Indonesia Family Life Survey (IFLS)

By the middle of the 1990s, Indonesia had enjoyed over three decades of remarkable social, economic, and demographic change and was on the cusp of joining the middle-income countries. Per capita income had risen more than fifteenfold since the early 1960s, from around US$50 to more than US$800. Increases in educational attainment and decreases in fertility and infant mortality over the same period reflected impressive investments in infrastructure.

In the late 1990s the economic outlook began to change as Indonesia was gripped by the economic crisis that affected much of Asia. In 1998 the rupiah collapsed, the economy went into a tailspin, and gross domestic product contracted by an estimated 12—15%–a decline rivaling the magnitude of the Great Depression.

The general trend of several decades of economic progress followed by a few years of economic downturn masks considerable variation across the archipelago in the degree both of economic development and of economic setbacks related to the crisis. In part this heterogeneity reflects the great cultural and ethnic diversity of Indonesia, which in turn makes it a rich laboratory for research on a number of individual- and household-level behaviors and outcomes that interest social scientists.

The longitudinal Indonesia Family Life Survey is designed to provide data for studying these behaviors and outcomes. The survey contains a wealth of information collected at the individual and household levels, including

In addition to individual- and household-level information, the IFLS provides detailed information from the communities in which IFLS households are located and from the facilities that serve residents of those communities. These data cover aspects of the physical and social environment, infrastructure, employment opportunities, food prices, access to health and educational facilities, and the quality and prices of services available at those facilities.

By linking data from IFLS households to data from their communities, the analyst can address many important questions regarding the impact of policies on the lives of the respondents, as well as document the effects of social, economic, and environmental change on the population.

The Indonesian Family Life Survey (IFLS) is an on-going longitudinal survey in Indonesia. The sample is representative of about 83% of the Indonesian population and contains over 30,000 individuals living in 13 of the 27 provinces in the country.

The first wave of the IFLS (IFLS1) was conducted in 1993/94 by RAND in collaboration with Lembaga Demografi, University of Indonesia. IFLS2 and IFLS2+ were conducted in 1997 and 1998, respectively, by RAND in collaboration with UCLA and Lembaga Demografi, University of Indonesia. IFLS2+ covered a 25% sub-sample of the IFLS households. IFLS3, which is scheduled for 2000 and will cover the full sample, is being conducted by RAND in collaboration with the Population Research Center, University of Gadjah Mada.

The IFLS1 was supported by funding from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, USAID, the Ford Foundation, and the World Health Organization.

IFLS2 is supported by funding from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the World Health Organization (WHO), John Snow (OMNI project), the Hewlett Foundation, the Futures Group (the POLICY project) and the International Food Policy Research Institute.

IFLS2+ is supported by the Futures Group (the POLICY project), the World Bank, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Population Fund.

Funding for IFSL3 is provided by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.

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. The IFLS is the only large-scale longitudinal survey publicly available for Indonesia. Because data are available for the same individuals from multiple points in time, the IFLS affords an opportunity to understand the dynamics of the world we are living in today.

In IFLS1 7,224 households were interviewed, and detailed individual-level data were collected from over 22,000 individuals. In IFLS2, 94% of IFLS1 households and 91% of IFLS1 target individuals were reinterviewed. These recontact rates are as high as or higher than most longitudinal surveys in the United States and Europe. High reinterview 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 reinterview 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 the 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 decision-making, along with information about the labor force participation of husbands and wives and their contraceptive choices and fertility outcomes, supports analysis of the implications of decision-making patterns for a variety of behaviors and outcomes.

Third, the 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, migration, and work.

Fourth, the 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, blood pressure, pulse, 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. For example, the data can be used to explore relationships between socioeconomic status and an array of health outcomes.

Fifth, in both waves of the survey, detailed data were collected about respondents’ communities and public and private facilities available for their health care and schooling. The community-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.

