Are children staying at home for longer?

Glenn - The Census Expert

Glenn is an ABS data expert with huge intellect and capacity to convert demographic data into profound insights about places. He has contributed numerous blogs and consulting projects covering economic development, housing consumption and affordability, migration, fertility, ageing, role and function of ‘place’, communities of interest and more. Glenn works with over 120 councils bringing the client perspective into the development of our information products. He is a Census data expert, having worked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 10 years. If there's anything Glenn doesn't know about the Census, it's probably not worth knowing - so ask Glenn!

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Simon Kuestenmacher says:

    Technical question: Why use “place of enumeration” data?

    I’ve seen these figures around and they have always been calculated using “place of enumeration” data. In this case shouldn’t “place of usual residence” data be used? Trends stay the same but figures are slightly lower. To the best of my knowledge enumeration data counts kids who visited their parents for dinner on Census night for example. I wouldn’t want these kids included in my data, right?

    • Simon Kuestenmacher says:

      One more question: which Census item did you use CTPP or RLHP?

    • Hi Simon,

      Thanks for the comment. This is a relationship in household variable, so it is ONLY available on place of enumeration basis. People are moved back to their place of usual residence but their household type and relationships are based on the place they are counted. Information on up to 3 people temporarily absent from the household are used to correctly code household type (eg. a couple family with one child away on camp will correctly be coded as a family with children if those temporarily absent are marked on the back page of the form) but the relationship is coded only relative to those in the household on Census night.

      So the second part of your statement is incorrect. Firstly, anyone visiting for dinner would not be counted in that household, but wherever they return to afterwards. Secondly kids who are living away from home, visiting their parents overnight, would have a relationship set to “Visitor in family household”, the same as anyone else staying the night. So they wouldn’t be included in this dataset.

      So, for your other question, I used RLHP, not CTPP. Just looking at it, I think you’d get the same result using CTPP and restricting by age. For RLHP I used all the “Dependent student” and “Non-dependent child” categories to represent children living in the family home, and also restricted to occupied dwellings and persons counted at home in them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

.id blog