This dataset contains polygons that represent the boundaries of statistical neighborhoods as defined by the DC Department of Health (DC Health). DC Health delineates statistical neighborhoods to facilitate small-area analyses and visualization of health, economic, social, and other indicators to display and uncover disparate outcomes among populations across the city. The neighborhoods are also used to determine eligibility for some health services programs and support research by various entities within and outside of government. DC Health Planning Neighborhood boundaries follow census tract 2010 lines defined by the US Census Bureau. Each neighborhood is a group of between one and seven different, contiguous census tracts. This allows for easier comparison to Census data and calculation of rates per population (including estimates from the American Community Survey and Annual Population Estimates). These do not reflect precise neighborhood locations and do not necessarily include all commonly-used neighborhood designations. There is no formal set of standards that describes which neighborhoods are included in this dataset. Note that the District of Columbia does not have official neighborhood boundaries. Origin of boundaries: each neighborhood is a group of between one and seven different, contiguous census tracts. They were originally determined in 2015 as part of an analytical research project with technical assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) to define small area estimates of life expectancy. Census tracts were grouped roughly following the Office of Planning Neighborhood Cluster boundaries, where possible, and were made just large enough to achieve standard errors of less than 2 for each neighborhood's calculation of life expectancy. The resulting neighborhoods were used in the DC Health Equity Report (2018) with updated names. HPNs were modified slightly in 2019, incorporating one census tract that was consistently suppressed due to low numbers into a neighboring HPN (Lincoln Park incorporated into Capitol Hill). Demographic information were analyzed to identify the bordering group with the most similarities to the single census tract. A second change split a neighborhood (GWU/National Mall) into two to facilitate separate analysis.

Abstract

The 1994 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is a follow-on project to the 1987 National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (NICPS) and to the 1991 IDHS. The 1994 IDHS was significantly expanded from prior surveys to include two new modules in the women's questionnaire, namely maternal mortality and awareness of AIDS. The survey also investigated the availability of family planning and health services, which provides an opportunity for linking women's fertility, family planning and child health care with the availability of services. The 1994 IDHS also included a household expenditure module, which provides a means of identifying the household's economic status.

The 1994 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - Provide data concerning fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, maternal mortality and awareness of AIDS that can be used by program managers, policymakers, and researchers to evaluate and improve existing programs; - Provide data about availability of family planning and health services, thereby offering an opportunity for linking women's fertility, family planning and child-care behavior with the availability of services; - Provide data on household expenditures, which can be used to identify the household's economic status; - Provide data that can be used to analyze trends over time by examining many of the same fertility, mortality and health issues that were addressed in the earlier surveys (1987 NICPS and 1991 IDHS); - Measure changes in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates and at the same time study factors that affect the changes, such as marriage patterns, urban/rural residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and the availability of contraception; - Measure the development and achievements of programs related to health policy, particularly those concerning the maternal and child health development program implemented through public health clinics in Indonesia.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

Indonesia is divided into 27 provinces. For the implementation of its family planning program, the National Family Planning Coordinating Board (BKKBN) has divided these provinces into three regions as follows:

• Java-Bali: DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, DI Yogyakarta, East Java, and Bali
• Outer Java-Bali I: Dista Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, Lampung, West Nusa Tenggara, West Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, and South Sulawesi
• Outer Java-Bali II: Riau, Jambi, Bengkulu, East Nusa Tenggara, East Timer, Central Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Maluku, and Irian Jaya

The 1990 Population Census of Indonesia shows that Java-Bali accounts for 62 percent of the national population, Outer Java-Bali I accounts for 27 percent, and Outer Java-Bali II accounts for 11 percent. The sample for the 1994 IDHS was designed to produce reliable estimates of fertility, contraceptive prevalence and other important variables for each of the provinces and for urban and rural areas of the three regions.

In order to meet this objective, between 1,650 and 2,050 households were selected in each of the provinces in Java-Bali, 1,250 to 1,500 households in the ten provinces in Outer Java-Bali I, and 1,000 to 1,250 households in each of the provinces in Outer Java-Bali II, for a total of 35,500 households. With an average of 0.8 ever-married women 15-49 per household, the sample was expected to yield approximately 28,000 women eligible for the individual interview.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 1994 IDHS used four questionnaires--three at the household level and one at the community level. The three questionnaires administered at the household level are the household questionnaire, an individual questionnaire for women, and the household expenditure questionnaire. The household and individual questionnaires were based on the DHS Model "A" Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. A deviation from the standard DHS practice is the exclusion of the anthropometric measurement of young children and their mothers. Topics covered in the 1994 IDHS that were not included in the 1991 IDHS are knowledge of AIDS and maternal mortality. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaire were made in order to provide detailed information specific to Indonesia. Except for the household expenditure module, the questionnaires were developed mainly in English and were translated into Babasa Indonesia. The household expenditure schedule was adapted from the core Susenas questionnaire model. Susenas is a national household survey carried out annually by BPS to collect data on various demographic and socioeconomic indicators of the population.

Cleaning operations

The first stage of data editing was carried out by the field editors who checked the completed questionnaires for thoroughness and accuracy. Field supervisors then further examined the questionnaires. In many instances, the teams sent the questionnaires to CBS through the regency/municipality statistics offices. In these cases, no checking was done by the PSO. At CBS, the questionnaires underwent another round of editing, primarily for completeness and coding of responses to open-ended questions.

The data were processed using 16 microcomputers and the DHS computer program, ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis). Data entry and office editing were initiated immediately after fieldwork began. Simple range and skip errors were corrected at the data entry stage. Data processing was completed by November 1994, and the preliminary report of the survey was published in January 1995.

Response rate

A total of 35,510 households were selected for the survey, of which 34,060 were found. Of the encountered households, 33,738 (99.1 percent) were successfully interviewed. In these households, 28,800 eligible women were identified and complete interviews were obtained from 28,168 women, or 97.8 percent of all eligible women. Generally high response rates for both household and individual interviews were due mainly to the strict enforcement of the role to revisit the originally selected household if no one was at home initially. No substitution for the originally selected households was allowed. Interviewers were instructed to make at least three visits in an effort to contact the household or eligible woman.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) non-sampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Non-sampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during implementation of the 1994 IDHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 1994 IDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 1994 IDHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 1994 IDHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module. This module uses the Taylor linearization method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jacknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar years - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the report which is presented in this documentation.

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2012 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is to provide policymakers and program managers with national- and provincial-level data on representative samples of all women age 15-49 and currently-married men age 15-54.

The 2012 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: • Provide data on fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, adult mortality (including maternal mortality), and awareness of AIDS/STIs to program managers, policymakers, and researchers to help them evaluate and improve existing programs; • Measure trends in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, and analyze factors that affect such changes, such as marital status and patterns, residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and knowledge, use, and availability of contraception; • Evaluate the achievement of goals previously set by national health programs, with special focus on maternal and child health; • Assess married men’s knowledge of utilization of health services for their family’s health, as well as participation in the health care of their families; • Participate in creating an international database that allows cross-country comparisons that can be used by the program managers, policymakers, and researchers in the areas of family planning, fertility, and health in general

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49
• Ever married men age 15-54
• Never married men age 15-24

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Indonesia is divided into 33 provinces. Each province is subdivided into districts (regency in areas mostly rural and municipality in urban areas). Districts are subdivided into subdistricts, and each subdistrict is divided into villages. The entire village is classified as urban or rural.

The 2012 IDHS sample is aimed at providing reliable estimates of key characteristics for women age 15-49 and currently-married men age 15-54 in Indonesia as a whole, in urban and rural areas, and in each of the 33 provinces included in the survey. To achieve this objective, a total of 1,840 census blocks (CBs)-874 in urban areas and 966 in rural areas-were selected from the list of CBs in the selected primary sampling units formed during the 2010 population census.

Because the sample was designed to provide reliable indicators for each province, the number of CBs in each province was not allocated in proportion to the population of the province or its urban-rural classification. Therefore, a final weighing adjustment procedure was done to obtain estimates for all domains. A minimum of 43 CBs per province was imposed in the 2012 IDHS design.

Refer to Appendix B in the final report for details of sample design and implementation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2012 IDHS used four questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire, the Currently Married Man’s Questionnaire, and the Never-Married Man’s Questionnaire. Because of the change in survey coverage from ever-married women age 15-49 in the 2007 IDHS to all women age 15-49 in the 2012 IDHS, the Woman’s Questionnaire now has questions for never-married women age 15-24. These questions were part of the 2007 Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Survey questionnaire.

The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires are largely based on standard DHS phase VI questionnaires (March 2011 version). The model questionnaires were adapted for use in Indonesia. Not all questions in the DHS model were adopted in the IDHS. In addition, the response categories were modified to reflect the local situation.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors who spent the previous night in the selected households. Basic information collected on each person listed includes age, sex, education, marital status, education, and relationship to the head of the household. Information on characteristics of the housing unit, such as the source of drinking water, type of toilet facilities, construction materials used for the floor, roof, and outer walls of the house, and ownership of various durable goods were also recorded in the Household Questionnaire. These items reflect the household’s socioeconomic status and are used to calculate the household wealth index. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for an individual interview.

