1 / 15

Task Force Members

Demographic, Household and Family Characteristics : Issues and Recommendations for the 2020 Round Group of Experts on Population and Housing Censuses Geneva, 30 September – 3 October 2013. Task Force Members. Howard Hogan (Chair) United States Marcell Kovacs Hungary

perrin
Download Presentation

Task Force Members

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. Demographic, Household and Family Characteristics: Issues and Recommendations for the 2020 RoundGroup of Experts on Population and Housing CensusesGeneva, 30 September – 3 October 2013

  2. Task Force Members • Howard Hogan (Chair) United States • Marcell Kovacs Hungary • Carel Harmsen Netherlands • Slavica Vukojicic Sevo Serbia • Viera Doktorikova Slovakia • Margareta Carlsson Sweden • Peter Stokes United Kingdom • Andres Vikat UNECE • Paolo Valente UNECE

  3. Scope of Questions Demographic • Age • Sex • Legal Marital Status • De Facto Marital Status • Marital history and fertility Household and Family • Household • Living quarters • Child • Couple • Three-generation household Household and Family (cont’d) • Reconstituted family • Extended family • Relationship • Family Status • Family Nuclei and Nuclear Families • Private Households • Tenure • Other Topics

  4. Summary • Very high compliance with the 2010 recommendations for the demographic variables • Good compliance with the recommendations concerning household and family characteristics • 6 issues were raised that could be changed for the 2020 census round

  5. Should de facto marital status be elevated to a core topic? • From the point of view of actual living arrangements and household structure of the population, this aspect is even more important than the legal marital status • A great majority of UNECE countries (45)collected this information in the 2010 round (CES Recommendations paragraphs 216–221)

  6. Should the use of a mixed classification of de jure and de facto marital status be discouraged explicitly? In the 2010 round, at least six countries still used such classification, which would not allow for comparison of their data with others on either of these aspects. (CES Recommendations paragraphs 209–221)

  7. Mixed classification question: example 1 • Never married • In a registered marriage • In an unregistered marriage • Widow(er) • Divorced • (Separated) Legal marital status not known

  8. Mixed classification question: example 2 • Never married • Married • Widow(er) • Divorced • (Separated) Additional question: “Is your marriage registered?” yes/no Does not capture a consensual union if the respondent provides legal marital status as the first answer. Does not capture legal marital status for those who indicate that their marriage is not registered.

  9. Should consensual union and registered partnership be distinguished in UNECE typology of family nuclei?(CES Recommendations paragraphs 533–537) A number of countries have legal provisions for registered partnerships, both for same and opposite sex. Currently, it is recommended to distinguish them as a category of the legal marital status(CES Recommendations paragraph 213)

  10. Should more focus be put on reconstituted families? • Reconstituted families are one of emerging family types • Many countries (at least 20) do not identify reconstituted families • If we want to get more (detailed) data, there is a need for some guidance ona simple way to identify reconstituted families and to give reasons for the need of identifying them (CES Recommendations paragraphs 498, 538–542)

  11. Should senior semi-independent housing be addressed? This refers to facilities designed for population above a certain age, where residents have separate units, but health and personal needs services are available to the residents on an increasing basis as needed. Units within the facility designed for seniors who have transitioned to greater care should be included in this definition. This is an important trend where there is no clear guidance as to classification: Group quarters, household, other? (CES Recommendations paragraphs 484–488)

  12. Should senior semi-independent housing be addressed? • 13 countries → private household • 17 countries → institutional household • 14 countries → not relevant • 6 countries → various criteria to classify to either as private or institutional

  13. Should same sex unions be included as a non-core topic? • Same sex unions are a topic of increasing interest in several countries. • Should it be explicitly recommended that where these estimates are to be derived, a separate question or response is needed? • Inferring same-sex unions from reported marital status and reported sex has proven to provide unreliable data. (CES Recommendations paragraphs 502–504)

  14. Should same sex unions be included as a non-core topic? • Same sex unions are a topic of increasing interest in several countries. • Should it be explicitly recommended that where these estimates are to be derived, a separate question or response is needed? • Inferring same-sex unions from reported marital status and reported sex has proven to provide unreliable data. (CES Recommendations paragraphs 502–504)

  15. The Questions • De facto marital status as core topic? • Discourage mixing de jure and de facto marital status? • Distinguish consensual union and registered partnership in family nuclei? • More focus on reconstituted families? • Address senior semi-independent housing? • Same sex unions as a non-core topic?

More Related