thursday october 11 th 2007
Post on 14-Jan-2016
64 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Welcome to the 2Welcome to the 2ndnd Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Introduction
Andy Teague
Head of Admin Sources
Data Supplier Open Day, October 11th 2007
Some basic details you need to know:
• Fire alarms
• Toilets
• Smoking
Data Supplier Open Day, October 11th 2007
A ‘Talking Wall’ for questions…..
Jot your question down on a note and stick it on to the flipchart at the back of the room. We’ll do our best to answer it during the final session.
Data Supplier Open Day, October 11th 2007
Update on Disclosure Control Issues
Philip Lowthian
Statistical Disclosure Control Branch
Methodology Directorate
Statistical Disclosure Control Branch
Aims and objectives of the branch:
• Develop disclosure control tools, innovative solutions and methods
• Promote, disseminate and provide support for disclosure control tools
• Develop, promote and support the implementation of professional standards
• Keep up to date with international work on SDC methods
• Build up a pool of expertise
Statistical Disclosure Control Branch
We work closely with several other parts of ONS
• National Statistics and International Division (NSID)
• The Data Stewardship Group (DSG)
• IM Strategies
• The Microdata Release Unit
• Census
• Neighbourhood Statistics
Topics under discussion
• Release of Tau-Argus 3.2.0
• GSS Standards for Statistical Disclosure Control
• Information Loss
• Releasing information for under 18 conceptions
Tau-Argus – A Summary
• Can read in both tables and microdata (user creates tables within Tau-Argus)
• Can operate in both interactive and batch mode
• Can make safe both frequency tables and magnitude tables.
• For magnitude tables the user sets safety rules (primary suppressions) such as threshold rule and dominance rule.
Tau-Argus – A Summary
• Recoding can be applied to the table
• Secondary Suppressions are carried out on magnitude tables to avoid disclosure by differencing.
• Controlled rounding is applied to frequency tables so that additivity is preserved.
Tau-Argus 3.2.0
Improvements / Alterations I
• The partitioning options for the rounding procedure have been improved. Partitioning is now permitted on hierarchical variables.
• For tables with non hierarchical variables, the user will have the option of choosing the number of blocks to break the table into prior to rounding.
• The batch mode will offer all the features available in the interactive mode, including the partitioning options described above.
Tau-Argus 3.2.0
Improvements / Alterations II
• More information will be given to the user on screen after rounding (both with and without partitions) such as
No. of jumps Max. jump Number of rapid subtables Number of feasible subtables Number of optimal subtables
• The hypercube method of secondary suppression will offer the option of 'small' or 'large' tables. By choosing the relevant option these should improve processing time.
Tau-Argus 3.2.0
Bug Fixes I
• An earlier problem with rounding to base 3 and setting the threshold value to 3 sometimes causing the rapid solution to be automatically chosen now been fixed.
• Safety rules applied after reading in tables will always be correct. Currently p% and dominance rules are not disabled when there is not enough information in the table about the number of contributors and their values.
• The 'timecheck' window is now fully readable.
Tau-Argus 3.2.0
Bug Fixes II
• On the rare occasion when the optimal method of suppression chooses all cells for secondary suppression, a message will state:
'All cells have been suppressed, the problem might have become infeasible'.
• The program will be more stable and less likely to crash when suppressing or rounding.
