IFLS-3 Public Release
The third wave of the Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS3) is now being publicly released. All data and documentation can be downloaded from the RAND website. A book which uses data from IFLS2 and 3 to compare standards of living between the two waves is now available for purchase from RAND and the Institute for Southeast Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore (Indonesian Living Standards Before and After the Financial Crisis).
The Indonesia Family Life Survey is a continuing longitudinal socioeconomic and health survey. It is based on a sample of households representing about 83% of the Indonesian population living in 13 of the nation¹s 26 provinces in 1993. The survey collects data on individual respondents, their families, their households, the communities in which they live, and the health and education facilities they use. The first wave (IFLS1) was administered in 1993 to individuals living in 7,224 households. IFLS2 sought to re-interview the same respondents four years later. A follow-up survey (IFLS2+) was conducted in 1998 with 25% of the sample to measure the immediate impact of the economic and political crisis in Indonesia. The next wave, IFLS3, was fielded on the full sample in 2000.
IFLS3 was a collaborative effort of RAND and the center for Population and Policy Studies (CPPS) of the University of Gadjah Mada. Funding for IFLS3 was provided by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), grant 1R01 AG17637 and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), grant 1R01 HD38484.
The Indonesia Family Life Survey complements and extends the existing survey data available for Indonesia, and for developing countries in general, in a number of ways.
First, relatively few large-scale longitudinal surveys are available for developing countries. IFLS is the only large-scale longitudinal survey available for Indonesia. Because data are available for the same individuals from multiple points in time, IFLS affords an opportunity to understand the dynamics of behavior, at the individual, household and family and community levels.
In IFLS1 7,224 households were interviewed, and detailed individual-level data were collected from over 22,000 individuals. In IFLS2, 94.4% of IFLS1 households were re-contacted (interviewed or died). In IFLS3 the re-contact rate was 95.3% of IFLS1 households. Indeed nearly 91% of IFLS1 households are complete panel households in that they were interviewed in all three waves, IFLS1, 2 and 3. These re-contact rates are as high as or higher than most longitudinal surveys in the United States and Europe. High re-interview rates were obtained in part because we were committed to tracking and interviewing individuals who had moved or split off from the origin IFLS1 households. High re-interview rates contribute significantly to data quality in a longitudinal survey because they lessen the risk of bias due to nonrandom attrition in studies using the data.
Second, the multipurpose nature of IFLS instruments means that the data support analyses of interrelated issues not possible with single-purpose surveys. For example, the availability of data on household consumption together with detailed individual data on labor market outcomes, health outcomes and on health program availability and quality at the community level means that one can examine the impact of income on health outcomes, but also whether health in turn affects incomes.
Third, IFLS collected both current and retrospective information on most topics. With data from multiple points of time on current status and an extensive array of retrospective information about the lives of respondents, analysts can relate dynamics to events that occurred in the past. For example, changes in labor outcomes in recent years can be explored as a function of earlier decisions about schooling and work.
Fourth, IFLS collected extensive measures of health status, including self-reported measures of general health status, morbidity experience, and physical assessments conducted by a nurse (height, weight, head circumference, blood pressure, pulse, waist and hip circumference, hemoglobin level, lung capacity, and time required to repeatedly rise from a sitting position). These data provide a much richer picture of health status than is typically available in household surveys. For example, the data can be used to explore relationships between socioeconomic status and an array of health outcomes.
Fifth, in all waves of the survey, detailed data were collected about respondents¹ communities and public and private facilities available for their health care and schooling. The facility data can be combined with household and individual data to examine the relationship between, for example, access to health services (or changes in access) and various aspects of health care use and health status.
Sixth, because the waves of IFLS span the period from several years before the economic crisis hit Indonesia, to just prior to it hitting, to one year and then three years after, extensive research can be carried out regarding the living conditions of Indonesian households during this very tumultuous period. In sum, the breadth and depth of the longitudinal information on individuals, households, communities, and facilities make IFLS data a unique resource for scholars and policymakers interested in the processes of economic development.
|1993 (baseline):||In-home, face-to-face interview with household head, spouse and sample of their children and sample of other adult household members.|
|1997:||Follow-up all households, all 1993 "main" respondents and all 1993 household members born before 1967.|
|1998:||Follow-up of 25% sub-sample (not funded by NIA) Interview selected household members (1993) and all household members (1997 & 1998).|
|2000:||Follow-up all households, all 1993 "main" respondents, all 1993 household members born before 1967, sample of other 1993 household members.|
|2007:||Fieldwork November 2007 to May 2008, public release Spring 2009.|
|1993:||7,200 households; 22,000 individual interviews|
|1997:||7,500 households; 33,000 individual interviews|
|1998:||2,000 households, 10,000 individual interviews|
|2000:||10,400 households, 39,000 individual interviews|
|Knowledge of health care providers||Acute Morbidity|
|Labor earnings and work histories||Ability to perform ADL's|
|Household and individual assets||Self-treatment|
|Education and migration histories||Health service utilization|
|Marriage and pregnancy histories||Health Insurance|
|Links with non co-resident kin||Height, weight, waist/hip, hemoglobin|
|Transfers and borrowing||Lung capacity, blood pressure, mobility|
|Household decision-making||Nurses' assessment of health status|
|Community support network|