The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Social and Welfare Statistics (previously Social Expenditure Database) available via the UK Data Service includes the following databases:

The OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX) has been developed in order to serve a growing need for indicators of social policy. It includes reliable and internationally comparable statistics on public and mandatory and voluntary private social expenditure at programme level. SOCX provides a unique tool for monitoring trends in aggregate social expenditure and analysing changes in its composition. The main social policy areas are as follows: old age, survivors, incapacity-related benefits, health, family, active labour market programmes, unemployment, housing, and other social policy areas.

The Income Distribution database contains comparable data on the distribution of household income, providing both a point of reference for judging the performance of any country and an opportunity to assess the role of common drivers as well as drivers that are country-specific. They also allow governments to draw on the experience of different countries in order to learn "what works best" in narrowing income disparities and poverty. But achieving comparability in this field is also difficult, as national practices differ widely in terms of concepts, measures, and statistical sources.

The Child Wellbeing dataset compare 21 policy-focussed measures of child well-being in six areas, chosen to cover the major aspects of children’s lives: material well being; housing and environment; education; health and safety; risk behaviours; and quality of school life.

The Better Life Index: There is more to life than the cold numbers of GDP and economic statistics. This Index allows you to compare well-being across countries, based on 11 topics the OECD has identified as essential, in the areas of material living conditions and quality of life.

The Social Expenditure data were first provided by the UK Data Service in March 2004.

This statistic shows the percentage of the population aged 25 and over living in households that participated in different public assistance programs offered in the United States in 2018. Programs included here are Medicaid, School Lunch and the Food Stamps program. 46 percent of individuals with no high school diploma lived in households that had participated in Medicaid as of 2018.

This report to Congress provides information on the performance of states on seven national outcome categories and also includes data on contextual factors and findings of analyses conducted across states. (PDF (PDF) - 4,518 KB) (PDF (PDF) - 945 KB) The PDF is best viewed in Chrome or Firefox. If using Internet Explorer (IE), please right click the link, save the file, and view it locally. Executive Summary Contextual Factors State Performance on Outcome Measures Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Investigation Child Welfare Outcomes Data Site Introduction to the Child Welfare Outcomes, Data, and Analysis Outcome Measures Context Data Data Sources Data Analyses in the Report The Child Welfare Outcomes Report Data Site Chapter 1: Child Welfare Outcomes Demographic Data National Child Population Children in Foster Care Foster Care Entry Rates Children Waiting for Adoption and Children Adopted Summary Chapter 2: Keeping Children Safe Child Victims and Child Fatalities Range of State Performance on Safety-Related Outcome Measures Changes Over Time in State Performance on Measures of Maltreatment Recurrence and Maltreatment of Children in Foster Care Summary of Findings Regarding Keeping Children Safe Chapter 3: Finding Permanent Homes for Children in Foster Care Range of Performance in Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Changes Over Time in State Performance on Measures of Achieving Permanency Summary of Findings Regarding Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care Chapter 4: Achieving Timely Reunifications and Adoptions for Children in Foster Care Caseworker Visits Timeliness of Reunifications Changes Over Time in State Performance With Regard to Achieving Timely Reunifications Timeliness of Adoptions Changes Over Time in State Performance With Regard to Timeliness of Adoptions Summary of Findings Regarding Achieving Reunifications and Adoptions in a Timely Manner Chapter 5: Achieving Stable and Appropriate Placement Settings for Children in Foster Care Changes Over Time in State Performance on Measures of Achieving Stable and Appropriate Placement Settings for Children in Foster Care Summary of Findings Regarding Achieving Stable and Appropriate Placements for Children in Foster Care Chapter 6: State Comments on Performance Relevant to the Seven National Child Welfare Outcomes Appendix A: Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105—89) Appendix B: Child Welfare Outcomes Report: Outcomes and Measures Appendix C: Caseworker Visits Appendix D: Child Welfare Outcomes Report: Data Sources and Elements Appendix E: Child Maltreatment 2018: Summary of Key Findings Appendix F: The AFCARS Report: FY 2018 Estimates Appendix G: Data-Quality Criteria Metadata-only record linking to the original dataset. Open original dataset below.

