Survey based Harmonized Indicators (SHIP) files are harmonized data files from household surveys that are conducted by countries in Africa. To ensure the quality and transparency of the data, it is critical to document the procedures of compiling consumption aggregation and other indicators so that the results can be duplicated with ease. This process enables consistency and continuity that make temporal and cross-country comparisons consistent and more reliable. Four harmonized data files are prepared for each survey to generate a set of harmonized variables that have the same variable names. Invariably, in each survey, questions are asked in a slightly different way, which poses challenges on consistent definition of harmonized variables. The harmonized household survey data present the best available variables with harmonized definitions, but not identical variables. The four harmonized data files are a) Individual level file (Labor force indicators in a separate file): This file has information on basic characteristics of individuals such as age and sex, literacy, education, health, anthropometry and child survival. b) Labor force file: This file has information on labor force including employment/unemployment, earnings, sectors of employment, etc. c) Household level file: This file has information on household expenditure, household head characteristics (age and sex, level of education, employment), housing amenities, assets, and access to infrastructure and services. d) Household Expenditure file: This file has consumption/expenditure aggregates by consumption groups according to Purpose (COICOP) of Household Consumption of the UN.

The STAMINA study examined the nutritional risks of low-income peri-urban mothers, infants and young children (IYC), and households in Peru during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was designed to capture information through three, repeated cross-sectional surveys at approximately 6 month intervals over an 18 month period, starting in December 2020. The surveys were carried out by telephone in November-December 2020, July-August 2021 and in February-April 2022. The third survey took place over a longer period to allow for a household visit after the telephone interview.The study areas were Manchay (Lima) and Huánuco district in the Andean highlands (~ 1900m above sea level).In each study area, we purposively selected the principal health centre and one subsidiary health centre. Peri-urban communities under the jurisdiction of these health centres were then selected to participate. Systematic random sampling was employed with quotas for IYC age (6-11, 12-17 and 18-23 months) to recruit a target sample of 250 mother-infant pairs for each survey.Data collected included: household socio-demographic characteristics; infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF), child and maternal qualitative 24-hour dietary recalls/7 day food frequency questionnaires, household food insecurity experience measured using the validated Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) survey module (Cafiero, Viviani, & Nord, 2018), and maternal mental health. In addition, questions that assessed the impact of COVID-19 on households including changes in employment status, adaptations to finance, sources of financial support, household food insecurity experience as well as access to, and uptake of, well-child clinics and vaccination health services were included.This folder includes the questionnaire for survey 1 in both English and Spanish languages.The corresponding dataset and dictionary of variables for survey 1 are available at 10.17028/rd.lboro.18785666.

Abstract

The main objective of the HEIS survey is to obtain detailed data on household expenditure and income, linked to various demographic and socio-economic variables, to enable computation of poverty indices and determine the characteristics of the poor and prepare poverty maps. Therefore, to achieve these goals, the sample had to be representative on the sub-district level. The raw survey data provided by the Statistical Office was cleaned and harmonized by the Economic Research Forum, in the context of a major research project to develop and expand knowledge on equity and inequality in the Arab region. The main focus of the project is to measure the magnitude and direction of change in inequality and to understand the complex contributing social, political and economic forces influencing its levels. However, the measurement and analysis of the magnitude and direction of change in this inequality cannot be consistently carried out without harmonized and comparable micro-level data on income and expenditures. Therefore, one important component of this research project is securing and harmonizing household surveys from as many countries in the region as possible, adhering to international statistics on household living standards distribution. Once the dataset has been compiled, the Economic Research Forum makes it available, subject to confidentiality agreements, to all researchers and institutions concerned with data collection and issues of inequality.

Data collected through the survey helped in achieving the following objectives: 1. Provide data weights that reflect the relative importance of consumer expenditure items used in the preparation of the consumer price index 2. Study the consumer expenditure pattern prevailing in the society and the impact of demographic and socio-economic variables on those patterns 3. Calculate the average annual income of the household and the individual, and assess the relationship between income and different economic and social factors, such as profession and educational level of the head of the household and other indicators 4. Study the distribution of individuals and households by income and expenditure categories and analyze the factors associated with it 5. Provide the necessary data for the national accounts related to overall consumption and income of the household sector 6. Provide the necessary income data to serve in calculating poverty indices and identifying the poor characteristics as well as drawing poverty maps 7. Provide the data necessary for the formulation, follow-up and evaluation of economic and social development programs, including those addressed to eradicate poverty

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Household Expenditure and Income survey sample for 2010, was designed to serve the basic objectives of the survey through providing a relatively large sample in each sub-district to enable drawing a poverty map in Jordan. The General Census of Population and Housing in 2004 provided a detailed framework for housing and households for different administrative levels in the country. Jordan is administratively divided into 12 governorates, each governorate is composed of a number of districts, each district (Liwa) includes one or more sub-district (Qada). In each sub-district, there are a number of communities (cities and villages). Each community was divided into a number of blocks. Where in each block, the number of houses ranged between 60 and 100 houses. Nomads, persons living in collective dwellings such as hotels, hospitals and prison were excluded from the survey framework.

A two stage stratified cluster sampling technique was used. In the first stage, a cluster sample proportional to the size was uniformly selected, where the number of households in each cluster was considered the weight of the cluster. At the second stage, a sample of 8 households was selected from each cluster, in addition to another 4 households selected as a backup for the basic sample, using a systematic sampling technique. Those 4 households were sampled to be used during the first visit to the block in case the visit to the original household selected is not possible for any reason. For the purposes of this survey, each sub-district was considered a separate stratum to ensure the possibility of producing results on the sub-district level. In this respect, the survey framework adopted that provided by the General Census of Population and Housing Census in dividing the sample strata. To estimate the sample size, the coefficient of variation and the design effect of the expenditure variable provided in the Household Expenditure and Income Survey for the year 2008 was calculated for each sub-district. These results were used to estimate the sample size on the sub-district level so that the coefficient of variation for the expenditure variable in each sub-district is less than 10%, at a minimum, of the number of clusters in the same sub-district (6 clusters). This is to ensure adequate presentation of clusters in different administrative areas to enable drawing an indicative poverty map.

It should be noted that in addition to the standard non response rate assumed, higher rates were expected in areas where poor households are concentrated in major cities. Therefore, those were taken into consideration during the sampling design phase, and a higher number of households were selected from those areas, aiming at well covering all regions where poverty spreads.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

• General form
• Expenditure on food commodities form
• Expenditure on non-food commodities form

Cleaning operations

Raw Data: - Organizing forms/questionnaires: A compatible archive system was used to classify the forms according to different rounds throughout the year. A registry was prepared to indicate different stages of the process of data checking, coding and entry till forms were back to the archive system. - Data office checking: This phase was achieved concurrently with the data collection phase in the field where questionnaires completed in the field were immediately sent to data office checking phase. - Data coding: A team was trained to work on the data coding phase, which in this survey is only limited to education specialization, profession and economic activity. In this respect, international classifications were used, while for the rest of the questions, coding was predefined during the design phase. - Data entry/validation: A team consisting of system analysts, programmers and data entry personnel were working on the data at this stage. System analysts and programmers started by identifying the survey framework and questionnaire fields to help build computerized data entry forms. A set of validation rules were added to the entry form to ensure accuracy of data entered. A team was then trained to complete the data entry process. Forms prepared for data entry were provided by the archive department to ensure forms are correctly extracted and put back in the archive system. A data validation process was run on the data to ensure the data entered is free of errors. - Results tabulation and dissemination: After the completion of all data processing operations, ORACLE was used to tabulate the survey final results. Those results were further checked using similar outputs from SPSS to ensure that tabulations produced were correct. A check was also run on each table to guarantee consistency of figures presented, together with required editing for tables' titles and report formatting.

