Session 21: Definition, Measurement and Development of Social Statistics

1
IAOS Conference on Reshaping Official
Statistics Shanghai, 14-16 October 2008

• ________________________________________
• Session 21 Definition, Measurement and
  Development of Social Statistics
• Update on progress on the work of the Task Force
  on Emerging Families and Households
• Cristina Freguja
• ISTAT (Italian National Statistical Institute)

2
The New Challenge of the Task Force on Families
and Households

• Relevant and authoritative statistics about
  family structures, dynamics and support patterns
  are crucial to understand the changes and the
  impacts of policies and services on families and
  individuals.
• Same-sex couples
• living apart together
• commuters between households
• reconstituted families
• persons living apart but within a network
• I will discuss the results of the work carried
  out so far
• The Task Force has not yet been reached a final
  stance on all the aspects under debate.
• This presentation mainly reflects my personal
  point of view. Of course, any mistake is my only
  responsibility.

need to be clearly defined at international and
regional levels
3
Credits

• I wish to express my gratitude to the members of
  the Task Force for their valuable scientific
  contributions Karine Kuyumjyan (National
  Statistical Service, Republic of Armenia), Bob
  McColl (Australian Bureau of Statistics), Anne
  Milan (Statistics Canada), Timo Nikander
  (Statistics Finland), Laurent Toulemon (Institut
  National détudes démographiques - France),
  Hannah McConnell (Statistics New Zealand), Nico
  Keilman (University of Oslo Norway), Steve
  Smallwood (Office for National Statistics -
  United Kingdom), Martin OConnell (US Census
  Bureau), Angela Me (UNECE), Paolo Valente
  (UNECE), Giampaolo Lanzieri (Eurostat), Gregor
  Kyi (Eurostat), Mikhail Korolev (Interstate
  Statistical Committee of the Commonwealth of
  Independent State).
• A special thank to Anne Milan (Living apart
  together) Nico Keilman (Reconstituted families)
  Steve Smallwood (Same-sex couple) Laurent
  Toulemon (Commuters between households).
• This presentation draws large part from the
  papers they prepared for the Task Force

4
1. Same-sex couples policy concerns

• Same-sex couples are not a new type of family.
  But they are becoming more and more visible,
  because more people feel free to adopt this
  living arrangement.
• Policy makers are interested in information on
  same-sex couples in order to
• develop new legal arrangements to guarantee
  same-sex couples rights
• and responsibilities
• (ii) define groups possibly at risk of
  discrimination
• (iii) understand the peoples need and family
  formation dynamics.

5
2. Same-sex couples definition

• A starting position is to mirror heterosexual
  partnership information
• legally recognised same-sex partnerships (legally
  defined)
• same-sex partnership equivalent to an
  opposite-sex de facto partnership
• Key points for definition of a de facto same-sex
  partnership
• Both partners in the relationship share the same
  household
• ? are of the same-sex
• ?
  recognise themselves as couple
• ? are not in a registered partnership

6
3. Same-sex couples measurement

• In principle, a sample survey might not be an
  adequate tool for counting small population
  (minorities).
• Census has also constraints (it cannot be very
  detailed and flexible)
• Recent experience of a few Western countries
• ? supports explicit response items to enumerate
  same-sex couples
• ? underlines the need to conduct to reform census
  procedures in close
• collaboration with the most concerned groups
  of actors
• Especially in countries where same-sex couples
  are not still completely accepted and legally
  recognized, the census might not achieve reliable
  estimations of the phenomenon.
• To use ad hoc sets of questions, in proper
  surveys or in ad hoc surveys, that focusing on
  sexuality (identity, orientation, etc.) could
  facilitate disclosure of same-sex couples.

7
1. Reconstituted families and couples policy
concerns

• In the past the family composition was generally
  redesigned by the premature death of an
  individual
• Nowadays separations and divorces determine the
  change of the families life and make them more
  complex.
• The attention of policy makers has been
  concentrated mainly on the families with a single
  parent (for many aspects the most vulnerable
  living arrangements)
• The processes of reconstituting families and
  affective lives after a separation/divorce or
  widowhood have an important psychological,
  economical and social impact on the life of the
  individual and on the society as a whole.
• Information on the propensity of people in
  reconstituting families and affective lives may
  be of interest to policy makers because to live
  in couple affects life satisfaction, health, and,
  for elderly, the chances of institutionalization.