The New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings is the official count of how many people and dwellings there are in New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of our society at a point in time and helps to tell the story of its social and economic change. The 2023 Census, held on Tuesday 7 March, was the 35th New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings. The first official census was run in 1851, and since 1877 there has been a census every five years, with only four exceptions.

The share of children living in welfare benefit-dependent households in New Zealand was ** percent in 2018. The quantification of child poverty in New Zealand is not reliably known. However, the rate of children living in households that rely on welfare benefits as their main source of income can be used as an indicator of income poverty among children in the country.

Abstract

The main objectives of the 2018/19 NLSS are: i) to provide critical information for production of a wide range of socio-economic and demographic indicators, including for benchmarking and monitoring of SDGs; ii) to monitor progress in population’s welfare; iii) to provide statistical evidence and measure the impact on households of current and anticipated government policies. In addition, the 2018/19 NLSS could be utilized to improve other non-survey statistical information, e.g. to determine and calibrate the contribution of final consumption expenditures of households to GDP; to update the weights and determine the basket for the national Consumer Price Index (CPI); to improve the methodology and dissemination of micro-economic and welfare statistics in Nigeria.

The 2018/19 NLSS collected a comprehensive and diverse set of socio-economic and demographic data pertaining to the basic needs and conditions under which households live on a day to day basis. The 2018/19 NLSS questionnaire includes wide-ranging modules, covering demographic indicators, education, health, labour, expenditures on food and non-food goods, non-farm enterprises, household assets and durables, access to safety nets, housing conditions, economic shocks, exposure to crime and farm production indicators.

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals
• 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 2018/19 NLSS sample is designed to provide representative estimates for the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. By extension. The sample is also representative at the national and zonal levels. Although the sample is not explicitly stratified by urban and rural areas, it is possible to obtain urban and rural estimates from the NLSS data at the national level. At all stages, the relative proportion of urban and rural EAs as has been maintained.

Before designing the sample for the 2018/19 NLSS, the results from the 2009/10 HNLSS were analysed to extract the sampling properties (variance, design effect, etc.) and estimate the required sample size to reach a desired precision for poverty estimates in the 2018/19 NLSS.

EA SELECTION: The sampling frame for the 2018/19 NLSS was based on the national master sample developed by the NBS, referred to as the NISH2 (Nigeria Integrated Survey of Households 2). This master sample was based on the enumeration areas (EAs) defined for the 2006 Nigeria Census Housing and Population conducted by National Population Commission (NPopC). The NISH2 was developed by the NBS to use as a frame for surveys with state-level domains. NISH2 EAs were drawn from another master sample that NBS developed for surveys with LGA-level domains (referred to as the “LGA master sample”). The NISH2 contains 200 EAs per state composed of 20 replicates of 10 sample EAs for each state, selected systematically from the full LGA master sample. Since the 2018/19 NLSS required domains at the state-level, the NISH2 served as the sampling frame for the survey.

Since the NISH2 is composed of state-level replicates of 10 sample EAs, a total of 6 replicates were selected from the NISH2 for each state to provide a total sample of 60 EAs per state. The 6 replicates selected for the 2018/19 NLSS in each state were selected using random systematic sampling. This sampling procedure provides a similar distribution of the sample EAs within each state as if one systematic sample of 60 EAs had been selected directly from the census frame of EAs.

A fresh listing of households was conducted in the EAs selected for the 2018/19 NLSS. Throughout the course of the listing, 139 of the selected EAs (or about 6%) were not able to be listed by the field teams. The primary reason the teams were not able to conduct the listing in these EAs was due to security issues in the country. The fieldwork period of the 2018/19 NLSS saw events related to the insurgency in the north east of the country, clashes between farmers and herdsman, and roving groups of bandits. These events made it impossible for the interviewers to visit the EAs in the villages and areas affected by these conflict events. In addition to security issues, some EAs had been demolished or abandoned since the 2006 census was conducted. In order to not compromise the sample size and thus the statistical power of the estimates, it was decided to replace these 139 EAs. Additional EAs from the same state and sector were randomly selected from the remaining NISH2 EAs to replace each EA that could not be listed by the field teams. This necessary exclusion of conflict affected areas implies that the sample is representative of areas of Nigeria that were accessible during the 2018/19 NLSS fieldwork period. The sample will not reflect conditions in areas that were undergoing conflict at that time. This compromise was necessary to ensure the safety of interviewers.

