Interviews with fieldworkers from the UK 2001 Census give voice to a unique, grounded view of the operational quality of census-taking. While the overall response to the census has been estimated at 94%, enumerators and their managers explain why differential undercount between social and geographical groups remained a problem. Fieldworkers subjected the census to criticism, from form design and quality checks to address-listing and management. Postal return of census forms caused unexpected difficulties for field staff and expense for the census offices. The subcontracting of various census operations and inflexible operational procedures made it difficult to find and implement timely solutions to problems that arose. A relatively high proportion of missing and inconsistent responses was expected by experienced fieldworkers and put extra burden on the editing and imputation procedures.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bradford Council, 2001, “Collated fieldwork experiences from the UK 2001 Census”, Research and Consultation Unit, City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Jacobs Well, Bradford BD1 1RW
2.
BrownJ JDiamondI DChambersR LBucknerL JTeagueA D, 1999, “A methodological strategy for a one-number census in the UK”Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society)162247–266
3.
CookL, 2001a, News item to ONS staff, 20 July
4.
CookL, 2001b, News item to ONS staff, 19 July
5.
De la PuenteM, 1993, “Why are people missed or erroneously included by the census: A summary of findings from ethnographic coverage reports”, in Proceedings of the 1993 Research Conference on Undercounted Ethnic PopulationsUS Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, pp 29–66
6.
De LucasA, 1992, “Actitudes y representaciones sociales de la población de la Comundad de Madrid en relación con los Censos de Población y Vivienda de 1991” [Social attitudes in Madrid towards the population and Housing Census of 1991], Comunidad de Madrid, Consejería de Economía, Departamento de Estadística, Calle Príncipe de Vergara 132, 28002 Madrid
7.
DixieJ, 1998, “The ethnic and religious questions for 2001: Research and responses”Patterns of Prejudice325–14
8.
GrovesRCouperM, 1996, “Contact-level influences on co-operation in face-to-face surveys”Journal of Official Statistics1263–83
MossC, 1999, “Selection of topics and questions for the 2001 Census”Population Trends9728–36
11.
National Audit Office, 2002Outsourcing the 2001 Census: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. HC1211, Session 2001/2 (The Stationery Office, London)
12.
ONS, Office for National Statistics, Titchfield, Fareham, Hants PO15 5RR 1997, “Maximising coverage in the 2001 Census”, One Number Census Steering Committee, paper ONC(SC)97/09, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pdfs/sc9709.pdf
13.
1998, “1997 Census test evaluation”, Census Division Advisory Group paper AG(98)01