GSS Standards for SDC
• Developed to ensure consistent approach to SDC for different outputs
• GSS Standard for tables produced from administrative data sources
• GSS Standard for tables produced from surveys
(not covered here)– Social surveys– Subsamples– Business surveys
GSS Standards for SDC
• In development:
– Standard for microdata
– Standard for analytical outputs
– Standard for outputs from Census 2011
• These standards exist alongside specific NeSS standards
• Concentrate on the standards for tables produced from administrative data sources
GSS Standards for Frequency tables I
Administrative data: disclosure risk
• Data provider should consider the risk of different types of
disclosure
• Risks are related to disclosure likelihood and impact
• Identify ‘unsafe’ cells
• 3 broad risk categories
GSS Standards for Frequency tables II
• Low risk– Likelihood and impact of an identification low– High level of aggregation and limited tables produced from
source– Care taken with zeros and marginal totals of size 1 or 2
• Medium risk– Majority of health statistics– All cells of size 1 or 2 unsafe, care taken with zeros
• High risk– Likelihood and impact of an identification higher, eg statistics
on abortions– All cells of size 1 to 4 unsafe, care taken with zeros
GSS Standards for Frequency tables III
Administrative data – Disclosure methods
• Table redesign is recommended as a simple method
• Controlled rounding recommended for most tables
• In some cases, if the number of unsafe cells is low,
suppression can be implemented
Information loss software I
• Measures ‘information lost’ due to the application of an SDC method for tables
• Measures the difference between the original and
protected tables
• Evaluates different measures, e.g. bias, variance,
measures of association
• Allows comparison of SDC methods
• Developed by the ONS
• Programmed in SAS
Information loss software II
Details on information loss measures
• Basic Statistics: Number of cells and the total information in the table; number of zeros, ones, and twos etc.
• For suppressed tables: number and percent suppressed cells and total information lost; choice of imputation method
• For random rounded tables: Binomial hypothesis test to check for bias in the rounding scheme
• For all other SDC methods: paired sign rank test to check for no change in the location
Information loss software III
• Distance metrics
- distortions to distributions on internal cells
- distortions to distributions on marginal sub-totals / totals
• Impact on Tests for Independence
• Impact on Rank Correlations
Conceptions Data
• PSA target to reduce under-18 conception rate by 50% by
2010
• Requirement for information by small area
• Three SDC methods used:
– Data for 3 years combined
– E&W data divided into quintiles
– Suppression for small populations
• Maps produced on NeSS at the ward level
Conceptions Data
Summary
• SDC is involved in a number of projects
• Here I have only given a brief update
• We also provide training courses especially an awareness raising course
• Please contact the branch for any advice / further information
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
The Statistics and Registration Service Act and Opportunities for Sharing
Administrative Data
Kieron Mahony & Minda Phillips
Outline of Presentation
This presentation will focus on:-
• outlining the scope of the Act;
• considering key implications;
• data sharing issues; and
• use/development of administrative data.
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 – Key Provisions
1. Creation of a new body – the Statistics Board, a non-Ministerial Department reporting directly to Parliament
2. Remit covers the whole UK statistical system
3. Overall objective: “To promote and safeguard the quality of official statistics that serve the public good”
4. ONS to become the ‘executive office’ of the Board
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 – Key Provisions
5. National Statistician the Chief Executive of the ‘executive office’
6. Robust confidentiality regime
7. GRO and NHSCR to move elsewhere within Government ; Statistics Commission abolished
8. Cabinet Office takes over residual Ministerial responsibilities
Main responsibilities of the Statistics Board
• Monitoring and reporting on all official statistics
• Development of Code of Practice• Assessment of National Statistics• Oversight of ONS (the ‘executive office’)
responsible for statistical production • Reporting to Parliament
Code of Practice & Assessment
• Act requires the Statistics Board to prepare, adopt and publish a Code of Practice
• Existing National Statistics will remain as National Statistics until re-assessed for compliance against this new Code
• Candidate National Statistics will be assessed against the Code at the request of Ministers
• Act allows for assessment to take place using the existing Code
• Statistics Board must prepare and publish a programme for assessment and re-assessment
Data Sharing
Act will allow two-way sharing of data between Statistics Board and public authorities/Devolved Administrations for statistical purposes, subject to the following safeguards:-
(i) only possible where otherwise prohibited by law or public authority/DA has no power;
(ii) subject to bilateral Ministerial agreement;
(iii) sharing only for specific purposes and subject to public interest test; and,
(iv) Parliamentary approval
Data Sharing - Key Issues
• Legal basis;
• Access and legal rights;
• Confidentiality;
• Importance of public approval;
• Unified identification code systems; and
• Co-operation among administrative authorities.