Harmonized Data: - The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to clean and harmonize the datasets. - The harmonization process started with cleaning all raw data files received from the Statistical Office. - Cleaned data files were then merged to produce one data file on the individual level containing all variables subject to harmonization. - A country-specific program was generated for each dataset to generate/compute/recode/rename/format/label harmonized variables. - A post-harmonization cleaning process was run on the data. - Harmonized data was saved on the household as well as the individual level, in SPSS and converted to STATA format.

analyze the current population survey (cps) annual social and economic supplement (asec) with r the annual march cps-asec has been supplying the statistics for the census bureau's report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage since 1948. wow. the us census bureau and the bureau of labor statistics ( bls) tag-team on this one. until the american community survey (acs) hit the scene in the early aughts (2000s), the current population survey had the largest sample size of all the annual general demographic data sets outside of the decennial census - about two hundred thousand respondents. this provides enough sample to conduct state- and a few large metro area-level analyses. your sample size will vanish if you start investigating subgroups b y state - consider pooling multiple years. county-level is a no-no. despite the american community survey's larger size, the cps-asec contains many more variables related to employment, sources of income, and insurance - and can be trended back to harry truman's presidency. aside from questions specifically asked about an annual experience (like income), many of the questions in this march data set should be t reated as point-in-time statistics. cps-asec generalizes to the united states non-institutional, non-active duty military population. the national bureau of economic research (nber) provides sas, spss, and stata importation scripts to create a rectangular file (rectangular data means only person-level records; household- and family-level information gets attached to each person). to import these files into r, the parse.SAScii function uses nber's sas code to determine how to import the fixed-width file, then RSQLite to put everything into a schnazzy database. you can try reading through the nber march 2012 sas importation code yourself, but it's a bit of a proc freak show. this new github repository contains three scripts: 2005-2012 asec - download all microdata.R down load the fixed-width file containing household, family, and person records import by separating this file into three tables, then merge 'em together at the person-level download the fixed-width file containing the person-level replicate weights merge the rectangular person-level file with the replicate weights, then store it in a sql database create a new variable - one - in the data table 2012 asec - analysis examples.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' progr am create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights perform a boatload of analysis examples replicate census estimates - 2011.R connect to the sql database created by the 'download all microdata' program create the complex sample survey object, using the replicate weights match the sas output shown in the png file below 2011 asec replicate weight sas output.png statistic and standard error generated from the replicate-weighted example sas script contained in this census-provided person replicate weights usage instructions document. click here to view these three scripts for more detail about the current population survey - annual social and economic supplement (cps-asec), visit: the census bureau's current population survey page the bureau of labor statistics' current population survey page the current population survey's wikipedia article notes: interviews are conducted in march about experiences during the previous year. the file labeled 2012 includes information (income, work experience, health insurance) pertaining to 2011. when you use the current populat ion survey to talk about america, subract a year from the data file name. as of the 2010 file (the interview focusing on america during 2009), the cps-asec contains exciting new medical out-of-pocket spending variables most useful for supplemental (medical spending-adjusted) poverty research. confidential to sas, spss, stata, sudaan users: why are you still rubbing two sticks together after we've invented the butane lighter? time to transition to r. :D

Abstract (en): The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of personal income and related economic factors in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The principal investigators based their definition of income on cash payments and on a broad range of additional components. Data were collected through a series of questionnaire-based interviews conducted in rural and urban areas at the end of 2002. There are ten separate datasets. The first four datasets were derived from the urban questionnaire. The first contains data about individuals living in urban areas. The second contains data about urban households. The third contains individual-level economic variables copied from the initial urban interview form. The fourth contains household-level economic variables copied from the initial urban interview form. The fifth dataset contains village-level data, which was obtained by interviewing village leaders. The sixth contains data about individuals living in rural areas. The seventh contains data about rural households, as well as most of the data from a social network questionnaire which was presented to rural households. The eighth contains the rest of the data from the social network questionnaire and is specifically about the activities of rural school-age children. The ninth dataset contains data about individuals who have migrated from rural to urban areas, and the tenth dataset contains data about rural-urban migrant households. Dataset 1 contains 151 variables and 20,632 cases (individual urban household members). Dataset 2 contains 88 variables and 6,835 cases (urban households). Dataset 3 contains 44 variables and 27,818 cases, at least 6,835 of which are empty cases used to separate households in the file. The remaining cases from dataset 3 match those in dataset 1. Dataset 4 contains 212 variables and 6,835 cases, which match those in dataset 2. Dataset 5 contains 259 variables and 961 cases (villages). Dataset 6 contains 84 variables and 37,969 cases (individual rural household members). Dataset 7 contains 449 variables and 9,200 cases (rural households). Dataset 8 contains 38 variables and 8,121 cases (individual school-age children). Dataset 9 contains 76 variables and 5,327 cases (individual rural-urban migrant household members). Dataset 10 contains 129 variables and 2,000 cases (rural-urban migrant households). The Chinese Household Income Project collected data in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. ICPSR holds data from the first three collections, and information about these can be found on the series description page. Data collected in 2007 are available through the China Institute for Income Distribution. The purpose of this project was to measure and estimate the distribution of personal income in both rural and urban areas of the People's Republic of China. The study was interview-based. Five main questionnaire forms (Urban, Rural, Rural Migrant, Social Network, and Village) were filled in by interviewers at the various locations, based on questions asked of respondents. Individuals were not all interviewed directly; household members were allowed to answer questions on behalf of other members. In addition, interviewers made some direct observations about the households. Respondents in datasets 1-4 and 6-10 were members and heads of households. In dataset 5, respondents were village representatives: for each village, interviewers asked questions of the party branch secretary, the head of the village committee, or the village accountant. Village authorities were encouraged to use existing statistical data where it was available. All datasets contain a wide range of demographic and economic variables, including income, assets, liabilities, and expenditures. Cases are coded such that individuals can be linked to the information about their households and villages in other datasets. Datasets about individuals (datasets 1, 6, and 9) all include demographic variables such as household composition, gender, age, nationality, marital status, party membership, educational history, and health information. Dataset 1 is about individuals living in urban areas. It contains standard demographic variables as well as economic variables such as medical insurance and expenditures, economically productive social contacts, and employment information including occupation, sector, income, hours, conditions, job history, and training. Dataset 2 is about households in urban areas...

Abstract

Survey based Harmonized Indicators (SHIP) files are harmonized data files from household surveys that are conducted by countries in Africa. To ensure the quality and transparency of the data, it is critical to document the procedures of compiling consumption aggregation and other indicators so that the results can be duplicated with ease. This process enables consistency and continuity that make temporal and cross-country comparisons consistent and more reliable.

Four harmonized data files are prepared for each survey to generate a set of harmonized variables that have the same variable names. Invariably, in each survey, questions are asked in a slightly different way, which poses challenges on consistent definition of harmonized variables. The harmonized household survey data present the best available variables with harmonized definitions, but not identical variables. The four harmonized data files are

a) Individual level file (Labor force indicators in a separate file): This file has information on basic characteristics of individuals such as age and sex, literacy, education, health, anthropometry and child survival. b) Labor force file: This file has information on labor force including employment/unemployment, earnings, sectors of employment, etc. c) Household level file: This file has information on household expenditure, household head characteristics (age and sex, level of education, employment), housing amenities, assets, and access to infrastructure and services. d) Household Expenditure file: This file has consumption/expenditure aggregates by consumption groups according to Purpose (COICOP) of Household Consumption of the UN.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individual level for datasets with suffix _I and _L
• Household level for datasets with suffix _H and _E

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample Design The 1999/2000 Household Income, Consurnption, and Expendi.ture Survey covered both the urban and the sedentary rural parts of the country. The survey has not covered six zones in Somalia Region and two zones in Afar Region that are inhabited mainly by nomadic population. For the purpose of the survey, the country was divided into three categories . That is, the rural parts of the country and the urban areas that were divided into two broad categories taking into account sizes of their population. Category I: Rural parts of nine Regional States and two administrative regions were grouped in this category each of which were the survey dornains (reporting levels). These regions are Tigrai,Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Sornalia, Eenishangul-Gunuz, SNNP,Gambela, Flarari, Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa.

