Printing, processing and analysis costs would
be less than with a full Census, although the costs associated with preparing for the
Census, getting Parliamentary approval, issuing and collecting the form would still be
as large. The benefit of this approach, apart from the cost savings, would be that
people asked to complete the form would find it a less onerous task.

4.5.2  However, adopting a mini Census approach would mean that the information
collected would be very limited. There would be many areas where comparable
figures across the UK would no longer be possible; and the value of the information
to researchers, policy makers and others would be severely constrained. The
consequence would be likely to be that they would seek other, less comprehensive
sources of information which could have an adverse effect on the reliability of their
plans and might lead to the reduction in the burden on the public being partly offset
by the institution of new sample surveys and other data collection exercises as well
as by less optimal allocation of public expenditure. There would also be a big
increase in the costs of data matching work required to pull these other sources of
information together.

4.5.3  Annex 4 describes the steps which GROS is taking to test public reaction to
questions which might appear in the Census.  It also discusses the questions which
might be in a mini Census, the range of topics in a traditional full Census, and some
of the questions that might be included in an enhanced Census.

4.6
Coverage of the population

4.6.1  The five main coverage options are:

• No
Census
•  A sample Census
•  A full Census carried out on traditional lines
•  A Census comprising a short set of questions directed at the whole
population, and a longer set answered by a sample
•  A Census based solely on other data sources.

4.6.2  For the reasons set out earlier, failing to carry out any Census would lead to
costly gaps in the information available to public and other authorities, and would put
Scotland at risk of failing to meet international obligations; and a Census based on
other sources of data is not practicable at present. These options are therefore not
considered in detail here, although Annex 3 sets out their characteristics.

4.6.3  The benefits and drawbacks of a traditional full Census are discussed in
paragraphs 4.3.1 to 4.3.3. This section considers further the case for:
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 15 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

•  a sample Census (Option 2a); and
•  a part sample, part full Census (Option 2b).

4.7
Option 2a

4.7.1  A sample Census would seek to enumerate only a proportion of the
population and extrapolate national results from the sample. Sampling is a widely
used technique to obtain information without contacting everyone in the population of
interest. The printing and enumeration costs would be less than for a full Census.

4.7.2  However, while for some questions a sample response might provide a
reasonable approximation for policy makers and others to work with, conducting only
a sample Census would lose the comprehensive picture that Censuses provide, and
thus reduce substantially the quality of the information. In particular, it is likely that
the response rate from groups of the population that are difficult to enumerate
(people who have a mobile or unsettled lifestyle) could fall to such a low level that
effective statistical analysis of these groups would become impossible.

4.7.3  People in these groups are among those who benefit most from government
initiatives informed by the Census and their characteristics may differ significantly
from those of the mainstream population, thus rendering extrapolation from the
achieved sample dangerous. Furthermore, it would not be possible to compare
accurately results from a sample Census with those from earlier Censuses; there
would be difficulties in collating information across the UK; and the only
comprehensive and reliable source of data at a level below that of the local authority
would be lost.

4.7.4  Although some costs would be reduced by this approach, others would
increase. The need to identify a representative sample for the Census would require
investment; and the cost of analysing the data would be increased because of the
need to identify how far the results can be extrapolated to the population as a whole.

4.8
Option 2b

4.8.1  A variation of the sample Census would involve a mini Census form
distributed to the whole population, supported by a fuller form directed at a sample.
This would avoid some of the drawbacks associated with the mini Census in that the
information deficit would be reduced; and, unlike the solely sample Census, there
would still be comprehensive data on the basic headcount variables. But this
approach would share many of the drawbacks of both those options.

4.8.2  Furthermore, much of the cost saving which would be associated with either
of those two options would be lost – the enumeration savings associated with the
sample Census would no longer be available, and the savings on analysis costs of
the mini Census would also be lost. Indeed, costs could actually increase as it would
be necessary to print and process two distinct types of Census form.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 16 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

4.9
Data collection

4.9.1  Under any of the options, there are various available methods of collecting the
data. The use of enumerators to ensure optimal delivery and collection of forms is a
well established feature of the Census. That involves recruiting a team of people
who will distribute and then collect the forms from people, and, if necessary help
them to complete the forms.

4.9.2  In 1991 and earlier the approach was to expect enumerators to be the prime
means of distributing and collecting the forms. In 2001 more use was made of the
postal service for form collection. However, enumerators still played a key role in
chasing up those forms which were not returned promptly.

4.9.3  With major advances in technology since then, further options are now
possible. Many people are used to providing information – even sensitive
information – over the internet, or over the telephone. Allowing people to complete
the Census in these ways could be attractive to some. The main benefit would be
the potential for a better response rate if people found these approaches more
convenient.

4.9.4  On the other hand, it is arguable that those who find it most difficult to
complete the paper based form, or who are reluctant to do so for whatever reason,
would also be least likely to be prepared or able to use alternative means to
complete it. So the benefit in response rate might be limited. It would not be
possible to rely solely on the web or on the telephone, since some people do not
have access to these facilities, and some would continue to have doubts, however
unfounded, about the security of providing data in this way.

4.9.5  So there would be significant additional costs in providing the different kinds
of form, and in integrating the various completion modes. It would also be necessary
to ensure that any such alternative options had adequate security processes, to
protect the confidentiality of the Census. In addition there would be additional costs
in recycling duplicate paper and internet forms for some individuals and households
at the processing stage.

4.9.6  The Government has a policy of encouraging the availability of electronic
means of interaction between Government and people where possible and
appropriate. Society nowadays expects that online completion is available for most
services and this expectation is likely to be greater in 2011.