Preparing a Draft Regulation
Special attention will need to be given to:-
• understanding the present legal barriers to sharing;
• defining each data item to be shared;
• preparing a business case to show why each data item is needed;
• explaining the benefits associated with access to each data item; and
• demonstrating the public good.
Requirements for Administrative Data - General
• To inform policy formulation and review;
• To support resource allocation;
• To improve service planning and delivery;
• To enhance research and analysis.
Requirements for Administrative Data - ONS
• To improve population and migration statistics;• To facilitate work on 2011 Census;• To support validation and quality assurance;• To respond to increasing demands for more
sophisticated statistics/analysis;• To reduce respondent burden; and• To meet efficiency targets.
Administrative Data Development and Data Sharing
Working to develop a strategic plan or roadmap by:-
• understanding needs and benefits;
• developing criteria for determining priorities;
• setting up procedures to deal with ethical issues;
• establishing appropriate technical environment(s); and
• researching the feasibility of linking/matching.
Next Steps
• Developing coherent work programme;• Undertaking pilot/feasibility work;• Evaluating alternative methods of data linkage and
matching;• Considering data processing issues;• Understanding technical/infrastructure
requirements; and• Obtaining resources.
THANK YOU
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Tea and CoffeeTea and Coffee
Oct 2007
Small Area Geography (OAs & SOAs) Consultation
Findings&
approach
Alistair Calder
Oct 2007
background
results
proposed policy
backgroundOutput Areas created in 2002 for
Census
Adopted as the base of NeSS Geography – Super Output Areas
built 2004
‘Review’ promised
Consultation Nov ’06 – Feb ’07
Widely publicised – online consultation & ‘blog’ – great
response
results and outcomenow published
graphs
necessarily over-simplified
Strongly supportive of stability(but what kind of stability – at what level?)
Strongly supportive of stability(but what kind of stability – at what level?)
OAs and SOAs considered ‘useful’
OAs and SOAs considered ‘useful’
National consistency important
UK consistency rather less – but still considered very important by many
(note the disclosure relationship)
Consistency between 2001 – 2011 considered very important by many
(definitions particularly at micro-level may differ)noise screws it up - critical - population
Redrawing from scratch supported by only a very few
academics & commercial a little less bothered but but almost noone agrees strongly
Redrawing from scratch supported by only a very few
PostcodesPopular with the commercial sector, fairly popular with most
Physical featuresFairly popular with most
Admin boundariesAgain fairly popular with mostcertainly local – commercial lessbothered
NeighbourhoodsFairly popular with some butweaker
Grid squaresNot really
.
Quite popular
A little weaker
Some support but weak
Commercial sector not bothered but otherwise quite popular
Very little support
Some interest – note academic &commercial interest
Some interest – commercial & health lukewarmSome concern over OS licensingimplications
Most don’t know either way
Very important !
Very important !
Mixed views – though some feel stronglySomething of a minefield – but more work to do
Only 43% of respondents report any problems (!)
HOWEVER this reflects micro analysis – those who have really used them have spotted problems – but not everyone (even in local agencies) are bothered
.
headlinesgreat response
very full response – lots of thinking
very positive – supportive
CONFLICTING CALLS ON THE POLICY
stability (with caveats)
Proposed Policy
options
keep SOAs, keep OAs
keep LSOAs, build new OAs
keep MSOAs, build new OAs
redraw from scratch, SOAs, OAs
options
keep SOAs, keep OAs
keep LSOAs, build new OAs
keep MSOAs, build new OAs
redraw from scratch, SOAs, OAs
options
keep SOAs, keep OAs
keep LSOAs, build new OAs
‘stability’some acceptance
changebetter units for 2011 ?
keep the OAs change the OAs
options
‘stability’some acceptance
changebetter units for 2011 ?
keep the OAs change the OAs
‘stability’some acceptance
changebetter units for 2011 ?
keep the OAs change the OAs
?