8
2. Reconstituted families and couples definitions

• The definition of reconstituted family given in
  the CES Census Recommendations
• ? includes only families with children from
  previous relationships
• ? no consideration is given to persons who have
  re-entered in a new
• consensual union or a new marriage with no
  non-common children
• living in the family.
• An extended definition ? reconstituted couples
  where at least one of the two partners has had a
  previous marriage or registered partnership (with
  common children or without children)
• reconstituted families and couples coming from a
  marriage or registered partnership that
  dissolved due to the death of the previous
  partner
• In particular for elderly persons, the
  possibility to reconstitute family and affective
  lives reduces the number of years they may expect
  to live in loneliness and may also have social
  policy implications for aspects such as poverty
  and housing needs

9
3. Reconstituted families and couples
measurements

• Reconstituted
  families and couples
• Indirect measurement
• compares birth date of all natural children
  ever-born to each adult households member with
  the birth date of all children in the household
• Directs measurement
• 1. Relationship of each
  household member with respondent
• (one of the two
  partners)
• 2. Household relationship
  matrix
• combine with appropriate questions
• Is (child) (i) the biological child of both you
  and your partner? (ii)
• your own (biological) child but not
  partners? etc.
• 2. Compared with person A, person B is - his/her
  biological child - his/her adopted child, etc.
• 3. Is (person)(i) your marriage partner?, (ii)
  your registered partner? Etc.
• Have you had a previous marriage/registered
  partnership before the current one with someone
  else than your current partner?

10
1. Living apart but within a network policy
concerns

• Communication, exchange and support relations
  within social networks help to maintain adequate
  levels of well-being.
• They indeed (i) support family members who have
  troubles in their daily life or who have to deal
  with sudden events, (ii) help them gain wider
  perspectives and opportunities, (iii) reduce
  uncertainties and find solidarity and
  companionship.
• Despite the structural simplification of the
  families, in todays society, families still live
  inside thick networks of relations and exchanges
  between relatives.
• The situation significantly differs across
  countries due to
• different attitudes and cultural background
  (cultural norms and values)
• differences in the policy environments across the
  countries (availability, cost and quality of
  public service provision offered by social and
  family policies)

11
2. Living apart but within a network definition

• Living apart, but within a network is a
  different way of looking at a family and its
  functioning. It means
• to go beyond the co-residence bond and extend the
  concept of household structure and household
  relationships including kinship, friendship and
  neighbourhood
• to focus on the nature and degree of solidarity
  between family members
• structural solidarity factors such as
  geographic distance that constrain
• or
  enhance interactions between family members
• associative solidarity frequency of
  social contact and shared activities
• affectual solidarity feelings of
  emotional closeness, affirmation, and
• 
  intimacy between family members
• functional solidarity exchange of instrumental
  and financial assistance
• and
  support
• consensual solidarity actual o perceived
  agreement in opinions, values
• and
  lifestyle between family members
• normative solidarity strength of obligation felt
  towards other family
• 
  members.

12
3. Living apart but within a network
measurement
Proposal focuses on a set of variables
concerning i) the exchange of instrumental and
financial assistance and in-kind support between
members of different households (modalities with
which the networks provide their support, the
kind of persons and families actively involved in
the networks, the different strategies that
people design in order to support people in
need) ii) people with which the respondents
feel a certain level of affinity (emotional
closeness / who are the ones a person can count
on) iii) social contacts (visits, telephone,
internet/e-mail, etc.). The family and friend
relationship alternately shift between latency
(latent form of cohesion i.e. the potential for
support) and activity (exchanges of assistance).
Even if cross-sectional level functional
exchange are absent, affinity and frequency of
contacts put in evidence the closeness among the
networks members, and their potential capability
of support.
13
1. Living Apart Together policy concerns
A LAT relationship may be a permanent living
arrangement by individuals who do not share a
home for a number of different reasons. LAT
relationships may become more common in the
future with longer life expectancies, more
persons never-married, divorced, and/or living
alone. They may become a more common way to deal
with a difficult marriage or cohabitation. The
increase of spatial mobility and the related
opportunity of work could promote this kind of
situation. This living arrangement could have
social policy implications for aspects such as
housing needs.
14
2. Living Apart Together definition

