1 / 16

Impact of Disclosure Control on Labour Market Statistics

This research by Jill Tuffnell explores challenges in accessing detailed workplace data for accurate labour market statistics in Cambridge. It delves into inconsistencies in census and official statistics, affecting industry sector breakdown and employment forecasts at sub-regional levels.

lspringer
Download Presentation

Impact of Disclosure Control on Labour Market Statistics

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Impact of Disclosure Control on Labour Market Statistics (& other issues)– the User’s Gripes Jill Tuffnell Head of Research Cambridgeshire County Council Local Authority lead, Labour Market Statistics CLIP Group

  2. Overview of Impact • The Labour Market • Workplace population & industry sectors • Commuting • Unemployment • Residents of working age • Ethnicity & Religion • Inconsistencies • Census & other Official Statistics on the labour market • Conclusions

  3. The Labour Market – Workplace data requirements • Industry sector employment data required: • Regional & local planning; the basis of employment forecasts for sub-regions • Regeneration areas • Wards & Districts • Industry sectors

  4. Labour Market Census– Workplace (1) • Greater Cambridge sub-region has a workforce of 327,900 – but NO industry breakdown from Standard Tables in Census 2001! NO industry data for wards • Benchmarking problems with ABI: No employee/self-employed split for workplace population by industry sector, even for districts. • No published data below broad industry groups FOR ANY GEOGRAPHY, (what will commissioned tables provide?): means NO breakdown of manufacturing, ‘business activities’, retail & wholesale trade; transport & communications etc even for districts.

  5. Labour Market Census – Workplace (2) • East of England Labour Market Census project • There are 96 identified sub-regions – not one has industry sector workplace employment data, as all are based on wards • No industry cluster data available • Impossible to prepare reports on the region’s key industries: transport, hi-tech manufacturing; tourism; R&D, computer services, communications, even at a district level

  6. Labour Market Census - Commuting • Output Areas totally unreliable for our purposes • Even ward based analysis presents problems e.g. former Cambridgeshire; • Ward ‘origin’ employed residents: 349,590 • Former county Standard Table emp res: 348,980 • Ward ‘destination’ workplace population: 359,584 • Former county Standard Table work. Pop: 359,124 Problems are greater for smaller areas – e.g. Districts, wards No commuting flows by industry

  7. Labour Market Census - Unemployment • No Standard Table with economically active & unemployed covering all residents by gender & age; (‘student’ problem) • Unemployed is derived from two Standard Tables – but which two? ‘Employed’ resident totals differ significantly • Example of Abbey ward in Cambridge – large population, with over 4,250 employed residents; are there any elderly unemployed females at all? • Data problems are even greater for smaller wards

  8. Labour Market Census – Residents of Working Age • Industry sector employment only available at broad level • Should be basis for calibrating with Labour Force Survey, Incapacity Benefit claimants etc • Should establish base-lines for Development Agencies, Learning & Skills Councils, Connexions etc • Problems with disclosure affect age/gender breakdown of economically inactive; ‘small number syndrome’

  9. Ethnicity & Religion - Census • Small numbers involved in most of Cambridgeshire, (only 1,130 non-white population in Fenland district) • High imputation rates • Swapped records • Disclosure control • Do the results mean anything? – definitely not for wards or Output Areas in most of Cambs

  10. Inconsistencies - Census • Different totals from different tables • Small geographies do not add to large geographies • Disproportionate impact on small area data – which is the chief value of the census count • Disproportionate impact on small counts – and hence aggregates of those counts

  11. Census & Other ONS data • Claimant unemployment count is now subject to disclosure control – small numbers renders it useless for analysis by age/gender for many wards • Likely to be the same problem with Incapacity Benefit data • The Census is the only reliable data set for small area workplace statistics – yet we cannot calibrate it at ward level against the ABI or IDBR • Still no idea of what may be available from commissioned tables; likely to be minimal

  12. Conclusions • Census now almost 4 years old – so whose confidentiality are we respecting? • Far more detail published in 1991 from a 10% sample about workplaces and industries • Disclosure control applied to individual businesses has seriously diminished the value of the Census; it appears no ward data has been published because one school constitutes the ‘education’ sector • There appears to be no sound official statistical series on workplace population at an industry level; how are we expected to monitor and plan for employment?

More Related