Scottish census shambles

[DomesticatedZombie]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/27/snp-abandons-census-deadline-quarter-scots-fail-respond/

'Extending the window for responding raises worrying questions about data quality,” Lindsay Paterson, professor of education policy at the University of Edinburgh, said. “In normal social surveys, there are strict quality controls on the time given to respond. “This is because people vary in how they respond, especially for opinion questions such as the several identity questions in the census. For example, how people answer the question about gender identity might vary according to whether some controversy about gender identity is in the news. The same is true of national identity and ethnic identity.” He added: “As a social statistician, I would not use census data on identity that had such an arbitrarily varying window of replying.”'

That's what happens when wee Jimmy Krankie is voted into government

I wonder if social statistician Paterson was a Lynsey rather than a Lindsay whether there would have been a TRA pile on for those words.

More on this in the Times today

Census extension ‘will not succeed’.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d77ffce0-c8c3-11ec-9868-6fd925016a0c?shareToken=6ae6a1b2d641f26ff536e7968aca27f88_

Oof. That is frankly embarrassing. Thanks for the link, Rex.

'The first delay from 21 to 22 cost us £21m'

'A £10 million drive to salvage Scotland’s census'

So that's £31fucking million pounds so far for the SNP to implement a failed census. That's an utter disgrace.

Several comments saying that people don't trust the SNP with their data. I wonder if this does come down to a trust issue, largely.

It's staggering. Even if you do harbour a (not very) secret desire to be utterly severed from the rest of the UK, surely the hill to die on, is not one of junk data that costs millions to be junk and worthless?!

Why does extending the deadline for a month cost anything at all, far less £10 million?

I think, from the article, they're going to have a 'drive'. Not sure what this entails. Tombola?

As for independence - I'm ambivalent, but if there is a case to be made for it, it needs to be made on the back of solid evidence, not manipulative bullshit in which the SNP actually actively harm the country in order to prove some made-up grievances about rUK.

There's no case for independence beyond some air - headed Braveheart nonsense and a delusional but deeply ingrained sense of grievance.

As for being "different" well remote parts of rural Yorkshire are very different from London or Edinburgh and very similar to remote parts of rural Scotland. Edinburgh, Oxford and Bath are peas in a pod. The English census had no difficulty dealing with remote parts of rural Yorkshire with poor digital connectivity. What's the Scottish excuse for failure in this issue?

I honestly question the intelligence of any separatist supporter.

The ferries is a disgrace. Just like the Gupta steel

its almost impossible to get a booking on a ferry. Let alone take a car. People ar3 having to fly to get to som3 of the islands

census failure I don’t know why the government need to know my sexuality.. intrusive and same with the gender question
I thought it was meant to be on a certain night as to who was in your house ?

No idea why it's costing £10 million, but it has to come with some cost - the people working on it have to be paid.

The figures are patchy over Scotland, which suggests to me it's not a trust issue per se. Of the 32 areas, as of yesterday, 1 was over 85%, 16 were between 80-85%, 11 were between 75-80% and 4 were 70-75%

City is Glasgow is one of the bottom four, which is pulling the Scottish average (78.8%) down considerably.

I'm in one of the 80-85% areas, so I can't comment on what's happening in the areas with poorer returns.

The big problem, it seems to me, is that the areas with relatively high returns tend to be the wealthier areas, so the resultant data will suggest that Scotland is better off, better housed, healthier etc than it actually is.

*City of Glasgow

The big problem, it seems to me, is that the areas with relatively high returns tend to be the wealthier areas, so the resultant data will suggest that Scotland is better off, better housed, healthier etc than it actually is.

I don't know how accurate the data is going to be overall, really. 80% of the populace returning leaves an enormous gap. And as you say, it may well be skewed, for various reasons.

At the moment it's not going to be accurate because of the patches of low return rate.

I think the intention of the extension may be to try to close that gap. The media are broad-brush reporting that "a quarter of Scots fail to respond" etc, but it's a lot more nuanced than that. Within the areas which have exceeded 80% there are pockets which have exceeded 90% returns. Presumably within the low response areas of below 75% there are pockets which have resulted in very low returns.

There's a strong correlation between affluent areas and areas of high returns.

Isn't that generally the case, though? When I lived in low-income areas in Glasgow this was a known issue. There were concerns that immigrants would self-exclude, for example. So surely those social demographics are taken into account and/or directly addressed?

My understanding at the outset was that the social demographics were going to be directly addressed (although I'm just an enumerator, not management, so not privy to all the details.)