4.9.7  There is therefore a presumption that a web based option for completing the
Census should be offered. This will need to be offered as an alternative to, rather
than instead of, a paper based form. Apart from the need to establish a help line for
people having difficulty in completing the form, and perhaps to provide for telephone
based form completion for people with certain disabilities, for example those with
sight problems, wider use of the telephone would not be worth pursuing, because
any small additional convenience to the public would be outweighed by the
substantial additional cost, and the potential loss of confidentiality.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 17 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

4.9.8  There will undoubtedly remain an important role for the enumerators. While
the forms could be issued by post, and people can be asked to return them by the
same method, enumerators will still be required to deliver forms to households
missed by the post and to chase up forms which are not returned. Furthermore,
there are various groups in society – those who have no permanent residence, and
those who change their residence frequently for example – who are difficult to trace
to get them to complete a form. In addition many kinds of “communal
establishments” e.g. hospitals, care homes, prisons need special attention to ensure
that the population living there are enumerated properly.  By making more use of the
postal service, more of the enumerators’ time can be freed up to deal with these
more difficult matters.

4.10  Data processing and statistical analysis

4.10.1 The main options for data processing – data capture and coding – are in-
house processing and outsourcing. The data have to be coded in such a way that
they can be readily used, without breaching confidentiality, for the various purposes
desired by Government and other agencies - a process which is obviously most
efficiently and securely done once, under GROS's control.

4.10.2 The intention for 2011 (like 2001) is to outsource this work under a UK-wide
contract and the procurement process is already well-advanced. Partnership with
the chosen contractor will enable efficiencies and quality improvements to be
explored.

4.10.3 Once the data are coded, processed etc. they are available for statistical
analysis. This task is carried out mainly by GROS itself, although certain other users
may be permitted to access part of the data for analysis under strict conditions put in
place to ensure the maintenance of confidentiality and the integrity of the information
generated. In each Census, GROS seeks to improve the quality of the output by
developing more sophisticated analyses and output arrangements.

4.10.4 If it did not do so, other agencies would not only be disappointed but would
seek to achieve the same end themselves, probably in inconsistent ways, and
resulting in a cost shift from GROS elsewhere, higher cost to the public purse
overall, and inefficiency in the use of public resources. But there is a balance to be
struck between the sophistication and extent of the analysis and the associated
costs.

4.11  Outsourcing

4.11.1 GROS needs to manage the whole process of preparing, conducting and
coding and analysing the data arising from the Census. But it does not make sense
for all the work to be done in house. Because the Census is a ten yearly event,
some of the work associated with it requires additional staff for relatively short
periods. For example, a large number of enumerators is required to help conduct
the Census. GROS plans to outsource work where that is appropriate and where it
provides best value for money. It would be inappropriate to outsource the core work
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 18 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

on Census planning – the staff of GROS are experienced, and work on the Census
is an integral part of their duties.

4.11.2 But GROS is already testing the market for discrete elements of the work –
such as printing, the distribution of forms, publicity and data capture, and the contact
centre to deal with public questions about completing the form. This avoids the need
for GROS to employ staff directly to cover some of these functions, but allows control
to remain firmly in the Department.

4.12  Charging

4.12.1 GROS recognises the need to consider the scope for charging for the
information it provides as a result of the Census. Much of the information cannot be
charged for – it is provided to other Government agencies (where to charge would
simply be to cost shift). Charges have previously been levied for some paper
publications, but now publication is increasingly on the web. Indeed because the
Census provides such basic information about the nation, which has been provided
by the public, it would be inappropriate to charge for access to it.

4.12.2 However, where specific analyses or data sets which would not otherwise be
produced by GROS are requested, a charge is made. GROS proposes to continue
with this policy, treating each such request on a case by case basis. The Department
will seek to maximise income within these policy constraints.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 19 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 20 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

5.
Assessment of the options

5.1
This section assesses the main options against some specific criteria and
considers the preferred option in terms of the risks which the project faces.

5.2
The following criteria are important for considering the relative merits of
different options:

•  Population count: how accurate a count of the population the Census
provides.
•  Population structure: how comprehensive a picture of the population it gives
in terms of age, sex, employment, housing tenure etc.
•  Scope for analysis: how far it allows for detailed analysis of the results at
local level.
•  Comparability: the ease with which the data are comparable across the whole
of Scotland, and with the other parts of the UK.
•  Cost: the cost of the Census.
•  Ease of completion: how easily members of the public will find it to complete.

5.3
In the following table, the benefits were scored from on a scale of 0 to 3, with
3 representing greatest benefit, and 0 representing no benefit. For the purposes of
this exercise, the 6 characteristics were all weighted equally. The cost of any of the
options is substantial, and therefore none was awarded a score of 3.