HOUSEHOLD SELECTION: Following the listing, the 10 households to be interviewed were selected from the listed households. These households were selected systemically after sorting by the order in which the households were listed. This systematic sampling helped to ensure that the selected households were well dispersed across the EA and thereby limit the potential for clustering of the selected households within an EA.

Occasionally, interviewers would encounter selected households that were not able to be interviewed (e.g. due to migration, refusal, etc.). In order to preserve the sample size and statistical power, households that could not be interviewed were replaced with an additional randomly selected household from the EA. Replacement households had to be requested by the field teams on a case-by-case basis and the replacement household was sent by the CAPI managers from NBS headquarters. Interviewers were required to submit a record for each household that was replaced, and justification given for their replacement. These replaced households are included in the disseminated data. However, replacements were relatively rare with only 2% of sampled households not able to be interviewed and replaced.

Sampling deviation

Although a sample was initially drawn for Borno state, the ongoing insurgency in the state presented severe challenges in conducting the survey there. The situation in the state made it impossible for the field teams to reach large areas of the state without compromising their safety. Given this limitation it was clear that a representative sample for Borno was not possible. However, it was decided to proceed with conducting the survey in areas that the teams could access in order to collect some information on the parts of the state that were accessible.

The limited area that field staff could safely operate in in Borno necessitated an alternative sample selection process from the other states. The EA selection occurred in several stages. Initially, an attempt was made to limit the frame to selected LGAs that were considered accessible. However, after selection of the EAs from the identified LGAs, it was reported by the NBS listing teams that a large share of the selected EAs were not safe for them to visit. Therefore, an alternative approach was adopted that would better ensure the safety of the field team but compromise further the representativeness of the sample. First, the list of 788 EAs in the LGA master sample for Borno were reviewed by NBS staff in Borno and the EAs they deemed accessible were identified. The team identified 359 EAs (46%) that were accessible. These 359 EAs served as the frame for the Borno sample and 60 EAs were randomly selected from this frame. However, throughout the course of the NLSS fieldwork, additional insurgency related events occurred which resulted in 7 of the 60 EAs being inaccessible when they were to be visited. Unlike for the main sample, these EAs were not replaced. Therefore, 53 EAs were ultimately covered from the Borno sample. The listing and household selection process that followed was the same as for the rest of the states.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

Two sets of questionnaires – household and community – were used to collect information in the NLSS2018/19. The Household Questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample. 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.

Household Questionnaire: The Household Questionnaire provides information on demographics; education; health; labour; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm income-generating activities; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; assets; information and communication technology; agriculture and land tenure; and other sources of household income.

Community Questionnaire: The Community Questionnaire solicits information on access to transported and infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Cleaning operations

CAPI: The 2018/19 NLSS was conducted using the Survey Solutions Computer Assisted Person Interview (CAPI) platform. The Survey Solutions software was developed and maintained by the Development Economics Data Group (DECDG) at the World Bank. Each interviewer and supervisor was given a tablet

Benin Adequacy: Social Safety Net Programs: % of Total Welfare of Beneficiary Households data was reported at 11.506 % in 2018. Benin Adequacy: Social Safety Net Programs: % of Total Welfare of Beneficiary Households data is updated yearly, averaging 11.506 % from Dec 2018 (Median) to 2018, with 1 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 11.506 % in 2018 and a record low of 11.506 % in 2018. Benin Adequacy: Social Safety Net Programs: % of Total Welfare of Beneficiary Households data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Benin – Table BJ.World Bank.WDI: Social: Social Protection and Insurance. Adequacy of social safety net programs is measured by the total transfer amount received by the population participating in social safety net programs as a share of their total welfare. Welfare is defined as the total income or total expenditure of beneficiary households. Social safety net programs include cash transfers and last resort programs, noncontributory social pensions, other cash transfers programs (child, family and orphan allowances, birth and death grants, disability benefits, and other allowances), conditional cash transfers, in-kind food transfers (food stamps and vouchers, food rations, supplementary feeding, and emergency food distribution), school feeding, other social assistance programs (housing allowances, scholarships, fee waivers, health subsidies, and other social assistance) and public works programs (cash for work and food for work). Estimates include both direct and indirect beneficiaries.;ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection - Indicators of Resilience and Equity, The World Bank. Data are based on national representative household surveys. (datatopics.worldbank.org/aspire/);;

The file contains the following information Department District Department Item Description (Basic Pay, Housing Rent, Medical Charges etc)

The New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings is the official count of how many people and dwellings there are in New Zealand. It provides a snapshot of our society at a point in time and helps to tell the story of its social and economic change. The 2023 Census, held on Tuesday 7 March, was the 35th New Zealand Census of Population and Dwellings. The first official census was run in 1851, and since 1877 there has been a census every five years, with only four exceptions.