The Woman’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from all women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: • Background characteristics (marital status, education, media exposure, etc.) • Reproductive history and fertility preferences • Knowledge and use of family planning methods • Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care • Breastfeeding and infant and young children feeding practices • Childhood mortality • Vaccinations and childhood illnesses • Marriage and sexual activity • Fertility preferences • Woman’s work and husband’s background characteristics • Awareness and behavior regarding HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) • Sibling mortality, including maternal mortality • Other health issues

Questions asked to never-married women age 15-24 addressed the following: • Additional background characteristics • Knowledge of the human reproduction system • Attitudes toward marriage and children • Role of family, school, the community, and exposure to mass media • Use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs • Dating and sexual activity

The Man’s Questionnaire was administered to all currently married men age 15-54 living in every third household in the 2012 IDHS sample. This questionnaire includes much of the same information included in the Woman’s Questionnaire, but is shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history or maternal and child health. Instead, men were asked about their knowledge of and participation in health-careseeking practices for their children.

The questionnaire for never-married men age 15-24 includes the same questions asked to nevermarried women age 15-24.

Cleaning operations

All completed questionnaires, along with the control forms, were returned to the BPS central office in Jakarta for data processing. The questionnaires were logged and edited, and all open-ended questions were coded. Responses were entered in the computer twice for verification, and they were corrected for computeridentified errors. Data processing activities were carried out by a team of 58 data entry operators, 42 data editors, 14 secondary data editors, and 14 data entry supervisors. A computer package program called Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro), which was specifically designed to process DHS-type survey data, was used in the processing of the 2012 IDHS.

Response rate

The response rates for both the household and individual interviews in the 2012 IDHS are high. A total of 46,024 households were selected in the sample, of which 44,302 were occupied. Of these households, 43,852 were successfully interviewed, yielding a household response rate of 99 percent.

Refer to Table 1.2 in the final report for more detailed summarized results of the of the 2012 IDHS fieldwork for both the household and individual interviews, by urban-rural residence.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2012 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (2012 IDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2012 IDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2012 IDHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the 2012 IDHS is a SAS program. This program used the Taylor linearization method

This dataset contains data from the P.L. 94-171 2020 Census Redistricting Program. The 2020 Census Redistricting Data Program provides states the opportunity to delineate voting districts and to suggest census block boundaries for use in the 2020 Census redistricting data tabulations (Public Law 94-171 Redistricting Data File). In addition, the Redistricting Data Program will periodically collect state legislative and congressional district boundaries if they are changed by the states. The program is also responsible for the effective delivery of the 2020 Census P.L. 94-171 Redistricting Data statutorily required by one year from Census Day. The program ensures continued dialogue with the states in regard to 2020 Census planning, thereby allowing states ample time for their planning, response, and participation. The U.S. Census Bureau will deliver the Public Law 94-171 redistricting data to all states by Sept. 30, 2021. COVID-19-related delays and prioritizing the delivery of the apportionment results delayed the Census Bureau’s original plan to deliver the redistricting data to the states by April 1, 2021.

Data in this dataset contains information on population, diversity, race, ethnicity, housing, household, vacancy rate for 2020 for various geographies (county, MCD, Philadelphia Planning Districts (referred to as county planning areas [CPAs] internally, Census designated places, tracts, block groups, and blocks)

For more information on the 2020 Census, visit https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/rdo/summary-files.html

PLEASE NOTE: 2020 Decennial Census data has had noise injected into it because of the Census's new Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS). This can mean that population counts and characteristics, especially when they are particularly small, may not exactly correspond to the data as collected. As such, caution should be exercised when examining areas with small counts. Ron Jarmin, acting director of the Census Bureau posted a discussion of the redistricting data, which outlines what to expect with the new DAS. For more details on accuracy you can read it here: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2021/07/redistricting-data.html

Abstract

The 1991 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is a nationally representative survey of ever-married women age 15-49. It was conducted between May and July 1991. The survey was designed to provide information on levels and trends of fertility, infant and child mortality, family planning and maternal and child health. The IDHS was carried out as collaboration between the Central Bureau of Statistics, the National Family Planning Coordinating Board, and the Ministry of Health. The IDHS is follow-on to the National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey conducted in 1987.

The DHS program has four general objectives: - To provide participating countries with data and analysis useful for informed policy choices; - To expand the international population and health database; - To advance survey methodology; and - To help develop in participating countries the technical skills and resources necessary to conduct demographic and health surveys.

In 1987 the National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (NICPS) was conducted in 20 of the 27 provinces in Indonesia, as part of Phase I of the DHS program. This survey did not include questions related to health since the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) had collected that information in the 1987 National Socioeconomic Household Survey (SUSENAS). The 1991 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) was conducted in all 27 provinces of Indonesia as part of Phase II of the DHS program. The IDHS received financial assistance from several sources.

The 1991 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - To provide data concerning fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health that can be used by program managers, policymakers, and researchers to evaluate and improve existing programs; - To measure changes in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates and at the same time study factors which affect the change, such as marriage patterns, urban/rural residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and the availability of contraception; - To measure the development and achievements of programs related to health policy, particularly those concerning the maternal and child health development program implemented through public health clinics in Indonesia.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Indonesia is divided into 27 provinces. For the implementation of its family planning program, the National Family Planning Coordinating Board (BKKBN) has divided these provinces into three regions as follows:

• Java-Bali: Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, Yogyakarta, East Java, and Bali
• Outer Java-Bali I: Aceh, North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, Lampung, West Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, North Sulawesi, South Sulawesi, and West Nusa Tenggara
• Outer Java-Bali II: Riau, Jambi, Bengkulu, East Nusa Tenggara, East Timor, Central Kalimantan, East Kalimantan, Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Maluku, and Irian Jaya.

The 1990 Population Census of Indonesia shows that Java-Bali contains about 62 percent of the national population, while Outer Java-Bali I contains 27 percent and Outer Java-Bali II contains 11 percent. The sample for the Indonesia DHS survey was designed to produce reliable estimates of contraceptive prevalence and several other major survey variables for each of the 27 provinces and for urban and rural areas of the three regions.

In order to accomplish this goal, approximately 1500 to 2000 households were selected in each of the provinces in Java-Bali, 1000 households in each of the ten provinces in Outer Java-Bali I, and 500 households in each of the 11 provinces in Outer Java-Bali II for a total of 28,000 households. With an average of 0.8 eligible women (ever-married women age 15-49) per selected household, the 28,000 households were expected to yield approximately 23,000 individual interviews.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The DHS model "A" questionnaire and manuals were modified to meet the requirements of measuring family planning and health program attainment, and were translated into Bahasa Indonesia.

Cleaning operations

The first stage of data editing was done by the field editors who checked the completed questionnaires for completeness and accuracy. Field supervisors also checked the questionnaires. They were then sent to the central office in Jakarta where they were edited again and open-ended questions were coded. The data were processed using 11 microcomputers and ISSA (Integrated System for Survey Analysis).

Data entry and editing were initiated almost immediately after the beginning of fieldwork. Simple range and skip errors were corrected at the data entry stage. Secondary machine editing of the data was initiated as soon as sufficient questionnaires had been entered. The objective of the secondary editing was to detect and correct, if possible, inconsistencies in the data. All of the data were entered and edited by September 1991. A brief report containing preliminary survey results was published in November 1991.

Response rate

Of 28,141 households sampled, 27,109 were eligible to be interviewed (excluding those that were absent, vacant, or destroyed), and of these, 26,858 or 99 percent of eligible households were successfully interviewed. In the interviewed households, 23,470 eligible women were found and complete interviews were obtained with 98 percent of these women.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The results from sample surveys are affected by two types of errors, non-sampling error and sampling error. Non-sampling error is due to mistakes made in carrying out field activities, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, errors in the way the questions are asked, misunderstanding on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, data entry errors, etc. Although efforts were made during the design and implementation of the IDHS to minimize this type of error, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate analytically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be measured statistically. The sample of women selected in the IDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each one would have yielded results that differed somewhat from the actual sample selected. The sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples; although it is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results. Sampling error is usually measured in terms of standard error of a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which one can reasonably be assured that, apart from non-sampling errors, the true value of the variable for the whole population falls. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that same statistic as measured in 95 percent of all possible samples with the same design (and expected size) will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic.