Table
1

Benefit
scoring

Options

1a 1b  1c  2a  2b
Criteria

Population count
3 3 3 1 3
Population structure
3 3 1 1 2
Scope for analysis
3 3 2 1 1
Comparability
3 3 2 0 1
Cost
1 0 2 2 1
Ease of completion
2 1 3 2 2
Total
15 13 13  7  11

5.4
This simple analysis indicates that a traditional Census scores highest,
and is therefore the preferred option. However, not all the characteristics
necessarily have equal weight. The requirement to produce basic population count
and population structure data is more important than the availability of data at small
area level for analysis (although that is of course highly desirable), or the ease of
completion of the form. But option 1a – the traditional census – scores particularly
highly on these more important characteristics. So that confirms its selection as
preferred option.
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 21 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

5.5
The risks to carrying out a successful Census need to be managed carefully.
Some risks are of a detailed practical nature; others are more strategic. GROS has
a robust risk management programme in place. Key risks include:

•  Credibility of results may be called into question
•  Resistance to completion of the Census
•  Failure to achieve Parliamentary and other agreement on the content and
form of the Census early enough
•  Confidentiality of data may be breached or appear to be breached
•  Insufficient resources – financial or staffing – are available to complete the
Census
•  Suppliers of outsourced services fail to deliver on time or on budget
• Technology
fails

5.6
By pursuing largely the traditional model of Census, some of these risks can
be mitigated. For example, the familiarity of the traditional model, and the high
regard in which the output of previous Censuses has been held will help to establish
the credibility of the results.

5.7
GROS has a programme of Census testing under way to assess public
reaction to possible questions and to the format of the Census. This is described in
more detail in Annex 4, but is designed to reduce some of the risks identified above.
In particular, the outcome of the test should enable more informed advice to be put
to Ministers and Parliament in good time for final decisions to be taken.

5.8
Although it would be inappropriate to allow completion of the form only by
electronic means (since a substantial proportion of the population is not connected to
the internet), it would be possible to allow forms to be completed online as an
additional way of completing the Census. Canada and New Zealand have already
introduced online completion as part of their 2006 Censuses. Experience elsewhere
suggests that there may be a benefit in terms of the quality of the data submitted
electronically as electronic forms guide the user as to the type of data expected.

5.9
On the other hand, an online completion option could potentially increase the
risks relating to technology failure due to volume take up and require additional
reassurance about the security of the process and the confidentiality of the data
collected. There would be further costs in terms of reconciling duplicate paper and
internet returns. These risks would be reduced in Scotland by buying in to the ONS
systems if ONS decide to offer an internet option (at an additional cost currently
estimated to be about £1.2million). By running any new online completion system in
parallel with the paper based, enumerator collected system the risk posed by any
technology failure would be reduced.

5.10  An online option for completing the Census is desirable, but its justification is
primarily in terms of the benefits for the Scottish Executive’s wider electronic
government agenda and in meeting public expectations, rather than for reasons
directly related to the conduct of the Census. Therefore it should be pursued only if
the necessary additional finance can be made available. It should not be pursued at
the expense of other parts of the Census exercise.
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 22 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

6.
Conclusion

6.1
This paper has sought to demonstrate the case for holding a Census in 2011.
The arguments are strong:

•  There is no other way that could be developed in time to produce the same
range of data to the same level of accuracy as a Census;
•  The UK has obligations – both internationally and to various users in the UK –
to make information available which can currently only be provided by the
Census;
•  The data produced from the Census uniquely allows for multivariate analysis
of data at a local level, which in turn facilitates targeted policy making
focussed on population subsets with identifiable special needs;
•  The cost of the Census is justified by the identified misallocation of resources
to local authorities and NHS Boards which would be likely to occur if
population numbers (and their characteristics) were estimated by some other
means;
•  England and Wales and Northern Ireland will be conducting Censuses in
2011. In the interests of consistency and continuity across the UK and over
time a Scottish Census is also desirable.

6.2
A consideration of a number of practical options for the format and conduct of
the Census in Scotland has shown that a Census similar in scope to that in 2001,
comprising 3 pages of questions per individual, would provide the optimum balance
between cost and benefit. This conclusion allows for the substitution of new
questions where this is desirable, and also allows for adjustment of the precise
deployment of enumerators to ensure the maximum response rate.

6.3
Furthermore, in addition to a telephone helpline for those who have difficulty
in completing the form, there is a case for offering an on-line option for people who
would prefer to complete their Census form by that means. However, offering that
option would increase the cost of the Census by an estimated £1.2million.

6.4
The precise total costs of the Census are not yet identifiable. Simply uprating
the cost of the 2001 Census for inflation would indicate a cost of some £43million
(with potentially an additional £1million for the on-line option). However, there are
several factors which may affect this. For example, societal and environmental
changes may make it more difficult (and therefore more costly) to track down certain
groups of people to ensure they are enumerated (and these people will often be
those with particular needs that Government will wish to address).

6.5
On the other hand developments in technology may make certain aspects of
processing the data less expensive. The precise costs will be refined over the
coming months as the Census test results are assessed, and the specifications for
outsourced work are developed. A full estimate will be available for submission as
part of SR2007.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 23 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 24 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

7.
Annex 1 – History of the Census and related social developments in
Scotland

7.1
A Census of population has been carried out in Great Britain every 10 years
since 1801 (except in 1941). The form and content of the Census has evolved in
response to changing demands and demographic change. The first Censuses were
designed simply to collect basic details about every person living in the country.

7.2
For example, during the industrial revolution there were substantial flows of
population from rural areas into the towns. The Census enabled these movements,
and the associated changes in occupation, to be tracked reliably. It was also used to
monitor family size and birth and death rates.  The requirement to register births and
deaths meant that the ten yearly Census figures could be updated from time to time
to produce revised estimates of population, including a breakdown by age and sex.

7.3
In the 20th Century, international movement became more common, both from
Great Britain to other countries, and from other countries into Britain. While the
estimates of population made between Censuses included adjustments to try to take
account of these movements, inevitably, they were not as accurate as figures
produced from a full Census every ten years, which remains important as a
benchmark for the estimates made annually.