Abstract

The 2017-18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (2017-18 BDHS) is a nationwide survey with a nationally representative sample of approximately 20,250 selected households. All ever-married women age 15-49 who are usual members of the selected households or who spent the night before the survey in the selected households were eligible for individual interviews. The survey was designed to produce reliable estimates for key indicators at the national level as well as for urban and rural areas and each of the country’s eight divisions: Barishal, Chattogram, Dhaka, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Rangpur, and Sylhet.

The main objective of the 2017-18 BDHS is to provide up-to-date information on fertility and fertility preferences; childhood mortality levels and causes of death; awareness, approval, and use of family planning methods; maternal and child health, including breastfeeding practices and nutritional status; newborn care; women’s empowerment; selected noncommunicable diseases (NCDS); and availability and accessibility of health and family planning services at the community level.

This information is intended to assist policymakers and program managers in monitoring and evaluating the 4th Health, Population and Nutrition Sector Program (4th HPNSP) 2017-2022 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MOHFW) and to provide estimates for 14 major indicators of the HPNSP Results Framework (MOHFW 2017).

Geographic coverage

National coverage

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Children age 0-5
• Woman age 15-49
• Community

Universe

The survey covered all de jure household members (usual residents), all women aged 15-49 and all children aged 0-5 resident in the household.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

The sample for the 2017-18 BDHS is nationally representative and covers the entire population residing in non-institutional dwelling units in the country. The survey used a list of enumeration areas (EAs) from the 2011 Population and Housing Census of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, provided by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), as a sampling frame (BBS 2011). The primary sampling unit (PSU) of the survey is an EA with an average of about 120 households.

Bangladesh consists of eight administrative divisions: Barishal, Chattogram, Dhaka, Khulna, Mymensingh, Rajshahi, Rangpur, and Sylhet. Each division is divided into zilas and each zila into upazilas. Each urban area in an upazila is divided into wards, which are further subdivided into mohallas. A rural area in an upazila is divided into union parishads (UPs) and, within UPs, into mouzas. These divisions allow the country as a whole to be separated into rural and urban areas.

The survey is based on a two-stage stratified sample of households. In the first stage, 675 EAs (250 in urban areas and 425 in rural areas) were selected with probability proportional to EA size. The sample in that stage was drawn by BBS, following the specifications provided by ICF that include cluster allocation and instructions on sample selection. A complete household listing operation was then carried out in all selected EAs to provide a sampling frame for the second-stage selection of households. In the second stage of sampling, a systematic sample of an average of 30 households per EA was selected to provide

statistically reliable estimates of key demographic and health variables for the country as a whole, for urban and rural areas separately, and for each of the eight divisions. Based on this design, 20,250 residential households were selected. Completed interviews were expected from about 20,100 ever-married women age 15-49. In addition, in a subsample of one-fourth of the households (about 7-8 households per EA), all ever-married women age 50 and older, never-married women age 18 and older, and men age 18 and older were weighed and had their height measured. In the same households, blood pressure and blood glucose testing were conducted for all adult men and women age 18 and older.

The survey was successfully carried out in 672 clusters after elimination of three clusters (one urban and two rural) that were completely eroded by floodwater. These clusters were in Dhaka (one urban cluster), Rajshahi (one rural cluster), and Rangpur (one rural cluster). A total of 20,160 households were selected for the survey.

