Disabilities: Census Vs. Administrative Sources
description
Transcript of Disabilities: Census Vs. Administrative Sources
1
Disabilities:Census Vs. Administrative Sources
Zohar Chessakov and Carole Feldmann
Census and Demography Department
Central Bureau of Statistics, Jerusalem, Israel
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
2
Subjects
Study Goals Comparison of 2008 Population Census with
Administrative Sources Age patterns
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
3
Study Goals Determine target groups for the 2012 CBS
Disability Survey• Find and examine the population who was defined as
disabled in the Census and in Administrative sources • Census definition and limitation• Administrative sources definition and limitation• Harmonization and discrepancies between self report and
eligibility
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
4
Data sources 2008 Population Census- Four questions based on the
WG short set of questions for censuses + Persons registered as having heavy vision disabilities
NII- National Insurance Institute: Data on persons who receive handicap allowance, including of the amount of the grant
MOSA1- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons registered in municipal social services ; Including needs as defined by the social services
MOSA2- Ministry of Social affairs and Social services- persons placed in institutions or receiving community services supplied or financed by the ministry
MOD- Ministry of Defense- Recipients of handicap allowances, severity percents
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
5
Methodology
Sumq- A continuous variable was computed based on the responses to the questions about disability in the census: response of “no difficulty” got a value of 0, response of “some difficulty” got a value of 0.1, response of “a lot of difficulty” got a value of 3 and response of “cannot at all” got a value of 20. This variable got a range from 0 to 100.
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
6
Disability: 2008 Census Vs. Administrative Sources (percents)
CBS NIIMOSA1– persons registered in municipal social services
who’s neediness was defined as:MOSA2 – persons in institutions and
persons placed in community services for:Ministry
of defense
CensusRecipients
of handicap allowances
Disability or health problem
Nursing care
Health problems (excluding
general disability
and autism)
HandicapMental illness
mental challenged
mental challenged
old agethe
blindhandicap Autism
Recipients of handicap
allowances
No difficulty at all 48.5 36.5 10.0 31.9 41.4 52.6 42.9 27.8 19.7 8.6 45.7 79.5 62.7
At least one some difficulty
19.8 20.0 18.6 21.1 14.7 22.3 15.3 16.0 29.1 1.7 16.1 7.6 23.5
At least one a lot of difficulty
23.0 29.4 46.5 33.5 24.0 20.1 21.1 25.4 39.8 25.0 20.5 8.2 12.0
At least one can not at all 8.7 14.1 24.9 13.5 19.9 5.0 20.7 30.8 11.4 64.7 17.7 4.7 1.8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
7
Age 0-18
CBS NIIMOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social
services who’s neediness was defined as:MOSA2 – persons in institutions and
persons placed in community services for:Ministry
of defense
CensusRecipients
of handicap allowances
Disability or health problem
Nursing care
Health problems (excluding
general disability
and autism)
HandicapMental illness
mental challenged
mental challenged
old agethe
blindhandicap Autism
Recipients of handicap
allowances
No difficulty at all 53.7 67.1 --- 78.6 60.7 80 43.1 29.2 --- 29.3 56.2 79.5 ---
At least one some difficulty
10.1 8.4 --- 7.0 8.3 12.6 9.9 7.9 --- 3.0 10.9 6.8 ---
At least one a lot of difficulty
20.8 13.3 --- 9.0 15.8 5.8 21.1 24.9 --- 21.2 18.5 8.2 ---
At least one can not at all 15.4 11.2 --- 5.4 15.2 1.6 25.9 38.0 --- 46.5 14.4 5.5 ---
Total 100 100 --- 100 100 100 100 100 --- 100 100 100 ---
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
8
Age 19-64
CBS NIIMOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social
services who’s neediness was defined as:
MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services
for:
Ministry of defense
CensusRecipients
of handicap allowances
Disability or health problem
Nursing care
Health problems (excluding
general disability
and autism)
HandicapMental illness
mental challenged
mental challenged
old age
the blind
handicap Autism
Recipients of handicap
allowances
No difficulty at all 49.4 54.2 40.5 56.9 45.4 57.1 44.1 28.0 29.0 4.0 42.6 79.6 67.4
At least one some difficulty
20.4 17.8 22.4 19.2 15.9 22.0 16.2 17.8 29.0 0.9 17.8 8.2 21.1