In sum, the breadth and depth of the longitudinal information on individuals, households, communities, and facilities make the IFLS data a unique resource for scholars and policymakers interested in the processes of economic development.

The IFLS is a longitudinal survey, and so the sampling scheme for the first wave is the primary determinant of the sample in subsequent waves. The IFLS1 sampling scheme stratified on provinces, then randomly sampled within provinces. 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. The sample included 13 of Indonesia’s 26 provinces containing 83% of the population.

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. Within a selected EA, field teams randomly selected households based upon 1993 SUSENAS listings obtained from regional BPS office.

For IFLS1 a total of 7,730 households were sampled to obtain a final sample size goal of 7,000 completed households. In fact, interviews were conducted with 7,224 households in IFLS1.

In IFLS2 our goal was to relocate and reinterview the 7,224 origin households interviewed in 1993. If no members of the household were found in the 1993 interview location, we asked local residents where the household had gone. If the household was thought to be within one of the 13 IFLS provinces, the household was tracked to the new location and if possible interviewed there. In IFLS2 a full 94% of IFLS1 households were relocated and reinterviewed. (That number includes the 69 IFLS1 households whose every 1993 member had died by 1997, according to local informants.)

In addition, we conducted interviews with 878 "split-off" households. These households resulted from tracking an IFLS1 household member who had left the "origin" household and interviewing them in their new location.

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:

In IFLS2 we attempted to interview all current members of the IFLS origin households.

In addition, there were two groups of people that we were committed to tracking if by 1997 they had moved out of the 1993 household. These two groups were:

In IFLS1, the practice of sampling within the household yielded lower interview rates for certain groups, such as never-married adults and children born to someone other than the household head or spouse. In IFLS2 we attempted to interview all household members in origin households and a subset of members in split-off households. This protocol change yielded considerably higher interview rates in IFLS2 for a number of demographic subgroups. The tables below show, for IFLS1 and IFLS2 respectively, the number of interviews conducted with members of various demographic subgroups.

The IFLS is a comprehensive multipurpose survey that asks both current and retrospective questions at the household and individual levels. The household questionnaire in IFLS2 was organized like its IFLS1 counterpart and repeated many of the same questions to allow comparisons across waves. The IFLS1 questionnaire contained many retrospective questions covering past events. In IFLS2, full retrospectives were asked of new respondents. For most sections, respondents interviewed in 1993 were only asked to update the information, starting approximately five years before the 1997 interview, so there is one year of overlap between IFLS1 and IFLS2 data.

The questionnaire was divided in books (usually addressed to different respondents) and subdivided into topical modules. Three books collected information at the household level, generally from the household head or spouse: book K, book 1, and book 2. The next four books collected individual-level data from adult respondents (books 3A and 3B), ever-married female respondents (book 4), and children younger than 15 (book 5). Individual measures of health status were recorded for each household member (book US). In IFLS2 household members between the ages of 7 and 24 were asked to participate in cognitive assessments of their skills in mathematics and Indonesian language (book EK).

The information provided below describes the IFLS2 questionnaires, which in most respects were very similar to the IFLS1 questionnaires. A more detailed description of the IFLS is provided in Volume 1 of the IFLS2 documentation. IFLS documentation is now available to the public.

Book K: Control Book and Household Roster. Book K recorded whether a household was found and interviewed and the location of the household. If the household was interviewed, information on the composition of the household was collected and on basic characteristics of the housing structure that the interviewer could observe. The interviewer filled out a portion of this book for all 7,224 households interviewed in the IFLS1, even if they were not interviewed in IFLS2. In addition, in IFLS2 book K was completed when individuals from origin households were tracked to a split-off household and interviewed there

Book 1: Expenditures and Knowledge of Health Facilities. This book was typically answered by a female respondent, either the spouse of the household head or another person most knowledgeable about household affairs. One module recorded information about household expenditures and about quantities and purchase prices of several staples. The other module probed the respondent’s knowledge of various types of public and private outpatient health care providers. This information was used in drawing the sample of facilities for interviews in the Community-Facility Survey. Book 1 was shortened in IFLS2 relative to IFLS1 to reduce the response burden on the household head’s spouse, who typically received a very long interview.