For further details on sample selection, see Appendix A of the final report.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The 2017-18 BDHS used six types of questionnaires: (1) the Household Questionnaire, (2) the Woman’s Questionnaire (completed by ever-married women age 15-49), (3) the Biomarker Questionnaire, (4) two verbal autopsy questionnaires to collect data on causes of death among children under age 5, (5) the Community Questionnaire, and the Fieldworker Questionnaire. The first three questionnaires were based on the model questionnaires developed for the DHS-7 Program, adapted to the situation and needs in Bangladesh and taking into account the content of the instruments employed in prior BDHS surveys. The verbal autopsy module was replicated from the questionnaires used in the 2011 BDHS, as the objectives of the 2011 BDHS and the 2017-18 BDHS were the same. The module was adapted from the standardized WHO 2016 verbal autopsy module. The Community Questionnaire was adapted from the version used in the 2014 BDHS. The adaptation process for the 2017-18 BDHS involved a series of meetings with a technical working group. Additionally, draft questionnaires were circulated to other interested groups and were reviewed by the TWG and SAC. The questionnaires were developed in English and then translated into and printed in Bangla. Back translations were conducted by people not involved with the Bangla translations.

Cleaning operations

Completed BDHS questionnaires were returned to Dhaka every 2 weeks for data processing at Mitra and Associates offices. Data processing began shortly after fieldwork commenced and consisted of office editing, coding of open-ended questions, data entry, and editing of inconsistencies found by the computer program. The field teams were alerted regarding any inconsistencies or errors found during data processing. Eight data entry operators and two data entry supervisors performed the work, which commenced on November 17, 2017, and ended on March 27, 2018. Data processing was accomplished using Census and Survey Processing System (CSPro) software, jointly developed by the United States Census Bureau, ICF, and Serpro S.A.

Response rate

Among the 20,160 households selected, 19,584 were occupied. Interviews were successfully completed in 19,457 (99%) of the occupied households. Among the 20,376 ever-married women age 15-49 eligible for interviews, 20,127 were interviewed, yielding a response rate of 99%. The principal reason for non-response among women was their absence from home despite repeated visits. Response rates did not vary notably by urbanrural residence.

Sampling error estimates

The estimates from a sample survey are affected by two types of errors: nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are the results of mistakes made in implementing data collection and data processing, such as failure to locate and interview the correct household, misunderstanding of the questions on the part of either the interviewer or the respondent, and data entry errors. Although numerous efforts were made during the implementation of the 2017-18 Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS) to minimize this type of error, nonsampling errors are impossible to avoid and difficult to evaluate statistically.

Sampling errors, on the other hand, can be evaluated statistically. The sample of respondents selected in the 2017-18 BDHS is only one of many samples that could have been selected from the same population, using the same design and expected size. Each of these samples would yield results that differ somewhat from the results of the actual sample selected. Sampling errors are a measure of the variability among all possible samples. Although the degree of variability is not known exactly, it can be estimated from the survey results.

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

If the sample of respondents had been selected as a simple random sample, it would have been possible to use straightforward formulas for calculating sampling errors. However, the 2017-18 BDHS sample is the result of a multi-stage stratified design, and, consequently, it was necessary to use more complex formulas. Sampling errors are computed in SAS, using programs developed by ICF. These programs use the Taylor linearization method to estimate variances for survey estimates that are means, proportions, or ratios. The Jackknife repeated replication method is used for variance estimation of more complex statistics such as fertility and mortality rates.

Note: A more detailed description of estimates of sampling errors are presented in APPENDIX B of the survey report.

Data

Abstract

The Ethiopia Socioeconomic Survey (ESS) is a collaborative project between the Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA) and the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team. The objective of the LSMS-ISA is to collect multi-topic, household-level panel data with a special focus on improving agriculture statistics and generating a clearer understanding of the link between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. The project also aims to build capacity, share knowledge across countries, and improve survey methodologies and technology.

ESS is a long-term project to collect panel data. The project responds to the data needs of the country, given the dependence of a high percentage of households in agriculture activities in the country. The ESS collects information on household agricultural activities along with other information on the households like human capital, other economic activities, access to services and resources. The ability to follow the same households over time makes the ESS a new and powerful tool for studying and understanding the role of agriculture in household welfare over time as it allows analyses of how households add to their human and physical capital, how education affects earnings, and the role of government policies and programs on poverty, inter alia. The ESS is the first panel survey to be carried out by the CSA that links a multi-topic household questionnaire with detailed data on agriculture.