7.4
Following the Second World War, the pace of social change accelerated, with
the development of the Welfare State and, notably in Scotland, major changes in
employment patterns. The Census helps to record accurately these changes,
providing a baseline of sound data for the development of policies to deal with their
consequences.

7.5.
As social policies developed, and Government was expected to provide more
services to the population, it became important to be able to identify where those
services are most needed, and where particular concentrations of certain population
characteristics arise. The Census has developed to meet these requirements.
Increasingly the demand is for data at local authority and smaller level.

7.6
More sophisticated analysis techniques, together with the fuller data now
collected by the Census, make it possible to consider information at post code level,
which allows for more precise and accurate targeting of resources and services. A
full Census is the only source of information comprehensive and consistent enough
to provide a description of the size and characteristics of the population at such local
levels.

7.7.
There are some particular features about Scottish society which benefit from
the detailed information available from the Census. Scotland’s overall population
has been in decline, leading to wide ranging public debate. Although recent figures
suggest that the population may no longer be declining, any growth is much lower
than, for example, in England.

7.8
At the same time, Scotland’s population, like that of much of the rest of the
Western World, is becoming older on average. Government needs to know the pace
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 25 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

of these changes. The Census data provides an opportunity every ten years to
obtain a fully accurate picture of the position. The advent of devolution in 1999 has
meant an increased focus on the need for the Government in Scotland to develop
policies tailored to the particular needs of Scotland.

7.9
The Census provides currently the only comprehensive means of identifying
where social patterns differ between Scotland and other parts of the UK, and of
identifying such needs at sufficiently local level. Since relative population figures
between Scotland and England are used to determine the changes to Scotland’s
public expenditure allocation in each Spending Review (by means of the Barnett
formula), having a regular check on the accuracy of the figures being used affects
every part of the Scottish Executive’s activity.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 26 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

link to page 27 link to page 27 GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

8.
Annex 2 – Cost-benefit analysis for 2001 Census

8.1
Introduction

8.1.1  The 2001 Census was criticised on a number of grounds, including cost
(£32m). Therefore, we must be able to justify the cost of the Census. This paper
presents a simple cost-benefit analysis. It concludes that the 2001 Census was
justified.

8.1.2  The justification is based on the difference between the mid year population
estimates by Health Board Areas (HBAs) - with and without the 2001 Census. The
Census provides, at the most basic level, a count of the population. Annual
population estimates are produced in inter-Census periods by modifying the Census
count by “ageing” the population, adding in births, subtracting deaths and adding or
subtracting net migrants. However, these estimates become less accurate over time.

8.1.3  This is also true for population projections which are based on similar data
and take into account life expectancy, number of women of child-bearing age, family
size, etc.

8.1.4  There are important implications for government expenditure since budget
distributions are always to some extent based on population estimates and
projections. Differences between the true population and that used in budgetary
allocation lead to a misallocation of resources (either over- or under-provision).

8.1.5  This paper measures the potential misallocation in the NHS Scotland and
compares it to the cost of the Census. Assumptions have been made about how the
budget is distributed (described below); a comparison has also been made of
population projections from 2002 to 2011, obtained from the:

• 2000 MYE (derived from the 1991 Census); and
• 2001 Census.

8.1.6  Approximate figures have been used for the 2004-5 NHS Scotland (NHSS)
budget1. The NHSS budget figures were used for this exercise because:

•  Demand for health services and this expenditure is closely linked to basic
demographics such as age and sex:
•  The NHSS budget, at about one third, is one of the biggest in the Scottish
Executive budget2.

8.2
Details

8.2.1  The total Health Department budget for the financial year 2004-05 was
£6.656bn. This figure was used instead of the larger Department Expenditure Limit

1 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/sbd05-07.asp
2 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/sbd05-02.asp
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 27 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

link to page 28 link to page 28 GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

(£8bn). The difference between the two figures is due to NI contributions. This goes
straight back to the Treasury however it is allocated.

8.2.2 Approximately
80%
of the total NHSS budget is divided between HBAs3. This
money is distributed using the Arbuthnott formula according to 4 key elements:

•  The size of each HBA’s population;
•  The age and sex profile of each HBA’s population;
•  Needs arising from ill health (morbidity) and life circumstances (such as
deprivation, poverty and ethnicity) in each HBA’s population;
•  Unavoidable excess costs of delivering healthcare in rural and remote areas
of Scotland.

8.2.3  The last three elements modify the results of the first element. The first
element rests on the Census and subsequent births, deaths and migration. The
second element also derives from the Census but is modified according to needs of
different age/sex groups. The third element is a mixture of factors but many of them
(e.g. incidence of long-term, limiting illness) derive from the Census. The fourth
element is not derived from the Census.

8.2.4  Although the same indicators have been re-calculated using the 2001 Census
data, they have only been available since March 2004. It will therefore probably be
some years before 2001 data is used in practice, although the Arbuthnott Review did
recommend that mid-year population estimates should be used as an annual
measure of the population.

8.2.5 Population
and
age/sex distributions for health spending are mainly based on
MYEs. They are annually updated and, since 2002, have used 2001 Census data.
Therefore, these figures have been used in the cost-benefit analysis of the Census.

8.2.6  We also need the weighting that is assigned to age/sex population figures.
For each HBA, the relative spending factors give the cost of providing medical
services in that HBA relative to the average for Scotland due to each Arbuthnott
criterion. An overall relative cost factor for the HBA is then calculated simply by
multiplying them together. Therefore the age/sex distribution has a weighting of
1/3rd.

