Using household surveys to start a data revolution and tackle social inequality

The post-2015 report calls for quality data to be made available to governments. While modern technologies are useful, do not neglect the workhorse of data collection – the household survey

 

Household surveys can cast a spotlight on the needs of marginalised groups.

Last week's report of the UN high level panel on post-2015 was welcomed by those advocating on behalf of marginalised social groups. The panel recommend a goal aimed at gender equality, as proposed by development blogger Naila Kabeer. The report said that "leaving no one behind in a new set of development goals post-2015 will require spotlighting marginalised groups."

It emphasises that no-one – regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race or other status – should be denied universal human rights and basic economic opportunities. The meaning of 'other status' might well be extended to old age – a salient source of disadvantage and one which will be even more critical over the next few decades as the global population ages.

The report also calls for a 'data revolution', a new international initiative to improve the quality of statistics available to people and governments. Better quality data will be essential both to monitor a new development framework and to hold governments to account. The panel recommended harnessing new means of data collection, through crowdsourcing, new technologies and improved connectivity in much of the world.

This enthusiastic endorsement for new data-collection methods is useful, but the clamour to embrace modern technologies should not divert us from the main workhorse of data collection efforts in all countries of the world – the humble household survey.

Such surveys yield the data needed to monitor over half of the MDGs, and so the panel's call for better data provides an opportune moment to think about the strengths and weaknesses of household surveys and how we can make them even more valuable.

The post-2015 vision will only be realised if we can get reliable, accurate data. We need better data relating to women (on time spent caring for children and other relatives, for example). We need to know more about violence that occurs within the home. We may need to oversample particular groups (such as people with disabilities) to ensure we have representative data. And we need to collect data directly from all (adult) members of households, rather than the household head alone, so as to learn more about their specific circumstances.

A new ODI background note - launched on Monday by Sightsavers, HelpAge International and ADD International – explores the timely question of how to collect better data on three marginalised groups: people with disabilities, older people, and those with mental health issues. Not only are these issues likely to be interrelated, but studies have shown that they increase the likelihood of being poor and that poverty in turn, increases the likelihood of disability and of experiencing mental health conditions.

The research argues that a few adjustments would enable surveys to broaden their coverage, collect richer information and improve their identification of these marginalised groups.

First, to broaden coverage, surveys should be extended to cover individuals living outside traditional household units (eg in residential-care facilities or orphanages) who are currently excluded. They should also sample all households, regardless of the age composition of their members – two of the main international household surveys currently only sample women of reproductive age.

Second, to collect better information, it may be necessary to ask questions of all household members, not just the head of the household – as some surveys have started to do. Also, surveys should ask marginalised groups about issues that may affect them disproportionately, such as care-taking and domestic violence, in the case of older people.

Finally, to improve identification of these groups, surveys should incorporate tools such as the short Washington Group questionnaire to identify disability, and screening questionnaires to indicate the presence of mental health issues.

Some of these adjustments would be relatively straightforward – such as revisiting how sampling is carried out and incorporating screening questions – and would enable us to collect much richer data on different groups.

But some of these recommendations would come at a cost. For example, making an effort to interview different household members will be time-consuming to implement – both for the respondent and the person conducting the survey. And adding questions to surveys similarly would increase their financial cost. Survey fatigue, in turn, can compromise data quality.

In addition, increasing the inclusivity of the data collected will require more than just technical adjustments. It will require political will and a concerted effort to overcome any cultural or attitudinal barriers that might prevent households from revealing the existence of, and circumstances facing, people with disabilities or mental health issues.

At the same time, the size and vulnerability of these three groups – coupled with a lack of detailed information about their circumstances and a demonstrated ability to collect the needed data efficiently – makes a strong case for overcoming these challenges.

By failing to address inequalities associated with old age, disability and mental health, the MDGs missed an opportunity to improve the lives of many of the poorest and most marginalised in society.

In line with the recommendations of the high level panel, a post-2015 framework must be sensitive to these issues, advancing the commitments specified in international human rights frameworks, and ensuring adequate measurement and monitoring.

The proposed data revolution might be part of the answer – making it easier to trace and collect data from several household members, to check with people between larger and more cumbersome surveys, and to understand the effects of shocks or crises on people's wellbeing. But such efforts must be integrated with survey-based data collection, not supplant it.

The task of revolutionising the way we collect and use global poverty data will need to be urgently taken up by the Open Working Group and others involved in the post-2015 process. But the important first step has been taken – a recognition that we must improve our monitoring of the circumstances of marginalised groups.

Emma Samman is a research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute 

Source : The Guardian , 10th June 2013