Category II: All Regional capitals and five major urban centers of the country were grouped in this category. Each of the urban centers in this category was the survey domain (reporting level) for which separate survey results for rnajor survey characteristics were reported.

Category III: Urban centers in the country other than the urban centers in category II were grouped in this category and formed a single reporting level. Other than the reporting levels defined in category II and category III one additional domain, namely total urban (country level) can be constructed by eombining the basic domains defined in the two categories. All in all 35'basie rural and urban domains (reporting levels) were defined for the survey. In addition to the above urban and rural domains, survey results are to be reported at regional and eountry levels by aggregating the survey results for the conesponding urban and rural areas. Definition of the survey dornains was based on both technical and resource considerations. More specifically, sample size for the domains were determined to enable provision of major indicators with reasonable precision subject to the resources that were available for the survey.

Selection Scheme and Sample Size in Each Category CategoryI : A stratified two-stage sample design was used to select the sample in which the primary sampling units (PSUs) were EAs. Sample enumeration areas( EAs) from each domain were selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to the size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census.A total of 722 EAs were selected from the rural parts of the country. Within each sample EA a fresh list of households was prepared at the beginning of the survey's field work and for the administration of the survey questionnaire 12 households per sample EA for rural areas were systematically selected.

Category II: In this category also,a stratified two-stage sample design was used to select the sample. Here a strata constitutes all the "Regional State Capitals" and the five "Major Urban Centers" in the country and are grouped as a strata in this category. The primary sampling units (PSUs) are the EA's in the Regional State Capitals and the five Major Urban Centers and excludes the special EAs (non-conventional households). Sample enumeration areas( EAs) from each strata were selected using systematic sampling probability proportional to size, size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. A total of 373 EAs were selected from this domain of study. Within each sample EAs a fresh list of households was prepared at the beginning of the survey's field work and for the administration of the questionnaire 16 household per sample EA were systematically selected-

Category III: Three-stage stratified sample design was adopted to select the sample from domains in category III. The PSUs were other urban centers selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to size; size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. The secondary sampling units (SSUs) were EAs which were selected using systematic sampling that is probability proportional to size; size being number of households obtained from the 1994 population and housing census. A total of 169 sample EAs were selected from the sample of other urban centers and was determined by proportional allocation to their size of households from the 1994 census. Ultimately, 16 households within each of the sample EAs were selected systematically from a fresh list of households prepared at the beginning of the survey's fieldwork for the administration of the survey questionnaire.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Household Income, Consumption and Expenditure Survey questionnaire contains the following forms: - Form 1: Area Identification and Household Characteristics - Form 2A: Quantity and value of weekly consumption of food and drinks consumed at home and tobacco/including quantity purchased, own produced, obtained, etc for first and second week. - Form 2B: Quantity and value of weekly consumption of food and drinks consumed at home and tobacco/including quantity purchased, own produced, obtained, etc for third and fourth week . - Form 3A: All transaction (income, expenditure and consumption) for the first and second weeks except what is collected in Forms 2A and 2B - Form 3B: All transaction (income, expenditure and consumption) for the third and fourth weeks except what is collected in Forms 2A and 2B - Form 4: All transaction (expenditure and consumption) for last 6 months for Household expenditure on some selected item groups - Form 5: Cash income and receipts received by household and type of tenure. The survey questionnaire is provided as external resource.

Abstract

The main purpose of the Household Income Expenditure Survey (HIES) 2016 was to offer high quality and nationwide representative household data that provided information on incomes and expenditure in order to update the Consumer Price Index (CPI), improve National Accounts statistics, provide agricultural data and measure poverty as well as other socio-economic indicators. These statistics were urgently required for evidence-based policy making and monitoring of implementation results supported by the Poverty Reduction Strategy (I & II), the AfT and the Liberia National Vision 2030. The survey was implemented by the Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services (LISGIS) over a 12-month period, starting from January 2016 and was completed in January 2017. LISGIS completed a total of 8,350 interviews, thus providing sufficient observations to make the data statistically significant at the county level. The data captured the effects of seasonality, making it the first of its kind in Liberia. Support for the survey was offered by the Government of Liberia, the World Bank, the European Union, the Swedish International Development Corporation Agency, the United States Agency for International Development and the African Development Bank. The objectives of the 2016 HIES were:

1. Update the Consumer Price Index (CPI): To obtain a new set of weights for the basket of goods and services that upgrade the Monrovia Consumer Price Index (MCPI) and the National Consumer Price Index (NCPI) and to revise the CPI basket of goods and services in Liberia to reflect the current consumption pattern of residence.
2. Improve National Accounts Statistics: To get information on annual household expenditure patterns in order to update the household component of the National Accounts.
3. Measure Poverty: To prepare robust poverty indices that enable the understanding of poverty dynamics across the country and of the factors influencing them.
4. Improve Agricultural Statistics: To obtain nationally representative and policy relevant agricultural statistics in order to undertake in-depth analysis of agricultural households.
5. Capture Socio-economic Impact of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD): To obtain a post-EVD dataset which allows for an in-depth analysis of the socioeconomic impact of EVD on households.
6. Benchmark Agenda for Transformation Indicators: To provide an update on selected socioeconomic indicators used to benchmark the government’s policies embedded within the Agenda for Transformation.
7. Develop Statistical Capacity: Emphasize capacity building and development of sustainable statistical systems through every stage of the project to produce accurate and timely information about Liberia.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original sample design for the HIES exploited two-phased clustered sampling methods, encompassing a nationally representative sample of households in every quarter and was obtained using the 2008 National Housing and Population Census sampling frame. The procedures used for each sampling stage are as follows:
i. First stage
Selection of sample EAs. The sample EAs for the 2016 HIES were selected within each stratum systematically with Probability Proportional to Size from the ordered list of EAs in the sampling frame. They are selected separately for each county by urban/rural stratum. The measure of size for each EA was based on the number of households from the sampling frame of EAs based on the 2008 Liberia Census. Within each stratum the EAs were ordered geographically by district, clan and EA codes. This provided implicit geographic stratification of the sampling frame.

ii. Second stage
Selection of sample households within a sample EA. A random systematic sample of 10 households were selected from the listing for each sample EA. Using this type of table, the supervisor only has to look up the total number of households listed, and a specific systematic sample of households is identified in the corresponding row of the table.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

There were three questionnaires administered for this survey: 1. Household and Individual Questionnaire 2. Market Price Questionnaire 3. Agricultural Recall Questionnaire

Cleaning operations

The data entry clerk for each team, using data entry software called CSPro, entered data for each household in the field. For each household, an error report was generated on-site, which identified key problems with the data collected (outliers, incorrect entries, inconsistencies with skip patterns, basic filters for age and gender specific questions etc.). The Supervisor along with the Data Entry Clerk and the Enumerator that collected the data reviewed these errors. Callbacks were made to households if necessary to verify information and rectify the errors while in that EA.