8.2.7  Approximately 8% of the HBA budget is spent on ‘General Medical Services’
(GP funding). For this budget, the Community Health Index is used to give the
population by GP patient lists. This population is used since demands on this service
are dependent on GP lists rather than HBA populations (in 1996 27,000 people were
registered with a GP located in a different health board area to the one in which they
lived4). Cost benefits, therefore, cannot be applied to this portion of the NHSS
budget.


3 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc01/fsas-02.htm
4 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library2/doc01/fsag-13.htm
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 28 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

8.2.8   The money at risk of misallocation is therefore:

[Proportion of NHSS budget allocated to HBAs] x
[1 - Proportion of HBA budget allocated to GMS] x
[Weighting assigned to age/sex data (assuming 1/3rd because there are 3
factors)] x
[Total NHSS budget]

= 0.8 x 0.92 x 1/3 x £6.656bn   = £1.635bn each year

8.2.9  This figure was used to calculate the overall misallocation from 2002 to 2011.
Annex A contains the tables used to calculate the misallocation (Please note that,
due to rounding, some columns may not sum exactly to the given total).

Table A1
1991 based HBA populations.
Table A2
2001 based HBA populations.
Table A3
HBA allocations on a 1991 population base.
Table A4
HBA allocation on a 2001 population base.
Table A5
Difference in allocation on the two bases.

8.3
Conclusion

8.3.1  The misallocation sums to £0 but, if presented on an absolute basis, sums to
between £21M and £31M each year and £284m over the 10-year period, almost 9
times the cost of the Census.

8.3.2  This analysis has not taken into account other major uses of Census data for
budget allocation such as the Local Authority GAE. We could do further analysis if
further justification was required. However, we feel this analysis is conservative and
does, of itself, justify the Census.

8.3.4  ONS has drafted a more thorough preliminary 115 page business case. It
concludes that the[ir] sensitivity analysis based on the current quantified benefits and
costs estimates derived from the 2001 census suggests that the project [2011
Census] is economically viable. … and also that a cautious approach has been taken
to estimating those benefits included.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 29 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Annex A

Table A1: 1991-based MYEs projections 2001-2011

HBAs
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Argyll &
Clyde 421,817
420,163
418,568
416,958
415,356
413,727
412,104
410,453
408,792
407,130 405,468
Ayrshire &
Arran 372,261
371,056
369,950
368,845
367,698
366,527
365,326
364,114
362,885
361,633 360,368
Borders 107,038
107,095
107,105
107,096
107,069
107,019
106,947
106,862
106,770
106,659 106,544
Dumfries &
Galloway 144,973
144,278
143,768
143,239
142,682
142,097
141,483
140,845
140,191
139,520 138,837
Fife 350,847
350,954
350,853
350,760
350,643
350,508
350,351
350,174
349,985
349,800 349,600
Forth Valley
278,629
279,156
279,709
280,260
280,793
281,318
281,826
282,327
282,837
283,333 283,831
Grampian 521,429
519,688
518,342
516,945
515,456
513,901
512,276
510,585
508,845
507,091 505,282
Greater
Glasgow 902,377
900,156
898,121
896,337
894,747
893,334
892,076
890,997
890,043
889,223 888,520
Highland 208,610
208,480
208,275
208,037
207,744
207,407
207,035
206,633
206,188
205,732 205,250
Lanarkshire 561,900
561,666
561,540
561,386
561,190
560,941
560,640
560,274
559,879
559,421 558,939
Lothian 787,343
790,484
793,327
796,281
799,280
802,350
805,476
808,642
811,865
815,132 818,455
Orkney 19,391
19,290
19,186
19,083
18,972
18,855
18,727
18,598
18,475
18,348 18,210
Shetland 22,188
22,068
22,037
22,001
21,969
21,938
21,904
21,876
21,840
21,810 21,771
Tayside 383,021
380,651
378,647
376,607
374,529
372,406
370,255
368,070
365,866
363,650 361,423
Western Isles
26,846
26,528
26,266
26,002
25,733
25,456
25,182
24,901
24,605
24,316 24,021
Total
5,108,670 5,101,713 5,095,694 5,089,837 5,083,861 5,077,784 5,071,608 5,065,351 5,059,066 5,052,798 5,046,519

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 30 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Table A2: 2001 based MYEs projections (2001-2011)

HBAs
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Argyll &
Clyde 420,491
418,750
416,233
414,498
412,733
410,950
409,144
407,367
405,616
403,844 402,092
Ayrshire &
Arran 368,149
367,060
365,372
363,961
362,495
361,004
359,467
357,892
356,322
354,736 353,139
Borders 106,764
107,400
107,548
107,794
108,006
108,201
108,363
108,515
108,649
108,775 108,895
Dumfries &
Galloway 147,765
147,310
146,695
146,199
145,676
145,113
144,523
143,894
143,237
142,569 141,884
Fife 349,429
350,620
350,992
351,390
351,742
352,066
352,369
352,665
352,963
353,238 353,520
Forth Valley
279,480
279,370
279,947
280,675
281,374
282,052
282,715
283,354
283,996
284,622 285,251
Grampian 525,936
523,290
520,953
519,311
517,564
515,716
513,801
511,797
509,733
507,623 505,453
Greater
Glasgow 867,150
866,080
863,919
859,926
856,197
852,718
849,489
846,550
843,844
841,436 839,275
Highland 208,914
208,140
207,820
207,541
207,211
206,828
206,409
205,952
205,463
204,954 204,405
Lanarkshire 552,819
552,910
551,942
551,422
550,813
550,127
549,400
548,622
547,827
547,006 546,160
Lothian 778,367
779,100
781,697
784,840
788,023
791,216
794,452
797,767
801,142
804,567 808,088
Orkney 19,245
19,210
19,066
18,972
18,872
18,772
18,655
18,536
18,417
18,299 18,165
Shetland 21,988
21,940
21,829
21,864
21,899
21,920
21,948
21,979
21,998
22,026 22,064
Tayside 389,012
387,420
385,363
383,800
382,197
380,568
378,887
377,186
375,475
373,776 372,062
Western Isles
26,502
26,200
25,890
25,631
25,368
25,113
24,858
24,598
24,333
24,065 23,795
Total 5,062,011
5,054,800
5,045,266
5,037,824
5,030,170
5,022,364
5,014,480
5,006,674
4,999,015
4,991,536 4,984,248