Book 2: Household Economy. This book was typically answered by the household head or the head’s spouse. Modules asked about household businesses (farm and nonfarm), nonbusiness assets, and nonlabor income. Combined with individual-level data on labor and nonlabor income collected in book 3, this information can be used to provide a complete picture of current household income resulting from market-wage income, self-employment income, family businesses, informal-sector activities, and unearned income. Other modules collected information about housing characteristics, economic shocks experienced by the household in the previous five years, and about the household’s plans to move in the future (helpful in planning for subsequent rounds of data collection).

Book 3A: Adult Information (part 1). This book asked all household members 15 years and older about their educational, marital, work, and migration histories. In addition, the book included questions on asset ownership and nonlabor income, household decision-making, fertility preferences, and (for women 50 and older) cumulative pregnancies.

The amount of retrospective information collected varied by module and by whether the respondent had answered book III in IFLS1. Nonrespondents to the earlier survey were typically asked for lengthy histories that mirrored the data obtained in IFLS1. Respondents who had answered book III in IFLS1 were generally asked only to update the information for the five years preceding the interview. The specific rules varied by module.

Book 3B: Adult Information (part 2). Book 3B emphasized current rather than retrospective information. Separate modules addressed insurance coverage, health conditions, use of inpatient and outpatient care, and participation in community development activities. Another module asked in detail about the existence and characteristics of non-coresident family members (parents, siblings, and children) and about whether money, goods, or services were transferred between these family members during the year before the interview.

Books 3A and 3B, one book in IFLS1, were separated in IFLS2 to establish a natural breaking place for the interview if respondents could not answer all the questions in one sitting.

Book 4: Ever-Married Woman Information. This book, administered to all ever-married women age 15—49, collected retrospective life histories on marriage, children ever born, pregnancy outcomes and health-related behavior during pregnancy and childbirth, infant feeding practice, and contraceptive use. The marriage and pregnancy summary modules replicated those included in book 3 so that women who answered book 4 skipped these modules in book 3. Similarly, women who answered questions about non-coresident family in book 4 skipped that module in book 3. A separate module asked married women about their use of contraceptive methods on a monthly basis over the previous 5 to 10 years.

Book 5: Child Information. This book collected information about children younger than 15. For children younger than 11, the child’s mother, female guardian, or caretaker answered the questions. Children between the ages of 11 and 14 were allowed to respond for themselves if they felt comfortable doing so. The five modules focused on the child’s educational history, morbidities, self-treatment, and inpatient and outpatient visits. Each paralleled a module in the adult questionnaire (books 3A and B), with some age-appropriate modifications. For example, the list of acute health conditions specified conditions relevant to younger children.

Book US: Physical Health Assessments. In IFLS2 a nurse recorded various measures of physical health for each household member. The nurses received special training in taking the measurements, which included height and weight (all respondents), blood pressure and pulse (respondents 15 and older), lung capacity (respondents 9 and older), and hemoglobin (respondents 1 and older). In addition, respondents 15 and older were timed while they rose from a sitting to a standing position five times (a physical assessment developed by the WHO team). The nurse also evaluated the individuals’ health status on a 9-point scale and recorded comments about the individual’s health. As an indication of household health, the iodine content of the household’s salt was tested. In IFLS1 measurements of height and weight were conducted.

Book EK: Cognitive assessments. In IFLS2 children between the ages of 7 and 24 were administered cognitive tests to assess their skills in the Indonesian language and in mathematics. The tests were designed by two members of the testing division of the Indonesian Ministry of Education, drawing items from the National Achievement Test (EBTANAS). Tests were originally designed to cover four levels (age 7—9, the first three years of elementary school; age 10—12, the last three years of elementary school; age 13—15, the three years of junior high school; and age 16—24, senior high school and beyond). The first few weeks of fieldwork revealed that the highest test level was too difficult. Subsequently all respondents 13—24 were given the same test, that originally designed for 13—15-year-olds. These assessments were not administered in IFLS1.