At least one a lot of difficulty
22.4 18.5 28.8 19.2 21.2 17.7 20.3 25.4 29.0 30.0 21.3 8.2 10.3
At least one can not at all 7.8 9.5 8.3 4.7 17.5 3.2 19.4 28.8 13.0 75.2 18.3 4.1 1.2
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
9
Minors who’s parents receiving handicap allowance from NII
Severity of disability: Number Percentage
No difficulty at all 12,576 97.54%
At least one domain with Some difficulty 188 1.46%
At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 99 0.77%
At least one domain with cannot at all 30 0.23%
total 12,893 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
10
Age 65+
CBS NIIMOSA1 – persons registered in municipal social
services who’s neediness was defined as:
MOSA2 – persons in institutions and persons placed in community services
for:
Ministry of defense
CensusRecipients
of handicap allowances
Disability or health problem
Nursing care
Health problems (excluding
general disability
and autism)
HandicapMental illness
mental challenged
mental challenged
old age
the blind
handicap Autism
Recipients of handicap
allowances
No difficulty at all 26.6 16.9 9.4 15.9 13.3 17.4 20.7 8.2 19.5 1.4 --- --- 33.8
At least one some difficulty
27.9 23.9 18.6 23.3 16.9 27.2 28.4 26.2 29.1 2.1 28.6 --- 38.2
At least one a lot of difficulty
35.0 41.0 46.8 42.5 38.9 39.1 34.6 31.2 40.0 35.5 14.3 --- 22.9
At least one can not at all 10.5 18.2 25.2 18.3 30.9 16.3 16.3 34.4 11.4 61.0 57.1 --- 5.1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
Average annual handicap allowance* (NII) 2008
Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 Census Percentage of Persons
NIS**
No difficulty at all 48.5% 24,564
At least one domain with Some difficulty 19.8% 30,102
At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 23.0% 35,761
At least one domain with cannot at all 8.7% 53,382
Total 100% 30,743
* The sum of allowance is related to average earning of the handicapped
** NIS – New Israeli Shekel
11Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
12
Average percentage of handicap (MOD)
Severity of difficulty responded in 2008 Census Percentage of Persons
Percentage of handicap
No difficulties at all 62.7% 13.3%
At least one domain with Some difficulty 23.5% 18.4%
At least one domain with a lot of difficulty 12.0% 25.9%
At least one domain with cannot at all 1.8% 54.8%
Total 100% 16.7%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
Persons receiving allowances (NII)
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 80.8% 12.2% 5.7% 1.3% 100%
Vision* 97.6% ------ 0.8% 1.6% 100%
“Cognition” 71.9% 16.3% 9.3% 2.5% 100%
ADL 78.0% 10.0% 7.5% 4.5% 100%
Mobility 62.0% 16.1% 17.2% 4.7% 100%
Total 48.5% 19.8% 23.0% 8.7% 100%
* Extended from administrative sources; includes persons with severe vision impairments and blind persons
13Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
14
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as a disability or health problem
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 66.0% 20.0% 12.2% 1.8% 100%
Vision 95.8% ------ 1.7% 2.5% 100%
“Cognition” 60.0% 23.2% 13.0% 3.8% 100%
ADL 62.1% 15.0% 14.4% 8.5% 100%
Mobility 47.3% 19.3% 25.6% 7.8% 100%
Total 36.5% 20.0% 29.4% 14.1% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
15
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as nursing care
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 42.9% 31.8% 23.2% 2.1% 100%
Vision 96.2% ------ 1.6% 2.2% 100%
“Cognition” 38.6% 33.3% 21.8% 6.3% 100%
ADL 28.4% 23.8% 30.0% 17.8% 100%
Mobility 14.4% 22.4% 46.5% 16.7% 100%
Total 10.0% 18.6% 46.5% 24.9% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
16
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as health problem (excluding general disability and autism)
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 61.1% 23.0% 14.5% 1.4% 100%
Vision 97.2% ------ 1.4% 1.4% 100%
“Cognition” 57.4% 25.7% 13.5% 3.4% 100%
ADL 57.2% 16.9% 16.8% 9.1% 100%
Mobility 39.4% 21.4% 30.7% 8.5% 100%
Total 31.9% 21.1% 33.6% 13.4% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
17
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as handicap
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 73.1% 13.9% 9.1% 3.9% 100%
Vision 87.9% ------ 4.5% 7.6% 100%
“Cognition” 68.9% 17.6% 10.3% 3.2% 100%
ADL 70.0% 11.3% 10.6% 8.1% 100%
Mobility 57.5% 14.8% 19.2% 8.5% 100%
Total 41.4% 14.7% 24.0% 19.9% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
18
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental illness
