Telling Canada’s 

story in numbers

Tom Haymes

Denis Malo

July 2018

The Use of Receipts in the Survey 

of Household Spending Diary

www.statcan.gc.ca
2 01/08/2018

The Survey of Household Spending

 Annual, voluntary survey of approximately 

17,500 households

 Redesigned in 2010

 Collects information on household expenditure 

using both a personal interview and an 

expenditure diary
3 01/08/2018

The Survey of Household Spending

 Personal Interview 

• CAPI 

• Collects common or major expenses (rent, utilities, 

furniture, etc.)  about 70% of household 

consumption

• Varying recall periods dependent on frequency of 

expense (12 month, 3 month, 1 month or last 

payment)

• Approximately an hour in length

• 65% interview response rate (2016)
4 01/08/2018

The Survey of Household Spending

 Expenditure Diary 

• 50% subsample of original interview sample

• Collects frequent expenditure and expenditure that 

would be difficult to recall during retrospective 

interview (food, gas, tobacco, alcohol, etc.) 

• Approximately 30% of household consumption 

 Receipts account for 12% of total household consumption

• Two weeks in length

• One diary per household

• 43% overall diary response rate, 65% when including 

only interview respondents (2016)
5 01/08/2018

Collection, Scanning and Capture of the Receipts

 Respondents can provide a combination of transcriptions 

and receipts

 Diary booklet and receipts are scanned into two 

separate files

 Booklet captured using OCR but receipts are currently 

captured manually from scanned image

• Varying receipt formats initially prohibited auto capture, 

probably possible with recent technological advances

 Illegible (faded) receipts are rare  flagged for 

imputation
6 01/08/2018

Capture of the Receipts

 Prior to capture all receipts are manually 

reviewed to ensure:

1) Within diary reference period

2) Transaction was approved

3) No duplication 

• Within receipts (store receipt and debit slip)

• Between receipts and transcriptions

 Respondents are specifically reminded to submit a 

transcription or a receipt for each item, not both  still, 30% 

of receipts correspond to a transcription
7 01/08/2018

Coding of Diary Items

 Coding assigns one of over 650 SHS codes to 

each item to classify the expenditure

 Automated process in place to match description 

to data dictionary containing common item 

descriptions with corresponding SHS code

• Currently requires an exact match but method could 

be improved

• Items not autocoded are coded manually
8 01/08/2018

Coding of Diary Items

 Transcriptions have consistently autocoded 

better than receipts

• Steady 9%-10% difference since 2014

 Likely due to exact match requirement

• Receipts often contain more acronyms and 

abbreviations in the description

• Receipts often include a brand name or 

volume/weight

 Room for improvement for both transcriptions 

and receipts, but especially receipts

• Possible to close the gap? 
9 01/08/2018

Respondent Reporting Profiles

Respondent Type Diary 

Count

Diary 

Percent

Average 

Expenditure

Average 

Diary Items

Receipts and Transcriptions 7185 56.1% $646.81 88.5

Transcriptions Only 4324 33.7% $575.44 61.7

Receipts Only 1227 9.6% $469.60 74.6

Empty Diaries 80 0.6% $0.00 0.0

Total 12816 100.0% $601.73 77.6

Source: SHS 2013 – 2015 post imputation

 Respondents that provide both receipts and 

transcriptions exhibit the most expenditure

Diary Respondent Type
10 01/08/2018

Respondent Burden

 Opposite splits for items and expenditure suggest 

respondents prefer to use receipts when there are a 

large number of smaller priced items

• i.e. groceries (59% receipt expenditure) vs gasoline (24% receipt 

expenditure)

Source: SHS 2013 – 2015 post imputation

Reporting Mode Items Expenditure

Transcription 391,889 42.8% $4,622,402 60.0%

Receipt 522,896 57.2% $3,087,588 40.0%

Total 914,785 100.0% $7,709,990 100.0%

Diary Reporting Mode
11 01/08/2018

Respondent Burden

Response Fatigue by Reporting Mode

Source: SHS 2013 – 2015 post imputation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average Household Expenditure ($)

Diary Day

Receipts Transcriptions Total
12 01/08/2018

Respondent Burden

Response Fatigue by Respondent Type

Source: SHS 2013 – 2015 post imputation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average Household Expenditure ($)

Diary Day

Receipts Only Transcriptions Only Receipts and Transcriptions
13 01/08/2018

Respondent Burden

 Response fatigue exists for both response 

modes and all three respondent types

 Contrary to expected results

• Why isn’t response fatigue less evident in receipts?

• Embedded experiment would give more reliable 

conclusions on the effects of receipts on expenditure 

reporting, response fatigue and response rates
14 01/08/2018

Data Quality

 Transcriptions much more likely to give insufficient detail

 More uncertainty involved in transcription imputation too 

• Tend to be imputed from a higher level (i.e. totals)

Source: SHS 2013 – 2015 post imputation

Reporting Mode

Number of Items Expenditure

Imputation Required Imputation Required

Transcription 193,978 49.5% $1,620,951 35.1%

Receipt 46,765 8.9% $399,062 12.9%

Total 240,743 26.3% $2,020,013 26.2%

Overall Imputation Rates by Reporting Mode
15 01/08/2018

Conclusion – Advantages of Receipts

 Respondent:

• Reduces burden and increases flexibility

 Agency:

• Significant gains in the level of information obtained 

from respondents

 35% of transcription expenditure required imputation 

compared to 13% of receipt expenditure (50% vs 9% for item 

imputation)

• Possibility of increased participation?  Experiment 

required

 Better response rates? Less response fatigue? Better 

expenditure reporting?
16 01/08/2018

Conclusion – Disadvantages of Receipts

 Respondent:

• None!

 Agency:

• Transfer of burden from respondent to agency

 Manual capture of receipts  Auto capture possible?

 Decreased auto coding rates  Better linkage methodology?

 Increase in duplication
17 01/08/2018

Conclusion

 SHS diary functions best with a combination of 

receipts and transcriptions

• Transcription only diary would decrease data quality

• Receipt only diary would underrepresent expenditure 

where receipts are uncommon

 i.e. occasional babysitting, prepared coffee

 Lost receipts
18 01/08/2018

Thank You

 For more information,  Pour plus d’information,

please contact: veuillez contacter :

Tom Haymes: tom.haymes@canada.ca

Denis Malo: denis.malo@canada.ca

 Corresponding document available upon request