Family Resources Survey: quality assessment report
This report provides quality assessments of the data sources used in the Family Resources Survey. It considers the data from collection, processing and analysis, to publication.
Documents
Details
Statistics produced from administrative data can use the Quality Assurance of Administrative Data (QAAD) toolkit to provide assurance of data quality to users. This report provides users of the FRS dataset with a similar framework of assurance for survey data. As such, FRS data has been assessed against the 4 specific areas for assurance included in the QAAD toolkit. These have been adapted to apply to survey data.
The report also recognises the development of the FRS to make use of administrative data to improve quality.
Updates to this page
-
The Quality Assessment Report has been updated as below: FRS main strengths and Limitation The updated FRS main strengths - reaffirming its large, robust sample and continued low standard errors, despite falling response rates, while retaining core features such as a tailored stratified design, face‑to‑face interviewing, strong communication across survey and data teams, and rigorous data processing. The revisions emphasise the survey ability to capture sensitive information and clarify that high‑quality administrative datasets are now used not only to edit but, where suitable, to replace survey‑reported benefit data. Ongoing engagement with policy and academic experts continues, with independent quality assurance now explicitly noted. The updated limitations reiterate declining response rates and the resulting risk of bias, note that robust analysis remains restricted to regional level, highlight the continued burden of a lengthy questionnaire, and confirm that the large number of variables collected means not all items can be individually quality‑assured In the Benefit-related administrative data sources section: The updated wording reiterates that improvements in lawful data‑linking provisions and investment in methodology now allow at least 95% of FRS respondents to be linked to admin data sources, enabling substantial gains in data quality, timeliness, and cost efficiency. Figure 1 is updated to show the admin data sources used. In the Sample design in Great Britain: The updated narrative keeps the same description of the stratified two‑stage sampling approach but notes a reduction in selected postcode sectors from 3,407 to 1,963, while still selecting PSUs with probability proportional to size and stratifying them by regions and Census‑based variables to ensure population representation. Communication with data supply partners: In the communication with data supply partners, a section for Data supply from administrative sources other than the interview is added.
-
First published.
Update history
2026-03-26 09:30
The Quality Assessment Report has been updated as below:FRS main strengths and Limitation The updated FRS main strengths – reaffirming its large, robust sample and continued low standard errors, despite falling response rates, while retaining core features such as a tailored stratified design, face‑to‑face interviewing, strong communication across survey and data teams, and rigorous data processing. The revisions emphasise the survey ability to capture sensitive information and clarify that high‑quality administrative datasets are now used not only to edit but, where suitable, to replace survey‑reported benefit data. Ongoing engagement with policy and academic experts continues, with independent quality assurance now explicitly noted. The updated limitations reiterate declining response rates and the resulting risk of bias, note that robust analysis remains restricted to regional level, highlight the continued burden of a lengthy questionnaire, and confirm that the large number of variables collected means not all items can be individually quality‑assured In the Benefit-related administrative data sources section: The updated wording reiterates that improvements in lawful data‑linking provisions and investment in methodology now allow at least 95% of FRS respondents to be linked to admin data sources, enabling substantial gains in data quality, timeliness, and cost efficiency. Figure 1 is updated to show the admin data sources used. In the Sample design in Great Britain: The updated narrative keeps the same description of the stratified two‑stage sampling approach but notes a reduction in selected postcode sectors from 3,407 to 1,963, while still selecting PSUs with probability proportional to size and stratifying them by regions and Census‑based variables to ensure population representation. Communication with data supply partners: In the communication with data supply partners, a section for Data supply from administrative sources other than the interview is added.
2025-03-27 09:30
First published.