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 31 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Table A3: HBA allocations on 1991-based MYEs projections (2001-2011) (£1000s)

HBAs
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Argyll &











Clyde
134,833
134,487
134,135
133,773
133,415
133,051
132,690
132,322
131,950
131,577
131,203
Ayrshire &











Arran
118,992
118,769
118,555
118,336
118,107
117,872
117,629
117,383
117,132
116,873
116,609
Borders
34,214
34,279
34,323
34,360
34,391
34,416
34,435
34,450
34,463
34,470
34,476
Dumfries &











Galloway
46,340
46,181
46,072
45,955
45,830
45,697
45,555
45,406
45,251
45,090
44,925
Fife
112,147
112,334
112,435
112,534
112,629
112,720
112,807
112,889
112,969
113,049
113,125
Forth Valley
89,063
89,353
89,636
89,916
90,193  90,469
90,743
91,017
91,294
91,568
91,843

Grampian
166,673
166,343
166,108
165,851
165,568
165,266
164,944
164,603
164,246
163,883
163,501
Greater











Glasgow
288,442
288,125
287,813
287,572
287,399
287,289
287,233
287,240
287,289
287,381
287,511
Highland
66,682
66,731
66,744
66,744
66,729
66,700
66,662
66,614
66,554
66,489
66,416
Lanarkshire
179,610
179,780
179,952
180,109
180,258
180,394
180,517
180,622
180,718
180,795
180,864
Lothian
251,672
253,020
254,230
255,471
256,734
258,029
259,350
260,691
262,055
263,436
264,839
Orkney
6,198
6,174
6,148
6,122
6,094
6,064
6,030
5,996
5,963
5,930
5,892
Shetland
7,092
7,064
7,062
7,059
7,057
7,055
7,053
7,052
7,050
7,049
7,045
Tayside
122,432
121,840
121,342
120,827
120,301
119,763
119,216
118,659
118,095
117,525
116,951
Western Isles
8,581
8,491
8,417
8,342
8,266
8,186
8,108
8,028
7,942
7,858
7,773
Total
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 32 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Table A4: HBA allocations on 2001-based MYEs projections (2001-2011) (£1000s)

HBAs
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Argyll &











Clyde
135,648
135,279
134,720
134,356
133,988
133,616
133,238
132,866
132,498
132,117
131,736
Ayrshire &











Arran
118,762
118,580
118,258
117,975
117,679
117,377
117,061
116,730
116,396
116,051
115,698
Borders
34,441
34,696
34,809
34,941
35,063
35,180
35,289
35,393
35,491
35,586
35,677
Dumfries &











Galloway
47,668
47,589
47,480
47,389
47,292
47,182
47,064
46,932
46,790
46,641
46,485
Fife
112,724
113,269
113,604
113,900
114,188
114,471
114,749
115,025
115,298
115,561
115,823
Forth Valley
90,158
90,251
90,609
90,979
91,344  91,706
92,066
92,418
92,770
93,114
93,456

Grampian
169,664
169,051
168,614
168,331
168,020
167,680
167,320
166,927
166,509
166,068
165,600
Greater











Glasgow
279,737
279,790
279,620
278,738
277,952
277,253
276,637
276,110
275,649
275,274
274,969
Highland
67,394
67,240
67,264
67,273
67,268
67,248
67,217
67,173
67,116
67,050
66,968
Lanarkshire
178,336
178,620
178,644
178,739
178,813
178,868
178,913
178,938
178,952
178,952
178,936
Lothian
251,096
251,691
253,007
254,400
255,820
257,256
258,714
260,199
261,700
263,213
264,751
Orkney
6,208
6,206
6,171
6,150
6,127
6,104
6,075
6,046
6,016
5,986
5,951
Shetland
7,093
7,088
7,065
7,087
7,109
7,127
7,147
7,169
7,186
7,206
7,229
Tayside
125,493
125,157
124,728
124,406
124,075
123,738
123,385
123,023
122,652
122,280
121,897











Western Isles
8,549
8,464
8,380
8,308
8,235
8,165
8,095
8,023
7,949
7,873
7,796
Total
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972  1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972
1,634,972

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 33 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Table A5: Misallocations by 2001 and 1991-based projection differences (2001-2011) (£1,000s)

HBAs
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Argyll &
Clyde
815 792
585 584 573 565 548 544
548 540 533
Ayrshire &
Arran
230 189
297 361 428 495 568 654
737 822 912
Borders
227 417
486 581 671 764 853 943