If the sample of women had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the IDHS sample design depended on stratification, stages and clusters. Consequently, it was necessary to utilize more complex formulas. The computer package CLUSTERS, developed by the International Statistical Institute for the World Fertility Survey, was used to assist in computing the sampling errors with the proper statistical methodology.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age distribution - Age distribution of eligible and interviewed women - Completeness of reporting - Births by calendar year since birth - Reporting of age at death in days - Reporting of age at death in months

Note: See detailed tables in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

This feature layer provides a demographic snapshot of vulnerable age groups—children and seniors—within the area. This information is useful for planning age-specific services, public health initiatives, and infrastructure improvements tailored to the needs of younger and older residents.Data Owner & Organization: Austin Transit Partnership - Planning, Community, & Federal Programs teamData Source Details: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2023Data Refresh Schedule: This data was used for the Implementation Plan published in May 2023. It will not be refreshed. ATP Data Classification: Public; this data can be shared publicly.

Abstract

The Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys Program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health.

The primary objective of the 2012 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) is to provide reliable estimates of demographic parameters, such as fertility, mortality, family planning, and fertility preferences, as well as maternal and child health and nutrition, that can be used by program managers and policymakers to evaluate and improve existing programs. The JPFHS data will be useful to researchers and scholars interested in analyzing demographic trends in Jordan, as well as those conducting comparative, regional, or cross-national studies.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Women age 15-49

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design The 2012 JPFHS sample was designed to produce reliable estimates of major survey variables for the country as a whole, urban and rural areas, each of the 12 governorates, and for the two special domains: the Badia areas and people living in refugee camps. To facilitate comparisons with previous surveys, the sample was also designed to produce estimates for the three regions (North, Central, and South). The grouping of the governorates into regions is as follows: the North consists of Irbid, Jarash, Ajloun, and Mafraq governorates; the Central region consists of Amman, Madaba, Balqa, and Zarqa governorates; and the South region consists of Karak, Tafiela, Ma'an, and Aqaba governorates.

The 2012 JPFHS sample was selected from the 2004 Jordan Population and Housing Census sampling frame. The frame excludes the population living in remote areas (most of whom are nomads), as well as those living in collective housing units such as hotels, hospitals, work camps, prisons, and the like. For the 2004 census, the country was subdivided into convenient area units called census blocks. For the purposes of the household surveys, the census blocks were regrouped to form a general statistical unit of moderate size (30 households or more), called a "cluster", which is widely used in surveys as a primary sampling unit (PSU).

Stratification was achieved by first separating each governorate into urban and rural areas and then, within each urban and rural area, by Badia areas, refugee camps, and other. A two-stage sampling procedure was employed. In the first stage, 806 clusters were selected with probability proportional to the cluster size, that is, the number of residential households counted in the 2004 census. A household listing operation was then carried out in all of the selected clusters, and the resulting lists of households served as the sampling frame for the selection of households in the second stage. In the second stage of selection, a fixed number of 20 households was selected in each cluster with an equal probability systematic selection. A subsample of two-thirds of the selected households was identified for anthropometry measurements.

Refer to Appendix A in the final report (Jordan Population and Family Health Survey 2012) for details of sampling weights calculation.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2012 JPFHS used two questionnaires, namely the Household Questionnaire and the Woman’s Questionnaire (see Appendix D). The Household Questionnaire was used to list all usual members of the sampled households, and visitors who slept in the household the night before the interview, and to obtain information on each household member’s age, sex, educational attainment, relationship to the head of the household, and marital status. In addition, questions were included on the socioeconomic characteristics of the household, such as source of water, sanitation facilities, and the availability of durable goods. Moreover, the questionnaire included questions about child discipline. The Household Questionnaire was also used to identify women who were eligible for the individual interview (ever-married women age 15-49 years). In addition, all women age 15-49 and children under age 5 living in the subsample of households were eligible for height and weight measurement and anemia testing.

The Woman’s Questionnaire was administered to ever-married women age 15-49 and collected information on the following topics: • Respondent’s background characteristics • Birth history • Knowledge, attitudes, and practice of family planning and exposure to family planning messages • Maternal health (antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care) • Immunization and health of children under age 5 • Breastfeeding and infant feeding practices • Marriage and husband’s background characteristics • Fertility preferences • Respondent’s employment • Knowledge of AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) • Other health issues specific to women • Early childhood development • Domestic violence

In addition, information on births, pregnancies, and contraceptive use and discontinuation during the five years prior to the survey was collected using a monthly calendar.

The Household and Woman’s Questionnaires were based on the model questionnaires developed by the MEASURE DHS program. Additions and modifications to the model questionnaires were made in order to provide detailed information specific to Jordan. The questionnaires were then translated into Arabic.

Anthropometric data were collected during the 2012 JPFHS in a subsample of two-thirds of the selected households in each cluster. All women age 15-49 and children age 0-4 in these households were measured for height using Shorr height boards and for weight using electronic Seca scales. In addition, a drop of capillary blood was taken from these women and children in the field to measure their hemoglobin level using the HemoCue system. Hemoglobin testing was used to estimate the prevalence of anemia.

Cleaning operations

Fieldwork and data processing activities overlapped. Data processing began two weeks after the start of the fieldwork. After field editing of questionnaires for completeness and consistency, the questionnaires for each cluster were packaged together and sent to the central office in Amman, where they were registered and stored. Special teams were formed to carry out office editing and coding of the openended questions.

Data entry and verification started after two weeks of office data processing. The process of data entry, including 100 percent reentry, editing, and cleaning, was done by using PCs and the CSPro (Census and Survey Processing) computer package, developed specially for such surveys. The CSPro program allows data to be edited while being entered. Data processing operations were completed by early January 2013. A data processing specialist from ICF International made a trip to Jordan in February 2013 to follow up on data editing and cleaning and to work on the tabulation of results for the survey preliminary report, which was published in March 2013. The tabulations for this report were completed in April 2013.

Response rate

In all, 16,120 households were selected for the survey and, of these, 15,722 were found to be occupied households. Of these households, 15,190 (97 percent) were successfully interviewed.

In the households interviewed, 11,673 ever-married women age 15-49 were identified and interviews were completed with 11,352 women, or 97 percent of all eligible women.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2012 Jordan Population and Family Health Survey (JPFHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2012 JPFHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and identical size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling error is a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2012 JPFHS sample is the result of a multistage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer

Abstract

The Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) is a national sample survey designed to provide information on fertility, family planning and health in Ghana. The survey, which was conducted by the Statistical Service of Ghana, is part of a worldwide programme coordinated by the Institute for Resource Development/Macro Systems, Inc., in more than 40 countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The short-term objectives of the Ghana Demographic and Health Survey (GDHS) are to provide policymakers and those implementing policy with current data on fertility levels, knowledge and use of contraception, reproductive intentions of women 15-49, and health indicators. The information will also serve as the basis for monitoring and evaluating programmes initiated by the government such as the extended programme on immunization, child nutrition, and the family planning programme. The long-term objectives are to enhance the country's ability to undertake surveys of excellent technical quality that seek to measure changes in fertility levels, health status (particularly of children), and the extent of contraceptive knowledge and use. Finally, the results of the survey will form part of an international data base for researchers investigating topics related to the above issues.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The 150 clusters from which a representative sample of women aged 15-49 was selected from a subsample of the 200 clusters used for the Ghana Living Standards Survey (GLSS). All census Enumeration Areas (EAs) were first stratified by ecological zones into 3 strata, namely Coastal Savanna, Forest, and Northern Savanna. These were further stratified into urban, semi-urban, and rural EAs. The EAs (in some cases, segments of EAs) were then selected with probability proportional to the number of households. All households in the selected EAs were subsequently listed.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

Three different types of questionnaires were used for the GDHS. These were the household, individual and the husband questionnaires. The household and the individual questionnaires were adapted from the Model "B" Questionnaire for the DHS program. The GDHS is one of the few surveys in which special effort was made to collect information from husbands of interviewed women on such topics as fertility preferences, knowledge and use of contraception, and environmental and health related issues.

All usual members and visitors in the selected households were listed on the household questionnaire. Recorded in the household questionnaire were data on the age and sex of all listed persons in addition to information on fostering for children aged 0-14. Eligible women and eligible husbands were also identified in the household questionnaire.

The individual questionnaire was used to collect data on eligible women. Eligible women were definedas those aged 15-49 years who spent the night prior to the household interview in the selected household, irrespective of whether they were usual members of the household or not. Items of information collected in this questionnaire are as follows: 1) Respondent's Background 2) Reproductive Behavior 3) Knowledge and Use of Contraception 4) Health and Breastfeeding 5) Marriage 6) Fertility Preferences 7) Husband's Background and Women's Work 8) Weight and Height of Children Aged 3-36 Months.

In half of the selected clusters a husband's questionnaire was used to collect data on eligible husbands. Eligible husbands were defined as those who were co-resident with their wives and whose wives had been successfully interviewed. Data on the husband's background, contraceptive knowledge and use, as well as fertility preferences were collected.

All three questionnaires were translated into seven local languages, namely, Twi, Fante, Nzema, Ga, Ewe, Hausa and Dagbani. All the GDHS interviewers were able to conduct interviews in English and at least one local language. The questionnaires were pretested from mid-October to early November 1987. Five teams were used for the pretest fieldwork. These included 19 persons who were trained for 11 days.