Once the data were collected in each EA, they were sent to LISGIS headquarters for further processing along with EA reports for each area visited. The HIES Technical committee converted the data into STATA and ran several consistency checks to manage overall data quality and prepared reports to identify key problems with the data set and called the field teams to update them about the same. Monthly reports were prepared by summarizing observations from data received from the field alongside statistics on data collection status to share with the field teams and LISGIS Management.

Analysis of ‘Starbucks Customer Survey ’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://www.kaggle.com/mahirahmzh/starbucks-customer-retention-malaysia-survey on 28 January 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

Dataset Description

This dataset is composed of a survey questions of over 100 respondents for their buying behavior at Starbucks. Income is show in Malaysian Ringgit (RM)

Context

Predict behavior to retain customers. You can analyze all relevant customer data and develop focused customer retention programs

Content

• Demographic info about customers – gender, age range, employment status, income range
• Their current behavior in buying Starbucks
• Facilities and features of Starbucks that contribute to the behavior

Inspiration

What are the characteristic of customer that will continue buying Starbucks?

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

These data are being released in BETA version to facilitate early access to the study for research purposes. This collection has not been fully processed by NACDA or ICPSR at this time; the original materials provided by the principal investigator were minimally processed and converted to other file types for ease of use. As the study is further processed and given enhanced features by ICPSR, users will be able to access the updated versions of the study. Please report any data errors or problems to user support and we will work with you to resolve any data related issues. The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually and sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is part of the U.S. Public Health Service. The purpose of the NHIS is to obtain information about the amount and distribution of illness, its effects in terms of disability and chronic impairments, and the kinds of health services people receive across the United States population through the collection and analysis of data on a broad range of health topics. The redesigned NHIS questionnaire introduced in 1997 (see National Health Interview Survey, 1997 [ICPSR 2954]) consists of a core that remains largely unchanged from year to year, plus an assortment of supplements varying from year to year. The 2010 NHIS Core consists of three modules: Family, Sample Adult, and Sample Child. The datasets derived from these modules include Household Level, Family Level, Person Level, Injury/Poison Episode Level, Injury/Poison Verbatim Level, Sample Adult Level, and Sample Child level. The 2010 NHIS supplements consist of stand alone datasets for Cancer Level and Quality of Life data derived from the Sample Adult core and Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level derived from the Family core questionnaire. Additional supplementary questions can be found in the Sample Child dataset on the topics of cancer, immunization, mental health, and mental health services and in the Sample Adult dataset on the topics of epilepsy, immunization, and occupational health. Part 1, Household Level, contains data on type of living quarters, number of families in the household responding and not responding, and the month and year of the interview for each sampling unit. Parts 2-5 are based on the Family Core questionnaire. Part 2, Family Level, provides information on all family members with respect to family size, family structure, health status, limitation of daily activities, cognitive impairment, health conditions, doctor visits, hospital stays, health care access and utilization, employment, income, participation in government assistance programs, and basic demographic information. Part 3, Person Level, includes information on sex, age, race, marital status, education, family income, major activities, health status, health care costs, activity limits, and employment status. Parts 4 and 5, Injury/Poisoning Episode Level and Injury/Poisoning Verbatim Level, consist of questions about injuries and poisonings that resulted in medical consultations for any family members and contains information about the external cause and nature of the injury or poisoning episode and what the person was doing at the time of the injury or poisoning episode, in addition to the date and place of occurrence. A randomly-selected adult in each family was interviewed for Part 6, Sample Adult Level, regarding specific health issues, the relation between employment and health, health status, health care and doctor visits, limitation of daily activities, immunizations, and behaviors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Demographic information, including occupation and industry, also was collected. The respondents to Part 6 also completed Part 7, Cancer Level, which consists of a set of supplemental questions about diet and nutrition, physical activity, tobacco, cancer screening, genetic testing, family history, and survivorship. Part 8, Sample Child Level, provides information from an adult in the household on medical conditions of one child in the household, such as developmental or intellectual disabilities, respiratory problems, seizures, allergies, and use of special equipment like hearing aids, braces, or wheelchairs. Parts 9 through 13 comprise the additional Supplements and Paradata for the 2010 NHIS. Part 9, Disability Questions Tests 2010 Level

Abstract

The Household Income and Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2009 was a survey collecting data on income, consumption and expenditure patterns of households, in accordance with methodological principles of statistical enquiries, which were linked to demographic and socio-economic characteristics of households. A Household Income and expenditure Survey was the sole source of information on expenditure, consumption and income patterns of households, which was used to calculate poverty and income distribution indicators. It also served as a statistical infrastructure for the compilation of the national basket of goods used to measure changes in price levels. It was also used for updating the national accounts.

The main objective of the NHIES 2009-2010 was to comprehensively describe the levels of living of Namibians using actual patterns of consumption and income, as well as a range of other socio-economic indicators based on collected data. This survey was designed to inform policy making at the international, national and regional levels within the context of the Fourth National Development Plan, in support of monitoring and evaluation of Vision 2030 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG's). The NHIES was designed to provide policy decision making with reliable estimates at regional levels as well as to meet rural - urban disaggregation requirements.

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Individuals
• Households

Universe

Every week of the four weeks period of a survey round all persons in the household were asked if they spent at least 4 nights of the week in the household. Any person who spent at least 4 nights in the household was taken as having spent the whole week in the household. To qualify as a household member a person must have stayed in the household for at least two weeks out of four weeks.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The targeted population of NHIES 2009-2010 was the private households of Namibia. The population living in institutions, such as hospitals, hostels, police barracks and prisons were not covered in the survey. However, private households residing within institutional settings were covered. The sample design for the survey was a stratified two-stage probability sample, where the first stage units were geographical areas designated as the Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) and the second stage units were the households. The PSUs were based on the 2001 Census EAs and the list of PSUs serves as the national sample frame. The urban part of the sample frame was updated to include the changes that take place due to rural to urban migration and the new developments in housing. The sample frame is stratified first by region followed by urban and rural areas within region. In urban areas, further stratification is carried out by level of living which is based on geographic location and housing characteristics. The first stage units were selected from the sampling frame of PSUs and the second stage units were selected from a current list of households within each selected PSU, which was compiled just before the interviews.

PSUs were selected using probability proportional to size sampling coupled with the systematic sampling procedure where the size measure was the number of households within the PSU in the 2001 Population and Housing Census (PHC). The households were selected from the current list of households using systematic sampling procedure.

The sample size was designed to achieve reliable estimates at the region level and for urban and rural areas within each region. However, the actual sample sizes in urban or rural areas within some of the regions may not satisfy the expected precision levels for certain characteristics. The final sample consists of 10 660 households in 533 PSUs. The selected PSUs were randomly allocated to the 13 survey rounds.

Sampling deviation

All the expected sample of 533 PSUs was covered. However, a number of originally selected PSUs had to be substituted by new ones due to the following reasons.

Urban areas: Movement of people for resettlement in informal settlement areas from one place to another caused a selected PSU to be empty of households.

Rural areas: In addition to Caprivi region (where one constituency is generally flooded every year) Ohangwena and Oshana regions were badly affected from an unusual flood situation. Although this situation was generally addressed by interchanging the PSUs between survey rounds still some PSUs were under water close to the end of the survey period.

There were five empty PSUs in the urban areas of Hardap (1), Karas (3) and Omaheke (1) regions. Since these PSUs were found in the low strata within the urban areas of the relevant regions the substituting PSUs were selected from the same strata. The PSUs under water were also five in rural areas of Caprivi (1), Ohangwena (2) and Oshana (2) regions. Wherever possible the substituting PSUs were selected from the same constituency where the original PSU was selected. If not, the selection was carried out from the rural stratum of the particular region.