1,028
1,115
1,201
Dumfries &
Galloway
1,328 1,408
1,408 1,434 1,461 1,485 1,509 1,527
1,539 1,551 1,560
Fife
576  935
1,169 1,366 1,559 1,750 1,942 2,135
2,330 2,512 2,698
Forth Valley
1,095
898
973
1,063
1,151 1,237 1,323 1,402
1,475 1,546 1,613
Grampian
2,990 2,707
2,505 2,479 2,452 2,414 2,376 2,324
2,263 2,185 2,099
Greater
Glasgow
8,705 8,334
8,193 8,833 9,447 10,036 10,596 11,130
11,640 12,106 12,542
Highland
713 509
520 528 539 548 556 559
563 562 553
Lanarkshire
1,274 1,160
1,308 1,370 1,445 1,525 1,604 1,684
1,766 1,843 1,927
Lothian
576
1,329

1,223
1,071 914 773 635 492
355 223  88
Orkney
10 31
23 27 33 40 45 50
53 57 59
Shetland
1 24
  3 28 53 72 95
116

136
157
184
Tayside
3,061 3,318
3,387 3,579 3,773 3,975 4,169 4,364
4,557 4,755 4,947
Western
Isles  32 27
38 34 30 21 13  5
  7 14 23










Total 21,633
22,079   22,117   23,340   24,529   25,701   26,833   27,928   28,996   29,988   30,937

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 34 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

9.
Annex 3 – Options

9.1
Introduction

9.1.1  This Annex describes briefly a wider range of options in relation to the
Census, beyond those which are assessed more fully in paper. For each option,
there is a short description, an indication of the costs that would arise in comparison
with the base case of a traditional Census, the benefits of the option, and the
drawbacks. The options are:

• No
Census
•  Simple head count
• Mini
Census
• Traditional
Census
• Sample
Census
•  Part full, part sample Census
•  Enhanced (4 Page) Census
• Ambitious
Census
• On-line
Census
• Telephone
Census
•  ‘Census’ based on administrative data
• Rolling
Census.

9.2
No Census

Description:  No Census held in 2011. Any data required obtained by
from 2001 data
Costs:
£0
Benefits:
No requirement for additional staff and work associated with conduct
of a Census.
Drawbacks:
Increasingly inaccurate population data; Inconsistent comparisons
with England; Failure to meet international obligations; Loss of
detailed information to support policy

9.3
Simple head count

Description:  A very basic population count on a fixed date, providing information on
numbers sex and age only.
Costs:
would be the same as for a full Census. There would be additional
costs for policy makers and others in finding other sources for the data
not provided by the Census. Savings on printing since the form would
be very short. Savings since there would be very little data to code
and analyse but the cost of setting up the operations for the
processing and coding is the same regardless of number so savings
are not likely to be so great.  But the costs of preparation and
enumeration would be the same as for a full Census. There would be
additional costs for policy makers and others in finding other sources
for the data not provided by the Census.
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 35 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

Benefits:
Financial savings. Likely better response rate for a simple form.
Ability to meet international obligations.
Drawbacks:
Information of interest and use to policy makers and others not
available, leading to inconsistency.

9.4
Mini Census

Description:  Short Census, asking fewer questions than in 2001, but more than in
the simple head count.
Costs:
As for the simple head count, there would be savings on printing and
coding and analysis (although less than for the simple head count),
but the substantial costs of preparation and enumeration would
remain.
Benefits:
As for simple head count, and some of the additional information
desired by users would be provided.
Drawbacks:
Much of the information of interest and use to policy makers and other
users would not be available, leading to inconsistency and inefficient
duplication of work to obtain data.

9.5
Traditional Census

Description:  A Census about the same length as in 2001 (about 3 pages of
questions), providing a range of information; distributed to every
household, and with enumerators taking the lead in collection.
Costs:
Total cost about the same in real terms as in 2001 – about £43million
in today’s prices, spread over about 7 years but peaking in 2010-
2012.
Benefits:
Continuity with earlier Censuses; availability of wide range of data at
postcode level; ability fully to meet international obligations; many
people will recall earlier Censuses, and their familiarity should help
with return rates.
Drawbacks:
Three pages remains a substantial amount of form filling which may
reduce return rate; some desirable questions could not be asked.

9.6
Sample Census

Description:  A Census of whatever length sent only to a representative sample of
the population.
Costs:
Some savings on printing, distribution and collection; but additional
costs for selecting the representative sample, and for extrapolating the
sample data to give a nationwide picture.
Benefits:
Need to contact only a proportion of the population, saving
enumerators’ time. Possible ability to gather data relating to more
areas of interest.
Drawbacks:
Extrapolated data would be less accurate than those gathered from
the whole population. Ability to analyse at post code level would be
lost.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 36 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

9.7
Part Full, Part Sample Census

Description:  A basic head count Census for the whole population, with a wider
range of questions sent to a sample.
Costs:
Small savings on printing and distribution costs; but additional costs
for selecting the sample and for extrapolating sample data.
Benefits:
Full headcount would mean that all international obligations were met;
sample survey would allow more areas of interest to be covered.
Drawbacks:
No ability to analyse sample data at postcode level, and extrapolated
data would be less accurate than those gathered from the whole
population.

9.8
Enhanced (4 page) Census

Description:  As the traditional Census but with an extra page of questions.
Costs:
Additional printing, preparation, coding and analysis costs.
Benefits:
Ability to gather data on a wider range of matters.
Drawbacks:
A longer form might encounter more resistance from those asked to
complete it.