Geographic coverage

National Regional Urban and Rural

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual
• Community

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 sampling frame for the new ESS4 is based on the updated 2018 pre-census cartographic database of enumeration areas by CSA. The ESS4 sample is a two-stage stratified probability sample. The ESS4 EAs in rural areas are the subsample of the AgSS EA sample. That means, the first stage of sampling in the rural areas entailed selecting enumeration areas (i.e. the primary sampling units) using simple random sampling (SRS) from the sample of the 2018 AgSS enumeration areas (EAs). The first stage of sampling for urban areas is selecting EAs directly from the urban frame of EAs within each region using systematically with PPS. This is designed in way that automatically results in a proportional allocation of the urban sample by zone within each region. Following the selection of sample EAs, they are allocated by urban rural strata using power allocation which is happened to be closer to proportional allocation.

The second stage of sampling for the ESS4 is the selection of households to be surveyed in each sampled EA using systematic random sampling. From the rural EAs, 10 agricultural households are selected as a subsample of the households selected for the AgSS and 2 non-agricultural households are selected from the non-agriculture households list in that specific EA. The non-agriculture household selection follows the same sampling method i.e. systematic random sampling. One important issue to note in ESS4 sampling is that the total number of agriculture households per EA remains 10 even though there are less than 2 or no non-agriculture households are listed and sampled in that EA.

For urban areas, a total of 15 households are selected per EA regardless of the households’ economic activity. The households are selected using systematic random sampling from the total households listed in that specific EA. Table 3.2 presents the distribution of sample households for ESS4 by region, urban and rural stratum. A total of 7527 households are sampled for ESS4 based on the above sampling strategy.

Mode of data collection

Computer Assisted Personal Interview [capi]

Research instrument

The survey consisted of five questionnaires, similar with the questionnaires used during the previous rounds with revisions based on the results of the previous rounds as well as on identified areas of need for new data.

The household questionnaire was administered to all households in the sample; multiple modules in the household questionnaire were administered per eligible household members in the sample.

The community questionnaire was administered to a group of community members to collect information on the socio-economic indicators of the enumeration areas where the sample households reside.

The three agriculture questionnaires consisting of a post-planting agriculture questionnaire, post-harvest agriculture questionnaire and livestock questionnaire were administered to all household members (agriculture holders) who are engaged in agriculture activities. A holder is a person who exercises management control over the operations of the agricultural holdings and makes the major decisions regarding the utilization of the available resources. S/he has technical and economic responsibility for the holding. S/he may operate the holding directly as an owner or as a manager. Hence it is possible to have more than one holder in single sampled households. As a result we have administered more than one agriculture questionnaire in a single sampled household if the household has more than one holder.

Household questionnaire: The household questionnaire provides information on education; health (including anthropometric measurement for children); labor and time use; financial inclusion; assets ownership and user right; food and non-food expenditure; household nonfarm activities and entrepreneurship; food security and shocks; safety nets; housing conditions; physical and financial assets; credit; tax and transfer; and other sources of household income. Household location is geo-referenced in order to be able to later link the ESS data to other available geographic data sets (See Appendix 1 for discussion of the geo-data provided with the ESS).

Community questionnaire: The community questionnaire solicits information on infrastructure; community organizations; resource management; changes in the community; key events; community needs, actions and achievements; and local retail price information.

Agriculture questionnaire: The post-planting and post-harvest agriculture questionnaires focus on crop farming activities and solicit information on land ownership and use; land use and agriculture income tax; farm labor; inputs use; GPS land area measurement and coordinates of household fields; agriculture capital; irrigation; and crop harvest and utilization. The livestock questionnaire collects information on animal holdings and costs; and production, cost and sales of livestock by products.

Cleaning operations

Final data cleaning was carried out on all data files. Only errors that could be clearly and confidently fixed by the team were corrected; errors that had no clear fix were left in the datasets. Cleaning methods for these errors are left up to the data user.

Response rate

ESS4 planned to interview 7,527 households from 565 enumeration areas (EAs) (Rural 316 EAs and Urban 249 EAs). A total of 6770 households from 535 EAs were interviewed for both the agriculture and household modules. The household module was not implemented in 30 EAs due to security reasons (See the Basic Information Document for additional information on survey implementation).

Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 386, June 1925 Cost of American Almshouses, Annual Income and Maintenance Cost of Almshouses by State (Table 3) pgs. 14-15 E. Stewart. Focus on Income table, data tidied and digitized by Tauheeda Yasin

The file contains the following information Section Desc Sub Section Desc ADP NO Project Name

Measuring inequality for disabled New Zealanders: 2018 brings together data from three Stats NZ surveys to explore differences between the lives of disabled and non-disabled people in Aotearoa.

The goal of government policy and international agreements about disability is the improvement of disabled people’s lives. Monitoring the difference between disabled and non-disabled people in a consistent way, and over a wide range of outcomes, is a key step towards achieving this goal.

Sierra Leone SL: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data was reported at 2.860 % in 2018. Sierra Leone SL: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data is updated yearly, averaging 2.860 % from Dec 2018 (Median) to 2018, with 1 observations. Sierra Leone SL: Survey Mean Consumption or Income per Capita: Total Population: Annualized Average Growth Rate data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sierra Leone – Table SL.World Bank.WDI: Poverty. The growth rate in the welfare aggregate of the total population is computed as the annualized average growth rate in per capita real consumption or income of the total population in the income distribution in a country from household surveys over a roughly 5-year period. Mean per capita real consumption or income is measured at 2011 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the PovcalNet (http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet). For some countries means are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The annualized growth rate is computed as (Mean in final year/Mean in initial year)^(1/(Final year - Initial year)) - 1. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported. The initial year refers to the nearest survey collected 5 years before the most recent survey available, only surveys collected between 3 and 7 years before the most recent survey are considered. The final year refers to the most recent survey available between 2011 and 2015. Growth rates for Iraq are based on survey means of 2005 PPP$. The coverage and quality of the 2011 PPP price data for Iraq and most other North African and Middle Eastern countries were hindered by the exceptional period of instability they faced at the time of the 2011 exercise of the International Comparison Program. See PovcalNet for detailed explanations.; ; World Bank, Global Database of Shared Prosperity (GDSP) circa 2011-2016 (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-database-of-shared-prosperity).; ; The comparability of welfare aggregates (consumption or income) for the chosen years T0 and T1 is assessed for every country. If comparability across the two surveys is a major concern for a country, the selection criteria are re-applied to select the next best survey year(s). Annualized growth rates are calculated between the survey years, using a compound growth formula. The survey years defining the period for which growth rates are calculated and the type of welfare aggregate used to calculate the growth rates are noted in the footnotes.

This statistic presents the result of a survey about the usage of welfare centers in South Korea in 2018, broken down by age group. In that year, more than ** percent of people aged 70 and above stated to use welfare centers, while only around one percent of people in their 20s stated to use these facilities.