One sampled PSU in urban area of Khomas region (Windhoek city) had grown so large that it had to be split into 7 PSUs. This was incorporated into the geographical information system (GIS) and one PSU out of the seven was selected for the survey. In one PSU in Erongo region only fourteen households were listed and one in Omusati region listed only eleven households. All these households were interviewed and no additional selection was done to cover for the loss in sample.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The instruments for data collection were as in the previous survey the questionnaires and manuals. Form I questionnaire collected demographic and socio-economic information of household members, such as: sex, age, education, employment status among others. It also collected information on household possessions like animals, land, housing, household goods, utilities, household income and expenditure, etc.

Form II or the Daily Record Book is a diary for recording daily household transactions. A book was administered to each sample household each week for four consecutive weeks (survey round). Households were asked to record transactions, item by item, for all expenditures and receipts, including incomes and gifts received or given out. Own produce items were also recorded. Prices of items from different outlets were also collected in both rural and urban areas. The price collection was needed to supplement information from areas where price collection for consumer price indices (CPI) does not currently take place.

Cleaning operations

The data capturing process was undertaken in the following ways: Form 1 was scanned, interpreted and verified using the “Scan”, “Interpret” & “Verify” modules of the Eyes & Hands software respectively. Some basic checks were carried out to ensure that each PSU was valid and every household was unique. Invalid characters were removed. The scanned and verified data was converted into text files using the “Transfer” module of the Eyes & Hands. Finally, the data was transferred to a SQL database for further processing, using the “TranScan” application. The Daily Record Books (DRB or form 2) were manually entered after the scanned data had been transferred to the SQL database. The reason was to ensure that all DRBs were linked to the correct Form 1, i.e. each household's Form 1 was linked to the corresponding Daily Record Book. In total, 10 645 questionnaires (Form 1), comprising around 500 questions each, were scanned and close to one million transactions from the Form 2 (DRBs) were manually captured.

Response rate

Household response rate: Total number of responding households and non-responding households and the reason for non-response are shown below. Non-contacts and incomplete forms, which were rejected due to a lot of missing data in the questionnaire, at 3.4 and 4.0 percent, respectively, formed the largest part of non-response. At the regional level Erongo, Khomas, and Kunene reported the lowest response rate and Caprivi and Kavango the highest.

Data appraisal

To be able to compare with the previous survey in 2003/2004 and to follow up the development of the country, methodology and definitions were kept the same. Comparisons between the surveys can be found in the different chapters in this report. Experiences from the previous survey gave valuable input to this one and the data collection was improved to avoid earlier experienced errors. Also, some additional questions in the questionnaire helped to confirm the accuracy of reported data. During the data cleaning process it turned out, that some households had difficulty to separate their household consumption from their business consumption when recording their daily transactions in DRB. This was in particular applicable for the guest farms, the number of which has shown a big increase during the past five years. All households with extreme high consumption were examined manually and business transactions were recorded and separated from private consumption.

The PEN network was launched in September 2004 by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) with the aim of collecting uniform socio-economic and environmental data at household and village levels in rural areas of developing countries. The data presented here were collected by 33 PEN partners (mainly PhD students) and comprise 8,301 households in 334 villages located in 24 countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Three types of quantitative surveys were conducted: 1. Village surveys (V1, V2) 2. Annual household surveys (A1, A2) 3. Quarterly household surveys (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) The village surveys (V1-V2) collected data that were common to all or showed little variation among households. The first village survey, V1, was conducted at the beginning of the fieldwork to get background information on the villages while the second survey, V2 was conducted the end of the fieldwork period to get information for the 12 months period covered by the surveys. The household surveys were grouped into two categories: quarterly surveys (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) to collect income information, and, household surveys (A1, A2) to collect all other household information. A critical feature of the PEN research project was to collect detailed, high-quality data on forest use. This was done through quarterly income household surveys, for two reasons: first, short recall periods increase accuracy and reliability and, second, quarterly data would allow us to document seasonal variation in (forest) income and thus, inter alia, help us understand to what extent forests act as seasonal gap fillers. There are three partners (10101, 10203, and 10301 ) who, because of various particular circumstances, only conducted three of the four income surveys. In addition, 598 of the households missed out on one of the quarterly surveys, e.g., due to temporal absence or sickness, or insecurity in the area. These are still included in the database, while households missing more than one quarter were excluded. Two other household surveys were conducted. The first annual household survey (A1) collected basic household information (demographics, assets, forest-related information) and was done at the beginning of the survey period while the second (A2) collected information for the 12-month period covered by the surveys (e.g., on risk management) and was done at the end of the survey period. Note, however, that we did not collect any systematic data on the time allocation of households: while highly relevant for many analyses, we believed that it would be too time-consuming a component to add to our standard survey questions. The project is further described and discussed in two edited volumes by Angelsen et al. (2011) (describes particular the methods used) and Wunder et al. (2014) (includes six articles based on the PEN project).

Data set is the result of commissioned questions in the Atlantic Quarterly omnibus public opinion survey conducted in February 2019. These commissioned questions relate to public opinion regarding perceptions of immigration. Results are provided for each question broken down by various demographic markers (age, gender, geographic region, education level and household income). Sample size consisted of 454 online surveys.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households.

The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures.

The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included 1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967. If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986. Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets. Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview.

The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income.

In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience.

With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts: 1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys. Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience...

Abstract

The World Bank and UNHCR in collaboration with the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics and the University of California, Berkeley are conducting the Kenya COVID-19 Rapid Response Phone Survey to track the socioeconomic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the recovery from it as well as other shocks to provide timely data to inform a targeted response. This dataset contains information from eight waves of the COVID-19 RRPS, which is part of a panel survey that targets refugee household and started in May 2020. The same households were interviewed every two months for five survey rounds, in the first year of data collection, and every four months thereafter, with interviews conducted using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) techniques. The sample aims to be representative of the refugee and stateless population in Kenya. It comprises five strata: Kakuma refugee camp, Kalobeyei settlement, Dadaab refugee camp, urban refugees, and Shona stateless. Waves 1-7 of this survey include information on household background, service access, employment, food security, income loss, transfers, health, and COVID-19 knowledge. Wave 8 focused on how households were exposed to shocks, in particular adverse weather shocks and the increase in the price of food and fuel, but also included parts of the previous modules on household background, service access, employment, food security, income loss, and subjective wellbeing. The data is uploaded in three files. The first is the hh file, which contains household level information. The 'hhid', uniquely identifies all household. The second is the adult level file, which contains data at the level of adult household members. Each adult in a household is uniquely identified by the 'adult_id'. The third file is the child level file, available only for waves 3-7, which contains information for every child in the household. Each child in a household is uniquely identified by the 'child_id'. The duration of data collection and sample size for each completed wave was: Wave 1: May 14 to July 7, 2020; 1,328 refugee households Wave 2: July 16 to September 18, 2020; 1,699 refugee households Wave 3: September 28 to December 2, 2020; 1,487 refugee households Wave 4: January 15 to March 25, 2021; 1,376 refugee households Wave 5: March 29 to June 13, 2021; 1,562 refugee households Wave 6: July 14 to November 3, 2021; 1,407 refugee households Wave 7: November 15, 2021, to March 31, 2022; 1,281 refugee households Wave 8: May 31 to July 8, 2022: 1,355 refugee households The same questionnaire is also administered to nationals in Kenya, with the data available in the WB microdata library: https://microdata.worldbank.org/index.php/catalog/3774