Cleaning operations

Completed questionnaires were collected weekly from the regions by the field coordinators. Coding, data entry and machine editing went on concurrently at the Ghana Statistical Service in Accra as the fieldwork progressed. Coding and data entry were started in March 1988 and were completed by the end of June 1988. Preliminary tabulations were produced by mid-July 1988, and by August 1988 preliminary results of the survey were published.

Response rate

Of the 4966 households selected, 4406 were successfully interviewed. Excluding 9 percent of households that were vacant, absent, etc., the household response rate is 98 percent.

Out of 4574 eligible women in the household schedule, 4488 were interviewed successfully. The response rate at the individual level is 98 percent. Of the 997 eligible husbands, 943 were successfully interviewed, representing a response rate of 95 percent.

Sampling error estimates

The results from sample surveys are affected by two types of errors: non-sampling error and sampling error. The former is due to mistakes in implementing the field activities, such as failing to locate and interview the correct household, errors in asking questions, data entry errors, etc. While numerous steps were taken to minimize this sort of error in the GDHS, non-sampling errors are impossible to avoid entirely, and are difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of women selected in the GDHS is only one of many samples of the same size that could have been drawn from the population using the same design. Each sample would have yielded slightly different results from the sample actually selected. The variability observed among all possible samples constitutes sampling error, which can be estimated from survey results (though not measured exactly).

Sampling error is usually measured in terms of the "standard error" (SE) of a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance of the statistic across all possible samples of equal size and design. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which one can be reasonably sure the true value of the variable for the whole population falls. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that same statistic as measured in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic.

If simple random sampling had been used to select women for the GDHS, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the GDHS sample design used three stages and clusters of households, and it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Therefore, the computer package CLUSTERS, developed for the World Fertility Survey, and was used to compute sampling errors.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX C of the survey report.

This dataset contains census tract-level social determinants of health (SDOH) measures from the American Community Survey 5-year data for the entire United States—50 states and the District of Columbia. Data were downloaded from data.census.gov using Census API and processed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Population Health, Epidemiology and Surveillance Branch. The project was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in conjunction with the CDC Foundation. These measures complement existing PLACES measures, including PLACES SDOH measures (e.g., health insurance, routine check-up). These data can be used together with PLACES data to identify which health and SDOH issues overlap in a community to help inform public health planning. To access spatial data, please use the ArcGIS Online service: https://cdcarcgis.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=d51009ea78b54635be95c6ec9955ec17.

DVRPC manually adjusted TIGER MCD dataset by adding Philly Planning District boundaries. To get the Planning District boundaries, census tracts were dissolved into most appropriate CPA geography. (Planning Districts are sometime referred to as County Planning Areas at DVRPC) Updated in Jan 2023 to reflect Pine Valley/Pine Hill merger (Pine Valley was incorporated into Pine Hill) The TIGER/Line shapefiles and related database files (.dbf) are an extract of selected geographic and cartographic information from the U.S. Census Bureau's Master Address File / Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database (MTDB). The MTDB represents a seamless national file with no overlaps or gaps between parts, however, each TIGER/Line shapefile is designed to stand alone as an independent data set, or they can be combined to cover the entire nation. Census tracts are small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county or equivalent entity, and were defined by local participants as part of the 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program. The Census Bureau delineated the census tracts in situations where no local participant existed or where all the potential participants declined to participate. The primary purpose of census tracts is to provide a stable set of geographic units for the presentation of census data and comparison back to previous decennial censuses. Census tracts generally have a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. When first delineated, census tracts were designed to be homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. The spatial size of census tracts varies widely depending on the density of settlement. Physical changes in street patterns caused by highway construction, new development, and so forth, may require boundary revisions. In addition, census tracts occasionally are split due to population growth, or combined as a result of substantial population decline. Census tract boundaries generally follow visible and identifiable features. They may follow legal boundaries such as minor civil division (MCD) or incorporated place boundaries in some States and situations to allow for census tract-to-governmental unit relationships where the governmental boundaries tend to remain unchanged between censuses. State and county boundaries always are census tract boundaries in the standard census geographic hierarchy. In a few rare instances, a census tract may consist of noncontiguous areas. These noncontiguous areas may occur where the census tracts are coextensive with all or parts of legal entities that are themselves noncontiguous. For the 2010 Census, the census tract code range of 9400 through 9499 was enforced for census tracts that include a majority American Indian population according to Census 2000 data and/or their area was primarily covered by federally recognized American Indian reservations and/or off-reservation trust lands; the code range 9800 through 9899 was enforced for those census tracts that contained little or no population and represented a relatively large special land use area such as a National Park, military installation, or a business/industrial park; and the code range 9900 through 9998 was enforced for those census tracts that contained only water area, no land area. See https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/data/tiger/tgrshp2020/TGRSHP2020_TechDoc_Ch3.pdf for more information Downloaded from: https://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/TGRGDB20/ on August 13, 2020

Abstract

The principal objective of the Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) is to provide current and reliable data on fertility and family planning behavior, child mortality, children’s nutritional status, the utilization of maternal and child health services, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS. This information is essential for informed policy decisions, planning, monitoring, and evaluation of programs on health in general and reproductive health in particular at both the national and regional levels. A long-term objective of the survey is to strengthen the technical capacity of the Central Statistical Authority to plan, conduct, process, and analyze data from complex national population and health surveys. Moreover, the 2000 Ethiopia DHS is the first survey of its kind in the country to provide national and regional estimates on population and health that are comparable to data collected in similar surveys in other developing countries. As part of the worldwide DHS project, the Ethiopia DHS data add to the vast and growing international database on demographic and health variables. The Ethiopia DHS collected demographic and health information from a nationally representative sample of women and men in the reproductive age groups 15-49 and 15-59, respectively.

The Ethiopia DHS was carried out under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and was implemented by the Central Statistical Authority. ORC Macro provided technical assistance through its MEASURE DHS+ project. The survey was principally funded by the Essential Services for Health in Ethiopia (ESHE) project through a bilateral agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Funding was also provided by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-59

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

The Ethiopia DHS used the sampling frame provided by the list of census enumeration areas (EAs) with population and household information from the 1994 Population and Housing Census. A proportional sample allocation was discarded because this procedure yielded a distribution in which 80 percent of the sample came from three regions, 16 percent from four regions and 4 percent from five regions. To avoid such an uneven sample allocation among regions, it was decided that the sample should be allocated by region in proportion to the square root of the region's population size. Additional adjustments were made to ensure that the sample size for each region included at least 700 households, in order to yield estimates with reasonable statistical precision.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The Ethiopia DHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire, and the Men’s Questionnaire, which were based on model survey instruments developed for the international MEASURE DHS+ project. The questionnaires were specifically geared toward obtaining the kind of information needed by health and family planning program managers and policymakers. The model questionnaires were then adapted to local conditions and a number of additional questions specific to on-going health and family planning programs in Ethiopia were added. These questionnaires were developed in the English language and translated into the five principal languages in use in the country: Amarigna, Oromigna, Tigrigna, Somaligna, and Afarigna. They were then independently translated back to English and appropriate changes were made in the translation of questions in which the back-translated version did not compare well with the original English version. A pretest of all three questionnaires was conducted in the five local languages in November 1999.

All usual members in a selected household and visitors who stayed there the previous night were enumerated using the Household Questionnaire. Specifically, the Household Questionnaire obtained information on the relationship to the head of the household, residence, sex, age, marital status, parental survivorship, and education of each usual resident or visitor. This information was used to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. Women age 15-49 in all selected households and all men age 15-59 in every fifth selected household, whether usual residents or visitors, were deemed eligible, and were interviewed. The Household Questionnaire also obtained information on some basic socioeconomic indicators such as the number of rooms, the flooring material, the source of water, the type of toilet facilities, and the ownership of a variety of durable items. Information was also obtained on the use of impregnated bednets, and the salt used in each household was tested for its iodine content. All eligible women and all children born since Meskerem 1987 in the Ethiopian Calendar, which roughly corresponds to September 1994 in the Gregorian Calendar, were weighed and measured.

The Women’s Questionnaire collected information on female respondent’s background characteristics, reproductive history, contraceptive knowledge and use, antenatal, delivery and postnatal care, infant feeding practices, child immunization and health, marriage, fertility preferences, and attitudes about family planning, husband’s background characteristics and women’s work, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

The Men’s Questionnaire collected information on the male respondent’s background characteristics, reproduction, contraceptive knowledge and use, marriage, fertility preferences and attitudes about family planning, and knowledge of HIV/AIDS and STIs.

