latent constructs and composite indicators for measuring...

Dealing with Complexity in Society:

From Plurality of Data to Synthetic Indicators

September 17th and 18th, 2015

Latent constructs and composite

indicators for measuring well-being

of the households living in Brescia

Veronica Cappa, Maurizio Carpita, Anna Simonetto

Dealing with Complexity in Society 2

Introduction

The negative effects of economic crisis are affecting families’

incomes (Janckins et al.), changing and worsening their health and

needs in terms of social and health services (EU 2013).


AIMS

1. Integration (data linkage) of administrative data concerning residents of the Brescia district

2. Development composite indicators in order to measure poverty and vulnerability

3. To evaluate how poverty and vulnerability influence demand of social and health services


Aim 1: administrative data

Thanks to the collaboration and support of the Statistical Staff of the Bresciadistrict, administrative data were collected and handle using:

1. CIVIL REGISTRY - Subjects and families’ characteristics from 2008 to 2013

2. TRIBUTARY database: Income of subjects from 2008 to 2013

In order to upgrade data about residents of the Brescia and consequently to better measure poverty and vulnerability indicators, DMS StatLab conducted a survey co-funded by Fondazione della Comunità Bresciana – information about subjects and families’ needs in terms of health and social services are collected.


Civil registry

Subjects:

• name, date and place of birth,

• marital status,

• tax code,

• Individual registry code

Families:

• number of components,

• address,

• parental relationship between members of family,

• family registry code

The registry is an integrated archive that records every event of every subject and family living in Brescia (immigration/emigration to/from another district, date of birth/marriage/death, etc…)

PRINCIPAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM 2008 TO 2013 (December, 31)


Description of families living in Brescia from 2008 to 2013

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Nu

mb

er

of

fam

ilies


TRIBUTARY database

Called SIATEL, the database is a telematic system concerning an active exchange of civil and tributary information among public agency.

PRINCIPAL INFORMATION AVAILABLE:

• tax code

• individual income from tax returns

(Models 730, Unico, 770-S)

• gross income and taxes


Civil registry

TRIBUTARY DB

Through data linkage is possible to calculate individual and family income

SURVEY

Data linkage through tax code


• Poverty indicator• Vulnerability indicator

Aim 2: composite indicators


DEFINITION OF POVERTY: a household is “absolutely” poor if its monthly shopping (in euros) is lower than a threshold computed on the basis of number of components of the family, the age and the Italian basket of goods (ISTAT 2009).

NIP =

NIP =

NET INCOME POVERTY (NIP) INDICATOR

Poverty threshold for household type – Net income of household ___________________________________________________________________

Poverty threshold for household type*100

Certainly poor if NIP≥20

Quasi poor household if 0<NIP<20

Quasi non-poor household if -20≤NIP≤ 0

Certainly non-poor household if NIP<-20


NIP INDICATOR%

of

fam

ilies

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Total

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Total


VULNERABILITY INDICATORS

DEFINITION OF VULNERABILITY (OECD): a household is vulnerable to future loss of well-being below some socially accepted norms if it lacks (or is strongly disadvantaged in the distribution of) assets which are crucial for resilience to risks (Morrone 2014).

As vulnerability is a latent aspect, we developed 3 composite indicators* to describe it (Alkire & Foster 2008 and 2009)

1. Disposable Income Poverty (DIP)2. Economic Structural Autonomy (ESA)3. Demographic Structural Autonomy (DSA)

*inspired to indicators proposed by Alkire and Foster


Disposable Income Poverty (DIP) = where:CE3= Consumption Expenditure sum of last 3 years for the household type (ISTAT)NI3=Net Income sum of last 3 years for the household

Economic Structural Autonomy (ESA)= [-100;+100]where:C* = number of weighted-members of the household I = number of members with an income of the householdnI* = number of non I weighted-members of the household*weigh 1.5 persons aged ≤15 or ≥75

Demographic Structural Autonomy (DSA)= [-100;+100]where:A=number of potentially autonomous members (age 16-74) of the householdnA=number of non A members of the household (age ≤15 or ≥75)C=number of members of the household