Geographic coverage

National coverage covering rural and urban areas

Analysis unit

Individual and Household

Universe

All persons of concern for UNHCR

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample aims to be representative of the refugee and stateless population in Kenya. It comprises five strata: Kakuma refugee camp, Kalobeyei settlement, Dadaab refugee camp, urban refugees, and Shona stateless, where sampling approaches differ across strata. For refugees in Kakuma and Kalobeyei, as well as for stateless people, recently conducted Socioeconomic Surveys (SES), were used as sampling frames. For the refugee population living in urban areas and the Dadaab camp, no such household survey data existed, and sampling frames were based on UNHCR's registration records (proGres), which include phone numbers. For Kakuma, Kalobeyei, Dadaab and urban refugees, a two-step sampling process was used. First, 1,000 individuals from each stratum were selected from the corresponding sampling frames. Each of these individuals received a text message to confirm that the registered phone was still active. In the second stage, implicitly stratifying by sex and age, the verified phone number lists were used to select the sample. Until wave 7 sampled households that were not reached in earlier waves were also contacted along with households that were interviewed before. In wave 8 only households that had previously participated in the survey were contacted for interview. The “wave” variable represents in which wave the households were interviewed in. For the stateless population, all the participants of the Shona socioeconomic survey (n=400) were included in the RRPS, because of limited sample size. The sampling frames for the refugee and Shona stateless communities are thus representative of households with active phone numbers registered with UNHCR.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Telephone Interview [cati]

Research instrument

The questionnaire included 12 sections Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Household background Section 3: Travel patterns and interactions Section 4: Employment Section 5: Food security Section 6: Income Loss Section 7: Transfers Section 8: Subjective welfare (50% of sample) Section 9: Health Section 10: COVID Knowledge Section 11: Household and Social Relations (50% of sample) Section 12: Conclusion

Cleaning operations

Variable names were kept constant across survey waves. For questions that remained exactly the same across survey waves, data points for all waves can be found under one variable name. For questions where the phrasing changed (even in a minimal way) across waves, variable names were also changed to reflect the change in phrasing. Extended missing values are used to indicate why a value is missing for all variables. The following extended missing values are used in the dataset: · .a for 'Don't know' · .b for 'Refused to respond' · .c for 'Outliers set to missing' · .d for 'Inconsistency set to missing' (used for employment data as explained below) · .e for 'Field Skipped' (where an error in the survey tool caused the question to be missed) · .z for 'Not administered' (as the variable was not relevant to the observation) More detailed data on children was collected between waves 3 and 7, compared to waves 1, 2 and 8. In waves 1 and 2, data on children, e.g. on their learning activities, was collected for all children in a household with one question. Therefore, variables related to children are part of the 'hh' data for waves 1 and 2. Between waves 3 and 7, questions on children in the household were asked for specific children. Some questions covered all children, while others were only administered to one randomly selected child in the household. This approach allows to disaggregate data at the level of the child household members, and the data can be found in the 'child' data set. The household level weights can be used for analysis of the children's data. In wave 8, detailed information on children was dropped, as the questionnaire focused on other topics. The education status of household members, except for the respondent, was imputed for rounds 1 and 2. For rounds 1 and 2, only the education status of the respondent was elicited, while for later rounds the education status for each household member was asked. In order to evaluate outcomes by the household member's education status, information on education was imputed for waves 1 and 2, using the information provided for all household members in waves 3, 4, and 5. This resulted in additional information on the education status for household members in round 1 and 2, which was not yet available for earlier versions of this data. Some questions are not asked repeatedly across waves such that their values were imputed. For some questions, answers are not possible or unlikely to change within two months between survey waves such that households were not asked about them in all waves. The questions on assets owned before March 2020 were only asked to households when they are interviewed for the first time. The questions on the dwelling's wall and floor material as well as the household's connection to the power grid was not asked for all households in wave 2 and 3, where only new households and those who moved were covered by these questions. Questions on the main source of electricity in the households and types of assets owned were not asked in wave 8. The missing values those variables have when they were not asked, are imputed from the answers given in earlier waves. Improved quality insurance algorithms lead to minor revisions to wave 1 to 5 data. Based on additional data checks, the team has made minor refinements to wave 1 to 5 data. The identification of the household members that were the respondent or the household head was refined in the rare cases where it was not possible to interview the same respondent as in previous waves for a given household such that another adult was interviewed. For this reason, for about 2 percent of observations the household head status was assigned to an incorrect household member, which was corrected. For <1 percent of households the respondent did not appear in adult level dataset. For about 1 percent of observations in wave 5 the respondent appeared twice in the adult level dataset. Data from questions on COVID-19 vaccinations from wave 7 was dropped from the dataset. Due to significantly higher self-reported vaccination rates compared to official administrative records, data on vaccinations was deemed unreliable, most likely due to social desirability bias. Consequently, questions on vaccination status and questions using the vaccination data as a validation criterion were dropped from the datasets.

This series measures the prevalence and correlates of drug use in the United States. The surveys are designed to provide quarterly, as well as annual, estimates. Information is provided on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among members of United States households aged 12 and older. Questions include age at first use as well as lifetime, annual, and past-month usage for the following drug classes: marijuana, cocaine (and crack), hallucinogens, heroin, inhalants, alcohol, tobacco, anabolic steroids, nonmedical use of prescription drugs including psychotherapeutics, and polysubstance use. Respondents were also asked about substance abuse treatment history, illegal activities, problems resulting from use of drugs, perceptions of the risks involved, personal and family income sources and amounts, need for treatment for drug or alcohol use, criminal record, and needle-sharing. Questions on mental health and access to care, which were introduced in the 1994-B questionnaire (see NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY ON DRUG ABUSE, 1994), were retained in this administration of the survey. Demographic data include sex, race, age, ethnicity, marital status, motor vehicle use, educational level, job status, income level, veteran status, and past and current household composition. This study has 1 Data Set.

The American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year 2016-2020 socioeconomic estimate data is a subset of information derived from the following census tables:B08013 - Aggregate Travel Time To Work Of Workers By Sex;B08303 - Travel Time To Work;B17019 - Poverty Status In The Past 12 Months Of Families By Household Type By Tenure;B17021 - Poverty Status Of Individuals In The Past 12 Months By Living Arrangement;B19001 - Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19013 - Median Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19025 - Aggregate Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B19113 - Median Family Income In The Past 12 Months;B19202 - Median Non-family Household Income In The Past 12 Months;B23001 - Sex By Age By Employment Status For The Population 16 Years And Over;B25014 - Tenure By Occupants Per Room;B25026 - Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by year Householder Moved into Unit;B25106 - Tenure By Housing Costs As A Percentage Of Household Income In The Past 12 Months;C24010 - Sex By Occupation For The Civilian Employed Population 16 Years And Over;B20004 - Median Earnings In the Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) by Sex by Educational Attainment for the Population 25 Years and Over;B23006 - Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25 to 64 Years, and;B24021 - Occupation By Median Earnings In The Past 12 Months (In 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) For The Full-Time, Year-Round Civilian Employed Population 16 Years And Over.

To learn more about the American Community Survey (ACS), and associated datasets visit: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs, for questions about the spatial attribution of this dataset, please reach out to us at GISHelpdesk@hud.gov. Data Dictionary: DD_ACS 5-Year Socioeconomic Estimate Data by CountyDate of Coverage: 2016-2020

Abstract

The General Household Survey-Panel (GHS-Panel) is implemented in collaboration with the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS) team as part of the Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (ISA) program. The objectives of the GHS-Panel include the development of an innovative model for collecting agricultural data, interinstitutional collaboration, and comprehensive analysis of welfare indicators and socio-economic characteristics. The GHS-Panel is a nationally representative survey of approximately 5,000 households, which are also representative of the six geopolitical zones. The 2023/24 GHS-Panel is the fifth round of the survey with prior rounds conducted in 2010/11, 2012/13, 2015/16 and 2018/19. The GHS-Panel households were visited twice: during post-planting period (July - September 2023) and during post-harvest period (January - March 2024).

