2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local...
-
Upload
sharyl-morgan -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local...
![Page 1: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2006 Census
MRIA
May 24, 2007
Anil Arora
![Page 2: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Pressures to change for 2006
• Privacy issues (local enumerator)• CCRA automation efforts and impact on
capture of Census data• Internet option (GOL and public
expectations)• Recruiting large decentralized workforce• Timeliness improvements• Environment
![Page 3: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Lessons learned
• Recruitment
• Procurement
• Clustering of responses on Census Day
• Deadline
• Co-ordination of communications initiatives with collection activities
• Confidentiality and security
![Page 4: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Response Distribution by Mode of Response
Mode of ResponseResponse
%
Mail 63.1
Internet 18.5
Field NRFU 16.2
CATI 2.2
![Page 5: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Internet Penetration
Internet Home Penetration Rates(Household Internet Use Survey)
0%
10%20%
30%40%
50%
60%70%
80%
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
![Page 6: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Internet Returns
Daily Internet Response
0
50,000100,000
150,000
200,000250,000
300,000
2-May 16-May 30-May 13-Jun 27-Jun 11-Jul 25-Jul 8-Aug 22-Aug
![Page 7: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Internet Response byProvince/Territory
Internet Response Rates
18.5
16.014.8
17.016.0 15.6
20.1
15.0 15.0
21.420.1 20.5
13.6
0.00
5
10
15
20
25
% o
f re
sp
on
ses
![Page 8: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Household size
ResonseChannel Single 2 to 4 5 or more
CHL / Field 22.5% 16.1% 20.1%Internet 13.5% 19.5% 26.0%Mail Back 63.1% 63.5% 50.8%Unknown 0.8% 0.9% 3.2%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
![Page 9: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Internet Response by Type of Questionnaire
Type of Questionnaire Internet
Short 2A 79.6
Long 2B 20.4
![Page 10: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Initial Quality
Rejection Rate by Mode of Response and Type of Questionnaire
Mode of Response
Short 2A
(%)
Long 2B
(%)
Mail 5.6 39.1
Internet 2.5 5.7
![Page 11: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Response Comparison (%)
Mode of Response
Push Sample
(20,000)
Control Sample
(20,000)
Total Census
(≈ 11.9M)
Mail 3.7 61.1 63.1
Internet 61.8 23.8 18.3
Field NRFU 26.8 13.0 16.3
CATI 7.7 2.1 2.3
![Page 12: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
3 follow-up surveys
Conducted in the summer and fall of 2006
• to evaluate the Internet collection method
• to help improve this option for future censuses.
• understand the Internet response process without a paper questionnaire,
• evaluate the satisfaction of those who used the online version
![Page 13: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Results
• Reaction to the letter positive (70%)
• Most respondents had high speed (90%)
• 21% had some difficulties
• 82% used Internet every day
Of those respondents who did not use internet
• 10% were not aware of the option
• 14% lack of skill/not interested/no computer
![Page 14: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Population and Dwelling Counts
March 13, 2007
![Page 15: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Higher population growth than in previous intercensal period
13.4%
4.0%
5.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
1956 to1961
1961 to1966
1966 to1971
1971 to1976
1976 to1981
1981 to1986
1986 to1991
1991 to1996
1996 to2001
2001 to2006
![Page 16: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Fastest growing population among G8 countries - 2001 to 2006
-2.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.9%
3.1%
3.1%
5.0%
5.4%
-3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Russia
Germany
Japan
United Kingdom
France
Italy
United States
Canada
Russia
![Page 17: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Canada’s population has nearly doubled in 50 years
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Mil
lio
ns 31,612,897
16,080,791
![Page 18: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Higher population growth in most provinces and territories
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
N.L. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. Que. Ont. Man. Sask. Alta. B.C. Y.T. N.W.T. Nvt.
1996 to 2001
2001 to 2006
Canada 2001 to 2006
![Page 19: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Ontario
• Population growth in Ontario represents half the population increase in Canada
• Other than Alberta, Ontario is the only province with a population growth (6.6%) higher than the national average (5.4%)
• Similar population growth compared to the previous intercensal periods
![Page 20: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Urbanization continues
Proportion of Canadians living in urban areas, 1901 to 2006
37
4549
54 54
6267
74 76 76 78 80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1956 1966 1976 1986 1996 2006
%
![Page 21: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Majority of Canada’s population growth took place in CMAs
• The 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs) now house more than two-thirds (68%) of Canadians
• Population growth in CMAs is higher than the national average (6.9% versus 5.4%)
• Six CMAs of one million or more inhabitants: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary and Edmonton
![Page 22: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Six of the 15 fastest growing CMAs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Barrie
Calga
ry
Oshaw
a
Edmont
on
Kelow
na
Toron
to
K itche
ner
Guelph
Abbots
ford
Monc
ton
Vancou
ver
Sherb
rook
e
Ottaw
a - G
atineau
Victo
ria
Brant
ford
Mont
réal
Peter
borou
gh
Lond
on
Win
dsor
St. J oh
n's
Hamilt
on
Québec
Halifax
K ingst
on
Saska
toon
St. Cat
harin
es - N
iaga
ra
Trois
-Riv
ière
s
Win
nipe
g
Greate
r / G
rand
Sud
bury
Regin
a
Thund
er Bay
Saint
Joh
n
Sague
nay
Population growth between 2001 and 2006
Canada
![Page 23: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Urban spread in Canada
• Population of metropolitan areas continue to spread • Within CMAs, central municipalities grow more slowly (4.2%) than
peripheral municipalities (11.1%)
![Page 24: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Mid-size urban centres (census agglomerations)
• 111 mid-size urban centres (CAs) in Canada• Home to 4.1 million Canadians• Lower population growth rate than the national
average (4.0% versus 5.4%)• Seven out of the top eight fastest growing CAs
are located in Alberta• The five fastest declining CAs are located in
northern British Columbia
![Page 25: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Small towns and rural Canada
• Home to 6 million Canadians• Slower population growth than the national
average (1.0% versus 5.4%)• Higher population growth for rural regions located
close to a metropolitan area (4.7%)• Population of remote rural areas is nearly stable
(-0.1%)
![Page 26: 2006 Census MRIA May 24, 2007 Anil Arora. 2 Pressures to change for 2006 Privacy issues (local enumerator) CCRA automation efforts and impact on capture.](https://reader030.fdocuments.net/reader030/viewer/2022032802/56649e1a5503460f94b085f3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
2006 Census releases
• July 17, 2007: Age and sex• September 12, 2007: Marital status, families, households,
housing• December 4, 2007: Languages, mobility, migration,
immigration, citizenship• January 15, 2008: Aboriginal peoples• March 4, 2008: Labour, place of work, commuting to work,
education, language • April 2, 2008: Ethnic origin, visible minorities • May 1, 2008: Income, earnings, shelter costs