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. We refer to this component of the IFLS as the Community-Facility Survey (CFS).

The CFS sought information about the communities of HHS respondents. Most of the information was obtained in the following ways:

In addition, IFLS2 constructed a list of all available health facilities and schools. For each facility, information on the travel times, prices, and transportation modes to that facility from the community center was collected from community informants.

To cover the major sources of public and private outpatient health care and school types, we defined six strata of facilities to survey and set a quota per community for each strata:

IFLS1 and IFLS2 used the same protocol for selecting facilities. 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. In IFLS2, we decided not to simply go back to the same facilities that we visited in 1993, because we judged it important to refresh the sample in 1997 to allow for new facilities. Refreshing the sample was consistent with the goal of the CFS, which is intended to portray the current nature of the communities and the facilities in which IFLS households resided.

The tables below show the number of respondents and facilities covered in IFLS1 and IFLS2 and the fraction of IFLS1 facilities that was reinterviewed in IFLS2, the number of facilities interviewed in IFLS2 for which IFLS1 data also exist, and the number of new facilities interviewed only in IFLS2.

As with the HHS, the CFS questionnaire was divided in books (addressed to different respondents) and subdivided into topical modules. Community-level information was collected in six books: book 1, book 2, book PKK, book SAR, book Adat, and book PM. Health facility information was collected in book PUSK, book PP, and book Posyandu. Each level of school was covered in a separate book, whose contents were nearly identical: book SD, book SMP, and book SMU.

Book 1. This book collected a wide range of information about the community. It was addressed to the head of the community in a group interview. Ideally the group included the village/township leader, one or two of his staff members, and one or two members of the Village Elders Advisory Board, but the composition varied across villages, reflecting who was available and whom the village leader wanted to participate. Respondents were asked about available means of transportation, communications, sanitation infrastructure, agriculture and industry, history of the community, credit opportunities, community development activities, and the availability of schools and health facilities.

Book 2. This book provided a place to record statistical data about the community. Generally the data were extracted from the community’s Statistical Monograph or from a copy of its PODES questionnaire. If neither source was available, the village head was asked to estimate the answer, which was recorded as an estimate. Separate modules asked the interviewer to make direct observations about community conditions and to visit up to three markets or sales outlets and record the prices of various foods.

Book PKK. Administered to the head of the village women’s group, this book asked about the availability of health services and schools in the community, including outreach activities; changes in the community over time; and in detail about the prices of foods and other items.

Book SAR. The Service Availability Roster was new for IFLS2. It was added after analysis of the IFLS1 data showed that community informants provided incomplete listings of the facilities to which HHS respondents had access. The SAR gathered in one place information on all the schools and health facilities available to residents of IFLS communities. It included

For each facility mentioned, the head of the village/township or the women’s group head was asked to estimate the distance, travel time, and travel cost to the facility. In addition, the interviewer went to the facility to obtain a GPS reading of latitude and longitude. These readings were used to construct measures of distance to the facilities from the center of the IFLS cluster and from the office of the village/township leader.

Book Adat. This book, new in IFLS2, was administered to someone the village head identified as a local expert in the adat (traditional law) of the community. After questions about the respondent’s own religious, educational, and ethnic background, he/she was asked about village characteristics, e.g., the most important changes to occur in the past 5 years. Then, he/she was asked detailed questions about traditional laws and customs relating to marriage, childbirth, divorce, gender roles, living arrangements for the elderly, and death and inheritance. A final set of questions probed about community organization, governance, mutual aid, and decision-making practices.