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households • Individuals • Agricultural plots • Communities

Universe

The survey covered all de jure households excluding prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and school dormitories.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The original GHS‑Panel sample was fully integrated with the 2010 GHS sample. The GHS sample consisted of 60 Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) or Enumeration Areas (EAs), chosen from each of the 37 states in Nigeria. This resulted in a total of 2,220 EAs nationally. Each EA contributed 10 households to the GHS sample, resulting in a sample size of 22,200 households. Out of these 22,200 households, 5,000 households from 500 EAs were selected for the panel component, and 4,916 households completed their interviews in the first wave.

After nearly a decade of visiting the same households, a partial refresh of the GHS‑Panel sample was implemented in Wave 4 and maintained for Wave 5. The refresh was conducted to maintain the integrity and representativeness of the sample. The refresh EAs were selected from the same sampling frame as the original GHS‑Panel sample in 2010. A listing of households was conducted in the 360 EAs, and 10 households were randomly selected in each EA, resulting in a total refresh sample of approximately 3,600 households.

In addition to these 3,600 refresh households, a subsample of the original 5,000 GHS‑Panel households from 2010 were selected to be included in the new sample. This “long panel” sample of 1,590 households was designed to be nationally representative to enable continued longitudinal analysis for the sample going back to 2010. The long panel sample consisted of 159 EAs systematically selected across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.

The combined sample of refresh and long panel EAs in Wave 5 that were eligible for inclusion consisted of 518 EAs based on the EAs selected in Wave 4. The combined sample generally maintains both the national and zonal representativeness of the original GHS‑Panel sample.

Sampling deviation

Although 518 EAs were identified for the post-planting visit, conflict events prevented interviewers from visiting eight EAs in the North West zone of the country. The EAs were located in the states of Zamfara, Katsina, Kebbi and Sokoto. Therefore, the final number of EAs visited both post-planting and post-harvest comprised 157 long panel EAs and 354 refresh EAs. The combined sample is also roughly equally distributed across the six geopolitical zones.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The GHS-Panel Wave 5 consisted of three questionnaires for each of the two visits. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. The Agriculture Questionnaire was administered to all households engaged in agricultural activities such as crop farming, livestock rearing, and other agricultural and related activities. The Community Questionnaire was administered to the community to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

GHS-Panel Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provided information on demographics; education; health; labour; childcare; early child development; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm enterprises; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; economic shocks; and other sources of household income. Household location was geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the GHS-Panel data to other available geographic data sets (forthcoming).

GHS-Panel Agriculture Questionnaire: The Agriculture Questionnaire solicited information on land ownership and use; farm labour; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household plots; agricultural capital; irrigation; crop harvest and utilization; animal holdings and costs; household fishing activities; and digital farming information. Some information is collected at the crop level to allow for detailed analysis for individual crops.

GHS-Panel Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicited information on access to infrastructure and transportation; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions, and achievements; social norms; and local retail price information.

The Household Questionnaire was slightly different for the two visits. Some information was collected only in the post-planting visit, some only in the post-harvest visit, and some in both visits.

The Agriculture Questionnaire collected different information during each visit, but for the same plots and crops.

The Community Questionnaire collected prices during both visits, and different community level information during the two visits.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: Wave five exercise was conducted using Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) techniques. All the questionnaires (household, agriculture, and community questionnaires) were implemented in both the post-planting and post-harvest visits of Wave 5 using the CAPI software, Survey Solutions. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Living Standards Measurement Unit within the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each enumerator was given a tablet which they used to conduct the interviews. Overall, implementation of survey using Survey Solutions CAPI was highly successful, as it allowed for timely availability of the data from completed interviews.

DATA COMMUNICATION SYSTEM: The data communication system used in Wave 5 was highly automated. Each field team was given a mobile modem which allowed for internet connectivity and daily synchronization of their tablets. This ensured that head office in Abuja had access to the data in real-time. Once the interview was completed and uploaded to the server, the data was first reviewed by the Data Editors. The data was also downloaded from the server, and Stata dofile was run on the downloaded data to check for additional errors that were not captured by the Survey Solutions application. An excel error file was generated following the running of the Stata dofile on the raw dataset. Information contained in the excel error files were then communicated back to respective field interviewers for their action. This monitoring activity was done on a daily basis throughout the duration of the survey, both in the post-planting and post-harvest.

DATA CLEANING: The data cleaning process was done in three main stages. The first stage was to ensure proper quality control during the fieldwork. This was achieved in part by incorporating validation and consistency checks into the Survey Solutions application used for the data collection and designed to highlight many of the errors that occurred during the fieldwork.

The second stage cleaning involved the use of Data Editors and Data Assistants (Headquarters in Survey Solutions). As indicated above, once the interview is completed and uploaded to the server, the Data Editors review completed interview for inconsistencies and extreme values. Depending on the outcome, they can either approve or reject the case. If rejected, the case goes back to the respective interviewer’s tablet upon synchronization. Special care was taken to see that the households included in the data matched with the selected sample and where there were differences, these were properly assessed and documented. The agriculture data were also checked to ensure that the plots identified in the main sections merged with the plot information identified in the other sections. Additional errors observed were compiled into error reports that were regularly sent to the teams. These errors were then corrected based on re-visits to the household on the instruction of the supervisor. The data that had gone through this first stage of cleaning was then approved by the Data Editor. After the Data Editor’s approval of the interview on Survey Solutions server, the Headquarters also reviews and depending on the outcome, can either reject or approve.

The third stage of cleaning involved a comprehensive review of the final raw data following the first and second stage cleaning. Every variable was examined individually for (1) consistency with other sections and variables, (2) out of range responses, and (3) outliers. However, special care was taken to avoid making strong assumptions when resolving potential errors. Some minor errors remain in the data where the diagnosis and/or solution were unclear to the data cleaning team.

Response

This survey data (collected in June 2024) is completely anonymous, and all information should be used for academic research only.

It covers Corporate Social Responsibility related questions and distributed to participants via Wenjuanxing, on online survey questionnaire website. The construction of this questionnaire follows the principles of clarity, simplicity, and understandability in order to enable respondents to have appropriate expressions of views and attitudes. The target sample for this study involves consumers aged between 18 and 60 years, comprising different segments of age, income level, and social responsibility awareness.

Each column stands for one question. All answers could help to may help to more comprehensively understand the difference in the effectiveness of different activities regarding CSR in China.

Abstract

The study included four separate surveys:

1. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2002

2. The survey of Family Income Support (MOP in Serbian) recipients in 2002 These two datasets are published together.

3. The LSMS survey of general population of Serbia in 2003 (panel survey)

4. The survey of Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 These two datasets are published together separately from the 2002 datasets.

Objectives

LSMS represents multi-topical study of household living standard and is based on international experience in designing and conducting this type of research. The basic survey was carried out in 2002 on a representative sample of households in Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija). Its goal was to establish a poverty profile according to the comprehensive data on welfare of households and to identify vulnerable groups. Also its aim was to assess the targeting of safety net programs by collecting detailed information from individuals on participation in specific government social programs. This study was used as the basic document in developing Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) in Serbia which was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia in October 2003.

The survey was repeated in 2003 on a panel sample (the households which participated in 2002 survey were re-interviewed).

Analysis of the take-up and profile of the population in 2003 was the first step towards formulating the system of monitoring in the Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS). The survey was conducted in accordance with the same methodological principles used in 2002 survey, with necessary changes referring only to the content of certain modules and the reduction in sample size. The aim of the repeated survey was to obtain panel data to enable monitoring of the change in the living standard within a period of one year, thus indicating whether there had been a decrease or increase in poverty in Serbia in the course of 2003. [Note: Panel data are the data obtained on the sample of households which participated in the both surveys. These data made possible tracking of living standard of the same persons in the period of one year.]

