Variable Description
Educational institution address is the physical location of an educational institution; distinguishing details can include the building name; street number, name and type; suburb or rural locality; and city, town, or district.
en-NZPriority level
Priority level 2
We assign a priority level to all census variables: Priority 1, 2, or 3 (with 1 being highest and 3 being the lowest priority).
Educational institution address is a priority 2 variable. Priority 2 variables cover key subject populations that are important for policy development, evaluation, or monitoring. These variables are given second priority in terms of quality, time, and resources across all phases of a census.
This is a new variable for the 2018 Census.
Quality Management Strategy has more information on the priority rating.
Overall quality rating for 2018 Census
Moderate quality
Data quality processes section below has more detail on the rating for this variable.
Subject population
Census usually resident population studying part time or full time in any educational institute, from early education (childcare) to tertiary education
‘Subject population’ means the people, families, households, or dwellings to whom the variable applies.
How this data is classified
Workplace or Educational Institution Address V1.0.0
Educational institution address is a flat classification. The standard codes are:
Meshblock codes (7 digits)
Statistical Area 2 (SA2) codes (6 digits) prefixed by '9'
Territorial Authority codes (3 digits) prefixed by '9999'
Regional Council codes (2 digits) prefixed by '99999'
Urban Rural codes (4 digit) prefixed by 'URB'
8888888 Overseas
9999977 Response unidentifiable
9999988 Response outside scope
9999996 No fixed address
9999998 New Zealand not further defined
9999999 Not Stated
The Standards and Classifications page provides background information on classifications and standards.
Question format
Educational institution address information was collected on the individual form (question 20 on the paper form).
Individuals were only required to answer this question if they indicated in earlier questions that they attended, studied, or were enrolled at school or any other place of education, and they did not study at home.
Online, routing made the question available to answer only if respondents met these criteria.
On paper, anyone could see and respond to the question, even if they were not in the subject population.
Online responses could also use:
- an as-you-type list of educational institution names
- an address list for educational institutions.
The as-you-type list of names came from administrative data on all registered schools in New Zealand as at December 2017, sourced from the Ministry of Education. Location information was added where the same institution name appeared more than once.
Almost a quarter of educational institution address responses were coded to ‘not further defined’ (‘nfd’) geographies at regional council or territorial authority level because no further information was available to assist coding. The ‘nfd’ geographies should be included at their geographic level of analysis. For example, if data at a regional council level is being analysed, then ‘regional council nfd’ responses must be included.
Stats NZ Store House has samples for both the individual and dwelling paper forms.
How this data is used
Outside Stats NZ
- Measuring traffic flows.
- Planning transport services.
Within Stats NZ
- Researching and visualising commuting patterns.
2018 data sources
We used alternative data sources for missing census responses and responses that could not be classified or did not provide the type of information asked for. Where possible, we used responses from the 2013 Census, administrative data from the Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), or imputation.
The table below shows the breakdown of the various data sources used for this variable.
| 2018 Educational institution address - Census usually resident population in study | |
|---|---|
| Source | Percent |
| Response from 2018 Census | 86.4 percent |
| Response from 2018 partial forms | 4.1 percent |
| 2013 Census data | 0.0 percent |
| Administrative data | 9.5 percent |
| Statistical imputation | 0.0 percent |
| No information | 0.0 percent |
| Total | 100 percent |
| Due to rounding, individual figures may not always sum to the stated total(s) | |
| Partial response is where the usual residence of an individual was provided on the household set-up page or the paper dwelling form, but we did not receive an individual online or paper form. |
Where we knew that a person was studying but educational address was missing, or the response lacked enough information to be coded to a meshblock, we used their usual residence information to derive their educational institution address.
The business rule to derive the address was:
- if there is no educational institution information (city, suburb, or name), address code is set to ‘Regional Council, nfd’ of usual residence
- if some information exists in the city, suburb, or name fields, address code is set to ‘Territorial Authority, nfd’ of usual residence
- if the individual has been coded as studying at home, this code is set to the meshblock of usual residence.
Administrative data sources
We used data from the range of sources available in the IDI to provide usual residence address information. We then derived their educational institution address from their usual residence information, using the same business rule that was used for partial responses.
When people change addresses, they usually contact a number of different organisations to notify them of the change. This change of address information is then kept in an address notification table in the IDI. Stats NZ used this table to create a prioritised address history for all individuals where address information exists, specifically for 2018 Census purposes.
