Local government register entries (December 2010): 170,845 Canvass return rate (2010): 92.1%
Estimated movers in the last 12 months: 18.0% Proportion of population who are BME: 22.8% Private renters: 9.5%
Full-time students (aged 18-74): 4.5% Density (person per acre): 45.2
Description of approach
Database: DWP Centric, DfE (NPD), BIS (ILR), and DVLA.
Parts of register being matched: Whole register with target wards for particular nationalities.
Target groups: Young people, BME groups and those under-registered for financial reasons.
Localised matching: They intended to carry out localised matches but the start delay meant this was not possible.
Follow up method/approach: Personalised letter.
Approach during/after canvass: Pilot letters sent after annual canvass. Control group: Yes, for each Database.
Key pilot data
Database DWP Centric Match score: 40 DVLA DfE (NPD) BIS (ILR) Consolidated (DVLA, BIS, DfE) Number of ER records sent 184,438 184,43 8 184,43 8 184,438 184,438 ER records matched 130,048 95,437 1,573 9,210 -
114
% match 70.5% 51.7% N/A N/A -
On ER/Not on Database 31,120 86,3666 % on ER only 16.9% 46.8% 46.8% 46.8% 46.8% Of which followed up No follow-up undertaken On Database/Not on ER 47,384 94,324 3,172 4,528 3,292 % on Database only 25.7% 51.1% 1.7% 2.5% 1.8% Of which followed-up 3,7137 3,399 244 724 247 Added to ER 211 38 18 24 4 New electors as a % of followed up 5.7% 1.1% 7.4% 3.3% 1.6% Control group 4,176 3,505 391 849 17 % of control group registered 13.0% 3.9% 36.3% 16.3% 23.5%
Summary table
Objective Findings Assessment in meeting the registration objectivesfollowed. They found it hard to separate the effect of the pilot follow- up from the annual canvass. The pilot thought it likely that the personalised letter may have helped to make the additional registrations. There were a range of findings across the different Databases, including:
DWP 11% of those contacted were not resident, 4% ineligible;
DVLA responses to invitations show records are not current;
NPD appear to be the most accurate Databases;
ILR the majority of registrations made through the canvass.
Objections to scheme
The mailing generated a large number of calls to the contact centre immediately after delivery, with several people expressing concern that the area had written to relatives who had died, in some
6 This figure for DVLA, NPD and ILR were consolidated.
115
instances over 20 years previous.
Ease of administering
The pilot raised issues relating to the quality, quantity and currency of the data, in particular the DVLA. Differences in naming and addressing standards across the Databases made analysis difficult and unique property reference numbers would help.
Data management of received data was problematic and time- consuming. The authority felt that the process suggests a need to develop a range of data management knowledge and skills (that were not already available within the local electoral services team).
Savings of time and costs
Total cost estimated at £24,230. Just over 3% of those identified through data matching and contacted registered to vote and the local authority felt it was therefore not as effective as household registration.
116
Lothian
Local authority information
The Lothian Valuation Joint Board is composed of City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian and West Lothian. The figures below are the sum or average of the four areas.
Population (16+): 695,404
Local government register entries (December 2010): 595,074 Canvass return rate: 88.6%
Estimated movers in the last 12 months: 14.5% Proportion of population who are BME: 2.8% Privately rented households: 7.7%
Students (aged 18-74): 6.8% Density (person per acre): 4.5
Description of approach
Database: DWP CentricParts of register being matched: Whole register. Target groups: Under-registered areas.
Localised matching/data cleansing: Intend to match with Council Tax Payers Lists and Council Tax & Non-Domestic Property Lists prior to follow-up to provide degree of refinement to matched/updated data.
Follow up method/approach: Personalised letter and door-to-door.
Approach during/after canvass: Data matching follow-up carried out prior to the commencement of the annual canvass.
Control group: Yes.
Key pilot data
Database DWP Centric Match score: 55
Number of ER records sent 654,515
ER records matched 474,113
% match 72.4%
On ER/Not on Database 139,613
% on ER only 21.3%
Of which followed up No follow-up undertaken
117
% on Database only 10.1%
Of which followed-up 10,215
Added to ER 1,139
New electors as a % of followed up 11.2%
Control group 9,875
% of control group registered 31.0%
Summary table
Objective Findings Assessment in meeting the registration objectivesThe registration rate for the pilot group (11.2%) is relatively high in comparison to other pilot areas. This is likely to be at least partly due to the timing of the follow up before the annual canvass.
The pilot indicated that there needs to be more information included on the national data (e.g. the how recent the records were updated should be evident).
Objections to scheme
No response from the public in relation to letters inviting those named to register. During the door to door activity there were a small number of refusals to provide information.
Ease of administering
There were issues related to the quality and currency of the data. The lack of a unique property reference number also caused problems. Improvements need to be made to the national data to make the matching process viable
The VJB believe that the pilot was run too close to the annual canvass. This made subsequent follow up activity and analysis more difficult.
Savings of time and costs
Total cost for the pilot was £15,760.
Considerable ICT staff resource was needed to interpret and manipulate the returned matched data.
118