LAMAS Working Group 29 June-1 July 2016 Agenda Item 6.2 NEET indicator - Consistency issues as regards LFS variables linked to education and training Sabine.Gagel@ec.europa.eu Eurostat

Overview Problem statement: possible inconsistencies across different EU-LFS variables indicating involvement in education or training Results of written consultation Conclusions and recommendations Eurostat

NEET – young people neither in employment nor in education and training Definition Not employed (ILOSTAT = 2 or 3) Not in any education or training (EDUCSTAT = 2 and COURATT = 2) EMCO IG April 2016 Are all in education and training actually excluded? Evidence from other EU-LFS variables (MAINSTAT, SEEKREAS)  NEET population overestimated Eurostat to further investigate the inconsistencies Eurostat

Written consultation of LAMAS Problem statement as brought forward by EMCO IG Other LFS variables indicating involvement in education and training (MAINSTAT, SEEKREAS, AVAIREAS, NOWKREAS, HOURREAS, FTPTREAS, TEMPREAS, PRESEEK) Are there any cross-checks? If yes, for which variables? Which treatment applied? Possible explanations for inconsistencies? Eurostat

Consistency issues in 2015 data Criteria Age 15-24; 2.5% or more of the reference population (no ET); only reliable data MAINSTAT: 16 countries SEEKREAS: 7 countries FTPT: 2 countries AVAIREAS, NOWKREAS, HOURREAS: no issues TEMPREAS, PRESEEK: differences can be explained by different coverage or different reference period Eurostat

Written consultation – results (1) 26 replies (22 MS + NO, CH, TR and ME) 11 countries: no cross-checks at all 15 countries: cross-checks for at least one of the 8 variables concerned During interview process, at data entry/via data entry software, during data processing, ex-post controls Verification of (paper) questionnaire, going back to interviewer/respondent, random correction, automatic recoding Eurostat

Written consultation – results (2) Reasons for not performing cross-checks Different purpose and definition of variables concerned Variables concerned are more subjective Checks difficult (methodological, technical) Negative impact of checks on interview flow No ex-post changes of answers Eurostat

Written consultation – results (3) General reasons for inconsistencies Concept/definition – self-perceived vs. clear definitions (EDUCSTAT, COURATT) Several situations exist that can explain differences Other types of training, various 'time lag' situations, evasive answer for unemployed/inactive Reference period (AVAIREAS, PRESEEK) Data collection and processing Variable specific inconsistencies For MAINSTAT, AVAIREAS, FTPTREAS, TEMPREAS, PRESEEK Eurostat

Conclusions Inconsistencies in general possible / 'normal' But: differences less justified for some variables than for others Inconsistencies can be an indication of implementation problems for EDUCSTAT or COURATT Eurostat

Recommendations Countries already cross-checking strongly encouraged to continue doing so Countries not yet cross-checking should monitor variables concerned for possible inconsistencies In particular at least cross-check MAINSTAT and SEEKREAS against EDUCSTAT and COURATT Objective: identify possible implementation issues related to EDUCSTAT and COURATT 'Students on holidays' / quarter 3  interview guidelines Analyse by age, educational attainment and HATYEAR From 2016: TEMPREAS: if apprentices singled out – EDUCSTAT = 1 or 3 Eurostat

LAMAS is invited to comment and discuss: the findings of the written consultation; Eurostat's conclusions and recommendations on how to deal with consistency issues as regards EU-LFS variables linked to education and training Eurostat