Response rate

A total of 14,642 households were selected for the Ethiopia DHS, of which 14,167 were found to be occupied. Household interviews were completed for 99 percent of the occupied households. A total of 15,716 eligible women from these households and 2,771 eligible men from every fifth household were identified for the individual interviews. The response rate for eligible women is slightly higher than for eligible men (98 percent compared with 94 percent, respectively). Interviews were successfully completed for 15,367 women and 2,607 men.

There is no difference by urban-rural residence in the overall response rate for eligible women; however, rural men are slightly more likely than urban men to have completed an interview (94 percent and 92 percent, respectively). The overall response rate among women by region is relatively high and ranges from 93 percent in the Affar Region to 99 percent in the Oromiya Region. The response rate among men ranges from 83 percent in the Affar Region to 98 percent in the Tigray and Benishangul-Gumuz regions.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table A.1.1 and Table A.1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the Ethiopia DHS to minimise this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the Ethiopia DHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability between all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

A sampling error is usually measured in terms of the standard error for a particular statistic (mean, percentage, etc.), which is the square root of the variance. The standard error can be used to calculate confidence intervals within which the true value for the population can reasonably be assumed to fall. For example, for any given statistic calculated from a sample survey, the value of that statistic will fall within a range of plus or minus two times the standard error of that statistic in 95 percent of all possible samples of identical size and design.

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the Ethiopia DHS sample is the result of a two-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulae. The computer software used to calculate sampling errors for the Ethiopia DHS is the ISSA Sampling Error Module (SAMPERR). This module used the Taylor linearisation method of variance estimation for survey estimates that are means or proportions. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: See detailed estimate of sampling error calculation in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data appraisal

Data Quality Tables - Household age

A computerized data set of demographic, economic and social data for 227 countries of the world. Information presented includes population, health, nutrition, mortality, fertility, family planning and contraceptive use, literacy, housing, and economic activity data. Tabular data are broken down by such variables as age, sex, and urban/rural residence. Data are organized as a series of statistical tables identified by country and table number. Each record consists of the data values associated with a single row of a given table. There are 105 tables with data for 208 countries. The second file is a note file, containing text of notes associated with various tables. These notes provide information such as definitions of categories (i.e. urban/rural) and how various values were calculated. The IDB was created in the U.S. Census Bureau''s International Programs Center (IPC) to help IPC staff meet the needs of organizations that sponsor IPC research. The IDB provides quick access to specialized information, with emphasis on demographic measures, for individual countries or groups of countries. The IDB combines data from country sources (typically censuses and surveys) with IPC estimates and projections to provide information dating back as far as 1950 and as far ahead as 2050. Because the IDB is maintained as a research tool for IPC sponsor requirements, the amount of information available may vary by country. As funding and research activity permit, the IPC updates and expands the data base content. Types of data include: * Population by age and sex * Vital rates, infant mortality, and life tables * Fertility and child survivorship * Migration * Marital status * Family planning Data characteristics: * Temporal: Selected years, 1950present, projected demographic data to 2050. * Spatial: 227 countries and areas. * Resolution: National population, selected data by urban/rural * residence, selected data by age and sex. Sources of data include: * U.S. Census Bureau * International projects (e.g., the Demographic and Health Survey) * United Nations agencies Links: * ICPSR: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/08490

The 2010 Census Production Settings Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (2023-04-03) is an intermediate output of the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) TopDown Algorithm (TDA) (as described in Abowd, J. et al [2022] https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.529e3cb9 , and implemented in https://github.com/uscensusbureau/DAS_2020_Redistricting_Production_Code). The NMF was produced using the official “production settings,” the final set of algorithmic parameters and privacy-loss budget allocations, that were used to produce the 2020 Census Redistricting Data (P.L. 94-171) Summary File and the 2020 Census Demographic and Housing Characteristics File.

The NMF consists of the full set of privacy-protected statistical queries (counts of individuals or housing units with particular combinations of characteristics) of confidential 2010 Census data relating to the redistricting data portion of the 2010 Demonstration Data Products Suite – Redistricting and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File – Production Settings (2023-04-03). These statistical queries, called “noisy measurements” were produced under the zero-Concentrated Differential Privacy framework (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016] https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02065; see also Dwork C. and Roth, A. [2014] https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~aaroth/Papers/privacybook.pdf) implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism (Cannone C., et al., [2023] https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00010), which added positive or negative integer-valued noise to each of the resulting counts. The noisy measurements are an intermediate stage of the TDA prior to the post-processing the TDA then performs to ensure internal and hierarchical consistency within the resulting tables. The Census Bureau has released these 2010 Census demonstration data to enable data users to evaluate the expected impact of disclosure avoidance variability on 2020 Census data. The 2010 Census Production Settings Redistricting Data (P.L.94-171) Demonstration Noisy Measurement File (2023-04-03) has been cleared for public dissemination by the Census Bureau Disclosure Review Board (CBDRB-FY22-DSEP-004).

The data includes zero-Concentrated Differentially Private (zCDP) (Bun, M. and Steinke, T [2016]) noisy measurements, implemented via the discrete Gaussian mechanism. These are estimated counts of individuals and housing units included in the 2010 Census Edited File (CEF), which includes confidential data initially collected in the 2010 Census of Population and Housing. The noisy measurements included in this file were subsequently post-processed by the TopDown Algorithm (TDA) to produce the 2010 Census Production Settings Privacy-Protected Microdata File - Redistricting (P.L. 94-171) and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (2023-04-03) (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/data-product-planning/2010-demonstration-data-products/04-Demonstration_Data_Products_Suite/2023-04-03/). As these 2010 Census demonstration data are intended to support study of the design and expected impacts of the 2020 Disclosure Avoidance System, the 2010 CEF records were pre-processed before application of the zCDP framework. This pre-processing converted the 2010 CEF records into the input-file format, response codes, and tabulation categories used for the 2020 Census, which differ in substantive ways from the format, response codes, and tabulation categories originally used for the 2010 Census.

The NMF provides estimates of counts of persons in the CEF by various characteristics and combinations of characteristics including their reported race and ethnicity, whether they were of voting age, whether they resided in a housing unit or one of 7 group quarters types, and their census block of residence after the addition of discrete Gaussian noise (with the scale parameter determined by the privacy-loss budget allocation for that particular query under zCDP). Noisy measurements of the counts of occupied and vacant housing units by census block are also included. Lastly, data on constraints—information into which no noise was infused by the Disclosure Avoidance System (DAS) and used by the TDA to post-process the noisy measurements into the 2010 Census Production Settings Privacy-Protected Microdata File - Redistricting (P.L. 94-171) and Demographic and Housing Characteristics File (2023-04-03) —are provided.

This data represents employment density at the block group level. In collaboration with the FTA, the Austin Light Rail DEIS was submitted to the EPA for review in January 2025. On January 10, 2025, the EPA published the Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. Please refer to the ATP website for more information about the DEIS and the data sources. Contact input@atptx.org if you require further assistance.Data Owner & Organization: Austin Transit Partnership - Planning & Federal Programs teamData Source Details: American Community Survey, US Census Bureau, 2022Data Refresh Schedule: All datasets in this package were accessed in June 2024 and will not be updated.ATP Data Classification: Public; this data is from a public dataset but is intended for internal program use.

Abstract

The primary objective of the 2006 DHS is to provide to the Department of Health (DOH), Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DNPM) and other relevant institutions and users with updated and reliable data on infant and child mortality, fertility preferences, family planning behavior, maternal mortality, utilization of maternal and child health services, knowledge of HIV/AIDS and behavior, sexually risk behavior and information on the general household amenities. This information contributes to policy planning, monitoring, and program evaluation for development at all levels of government particularly at the national and provincial levels. The information will also be used to assess the performance of government development interventions aimed at addressing the targets set out under the MDG and MTDS. The long-term objective of the survey is to technically strengthen the capacity of the NSO in conducting and analyzing the results of future surveys.

The successful conduct and completion of this survey is a result of the combined effort of individuals and institutions particularly in their participation and cooperation in the Users Advisory Committee (UAC) and the National Steering Committee (NSC) in the different phases of the survey.

The survey was conducted by the Population and Social Statistics Division of the National Statistical Office of PNG. The 2006 DHS was jointly funded by the Government of PNG and Donor Partners through ADB while technical assistance was provided by International Consultants and NSO Philippines.

Geographic coverage

National level Regional level Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women and men aged 15-50 years resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The primary focus of the 2006 DHS is to provide estimates of key population and health indicators at the national level. A secondary but important priority is to also provide estimates at the regional level, and for urban and rural areas respectively. The 2006 DHS employed the same survey methodology used in the 1996 DHS. The 2006 DHS sample was a two stage self-weighting systematic cluster sample of regions with the first stage being at the census unit level and the second stage at the household level. The 2000 Census frame comprised of a list of census units was used to select the sample of 10,000 households for the 2006 DHS.