and conform with disclosure control limits & provide a ‘free’ geography
key argumentthere are some obvious attractions
to stability at LSOA level
it would be possible to build a ‘better’ geography but – not ‘better’
enough
conflicting calls remain
advantages of stability outweigh potential gain
keep both OAs & SOAs stable
split and merge them to take account of population change (BUT ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM) (Disclosure policy dependency – informed by work with Southampton University –
Any loosening on disclosure would all but remove the need for mergers)
develop criteria for allowing MINIMAL change where OAs can be proven to be
misrepresent(criteria driven – not percentage driven –criteria will be tough and LESS than 5% if possible
. Policy / criteria to be developed in conjunction with maintenance research with Southampton)
we will …
geography
disclosurecontrol
outputpolicy
we will …sort the Scottish border issue
sort out extent of the realm
press for easy licensing of OA boundaries
provide digital boundaries
and …research on alignment with OS
NO upper layer SOAs in foreseeable
business SOAs not currently a priority
proposal on names
Questions Comments
?
specific topicsnames
communal establishments
unoccupied land
business output areas
alignment with MasterMap
fin
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Implementing the Local Government White Paper
Guy Weir, Local Development and Renewal, CLG
The Local Government White Paper
Strong and prosperous communities – The Local Government White
Paper was published on 26 October 2006. Its’ principal aims were to
enable effective local services and to create better places, through new
relationships and better governance, by:
• promoting more responsive services and empowered communities;
• advocating a stronger role for local authorities as leaders and place-
shapers;
• promoting stronger and more stable local authority leadership;
• supporting councillors in their role as democratic champions;
• fundamentally rebalancing the central-local relationship;
• promoting community cohesion; and,
• developing the economic prosperity of our towns, cities and regions.
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
Reporting Local Authority Performance to Citizens
Research Background
Research to investigate how local authorities report their performance to citizens and what support is available to assist them with this task.
The research will;• Investigate the range of local authorities providing information on their
performance to citizens and the nature of this reporting
• Identify the advice and support available to assist local authorities in reporting their performance to citizens
• If required, produce practical guidelines for local authorities around performance reporting to local citizens
Reporting Local Authority Performance to Citizens
Phase 1: to inform a policy options paper for the Secretary of State.
• Review of Literature and Guidance
• Consultation with national stakeholders – Audit Commission, CLG, IDeA, LGA
• Light Touch Case Studies - Interviews with around 40 local authorities.
• In-Depth Case Studies - Six local authorities as being examples of best practices as identified in the light touch case studies.
• Citizens Focus Group
Phase 2: Is dependent on the outcome of phase 1
• Guidelines – if required
• Workshops – consultation with local authorities to produce guidelines
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
LGWP has ushered in a complete overhaul of the local performance monitoring system
Reduced the number of targets that Local Authorities will have to report to 53 (inc.18 statutory Education targets, and 35 to be negotiated) to be chosen from a new common set of 200 performance indicators. This in turn will reduce the data collection burden.
There is now duty on Local Strategic Partnerships to work together towards delivery of priority outcomes.
The Local Government White Paper
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
Data Interchange - Current
Places dB
DfES Home Office DCLG ONS AuditCommission
LA
LSP
LA
LSP
LA
LSP
LA
LSP
Reg Obs
OGDs
Methods:•web hunt, cut & paste•Email•CD in post
Home
LAs hunt for, or submit data…
Departments hunt for data..
…and exchange
locally
Data Interchange – Long term vision + GovConnect
Places dB
DCSF Home Office DCLG ONS AuditCommission
LA
LSP
LA
LSP
LA
LSP
GCSx
Hubs
LA
LSP
CentralServices
Reg Obs
MethodsDirect system to
System XML(OR in interim existing to hubs)
GSi
Home
OGDs Inspectorates
Discovery Service
Places dB
LSP
CentralSearchEngine
CLG
LSP
Repository
Catalogue LA
Observatory
LA
PCT
1. Are there any data on this issue?
2. Looks like there might be! And I am authorised
3. Yes, that’s it – let’s slot it in here!
4. Perfect - that completes the report!
1
2
34
HomeLocal system http://www.esd.org.uk/forums/viewforum.php?f=184
The North West Pilot
Aims:
• Trial the production and management of LAAs in the NW
• Improve the operational mechanisms for the delivery and sharing of indicators
Pilot collaboration between GONW, Cumbria, Lancashire, Oldham, Wigan and CLG.
