Family Life Survey 1997

Because it is a longitudinal survey, the IFLS2 drew its sample from IFLS1. The IFLS1 sampling scheme stratified on provinces and urban/rural location, then randomly sampled within these strata. Provinces were selected to maximize representation of the population, capture the cultural and socioeconomic diversity of Indonesia, and be cost-effective to survey given the size and terrain of the country. For mainly cost-effectiveness reasons, 14 provinces were excluded. The resulting sample included 13 of Indonesia's 27 provinces containing 83% of the population: four provinces on Sumatra (North Sumatra, West Sumatra, South Sumatra, and Lampung), all five of the Javanese provinces (DKI Jakarta, West Java, Central Java, DI Yogyakarta, and East Java), and four provinces covering the remaining major island groups (Bali, West Nusa Tenggara, South Kalimantan, and South Sulawesi). Within each of the 13 provinces, enumeration areas (EAs) were randomly chosen from a nationally representative sample frame used in the 1993 SUSENAS, a socioeconomic survey of about 60,000 households. The IFLS randomly selected 321 enumeration areas in the 13 provinces, oversampling urban EAs and EAs in smaller provinces to facilitate urban-rural and Javanese-non-Javanese comparisons.

Household Survey
Within a selected EA, households were randomly selected based upon 1993 SUSENAS listings obtained from regional BPS office. A household was defined as a group of people whose members reside in the same dwelling and share food from the same cooking pot (the standard BPS definition). Twenty households were selected from each urban EA, and 30 households were selected from each rural EA. This strategy minimized expensive travel between rural EAs while balancing the costs of correlations among households. For IFLS1 a total of 7,730 households were sampled to obtain a final sample size goal of 7,000 completed households. This strategy was based on BPS experience of about 90% completion rates. In fact, IFLS1 exceeded that target and interviews were conducted with 7,224 households in late 1993 and early 1994.

In IFLS1 it was determined to be too costly to interview all household members, so a sampling scheme was used to randomly select several members within a household to provide detailed individual information. IFLS1 conducted detailed interviews with the following household members:
• the household head and his/her spouse
• two randomly selected children of the head and spouse age 0 to 14
• an individual age 50 or older and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members
• for a randomly selected 25% of the households, an individual age 15 to 49 and his/her spouse, randomly selected from remaining members.

IFLS2 Recontact Protocols
In IFLS2 our goal was to relocate and reinterview the 7,224 households interviewed in 1993. If no members of the household were found in the 1993 interview location, we asked local residents (including an informant identified by the household in 1993) where the household had gone. If the household was thought to be within any of the 13 IFLS provinces, the household was tracked to the new location and if possible interviewed there. Our willingness to track movers sets IFLS2 apart from the follow-up waves of many household surveys in developing countries, which simply revisit the original location of the household and interview whoever is found there. Our commitment to tracking movers paid off. In IFLS2 a full 94% of IFLS1 households were relocated and reinterviewed, in the sense that at least one person from the IFLS1 household was interviewed.

Community Survey (CPS )

It is often hypothesized that the characteristics of communities affect individual behavior, but rarely are household survey data accompanied by detailed data about the communities from which households are sampled. The IFLS is an exception. For each IFLS community in which we interviewed households, extensive information was collected from community leaders and from staff at schools and health facilities available to community residents.

The CFS sought information about the communities of HHS respondents. As in IFLS1, most of the information was obtained in the following ways:
• The official village/township leader and a group of his/her staff were interviewed about aspects of community life. Supplementary information was obtained by interviewing the head of the community women's group, who was asked about the availability of health facilities and schools in the area, as well as more general questions about family health and prices of basic commodities in the community.
• In visits to local health facilities and schools, staff representatives were interviewed about the staffing, operation, and usage of their facilities.
• Statistical data were extracted from community records, and data on prices were collected through visits to up to three markets or sales points in the community.

IFLS2 gathered data from two new sources in each community:
• We interviewed someone considered an expert in the adat (traditional law) about the customary laws that influence behavior in the community. The purpose was to provide a perspective on cultural heterogeneity in Indonesia. Interviews with adat experts were not conducted in communities that were highly diverse in ethnic composition.

• We interviewed a social activist in the community about a project in which he or she was involved. Priority was given to projects providing safe water or building sanitation infrastructure. An important feature of Indonesia's economic development strategy has been the encouragement of local development initiatives by community members. We wanted to provide a perspective on such initiatives outside the formal leadership structure.

Sample Selection
To cover the major sources of public and private outpatient health care and school types, we defined six
strata of facilities to survey:
• Government health centers and subcenters (puskesmas, puskesmas pembantu)
• Private clinics and doctors, midwives, nurses, and paramedics (kliniks, praktek umum, perawats,
bidans, paramedis, mantri)
• Community health posts (posyandu)
• Elementary schools (SD)
• Junior high schools (SMP)
• Senior high schools (SMU)

IFLS2 used the same protocol for selecting facilities as IFLS1. We wanted the specific schools and health providers targeted for detailed interviews to reflect facilities available to the communities from which HHS respondents were drawn. Rather than selecting facilities based solely on information from the village leader or on proximity to the community center, we sampled schools and health care providers from information provided by HHS respondents.

Health Facility Sampling Frame
For each EA, we compiled a list of facilities in each health facility stratum from HHS responses about the names and locations of facilities the respondent knew about. Specifically, we drew on responses from HHS book 1, module PP, which asked (typically) the female household head if she knew of health facilities of various types, such as government health centers. If she provided names and locations, those facilities were added to the sampling frame. HHS respondents did not need to have actually used a health facility for it to be relevant to the CFS sample. Though someone in the household may well have used a facility that was mentioned, any facility known to the respondent was relevant. We rejected requiring actual use of a facility because we judged that it would yield a more limited picture of community health care options (since use of health care is sporadic) and possibly be biased by factors such as what illnesses were common around the time of the interview.

School Sampling Frame
Names of candidate schools were obtained from HHS responses to book K, module AR, in which (typically) the household head verified the name and location of all schools currently attended by household members under age 25. Therefore, unlike the health facility sampling frame, each school in the candidate list had at least one member of an IFLS household attending.

Final Samples
Not all identified health facilities and schools were eligible for interview. A facility was excluded if it had already been interviewed in another EA, if it was more than 45 minutes away by motorcycle, or if it was located in another province. We also set a quota of facilities to be interviewed in each stratum. The goal was to obtain, for each stratum, data on multiple facilities per community. We also sought to maximize coverage of the facilities known and used by household members. For example, the larger quota for private practitioners than for health centers reflects the fact that Indonesian communities tend to have more private practitioners than health centers.

Stratum Quota per EA
Health centers and subcenters 3
Private clinics and practitioners 6
Community health posts 2
Elementary schools 3
Junior high schools 3
Senior high schools 2

Two forms were used in developing the facility sample for each stratum. Sample Listing Form I (SDI) provided space to tally HHS responses and ascertain which facilities met the criteria for interview. Those facilities constituted the sampling frame and were listed on the second form, Sample Listing Form II (SDII), in order of frequency of mention. The final sample consisted of the facility most frequently mentioned plus enough others (selected to match a random priority order grid in the SDII) to fill the quota for the stratum. See Figure 3 in “The Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS): Study Design and Results from Waves 1 and 2” (DRU-2238/1-NIA/NICHD) for a depiction of the sample selection process.