A total of 667 clusters were selected from the four regions. All census units were listed in a geographic order within their districts, and districts within each province and the sample was selected accordingly through the use of appropriate sampling fraction. The distribution of households according to urban-rural sectors was as follows:

8,000 households were allocated to the rural areas of PNG. The proportional allocation was used to allocate the first 4,000 households to regions based on projected citizen household population in 2006. The other 4,000 households were allocated equally across all four regions to ensure that each region have sufficient sample for regional level analysis.

2,000 households were allocated to the urban areas of PNG using proportional allocation based on the 2006 projected urban citizen population. This allocation was to ensure that the most accurate estimates for urban areas are obtained at the national level.

All households in the selected census units were listed in a separate field operation from June to July 2006. From the list of households, 16 households were selected in the rural census units and 12 in the urban census units using systematic sampling. All women and men age 15-50 years who were either usual residents of the selected households or visitors present in the household on the night before the survey were eligible to be interviewed. Further information on the survey design is contained in Appendix A of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Three questionnaires were used in the 2006 DHS namely; the Household Questionnaire (HHQ), the Female Individual Questionnaire (FIQ) and the Male Individual Questionnaire (MIQ). The planning and development of these questionnaires involved close consultation with the UAC members comprising of the following line departments and agencies namely; Department of Health (DOH), Department of Education (DOE), Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DNPM), National Aids Council Secretariat (NACS), Department of Agriculture and Livestock (DAL), Department of Labour and Employment (DLE), University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG), National Research Institute (NRI) and representatives from Development partners.

The HHQ was designed to collect background information for all members of the selected households. This information was used to identify eligible female and male respondents for the respective individual questionnaires. Additional information on household amenities and services, and malaria prevention was also collected.

The FIQ contains questions on respondents background, including marriage and polygyny; birth history, maternal and child health, knowledge and use of contraception, fertility preferences, HIV/AIDS including new modules on sexual risk behaviour and attitudes to issues of well being. All females age 15-50 years identified from the HHQ were eligible for interview using this questionnaire.

The MIQ collected almost the same information as in the FIQ except for birth history. All males age 15-50 years identified from the HHQ were eligible to be interviewed using the MIQ.

Two pre-tests were carried out aimed at testing the flow of the existing and new questions and the administering of the MIQ between March and April 2006. The final questionnaires contained all the modules used in the 1996 DHS including new modules on malaria prevention, sexual risk behaviour and attitudes to issues of well being.

Cleaning operations

All questionnaires from the field were sent to the NSO headquarters in Port Moresby in February 2007 for editing and coding, data entry and data cleaning. Editing was done in 3 stages to enable the creation of clean data files for each province from which the tabulations were generated. Data entry and processing were done using the CSPro software and was completed by October 2008.

Response rate

Table A.2 of the survey report provides a summary of the sample implementation of the 2006 DHS. Despite the recency of the household listing, approximately 7 per cent of households could not be contacted due to prolonged absence or because their dwellings were vacant or had been destroyed. Among the households contacted, a response rate of 97 per cent was achieved. Within the 9,017 households successfully interviewed, a total of 11, 456 women and 11, 463 of men age 15-49 years were eligible to be interviewed. Successful interviews were conducted with 90 per cent of eligible women (10, 353) and 88 per cent of eligible men (10,077). The most common cause of non-response was absence (5 per cent). Among the regions, the rate of success among women was highest in all the regions (92 per cent each) except for Momase region at 86 per cent. The rate of success among men was highest in Highlands and Islands region and lowest in Momase region. The overall response rate, calculated as the product of the household and female individual response rate (.97*.90) was 87 per cent.

Sampling error estimates

Appendix B of the survey report describes the general procedure in the computation of sampling errors of the sample survey estimates generated. It basically follows the procedure adopted in most Demographic and Health Surveys.

Data appraisal

Appendix C explains to the data users the quality of the 2006 DHS. Non-sampling errors are those that occur in surveys and censuses through the following causes: a) Failure to locate the selected household b) Mistakes in the way questions were asked c) Misunderstanding by the interviewer or respondent d) Coding errors e) Data entry errors, etc.

Total eradication of non-sampling errors is impossible however great measures were taken to minimize them as much as possible. These measures included: a) Careful questionnaire design b) Pretesting of survey instruments to guarantee their functionality c) A month of interviewers’ and supervisors’ training d) Careful fieldwork supervision including field visits by NSOHQ personnel e) A swift data processing prior to data entry f ) The use of interactive data entry software to minimize errors

Abstract

The Census is the official count of population and dwellings in Tonga, providing a ‘snapshot’ of the society and its most precious resource, its people, at a point in time. The official reference period of the census was midnight, the 30th of November, 2006.

The census provides a unique source of detailed demographic, social and economic data relating the entire population at a single point in time. Census information is used for policy setting and implementation, research, planning and other decision-making. The census is often the primary source of information used for the allocation of public funding, especially in areas such as health, education and social policy. The main users of this information are the government, local authorities, education facilities (such as schools and tertiary organizations), businesses, community organizations and the public in general.

The 2006 Census was taken under the authority of Section 8 of Statistical Act Chap. 53 of 1978 which empowers the Minister of Finance to make regulations necessary to conduct the population Census. This regulation was approved by the Cabinet and cited as Census Regulation 2006. The Census regulations also indicate that the Government Statistician would be responsible for the administration and completion of the Census. In addition, the regulations enabled the Statistics Department to carry out the necessary activities required to plan, manage and implement all the necessary Census activities.

Census planning and management

From a planning and management perspective, the Census had two main objectives. Firstly, it was to ensure that the process of collecting, compiling, evaluating, analyzing and disseminating of demographic, economic and social data was conducted in a timely and accurate manner. The development of procedures and processes for the 2006 Census of Population and Housing made use of the lessons learned in previous censuses, and built upon recommendations for improvements.

Secondly, it was a valuable opportunity for building the capacities of employees of the Statistics Department (SD), thus resulting in enhancing the image, credibility and reputation of the Department and at the same time, strengthening its infrastructure. Emphasis was placed on having a senior staff with a wide perspective and leadership qualities. Through the use of vision, planning, coordination, delegation of responsibility and a strong team spirit, the census work was conducted in an effective and efficient manner. Staffs at all levels were encouraged to have an innovative mindset in addressing issues. Incentives for other parties to participate, both within Statistics Department Tonga Tonga 2006 Census of Population and Housing viii and outside the government, were encouraged. As a result, the wider community including donors such as AusAID, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in Noumea, that provided the technical assistance and the general public, were able to support the census project.

Extensive and detailed planning is needed to conduct a successful census. Areas that required planning include: enumeration procedures and fieldwork, public communication, data processing and output systems, mapping and the design of census block boundaries, dissemination procedures, content determination and questionnaire development and training. These aspects, and how they interacted with each other, played a crucial role in determining the quality of all of the census outputs. Each phase therefore required careful, methodical planning and testing. The details of such activities, and their implementation and responsibilities were assigned to 5 subcommittees composed of staff members of the SD.

Organizational structure of the Census

A census organizational structure is designed to implement a number of interrelated activities. Each of these activities was assigned to a specific sub-committee. The census manuals provided guidelines on processes, organizational structures, controls for quality assurance and problem solving. The challenge for managers was developing a work environment that enabled census personnel to perform all these tasks with a common goal in mind. Each sub-committee was responsible for its own outputs, and specific decisions for specific situations were delegated to the lowest level possible. Problem situations beyond the scope of the sub-committee were escalated to the next higher level.

The organizational structure of the census was as follows: a) The Steering Committee (consisting of the Head of both Government and nongovernment organizations), chaired by Secretary for Finance with the Government Statistician (GS) as secretary. b) The Census Committee (consisted of all sub-committee leaders plus the GS, and chaired by the Assistant Government Statistician (AGS) who was the officer in charge of all management and planning of the Census 2006 operations. c) There were five Sub-committees (each sub-committee consisted of about 5 members and were chaired by their Sub-committee leader). These committees included: Mapping, Publicity, Fieldwork, Training and Data Processing. In this way, every staff member of the SD was involved with the census operation through their participation on these committees.

The census steering committee was a high level committee that approved and endorsed the plans and activities of the census. Policy issues that needed to be addressed were submitted to the steering committee for approval prior to the census team and sub-committees designation of the activities necessary to address the tasks.

Part of the initial planning of the 2006 Census involved the establishment of a work-plan with specific time frames. This charted all activities that were to be undertaken and, their impact and dependencies on other activities. These time frames were an essential part of the overall exercise, as they provided specific guides to the progress of each area, and alerted subcommittees’ team leaders (TL) to areas where problems existed and needed to be addressed. These also provided the SD staff with a clear indication of where and how their roles impacted the overall Census process.

Monitoring of the timeframe was an essential part of the management of the Census program. Initially, weekly meetings were held which involved the GS, AGS and team leaders (TL) of the Census committee. As the Census projects progressed, the AGS and TL’s met regularly with their sub-committees to report on the progress of each area. Decisions were made on necessary actions in order to meet the designated dates. Potential risks that could negatively affect the deadlines and actions were also considered at these meetings.