CE3-NI3_________

CE3 *100

nA-A_________

C *100

nI*-I_________

C* *100

VULNERABILITY INDICATORSPart 2


As for NIP indicator, DIP, ESA and DSA indicators were categorized as:

VULNERABILITY INDICATORSPart 3

Certainly vulnerable if indicator≥20

Quasi vulnerable if 0<indicator<20

Quasi non-vulnerable if -20≤indicator≤ 0

Certainly non-vulnerable if indicator<-20


DIP INDICATOR%

of

fam

ilies

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Total

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Total


ESA INDICATOR%

of

fam

ilies

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Total

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Single

Couple with son

Couple

Single parent

Total


DSA INDICATOR%

of

fam

ilies

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013

Single

Couple

Couple with son

Single parent

Total

Single

Couple

Couple with son

Single parent

Total


As explained before, vulnerability is a latent concept, for this reason we used a combination of DIP, ESA and DSA indicators to measure it.

Following Morrone approach (2014) , we categorized DIP, ESA and DSA as dummies variables where 1 indicate the deprivation status, 0 otherwise (DIP=1 indicate “family non-money saver”, ESA=1 indicates “family non economically autonomous”, DSA=“family non demographically autonomous”)

Vulnerability indicator (k)year=DIPyear+ESAyear+DSAyear

0≤kyear ≤3

In our study k mean per year are:k2010 =0,92k2011 =0,93k2012 =0,94k2013 =0,93

Vulnerability


Vulnerability per number of deprivations over time

A family is vulnerable if k≥2*

k=3 k=2 k=1*as suggested by Morrone (2014)

% o

f fa

mili

es


Vulnerability incidence per poverty over time

Incidence calculated as percentage of vulnerable families

2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013

Non-poor families Poor families

% o

f fa

mili

es


Aim 3: DEMAND OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES

In order to evaluate demand of social and health services of the residents of the Brescia district, a survey was conducted by University of Brescia (DMS StatLab as first in line) focusing attention on children and adults.

The project is a biennial study (June 2014 – May 2016) co-funded by the Comunità Bresciana Foundation and it is already ongoing. Partners of the projects are the Department of Economics and Management with the DMS StatLab - Data Methods and Systems Statistical Laboratory, the Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land and Environment and the Department of Experimental and Clinical Science of the University of Brescia.


AIM 3: future aspects

The main effort will be to upgrade the poverty and vulnerability composite indicators and to link them with the needs of social and health services (private and public) and their evaluations by the citizens.

Indicators regarding family structure and income will be connected to those calculated from the survey in order to develop an composite indicator.

These composite indicators play a key role in the government, the council can (or should) use them to plan its social and economic policies.

CONCLUSIONS


References

• Jenkins SP, Brandolini A, Micklewright J, Nolan B (2013). The great

recession and the distribution of household income, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

• European Commission (2013). Quality of life in cities, Publications

Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

• Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (2009). La misura della povertà assoluta

(Volume Metodi e Norme n. 39 – 2009),

http://www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20090422_00/

• Morrone A (2014). Measuring Conjoint Vulnerabilities in Italy: An

Asset-Based Approach. Ophi working paper No. 70.

• Alkire S and Foster J (revised 2008). Counting and multidimensional

poverty measurement. Ophi working paper No. 7.

• Alkire S and Foster J (2009). Counting and Multidimensional Poverty

Measurement. Ophi working paper No. 32.

REFERENCES

http://www.istat.it/dati/catalogo/20090422_00/

Acknowledgements

Maurizio Carpita

DMS StatLab, Dep. of Economics and Management (University of Brescia)

Maurizio TiraDep. of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land and Environment (University of Brescia)

Francesco CastelliDep. of Experimental and Clinical Science (University of Brescia)

Marco TrentiniStatistical Staff of the Brescia district

Fondazione della Comunità Bresciana as co-funder of the project


THE END

Call it a clan, call it a network, call it a tribe, call it a family. Whatever you call it, whoever you are, you need one.(Jane Howard)

latent constructs and composite indicators for measuring...

Documents