Along with these two comprehensive surveys, conducted on national and regional representative samples which were to give a picture of the general population, there were also two surveys with particular emphasis on vulnerable groups. In 2002, it was the survey of living standard of Family Income Support recipients with an aim to validate this state supported program of social welfare. In 2003 the survey of Roma from Roma settlements was conducted. Since all present experiences indicated that this was one of the most vulnerable groups on the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, but with no ample research of poverty of Roma population made, the aim of the survey was to compare poverty of this group with poverty of basic population and to establish which categories of Roma population were at the greatest risk of poverty in 2003. However, it is necessary to stress that the LSMS of the Roma population comprised potentially most imperilled Roma, while the Roma integrated in the main population were not included in this study.

Geographic coverage

The surveys were conducted on the whole territory of Serbia (without Kosovo and Metohija).

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Sample frame for both surveys of general population (LSMS) in 2002 and 2003 consisted of all permanent residents of Serbia, without the population of Kosovo and Metohija, according to definition of permanently resident population contained in UN Recommendations for Population Censuses, which were applied in 2002 Census of Population in the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, permanent residents were all persons living in the territory Serbia longer than one year, with the exception of diplomatic and consular staff.

The sample frame for the survey of Family Income Support recipients included all current recipients of this program on the territory of Serbia based on the official list of recipients given by Ministry of Social affairs.

The definition of the Roma population from Roma settlements was faced with obstacles since precise data on the total number of Roma population in Serbia are not available. According to the last population Census from 2002 there were 108,000 Roma citizens, but the data from the Census are thought to significantly underestimate the total number of the Roma population. However, since no other more precise data were available, this number was taken as the basis for estimate on Roma population from Roma settlements. According to the 2002 Census, settlements with at least 7% of the total population who declared itself as belonging to Roma nationality were selected. A total of 83% or 90,000 self-declared Roma lived in the settlements that were defined in this way and this number was taken as the sample frame for Roma from Roma settlements.

Planned sample: In 2002 the planned size of the sample of general population included 6.500 households. The sample was both nationally and regionally representative (representative on each individual stratum). In 2003 the planned panel sample size was 3.000 households. In order to preserve the representative quality of the sample, we kept every other census block unit of the large sample realized in 2002. This way we kept the identical allocation by strata. In selected census block unit, the same households were interviewed as in the basic survey in 2002. The planned sample of Family Income Support recipients in 2002 and Roma from Roma settlements in 2003 was 500 households for each group.

Sample type: In both national surveys the implemented sample was a two-stage stratified sample. Units of the first stage were enumeration districts, and units of the second stage were the households. In the basic 2002 survey, enumeration districts were selected with probability proportional to number of households, so that the enumeration districts with bigger number of households have a higher probability of selection. In the repeated survey in 2003, first-stage units (census block units) were selected from the basic sample obtained in 2002 by including only even numbered census block units. In practice this meant that every second census block unit from the previous survey was included in the sample. In each selected enumeration district the same households interviewed in the previous round were included and interviewed. On finishing the survey in 2003 the cases were merged both on the level of households and members.

Stratification: Municipalities are stratified into the following six territorial strata: Vojvodina, Belgrade, Western Serbia, Central Serbia (Šumadija and Pomoravlje), Eastern Serbia and South-east Serbia. Primary units of selection are further stratified into enumeration districts which belong to urban type of settlements and enumeration districts which belong to rural type of settlement.

The sample of Family Income Support recipients represented the cases chosen randomly from the official list of recipients provided by Ministry of Social Affairs. The sample of Roma from Roma settlements was,as in the national survey, a two-staged stratified sample, but the units in the first stage were settlements where Roma population was represented in the percentage over 7%, and the units of the second stage were Roma households. Settlements are stratified in three territorial strata: Vojvodina, Beograd and Central Serbia.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

In all surveys the same questionnaire with minimal changes was used. It included different modules, topically separate areas which had an aim of perceiving the living standard of households from different angles. Topic areas were the following: 1. Roster with demography. 2. Housing conditions and durables module with information on the age of durables owned by a household with a special block focused on collecting information on energy billing, payments, and usage. 3. Diary of food expenditures (weekly), including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 4. Questionnaire of main expenditure-based recall periods sufficient to enable construction of annual consumption at the household level, including home production, gifts and transfers in kind. 5. Agricultural production for all households which cultivate 10+ acres of land or who breed cattle. 6. Participation and social transfers module with detailed breakdown by programs 7. Labour Market module in line with a simplified version of the Labour Force Survey (LFS), with special additional questions to capture various informal sector activities, and providing information on earnings 8. Health with a focus on utilization of services and expenditures (including informal payments) 9. Education module, which incorporated pre-school, compulsory primary education, secondary education and university education. 10. Special income block, focusing on sources of income not covered in other parts (with a focus on remittances).

Response rate

During field work, interviewers kept a precise diary of interviews, recording both successful and unsuccessful visits. Particular attention was paid to reasons why some households were not interviewed. Separate marks were given for households which were not interviewed due to refusal and for cases when a given household could not be found on the territory of the chosen census block.

In 2002 a total of 7,491 households were contacted. Of this number a total of 6,386 households in 621 census rounds were interviewed. Interviewers did not manage to collect the data for 1,106 or 14.8% of selected households. Out of this number 634 households or

Abstract

South Africa's first Living Conditions Survey (LCS) was conducted by Statistics South Africa over a period of one year between 13 October 2014 and 25 October 2015. The main aim of this survey is to provide data that will contribute to a better understanding of living conditions and poverty in South Africa for monitoring levels of poverty over time. Data was collected from 27 527 households across the country. The survey used a combination of the diary and recall methods. Households were asked to record their daily acquisitions in diaries provided by Statistics SA for a period of a month. The survey also employed a household questionnaire to collect data on household expenditure, subjective poverty, and income.

Geographic coverage

The survey had national coverage.

Analysis unit

Households and individuals

Universe

The sample for the survey included all domestic households, holiday homes and all households in workers' residences, such as mining hostels and dormitories for workers, but excludes institutions such as hospitals, prisons, old-age homes, student hostels, and dormitories for scholars, boarding houses, hotels, lodges and guesthouses.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The Living Conditions Survey 2014-2015 sample was based on the LCS 2008-2009 master sample of 3 080 PSUs. However, there were 40 PSUs with no DU sample, thus the sample of 30 818 DUs was selected from only 3 040 PSUs. Amongst the PSUs with no DU sample, 25 PSUs were non-respondent because 19 PSUs were not captured on the dwelling frame, and 6 PSUs had an insufficient DU count. The remaining 15 PSUs were vacant and therefore out-of-scope. Among the PSUs with a DU sample, 2 974 PSUs were respondent, 50 PSUs were non-respondent and 16 PSUs were out-of-scope. The scope of the Master Sample (MS) is national coverage of all households in South Africa. It was designed to cover all households living in private dwelling units and workers living in workers' quarters in the country.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

The Living Conditions Survey 2014-2015 used three data collection instruments, namely a household questionnaire, a weekly diary, and the summary questionnaire. The household questionnaire was a booklet of questions administered to respondents during the course of the survey month. The weekly diary was a booklet that was left with the responding household to track all acquisitions made by the household during the survey month. The household (after being trained by the Interviewer) was responsible for recording all their daily acquisitions, as well as information about where they purchased the item and the purpose of the item. A household completed a different diary for each of the four weeks of the survey month. Interviewers then assigned codes for the classification of individual consumption according to purpose (COICOP) to items recorded in the weekly diary, using a code list provided to them.

Data appraisal

Anthropometric data collected during the survey are not included in the dataset.