Running now – working model by October 2007
Website set up to engage and consult with wider audience
Oldham
Data Interchange – The North West Pilot
Places dB
DfES OGDs DCLG ONS AuditCommission
LAs
LSPs
Hants CC& Districts
LSPs
CentralServices
SW Reg Ob
XML data interchange hub
Lancs CC& Districts
LSPs
Wigan
Cumbria
Existing Pilots North West Pilot
GOs
GO NW
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
Improving Capacity for better use of local information
Feeds into the Joint Improvement Strategy (cross Govt and LGA)
• Supporting capacity of LSPs and partners to use information todeliver better outcomes for
Performance monitoring Operational management Service delivery
• Support regionally and locally the analytical skills and analytical capacity of Local Authorities and their partners
Through• Consolidating learning via project called Supporting Evidence in Local Delivery
(SELD) see renewal.net
• Joint work with Audit Commission, GOs, LGA and Regional Improvement Partnerships
• Linking with work on Local Information Systems and Data Sharing
Local Information Systems
As set out in the LG white paper, the CLG is committed to supporting Local Information Systems (LIS).
An initial research report (published 2006) set out the role and characteristics of LIS and provided recommendations for support activities to be facilitated by central government.
Key characteristics of LIS:
• Frequently brings together data from a range of local partners as well as nationally sourced statistics
• Often more up-to-date and/or at a finer geography than national sources
• Hold a range of statistical data and some performance management data
• Informs strategy development and performance monitoring locally though could do more to enhance all stages of policy development
CLG aim to enable, encourage and support Local Authority’s to developand run their own LISs - not prescriptive.
• A set of Network activities is being established to support managers and others with a stake in LIS. First meeting was in May, next meeting to be held in Manchester November 15th 2007 (email adrian.laughton@communities.gsi.gov.uk for details). • A discussion forum to share views and experiences has been set up. Please register @ http://www.esd.org.uk/esdtoolkit/Register.aspx
Further aims include:Enabling automated data updates in LIS
Linking LIS with Performance Management SystemsVisualisation challenges presented by LIS development (e.g. dynamic maps)Mapping the regional and sub-regional LIS relationshipsSpecifying an LIS – costs & benefits
For more information related to LIS please contact adrian.laughton@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Local Information Systems
Overview
LGWP makes several commitments around evidence and information:
• LAA negotiation to be evidence based around the 200 indicators
• Encouragement for better use of local information
• Efficient mechanisms to gather and exchange information
• Reduced burden of indicators
• Better reporting to citizens
Small area evidence needs for Local Area Agreements
The 200 indicators will be reported routinely at LAD level, but LAs and partners themselves will undoubtedly want to drill down to more detail when monitoring the 200. (Dissaggregation by sub-group – gender, ethnicity, geography etc.)
Small area data will also help provide detailed supporting information around the 200 indicators.
Each LAA will contain up to 35 targets chosen via negotiation between LA and GO. With so few targets, detailed evidence will be critical in order for areas prioritise which targets to set.
For areas within which there is a clear deprivation gap between areas, LAAs are likely to require targets which focus on improving outcomes for the people living in those deprived areas, in order to close the gap.
Not forgetting that Neighbourhood Statistics will make an invaluable contribution after targets are set, when partners are faced with the task of doing the work!
LAA Timetable
October – CSR announcement including indicator set
Early November: indicator technical definitions consultation
October – January: Guidance documents on LAAs and place shaping
January: Final technical definitions
2008-9: Refreshed LAAs – up and running!
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Now: Buffet Lunch (in this room)Now: Buffet Lunch (in this room)
Next: Users Interaction (Room 2000)Next: Users Interaction (Room 2000)
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Titles are hard
10 minutes on a complex problem.
