1. 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
Eurostat

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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