For the 5 sub-committees, one of their first tasks was to verify and amend their terms of reference using the “Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats” (SWOT) analysis methodology, as it applied to past censuses. Each committee then prepared a work-plan and listed all activities for which that particular sub-committee was responsible. This listing included the assignment of a responsible person, together with the timeline indicating the start and end dates required to complete that particular activity. These work-plans, set up by all the 5 sub-committees, were then used by the AGS to develop a detailed operational plan for all phases of the census, the activities required to complete these phases, start and end dates, the person responsible and the dependencies, - all in a Ghant chart format. These combined work-plans were further discussed and amended in the Census team and reported to the Steering committee on regular basis as required.

Geographic coverage

National coverage, which includes the 5 Divisions and both Urban and Rural Areas of Tonga.

Analysis unit

Individual and Households.

Universe

All individuals in private and institutional households.

Kind of data

Census/enumeration data [cen]

Sampling procedure

The National Population Census was a complete enumeration census, hence no sampling procedure was employed. A Mapping Sub-committee was formed to ensure complete coverage of the country.

The Mapping Sub-committee

Led by Mr. Winston Fainga'anuku, this committee's mandate was to ensure that good quality maps were produced. The objective was to ensure that the maps provided complete coverage of the country, were designed to accommodate a reasonable workload of one census enumerator and, that geographic identifiers could be used for dissemination purposes by the PopGIS system. Collaborations with the Ministry of Land, Survey and Natural Resources (MLSNR) began in 2004 to ensure that digitized maps for Tonga could be used for 2006 Census. Mr. Fainga'anuku was attached to the MLSNR in April 2005 to assist 'Atelea Kautoke, Samuela Mailau, Lilika and others to complete the task of digitizing the maps for Tonga. In addition, frequent visits by Mr. Scott Pontifex from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in Noumea, assisted to ensure that quality digitized maps were prepared. SPC also assisted by lending its digitizer which was used in this mapping project. The staff of the Statistics Department (SD) visited household sites throughout Tongatapu and the main outer islands. This exercise was to redesign the Census Block boundaries by amalgamating or splitting existing census blocks to achieve an average of 50 households per census block. Various updates within the census block maps were made. These included the names of the head of household; roads and other landmarks to ensure that current and accurate information was provided to the enumerators. Reliable maps, both for enumerators and supervisors are necessary ingredients to assist in avoiding any under or over - counting during

The Census@Leicester datasets include socio-demographic data from the 2001, 2011, and 2021 Leicester censuses to enable the exploration of recent historical trends. It also includes data from the 2021 census for both Nottingham and Coventry to enable comparisons with other cities.

This online resource that can be used for teaching and research purposes by staff and students and to create a legacy for the Census@Leicester Project.

Abstract

The 2000 Republic of Palau Census of Population and Housing was the second census collected and processed entirely by the republic itself. This monograph provides analyses of data from the most recent census of Palau for decision makers in the United States and Palau to understand current socioeconomic conditions. The 2005 Census of Population and Housing collected a wide range of information on the characteristics of the population including demographics, educational attainments, employment status, fertility, housing characteristics, housing characteristics and many others.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household;
• Individual.

Universe

The 1990, 1995 and 2000 censuses were all modified de jure censuses, counting people and recording selected characteristics of each individual according to his or her usual place of residence as of census day. Data were collected for each enumeration district - the households and population in each enumerator assignment - and these enumeration districts were then collected into hamlets in Koror, and the 16 States of Palau.

Kind of data

Census/enumeration data [cen]

Sampling procedure

No sampling - whole universe covered

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The 2000 censuses of Palau employed a modified list-enumerate procedure, also known as door-to-door enumeration. Beginning in mid-April 2000, enumerators began visiting each housing unit and conducted personal interviews, recording the information collected on the single questionnaire that contained all census questions. Follow-up enumerators visited all addresses for which questionnaires were missing to obtain the information required for the census.

Cleaning operations

The completed questionnaires were checked for completeness and consistency of responses, and then brought to OPS for processing. After checking in the questionnaires, OPS staff coded write-in responses (e.g., ethnicity or race, relationship, language). Then data entry clerks keyed all the questionnaire responses. The OPS brought the keyed data to the U.S. Census Bureau headquarters near Washington, DC, where OPS and Bureau staff edited the data using the Consistency and Correction (CONCOR) software package prior to generating tabulations using the Census Tabulation System (CENTS) package. Both packages were developed at the Census Bureau's International Programs Center (IPC) as part of the Integrated Microcomputer Processing System (IMPS).

The goal of census data processing is to produce a set of data that described the population as clearly and accurately as possible. To meet this objective, crew leaders reviewed and edited questionnaires during field data collection to ensure consistency, completeness, and acceptability. Census clerks also reviewed questionnaires for omissions, certain inconsistencies, and population coverage. Census personnel conducted a telephone or personal visit follow-up to obtain missing information. The follow-ups considered potential coverage errors as well as questionnaires with omissions or inconsistencies beyond the completeness and quality tolerances specified in the review procedures.

Following field operations, census staff assigned remaining incomplete information and corrected inconsistent information on the questionnaires using imputation procedures during the final automated edit of the data. The use of allocations, or computer assignments of acceptable data, occurred most often when an entry for a given item was lacking or when the information reported for a person or housing unit on an item was inconsistent with other information for that same person or housing unit. In all of Palau’s censuses, the general procedure for changing unacceptable entries was to assign an entry for a person or housing unit that was consistent with entries for persons or housing units with similar characteristics. The assignment of acceptable data in place of blanks or unacceptable entries enhanced the usefulness of the data.

Sampling error estimates

Human and machine-related errors occur in any large-scale statistical operation. Researchers generally refer to these problems as non-sampling errors. These errors include the failure to enumerate every household or every person in a population, failure to obtain all required information from residents, collection of incorrect or inconsistent information, and incorrect recording of information. In addition, errors can occur during the field review of the enumerators' work, during clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or during the electronic processing of the questionnaires. To reduce various types of non-sampling errors, Census office personnel used several techniques during planning, data collection, and data processing activities. Quality assurance methods were used throughout the data collection and processing phases of the census to improve the quality of the data.

Census staff implemented several coverage improvement programs during the development of census enumeration and processing strategies to minimize under-coverage of the population and housing units. A quality assurance program improved coverage in each census. Telephone and personal visit follow-ups also helped improve coverage. Computer and clerical edits emphasized improving the quality and consistency of the data. Local officials participated in post-census local reviews. Census enumerators conducted additional re-canvassing where appropriate.

Abstract

The Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) is part of the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys program, which is designed to collect data on fertility, family planning, and maternal and child health. The 2002-2003 IDHS follows a sequence of several previous surveys: the 1987 National Indonesia Contraceptive Prevalence Survey (NICPS), the 1991 IDHS, the 1994 IDHS, and the 1997 IDHS. The 2002-2003 IDHS is expanded from the 1997 IDHS by including a collection of information on the participation of currently married men and their wives and children in the health care.

The main objective of the 2002-2003 IDHS is to provide policymakers and program managers in population and health with detailed information on population, family planning, and health. In particular, the 2002-2003 IDHS collected information on the female respondents’ socioeconomic background, fertility levels, marriage and sexual activity, fertility preferences, knowledge and use of family planning methods, breastfeeding practices, childhood and adult mortality including maternal mortality, maternal and child health, and awareness and behavior regarding AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections in Indonesia.

The 2002-2003 IDHS was specifically designed to meet the following objectives: - Provide data concerning fertility, family planning, maternal and child health, maternal mortality, and awareness of AIDS/STIs to program managers, policymakers, and researchers to help them evaluate and improve existing programs - Measure trends in fertility and contraceptive prevalence rates, analyze factors that affect such changes, such as marital status and patterns, residence, education, breastfeeding habits, and knowledge, use, and availability of contraception - Evaluate achievement of goals previously set by the national health programs, with special focus on maternal and child health - Assess men’s participation and utilization of health services, as well as of their families - Assist in creating an international database that allows cross-country comparisons that can be used by the program managers, policymakers, and researchers in the area of family planning, fertility, and health in general.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Household
• Children under five years
• Women age 15-49
• Men age 15-54

Kind of data

Sample survey data

Sampling procedure

SAMPLE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Administratively, Indonesia is divided into 30 provinces. Each province is subdivided into districts (regency in areas mostly rural and municipality in urban areas). Districts are subdivided into subdistricts and each subdistrict is divided into villages. The entire village is classified as urban or rural.

The primary objective of the 2002-2003 IDHS is to provide estimates with acceptable precision for the following domains: · Indonesia as a whole; · Each of 26 provinces covered in the survey. The four provinces excluded due to political instability are Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Maluku, North Maluku and Papua. These provinces cover 4 percent of the total population. · Urban and rural areas of Indonesia; · Each of the five districts in Central Java and the five districts in East Java covered in the Safe Motherhood Project (SMP), to provide information for the monitoring and evaluation of the project. These districts are: - in Central Java: Cilacap, Rembang, Jepara, Pemalang, and Brebes. - in East Java: Trenggalek, Jombang, Ngawi, Sampang and Pamekasan.