However, the census was grossly understaffed. As I've said before, it proved impossible to fill the census posts. In my area, only 20% of enumerator posts were filled.

If it was the same in Glasgow, then plans to directly address the social demographics may have been affected. I'm not in Glasgow, so I don't know. But I do know there's been a lot of changes made to allow for the understaffing.

I don't know what went wrong with the recruitment process. Possibly the contract was too short-term (10 weeks) to appeal to those looking for work, but the hours (25 hours per week) were too long for those who had traditionally worked as enumerators, the recently retired, students etc.

So how does Sturgeon explain the results in England and Wales, including the engagement in areas like Tower Hamlets?

www.finance-ni.gov.uk/news/census-2021-results-schedule-announced

England’s census had a 97% return rate last year, although the deadline was pushed back for some institution settings. Office for National Statistics data showed England’s highest rates of return for digital forms were from its poorest and most ethnically diverse council areas: Tower Hamlets and Newham in London both had a 97% online reply rate

IDK, Kimiko. Maybe there was a special drive in some areas? Or perhaps England &Wales' census was better staffed? It would be interesting to see what the factors are - I do suspect some of it is the 'sex/gender' question, plus a growing distrust of the Scottish Government, but then again, it's not as if the current Westminster Government is all that beloved, either.

The shambles continues to shamble ...

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4c0bbe8c-cb2b-11ec-b4b6-e30a321b8cd3?shareToken=8847c242a37c51ad6aae2256e39bdb31

"The Daily Telegraph previously reported that 1,250 field staff were hired for this Scottish census compared with 7,000 in 2011. It had originally been said that between 3,000 and 4,000 workers would be taken on to carry out home visits."

This.

The 7,000 in 2011 were on 10 hour a week contracts. This time they tried to recruit up to 4000 on 25 hour a week contracts.

I don't know why the posts could not be filled. Too short a contract? 25 hours a week too much to take on for e.g. students with exams coming up, whereas in 2011 10 hours a week was do-able?

Frankly, given the fact that it's been done with only a third of the enumerators required, I'm surprised its not more of a shambles than it is. Covid also meant that quite a few people have been off for a week during the 10 week period - in line with every other business or occupation in the country.

I don't know if it's fair to describe it as a "staff exodus" People had a fixed term contract, had plans for what they would do after the contract ended and aren't accepting the new extension. It's "not staying on" rather than "leaving."

"Sarah Boyack, Labour’s spokeswoman on the constitution, said she had been told staff have struggled with IT problems and that people who were brought in to analyse data have ended up being dispatched to collect information."

Non-enumerators were told that overtime enumerating was available. Not sure that qualifies as being "dispatched to collect information." Enumerators on 25 hour a week contracts have also been allowed to work overtime, if they want.

Yes, I thought some of the terms were needlessly hyperbolic, Enumerator. But the disparity in the number of people recruited compared to earlier years is enormous.

"“The SNP government couldn’t have made a bigger mess of this if they tried — and it all stems from their refusal to keep the Scottish census in sync with that of the other home nations, as the Scottish Conservatives urged them to.”

Being out-of-sync may well have contributed, but the inability to fill the necessary posts seems to me to be to be the main issue. The census has been grossly understaffed.

I'm just an enumerator so I might not be seeing the bigger picture, but my impression is that if all posts had been filled, we'd have delivered a successful census.

The original deadline was Sunday, May 1. At the moment 79.8% of households have returned, with paper returns posted last week still to be dealt with. So without an extension, we'd have achieved 80%.

Domesticated Zombie, any ideas why the jobs weren't attractive?

Enumerators were offered £12.52 an hour, 25 hours a week, ten week contract, extremely flexible hours - enumerators can decide when we want to work our hours between 8am and 8pm, and which days we want to work. We just have to have clocked up 25 hours by the end of the week.

We were subsequently offered up to 12 hours a week overtime, on the same rate, but that wouldn't have influenced anyone as it only happened once everyone was in place.

I work part time. My hours dropped due to Covid, and I thought this would tide me over till things picked up. The flexibility meant that I could work round my existing part time job. Unfortunately I couldn't benefit from the overtime offered.

It's been ideal for me, but obviously only a third of the posts were filled. Why wasn't it attractive to more people?

Where were jobs advertised?

Yes, Kimiko, that was going to be my question. They sound like good jobs, that would suit many people. Perhaps they weren't effectively advertised?