No magic solutions
Research
• Reading is 25% slower on screen http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v6i40_cameron.html
• People scan they do not read – 79% scan a new page for information. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html
• People scan web pages in a F pattern. Put your key words in the first two words to ensure people read it. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html
• Repeating the same phrase obscures the content.
Example
Example•VAT Based Enterprises by Age of Business
•VAT Based Enterprises by Broad Industry Group
•VAT Based Enterprises by Broad Industry Group: Rural
•VAT Based Enterprises by Broad Industry Group: Urban
•VAT Based Enterprises by Employment Size Band
•VAT Based Enterprises by Employment Size Band: Rural
•VAT Based Enterprises by Employment Size Band: Urban
•VAT Based Enterprises by Public/Private Status: Single/Multi Site
•VAT Based Local Units by Broad Industry Group
•VAT Based Local Units by Broad Industry Group: Rural
•VAT Based Local Units by Broad Industry Group: Urban
•VAT Based Local Units by Employment Size Band
•VAT Based Local Units by Employment Size Band: Rural
•VAT Based Local Units by Employment Size Band: Urban
•VAT Based Local Units by Public/Private Status: Single/Multi Site
Too much? too little?
• Home Student Enrolments on Higher Education Courses at Publicly Funded Higher Education Institutions (Referenced by Location of Student Residence) (2001 - 2002)
• Vital Statistics 1998
Task
Testing of the website with in-house staff
Task 1: Create a table showing all regions in England, and displaying the number of thefts from a vehicle in each one.
Task
• Local Crime Data (Selected Offences): Information from Individual Police Forces
• Local Crime Data (Selected Offences): Information from Crime Partnerships
• Notifiable Offences Recorded by the Police
Regional
Review
Review
• What are the three main points that you will remember from this session?
Marketing Neighbourhood Statistics and your data
Dave Blythe
Head of Strategy and Business Support
What I’m going to cover :
• Costs of Neighbourhood Statistics (NeSS);• Awareness of NeSS – MORI data over 3 years;• Position of NeSS in wider information market;• Promotional activity for NeSS;• Developing nuggets to promote the data they
supply;• 5 minutes for your thoughts on raising
awareness;
NeSS – Key Costs of 5 Year Programme
• Total £86m over 5 years
• Web-site development - £33m – 38% of costs– Inc OS Licences and capital costs– (£0.5 m a year to enhance/maintain)
• Data supply costs - £26m – 30% of costs
Awareness of NeSS – some statistics:
• MORI survey over past 3 years
• Awareness data from MORI
Methodology• 1,000 current and potential NeSS clients
interviewed by telephone between 13 December 2006 and 26 January 2007
• Sample included:– Regeneration organisations funded by NRF
e.g. Street Wardens and LSPs (including some who no longer receive funding from NRF)
– Local and regional regeneration specialist organisations
– Other local and regional organisations– National organisations
• Quotas to ensure a wide spread of relevant organisations
Awareness and usage of NeSS has declined
Wave 2
Unaware of NeSS
NeSS aware non-users
Non-regular and lapsed NeSS users
Regular and recent NeSS users
Wave 1
Base: All respondents: Wave 1 (1,109); Wave 2 (1,009); Wave 3 (1,000)
19%
7%
25%
49%
22%
6%
26%
46%
Wave 3
26%
43%
22%
9%
But…. a significant increase in proportion of frequent users
All or most days
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
Once every 2 to 5 months
Once every 6 months
Q How often have you visited the Neighbourhood Statistics website in the past twelve months?
Less often than once every 6 months
Base: All who have visited the website in the last 12 months: Wave 1 (793); Wave 2 (716), Wave 3 (628)
Wave 1
Wave 2Wave 3
9%
26%
35%
20%
6%
3%
6%
26%
36%
20%
8%
3%
5%
25%
36%
21%
8%
4%
Profile of frequent users
Base: All respondents (1,000)
1-5 years6-10 years11+ years
Length of using NeSS type information:
Experience of statistics:No/little experienceA reasonable amountA lot
Wave 3
Awareness of redesign:
Not awareAware
Size of organisation:
21-50Under 20
51-250250+
48%24%23%
78%
6%41%
4%8%
79%
53%
20%
7%
Q How often have you visited the Neighbourhood Statistics website in the past twelve months?