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 82.3% 11.9% 5.2% 0.6% 100%
Vision 99.2% ------ 0.3% 0.5% 100%
“Cognition” 64.9% 21.6% 11.6% 1.9% 100%
ADL 80.9% 9.7% 6.3% 3.1% 100%
Mobility 67.8% 16.3% 13.3% 2.6% 100%
Total 52.6% 22.3% 20.1% 5.0% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
19
Persons registered in municipal social services who’s neediness was defined as mental challenged
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 79.9% 10.8% 6.4% 2.9% 100%
Vision 98.1% ------ 0.5% 1.4% 100%
“Cognition” 45.2% 17.4% 23.1% 14.3% 100%
ADL 54.9% 13.8% 14.6% 16.7% 100%
Mobility 63.4% 13.9% 12.1% 10.6% 100%
Total 42.9% 15.3% 21.1% 20.7% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
20
Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for mental challenged
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 75.9% 12.2% 8.5% 3.4% 100%
Vision 97.7% ------ 0.6% 1.7% 100%
“Cognition” 20.0% 21.7% 34.6% 23.7% 100%
ADL 29.1% 21.9% 22.2% 26.8% 100%
Mobility 51.9% 17.1% 14.1% 16.9% 100%
Total 27.8% 16.0% 25.4% 30.8% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
21
Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for old age
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 49.3% 32.3% 17.1% 1.3% 100%
Vision 96.2% ------ 1.8% 2.0% 100%
“Cognition” 44.2% 35.9% 17.2% 2.7% 100%
ADL 48.7% 25.9% 18.7% 6.7% 100%
Mobility 29.1% 30.7% 34.8% 5.4% 100%
Total 19.7% 29.1% 39.8% 11.4% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
22
Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for the blind
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 75.3% 14.1% 9.5% 1.1% 100%
Vision 15.7% ------ 22.4% 61.9% 100%
“Cognition” 71.6% 19.3% 7.4% 1.7% 100%
ADL 66.5% 17.1% 11.2% 5.2% 100%
Mobility 50.8% 18.8% 24.5% 5.9% 100%
Total 8.6% 1.7% 25.0% 64.7% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
23
Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for handicap
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 77.8% 9.7% 6.7% 5.6% 100%
Vision 95.6% ------ 1.1% 3.3% 100%
“Cognition” 59.5% 23.2% 14.9% 2.4% 100%
ADL 66.6% 11.9% 10.5% 11.0% 100%
Mobility 60.4% 12.7% 14.1% 12.8% 100%
Total 45.7% 16.1% 20.5% 17.7% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
24
Persons in institutions and persons placed in community services for autism
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 94.3% ------ 3.4% 2.3% 100%
Vision 100% ------ ------ ------ 100%
“Cognition” 41.8% 25.5% 21.8% 10.9% 100%
ADL 58.2% 18.2% 20.0% 3.6% 100%
Mobility 90.9% 7.3% 1.8% ------ 100%
Total 79.5% 7.6% 8.2% 4.7% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
25
Persons receiving disability allowance (MOD)
Disability domains responded in 2008 census
Disability severity
No difficulty at all
Some difficulty
A lot of difficulty
Not able at all
Total
Hearing 74.2% 18.9% 6.7% 0.2% 100%
Vision 99.6% ------ 0.2% 0.2% 100%
“Cognition” 88.1% 9.0% 2.6% 0.3% 100%
ADL 94.8% 2.9% 1.4% 0.9% 100%
Mobility 82.7% 10.1% 6.0% 1.2% 100%
Total 62.7% 23.5% 12.0% 1.8% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - rows
percentages
Difficulty Hearing in Census
Not eligible Eligible Total
No difficulty at all* 99.8% 0.2% 100%
Some difficulty 99.0% 1.0% 100%
A lot of difficulty 97.3% 2.7% 100%
Can not at all 72.7% 27.3% 100%
Total 99.5% 0.5% 100%
* With hearing aid
26
* With hearing aid
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
27
Disability of hearing: 2008 Census Vs. Eligible to receive communication aids (deaf persons) - columns percentages
Difficulty Hearing in Census
Not eligible Eligible Total
No difficulty at all 86.0% 25.1% 85.6%
Some difficulty 8.8% 16.5% 8.9%
A lot of difficulty 4.7% 24.0% 4.8%
Can not at all 0.5% 34.4% 0.7%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
28
Conclusions (1) Nursing care and health problems are
relatively well covered by the census questions
Mental illness and handicap are under covered Severe disability are covered relatively well
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
29
Conclusions (2) Under coverage at the younger age
group (0-18)Good coverage at the older age group
(65+) (almost in all the disability domains)
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
30
Conclusions (3) The domain with the highest minor severity
frequency is cognition. The domain with the intermediate severity
frequency is mobility. The domain with the high severity frequency
is ADL (self-care).
Zohar Chessakov, WG 10th meeting, November 2010, Luxemburg
31
THANK YOU