• Criteria for defining who is included among the
  Living Apart Together
• i) two separate addresses (which may or may
  not contain other people)
• no shared household (i.e., different concept than
  a commuting relationship).
• not currently in a cohabiting relationship.
• iv) persons involved in LAT relationship may be
  opposite-sex as well as same-sex
• iv) an implied relationship as couple (sibling
  relationships, friendships excluded). A sexual
  relationship may not be necessary.
• no restriction based on distances which could
  allow for more frequent contact
• no minimum duration of the LAT relationship
• a lower age limit in conjunction with not being a
  child living in the parental home would eliminate
  a large proportion of the temporary LAT
  arrangements.

15
4. Living Apart Together measurement

• Do you have a relationship with someone you
  consider a partner .
• steady and who lives in
• intimate
  a separate
  household?
• couple
• regular
• romantic
• on-going
• consensual
• Possible reasons for living in separate
  households
• Frequency of contact with the partner
• Distance between households (or time required to
  travel between
• households)
• Duration of current relationship
• Characteristics of the other partner
• How many of the closest family and friends know
  about partner
• Future intentions

16
1. Commuters between households definition

• People who regularly live in a place that is
  different from their place of usual residence for
  a limited time (for instance two or more days a
  week, or throughout the university term, etc.)
• Factors related to the family life cycle, and the
  educational and professional history of
  individuals have produced an increased number of
  persons who commute between households.
• This new type of living arrangement, which
  involves both individuals and families, deeply
  affects people life and can not be ignored by
  official statistics, which should provide policy
  makers with information on new social facts,
  trends and needs
• This phenomenon refers to a wide and
  heterogeneous range of situations that
  contributes to make the private household, where
  the commuter lives part of the year, a mobile
  household or a variable structured household.

17
2. Commuters between households definition

• Most often, commuters between households may
  consider one of their usual places of residence
  as their main household, and the other as their
  secondary household.
• Three questions may nevertheless arise, making
  the situation much less simple than that.
• objective definitions (for instance the number
  of nights spent in each dwelling), may not be
  considered as relevant for the individuals, and
  people may be tempted to use their own
  definition
• some situations may be ambiguous and persons may
  have different views on the situation of a
  particular person (young adults who consider that
  they have left the parental nest, while their
  parents consider that their child is still living
  with them)
• many situations of commuting between households
  are linked to complex family situations, which
  may be transitory and ill-defined. Union
  formation and dissolution are processes which now
  take time during that time people may not know
  what their precise housing and family situation
  is.

18
3. Commuters between households measurement

• The first step is to get some information on the
  existence of another usual dwelling.
• In some countries a secondary dwelling is
  identified, in relation to work or study. The
  question must be more general and include all
  cases where the persons have more than one usual
  residence.
• Reasons for commuting (work, family reasons,
  health reasons, etc.)
• Type of the other usual residence (private
  household, collective accommodation, etc.)
• Who are the persons living there (partner,
  parents, stepparent, friends etc.)
• How the respondent shares his/her time between
  both residences

19
4. Commuters between households measurement
Question 2. Is that dwelling. a private
household a hotel, a boarding house hospital
or hospice collective accommodation (please,
specify) Then whether the individual is sharing
the dwelling with other persons is of interest
(for commuters between private
households) Question 3 Is that dwelling a main
residence for some other persons? No, you are
the only inhabitant Yes, for other persons who
are not living here Yes, only for persons who
are living here
20
5. Commuters between households measurement
Question 4 In that other dwelling, does the
person live with (multiple answers are
possible) A partner Both Parents A
parent A stepparent Brothers, sisters,
including half brothers and sisters Children or
stepchildren Friends A further relevant issue
is to know how the person shares his/her time
between both usual residences. Question 5
Does the person live in this dwelling 1.
(Almost) all year 2. During the weekend or
holidays gt How many days per year? 3. During
the working days gt How many days per week? 4.
Some months in the year gt How many months since
last year?
21
Thank you for your attention!