66%
75%
81%
65%
59%
70%
71%
71%
61%
73%
75%
53%
Significant increase in number of frequent users among core organisations
Base: All who have visited NeSS during the last 12 months: wave 3 (628); wave 2 (716); wave 1 (793)
NRF funded regeneration
Non-NRF funded regeneration
Local authorities
Organisation type:
Other locally focussed
Wave 2Wave 1 Wave 3
57%
Size of organisation:
Organisation type:
Under 2021-50
NRF funded regenLSPs – NRF funded regen
Non-NRF funded regenOther locally focussed
LAs
51-250250+
YesNo
Aware of NeSS redesign:
Yes
No
Don’t know
36%
40%
53%
46%
11% 14%
Registration levels stable at two in five
Q. Are you a registered Neighbourhood Statistics user?
Base: All NeSS users : Wave 1 (818); Wave 2 (734); Wave 3 (655)
W 1 W 2
41%
46%
13%
W 3
Wave 2
Q Is there a reason why you haven’t been using the website?
Base: All aware of NeSS but have not used it in last 18 months or have never used it (103)
No need/never used
Someone else searches website for me
Use other sources of information
Too busy/lack of time
Other
Don’t know
16%
20%
36%
14%
12%
6%
Wave 3
39%
28%
21%
3%
8%
1%
Using other sources of information is the main reason for not using NeSS
Wave 3
66%
38%
27%
25%
20%
16%
13%
12%
LAs remain the most commonly used alternative source for non-users
Local Authorities
Central Government Departments
Local Service Providers
Primary Research
Regional Government
Q What sources of information do you currently use to find local area information such as levels of deprivation, crime, unemployment etc?*
Base: All non-users: Wave 1 (289); Wave 2 (275); Wave 3 (358)
Charities
Local/National press
Wave 1
Wave 2
Private companies *mentions below 10% not shown
6%
59%
30%
9%
16%
15%
6%
18%8%
13%
75%
50%
24%
38%
23%
19%
NeSS is still only most important source for one in four
It is the most important source
It is important, but there are other equally important sources
It has some importance, but there are other more important sourcesIt is not important compared with other sources
Q Which one of these statements best describes your views about NeSS as a source of local area statistics compared with other sources?
Don’t know
Base: All NeSS users: Wave 1 (818); Wave 2 (734); Wave 3 (655)
Wave 2
24%
57%
17%
1%
*%
Wave 3
27%
58%
13%
1%
1%
Position of NeSS is wider information market
• Official source of high quality small area statistics available on a nationally consistent basis.
BUT there are other complimentary sources:
• Nomis (Labour Market Statistics)
• Local Information Systems
• Floor Targets Interactive (FTI)
• Audit Commision (Area Profiles)
• NeSS in Scotland and Northern Ireland
Promotional activity for NeSS
• Events eg, LARIA, LGA Sustainable Communities, Data Suppliers Open Day, others
• Key Data Releases• Campaigns – NDCs, LiS, Education?• Outside hooks – ‘Focus on London’ Olympics,
Census 2011, others• Articles – Relay, Regional Trends, Burisa, Regen &
Renewal, others• Links to other complementary web-sites• Nuggets – stories about your data
Any questions??
Your thoughts:
• 5 minutes on your thoughts for raising awareness of Neighbourhood Statistics in your (or other) organisations.
My contact details
• Dave Blythe• Head of Strategy and Business Support• Tel; 01329 813174• E-mail: dave.blythe@ons.gov.uk
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Question TimeQuestion Time
Thursday October 11Thursday October 11thth 2007 2007
Neighbourhood Statistics Neighbourhood Statistics Data Supplier Open DayData Supplier Open Day
Thanks for comingThanks for coming
top related