Address notifications came from the following sources in the IDI:
- Accident Compensation Corporation
- Inland Revenue
- Ministry of Education
- Ministry of Health
- Ministry of Social Development
- Household Economic Survey (Stats NZ)
- New Zealand Transport Authority
- Household Labour Force Survey (Stats NZ)
- Auckland City Mission.
Educational institution address information was provided by:
- Ministry of Education.
Please note that when examining educational institute address data for specific population groups within the subject population, the percentage that is from administrative data may differ from that for the overall subject population.
Missing and residual responses
‘No information’ in the data sources table is the percentage of the subject population coded to ‘not stated’. In 2018, the percentage of ‘not stated’ is zero due to the use of the additional data sources described above.
Responses that could not be classified or did not provide the type of information asked for, such as response unidentifiable, remain in the data, where we have been unable to find information from another source.
Percentage of ‘response unidentifiable’ for the census usually resident population in study:
- 2018: 0.22 percent.
Data quality processes
Overall quality rating: Moderate quality
Data was evaluated to assess whether it meets quality standards and is suitable for use.
Three quality metrics contributed to the overall quality rating:
- data sources and coverage
- consistency and coherence
- data quality.
The lowest rated metric determines the overall quality rating.
Data quality assurance for 2018 Census provides more information on the quality rating scale.
Data sources and coverage: High quality
We have assessed the quality of all the data sources that contribute to the output for the variable. To calculate a data sources and coverage quality score for a variable, each data source is rated and multiplied by the proportion it contributes to the total output.
The rating for a valid census response is defined as 1.00. Ratings for other sources are the best estimates available of their quality relative to a census response. Each source that contributes to the output for that variable is then multiplied by the proportion it contributes to the total output. The total score then determines the metric rating according to the following range:
- 98–100 = very high
- 95–<98 = high
- 90–<95 = moderate
- 75–<90 = poor
- <75 = very poor.
Admin data was moderately comparable to 2018 Census responses. The high proportion of data from received forms in comparison to the low proportion sourced from admin data contributed to the score of 0.95, determining the high quality rating.
| Quality rating calculation table for the sources of educational institute address – 2018 Census usually resident population in study | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Rating | Percent of total | Score contribution |
| 2018 Census form | 1.00 | 86.42 | 0.86 |
| 2018 Census (missing from individual form) | 1.00 | 4.09 | 0.04 |
| Admin data | 0.50 | 9.49 | 0.05 |
| Total | 100.00 | 0.95 | |
| Due to rounding, individual figures may not always sum to the stated total(s) or score contributions. |
Consistency and coherence: Not applicable
There was no consistency and coherence rating in 2018. This is a new variable, so there is no data from previous censuses for comparison. There is also no other equivalent information or expectations.
Some comparisons were made against the number of enrolled students from the Ministry of Education administrative data. These showed the number of responses for large learning institutions were broadly comparable with the number of enrolled students, considering the low response rate.
Data quality: Moderate quality
The data quality checks for educational institution address included edits for consistency within the dataset and cross-tabulations to territorial authority level.
Based on data quality, the rating is moderate quality. There are some inconsistencies at lower geographic levels.
Analysis of usual residence and educational institution address at territorial authority level shows a small number of people studying in areas a long way from their usual residence address. This could be because the guidelines on how a person should respond to this question if they studied by distance learning were not clear. Primary or secondary school students at boarding school were instructed to give their home address, while tertiary students should have given the address where they lived during the term.
Online, respondents were routed away from writing in an educational institution address question if they selected ‘study at home’.
On paper forms, respondents could mark ‘study at home’ and write in an address. Some respondents who marked ‘study at home’ as their travel mode did not answer the educational institution address question, while others also marked a travel mode and stated their educational institution address.
Almost a quarter of educational institution address responses could not be matched to a specific meshblock. These addresses were classified as ‘not further defined’ within the territorial authority or regional council of the individual’s usual residence.
Recommendations for use and further information
Educational institution address information is used to measure traffic flows and plan transport services. This question collects information about the full range of educational institutions, from preschools through to night courses, if the respondent considered themselves or their children to be studying or attending a place of education.
Large distances between individuals’ usual residence address and educational institution address can be legitimate, depending on where a respondent decides to tell us that they ‘usually’ live, for example tertiary students studying away from the family home, or how they study, for example distance learning.
Contact our Information Centre for further information about using this variable.
Representation
Concept
Transport
en-NZ