Downloads of Add Health require submission of the following information, which is shared with the original producer of Add Health: supervisor name, supervisor email, and reason for download. A Data Guide for this study is available as a web page and for download. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), 1994-2018 [Public Use] is a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents in grades 7 through 12 during the 1994-1995 school year. The Add Health cohort was followed into young adulthood with four in-home interviews, the most recent conducted in 2008 when the sample was aged 24-32. Add Health combines longitudinal survey data on respondents' social, economic, psychological, and physical well-being with contextual data on the family, neighborhood, community, school, friendships, peer groups, and romantic relationships. Add Health Wave I data collection took place between September 1994 and December 1995, and included both an in-school questionnaire and in-home interview. The in-school questionnaire was administered to more than 90,000 students in grades 7 through 12, and gathered information on social and demographic characteristics of adolescent respondents, education and occupation of parents, household structure, expectations for the future, self-esteem, health status, risk behaviors, friendships, and school-year extracurricular activities. All students listed on a sample school's roster were eligible for selection into the core in-home interview sample. In-home interviews included topics such as health status, health-facility utilization, nutrition, peer networks, decision-making processes, family composition and dynamics, educational aspirations and expectations, employment experience, romantic and sexual partnerships, substance use, and criminal activities. A parent, preferably the resident mother, of each adolescent respondent interviewed in Wave I was also asked to complete an interviewer-assisted questionnaire covering topics such as inheritable health conditions, marriages and marriage-like relationships, neighborhood characteristics, involvement in volunteer, civic, and school activities, health-affecting behaviors, education and employment, household income and economic assistance, parent-adolescent communication and interaction, parent's familiarity with the adolescent's friends and friends' parents. Add Health data collection recommenced for Wave II from April to August 1996, and included almost 15,000 follow-up in-home interviews with adolescents from Wave I. Interview questions were generally similar to Wave I, but also included questions about sun exposure and more detailed nutrition questions. Respondents were asked to report their height and weight during the course of the interview, and were also weighed and measured by the interviewer. From August 2001 to April 2002, Wave III data were collected through in-home interviews with 15,170 Wave I respondents (now 18 to 26 years old), as well as interviews with their partners. Respondents were administered survey questions designed to obtain information about family, relationships, sexual experiences, childbearing, and educational histories, labor force involvement, civic participation, religion and spirituality, mental health, health insurance, illness, delinquency and violence, gambling, substance abuse, and involvement with the criminal justice system. High School Transcript Release Forms were also collected at Wave III, and these data comprise the Education Data component of the Add Health study. Wave IV in-home interviews were conducted in 2008 and 2009 when the original Wave I respondents were 24 to 32 years old. Longitudinal survey data were collected on the social, economic, psychological, and health circumstances of respondents, as well as longitudinal geographic data. Survey questions were expanded on educational transitions, economic status and financial resources and strains, sleep patterns and sleep quality, eating habits and nutrition, illnesses and medications, physical activities, emotional content and quality of current or most recent romantic/cohabiting/marriage relationships, and maltreatment during childhood by caregivers. Dates and circumstances of key life events occurring in young adulthood were also recorded, including a complete marriage and cohabitation history, full

The Social Monitor is a collection of indicators that together paint a picture of the well-being and prosperity of the Dutch population. These data relate to several aspects of the lives of Dutch people, divided into nine themes, and how they change over time.

In the format and presentation of this data, we align with the development of the focus area ‘quality of life’ in the Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. This Stiglitz report was written by a committee led by Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen and the economist Jean-Paul Fitousi.

The nine different themes are:

1. Demographic and economic context
2. Material standard of living
3. Economic risks
4. Training and occupation
5. Health & Health
6. Social participation and trust
7. Social connections and relationships
8. Safety & Safety
9. Environment and living environment

For each of these nine themes, some key figures relevant to prosperity and well-being have been selected from pre-existing Statline tables. Where possible, a distinction is made according to gender. In addition, CBS publishes a large number of other data on each of these nine themes on Statline.

Data available: from 1999 to 2018.

Changes as of 26 February 2019: None, this table has been discontinued.

When are new figures coming? No longer applicable.

The statistic depicts the result of a survey on the most useful corporate welfare services in Italy in 2018. When workers were asked which were the most useful welfare services their company could have had guarantee, over half of them chose a medical, accident or nursing insurance. Second came supplementary pension, preferred by **** percent, followed by ticket meal or company cafeteria, **** percent.

The most common poverty measures, including that used by the OECD, focus on income based approaches. One of the most common measures of income poverty is the proportion of households with income less than half median equivalised disposable household income (which is set as the poverty line); this is a relative income poverty measure as poverty is measured by reference to the income of others rather than in some absolute sense. Australia has one of the highest household disposable incomes in the world, which means that an Australian relative income poverty line is set at a high level of income compared to most other countries.

OECD statistics on Australian poverty 2013–2014 (based on ABS Survey of Income and Housing data and applying a poverty line of 50% of median income) determined the Australian poverty rate was over 26% before taxes and transfers, but falls to just under 13% after taxes and transfers. Though measuring poverty through application of solely an income measure is not considered comprehensive for an Australian context, however, it does demonstrate that the Australian welfare system more than halves the number of Australians that would otherwise be considered as at risk of living in poverty under that measure.
It is important to consider a range of indicators of persistent disadvantage to understand poverty and hardship and its multidimensional nature. Different indicators point to different dimensions of poverty. While transient poverty is a problem, the experience of persistent poverty is of deeper concern, particularly where families experience intergenerational disadvantage and long-term welfare reliance. HILDA data from the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research shows the Distribution of number of years in poverty 2001–2015. The figure focuses on the longer term experience of working age adults and shows that while people do fall into poverty, only a small proportion of people are persistently poor.