9.9
Ambitious Census

Description:  As the enhanced Census, but not limiting the size of the Census to 4
pages, enabling all questions potential users want to be asked.
Costs:
Additional printing, preparation, coding and analysis costs.
Benefits:
Data gathered for a much wider range of matters; possibility of
replacing some other data collection exercises.
Drawbacks:
Likely to be a very long form with potential major implications for
response levels; major additional task to ensure no duplication with
other data collection exercises.

9.10  On-line Census

Description:  Any size of Census to be completed purely on line rather than on a
paper form.
Costs:
Extra costs in designing and testing an on-line form; savings in
collection costs; savings in coding and analysis costs. Compared with
a traditional Census there would be more costs before the Census is
conducted and fewer afterwards.
Benefits:
Checking and editing could be done automatically at the point of data
entry, improving speed and accuracy; analysis could be started more
quickly; in line with Government’s policy to encourage electronic
access to services etc.
Drawbacks:
Significant proportion of population still not on line; many users may
not be comfortable with using the technology; need new procedures to
detect mistakes; need to provide reassurance about security of data
etc.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 37 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

9.11  Telephone Census

Description:  Conduct the Census by phone.
Costs:
Additional costs for establishing and staffing telephone service centre
(one call to complete a census form is approx. 40 minutes – very
costly) to conduct the Census; savings on printing, distribution and
collection.
Benefits:
Many people now use the phone to conduct business; quicker results;
consistency of completion of data.
Drawbacks:
Not everyone has a phone; difficulty of confirming identity of
respondent on the phone; need to provide reassurance about
confidentiality of data; possible data quality implications particularly for
some questions; cost.

9.12  Figures based on administrative data

Description:  Use other sources of administrative data to provide the information
collected by the Census.
Costs:
Large costs to identify the best sources of the data, to ensure it is
accurate and consistent, and to create links between different data
sources. Savings on preparation, printing distributing sand collecting
Census forms.
Benefits:
Makes efficient use of many existing data sources; avoids having to
contact the whole population every 10 years.
Drawbacks:
Not currently a practical proposition – would probably require data
sharing legislation; would need a baseline position to calibrate the
other data sources, which would require a Census type survey; data
confidentiality issues would need to be resolved, since data collected
for one purpose would be used for another. Data matching would also
be difficult to carry out and not consistent.

9.13  Rolling Census

Description:  Instead of holding one Census every ten years, take a Census of say
one tenth of the population every year.
Costs:
Overall higher than for a single Census, but costs would be constant
each year rather than peaking every ten years.
Benefits:
Maintain expertise among enumeration etc staff, instead of having to
retrain every ten years; provide more dynamic data collection.
Drawbacks:
Major methodology change would be expensive and likely cause
delay; the population does not remain static for ten years, so mobile
people could be more likely to be missed leading to an incomplete
picture; unlikely to be able to produce as useful data at postcode level.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 38 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

10.
Annex 4 – Census testing and possible questions

10.1 GROS
is
consulting on all aspects of the Census. They are seeking views
from a wide range of people across Scotland who will be asked to complete the
Census and from users of the data which emerges. The consultation takes place
from 2004 to 2009. There are four elements to the consultation:

•  Formal Consultation: Before 2011, there will be three rounds of consultation
on the Census: before the 2006 Census Test, the 2009 rehearsal and the
2011 Census.
•  Questionnaire Consultation: Questionnaires will be available for online
completion on GROS’s website.
•  Consultation Papers: Consultation papers outlining plans for 2011 will also be
published on the website.
•  Topic Groups: GROS often meets groups and individuals who have specialist
knowledge in a particular topic.

10.2  A major element of the preparation for the Census is the carrying out of a test
Census. GROS conducted a Census Test on the 23rd of April 2006. The test was
designed to test different ways of conducting a Census and explore likely reaction to
the inclusion of a question on income. It was also designed to help with the design of
the follow-up survey to the Census, with the evaluation of other possible new Census
questions, with planning the processing of the information on the forms, the quality
checks and the production of the Census results.

10.3  The test took place in parts of Glasgow City, West Dunbartonshire, Highland,
Stirling, Perth & Kinross and Argyll & Bute Council areas. About 52,000 households
were asked to complete a Census Test form. A number of new or revised questions
have been included in this test to meet the changing needs of Census data users.

10.4  The results of the Test Census will be evaluated so as to inform decisions
about the form and content of the actual Census in good time for the rehearsal
(carried out throughout the UK) in 2009. In particular, the inclusion of a question in
the Test Census does not necessarily mean that it will be included in the 2011
Census.

10.5  The Test Census will help to determine how possible questions would be
received. But whatever Census is pursued some basic information would be
required. This includes:

•  The number of people in the household;
•  Their age and sex
•  Their place of birth
•  Their ethnic origin
•  Basic information about their accommodation

10.6  A Mini Census would contain these questions and not much more.

Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 39 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

GROS
2011 Census Business Case
September 2006

10.7  The Test Census is a guide to the range of questions which would be asked in
a traditional Census. In addition to those above, they might include:

•  More questions about accommodation
• Employment
• Household
income
• Religion
• Marital
status
• Health
status
• Car
ownership
•  Whether Gaelic speaking
•  Visitors on Census night
• Qualifications
•  Transport to work/place of study
• Language

10.8  An enhanced Census would allow more questions to be asked, for example
on:
• Sexual
orientation
•  More about health and caring responsibilities
• Citizenship
• Second
residences
• Income
Author: Simon Hazlewood
Page 40 of 40
Date last saved: 03/03/2009
File location: Census Homepage\2011 Census Product
Version: 1.0
Library\Products\Census Management\Business Case

Document Outline

��
��
��
��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
��
- ��
��
��
��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
��