The census blocks (CBs) are the primary sampling unit for the 2002-2003 IDHS. CBs were formed during the preparation of the 2000 Population Census. Each CB includes approximately 80 households. In the master sample frame, the CBs are grouped by province, by regency/municipality within a province, and by subdistricts within a regency/municipality. In rural areas, the CBs in each district are listed by their geographical location. In urban areas, the CBs are distinguished by the urban classification (large, medium and small cities) in each subdistrict.

Note: See detailed description of sample design in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face

Research instrument

The 2002-2003 IDHS used three questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Women’s Questionnaire for ever-married women 15-49 years old, and the Men’s Questionnaire for currently married men 15-54 years old. The Household Questionnaire and the Women’s Questionnaire were based on the DHS Model “A” Questionnaire, which is designed for use in countries with high contraceptive prevalence. In consultation with the NFPCB and MOH, BPS modified these questionnaires to reflect relevant issues in family planning and health in Indonesia. Inputs were also solicited from potential data users to optimize the IDHS in meeting the country’s needs for population and health data. The questionnaires were translated from English into the national language, Bahasa Indonesia.

The Household Questionnaire was used to list all the usual members and visitors in the selected households. Basic information collected for each person listed includes the following: age, sex, education, and relationship to the head of the household. The main purpose of the Household Questionnaire was to identify women and men who were eligible for the individual interview. In addition, the Household Questionnaire also identifies unmarried women and men age 15-24 who are eligible for the individual interview in the Indonesia Young Adult Reproductive Health Survey (IYARHS). Information on characteristics of the household’s dwelling unit, such as the source of water, type of toilet facilities, construction materials used for the floor and outer walls of the house, and ownership of various durable goods were also recorded in the Household Questionnaire. These items reflect the household’s socioeconomic status.

The Women’s Questionnaire was used to collect information from all ever-married women age 15-49. These women were asked questions on the following topics: • Background characteristics, such as age, marital status, education, and media exposure • Knowledge and use of family planning methods • Fertility preferences • Antenatal, delivery, and postnatal care • Breastfeeding and infant feeding practices • Vaccinations and childhood illnesses • Marriage and sexual activity • Woman’s work and husband’s background characteristics • Childhood mortality • Awareness and behavior regarding AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) • Sibling mortality, including maternal mortality.

The Men’s Questionnaire was administered to all currently married men age 15-54 in every third household in the IDHS sample. The Men’s Questionnaire collected much of the same information included in the Women’s Questionnaire, but was shorter because it did not contain questions on reproductive history, maternal and child health, nutrition, and maternal mortality. Instead, men were asked about their knowledge and participation in the health-seeking practices for their children.

Cleaning operations

All completed questionnaires for IDHS, accompanied by their control forms, were returned to the BPS central office in Jakarta for data processing. This process consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, verification, and editing computer-identified errors. A team of about 40 data entry clerks, data editors, and two data entry supervisors processed the data. Data entry and editing started on November 4, 2002 using a computer package program called CSPro, which was specifically designed to process DHS-type survey data. To prepare the data entry programs, two BPS staff spent three weeks in ORC Macro offices in Calverton, Maryland in April 2002.

Response rate

A total of 34,738 households were selected for the survey, of which 33,419 were found. Of the encountered households, 33,088 (99 percent) were successfully interviewed. In these households, 29,996 ever-married women 15-49 were identified, and complete interviews were obtained from 29,483 of them (98 percent). From the households selected for interviews with men, 8,740 currently married men 15-54 were identified, and complete interviews were obtained from 8,310 men, or 95 percent of all eligible men. The generally high response rates for both household and individual interviews (for eligible women and men) were due mainly to the strict enforcement of the rule to revisit the originally selected household if no one was at home initially. No substitution for the originally selected households was allowed. Interviewers were instructed to make at least three visits in an effort to contact the household, eligible women, and eligible men.

Note: See summarized response rates by place of residence in Table 1.2 of the survey report.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: (1) nonsampling errors, and (2) sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2002-2003 Indonesia Demographic and Health Survey (IDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents

The Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) program provides an easily understood metric for how socially vulnerable every neighborhood in the United States is to the impacts of disasters.This ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. Please cite the Census, CRE, and ACS when using this data.Overview:Community resilience is the capacity of individuals and households within a community to prepare, absorb, respond, and recover from a disaster. Local planners, policy makers, public health officials, emergency managers, and community stakeholders need a variety of estimates to help assess the potential resiliency and vulnerabilities of communities and their constituent populations to help prepare and plan mitigation, recovery, and response strategies. Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) focuses on developing a tool to identify socio-economic vulnerabilities within populations. The 2022 Community Resilience Estimates (CRE) are produced using information on individuals and households from the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) and the Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program (PEP). The CRE uses small area modeling techniques that can be used for a broad range of disaster related events (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, economic shocks, etc.) to identify population concentrations likely to be relatively more impacted by and have greater difficulties overcoming disasters. The end result is a data product which measures vulnerability more accurately and timely. Data:The ACS is a nationally representative survey with data on the characteristics of the U.S. population. The sample is selected from all counties and county-equivalents and has a sample size of about 3.5 million housing units each year. It is the premier source for timely and detailed population and housing information about our nation and its communities. We also use auxiliary data from the PEP, the Census Bureau’s program that produces and publishes estimates of the population living at a given time within a geographic entity in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We use population data from the PEP by age group, race and ethnicity, and sex. Since the PEP does not go down to the census tract level, the CRE uses the Public Law 94-171 summary files (PL94) and Demographic Housing Characteristics File (DHC) tables from the 2020 Decennial Census to help produce the population base estimates. Once the weighted estimates are tabulated, small area modeling techniques are used to create the estimates for the CRE. Components of Social Vulnerability (SV): Resilience to a disaster is partly determined by the components of social vulnerability exhibited within a community’s population. To measure these components and construct the community resilience estimates, we designed population estimates based on individual- and household-level components of social vulnerability. These components are binary indicators or variables that add up to a maximum of 10 possible components using data from the ACS. The specific ACS-defined measures we use are as follows: Components of Social Vulnerability (SV) for Households (HH) and Individuals (I):SV 1: Income-to-Poverty Ratio (IPR) < 130 percent (HH). SV 2: Single or zero caregiver household - only one or no individuals living in the household who are 18-64 (HH). SV 3: Unit-level crowding with >= 0.75 persons per room (HH). SV 4: Communication barrier defined as either: Limited English-speaking households1 (HH) orNo one in the household over the age of 16 with a high school diploma (HH). SV 5: No one in the household is employed full-time, year-round. The flag is not applied if all residents of the household are aged 65 years or older (HH). SV 6: Disability posing constraint to significant life activity. Persons who report having any one of the six disability types (I): hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty. SV 7: No health insurance coverage (I). SV 8: Being aged 65 years or older (I). SV 9: No vehicle access (HH). SV 10: Households without broadband internet access (HH). Each individual is assigned a 0 or 1 for each of the components based upon their individual or household attributes listed above. It is important to note that SV 4 is not double flagged. An individual will be assigned a 1, if either of the characteristics is true for their household. For example, if a household is linguistically isolated and no one over the age of 16 has attained a high school diploma or more education, the household members are only flagged once. The result is an index that produces aggregate-level (tract, county, and state) small area estimates: the CRE. The CRE provide an estimate for the number of people with a specific number of social vulnerabilities. In its current data file layout form, the estimates are categorized into three groups: zero , one-two, or three plus social vulnerability components. Differences with CRE 2021:The number of census tracts have increased from 84,414 in CRE 2021 to 84,415 in CRE 2022. This is due to the boundary changes in Connecticut implemented in 2022 census data products. To accommodate the boundary change, Connecticut also now has nine planning regions instead of eight counties in CRE 2022.To avoid confusion, the modeled rates are now set to equal zero in CRE 2022 for geographic areas with zero population in universe. To improve the population base estimates, CRE 2022 uses more detailed decennial estimates from the 2020 DHC in addition to PL94, whereas CRE 2021 just used PL94 due to availability at the time. See “2022 Community Resilience Estimates: Detailed Technical Documentation” for more information. Data Processing Notes:Boundaries come from the Cartographic Boundaries via US Census TIGER geodatabases. Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates, and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines clipped for cartographic purposes. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). This dataset does not contain values for Puerto Rico or Island Areas at any level of geography.Further Information:Community Resilience Estimates Program Website https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates.htmlCommunity Resilience Estimates Technical Documentation https://census.gov/programs-surveys/community-resilience-estimates/technical-documentation.htmlFor Data Questionssehsd.cre@census.gov