Book PM. This book, new in IFLS2, was administered to someone the village head identified as a community resident actively involved in a community development project, preferably one designed to improve the water supply or sanitation facilities. After a obtaining a profile of the respondent, the main module probed the background of the particular development project, its prospective benefits, and project planning, management, implementation, and funding. Finally, the respondent was asked about the history of development activities in the community.

The contents of books PUSK and PP were very similar to maximize comparability while reflecting that different types of facilities provide different types of services. Book PUSK was the most comprehensive, and the director of the government health center was asked to designate an appropriate respondent for each module.

Both books collected data on the availability and prices of services, lab tests, and drugs, and on the availability of equipment and supplies. Both provided space for the interviewer to record direct observations about the facility’s cleanliness and other features that might influence its attractiveness to patients. Five hypothetical patient scenarios or "vignettes" probed the respondents’ knowledge of process in patient care. The vignettes concerned the provision of IUDs, provision of oral contraceptives, prenatal care, treating a child with vomiting and diarrhea, and treating an adult with a respiratory illness.

Books PUSK and PP were designed to indicate the facility’s functional capacity (adequacy of the laboratory, pharmacy, equipment, staff, the physical environment) and the adequacy of specific services for outpatient care, care for pregnant women, well-baby care, and family planning.

The contents of book Posyandu reflected the different role this facility plays in providing health services. It asked about the characteristics of the volunteer staff (including general education and health training) and their frequency of contact with outreach workers from the government health center. In addition to questions about services offered at the post, there were general questions about health problems in the village. Finally, questions about prices from book PKK, module H, were repeated here to provide another data source for that topic.

The questionnaires for the three levels of schools (elementary, junior high school, and senior high school) had similar contents. In most of the modules, the principal or designee answered questions about the staff, school characteristics, and student population. One module, investigating teacher characteristics, was addressed to teachers of Indonesian language and mathematics. Another module had the interviewer answer specific questions based on direct observation about the quality of the classroom infrastructure. The final sections recorded student expenditures, math and language scores on the EBTANAS tests for a random sample of 25 students, and counts of teachers and students.

In addition to the data collected in conjunction with IFLS1 and IFLS2, we conducted a follow-up survey of a subsample of IFLS households in 1998. This survey is called IFLS2+.

The purpose of IFLS2+ was to provide insights into the effects of Indonesia's economic crisis by collecting timely data on who was affected by the crisis and on the strategies adopted to mitigate the impact. The IFLS2 was uniquely well-positioned to serve as a baseline for another interview, but we had neither the time nor the resources to mount a survey of the same magnitude as IFLS2 (which took over two years to plan, test, and conduct). Instead, we chose to field a scaled-down survey that retained as much as possible from IFLS2. The IFLS2+ was fielded almost one year after IFLS2, thus permitting us to explore the immediate impacts of the crisis. We interviewed the same respondents during each wave of the survey. This longitudinal design enables us to characterize the changes that Indonesians are initiating and experiencing during economic downturn. For more information on findings from the IFLS2+ and IFLS2 data, please see The Indonesian Crisis: Results from the IFLS2 and IFLS2+.

IFLS2+ was conducted on a 25% subsample of the IFLS communities. The IFLS2+ sample was drawn in two stages. First, to reduce costs we decided to revisit 7 of the 13 IFLS provinces: West Nusa Tengarra, Central Java, Jakarta, West Java, South Kalimantan, South Sumatra, and North Sumatra. Second, within those provinces, we purposively drew 80 Enumeration Areas (EAs) with weighted probabilities in order to match the IFLS sample as closely as possible. In the aggregate, key characteristics of the households selected for IFLS2+ match those of the full IFLS sample. Counting all original households in IFLS1 and the split-offs in IFLS2, there are 2,066 households in the IFLS2+ target sample. From a scientific point of view, it is important to retain all the original households in our target sample, even if they were not interviewed in IFLS2. This means, therefore, that our target sample includes the IFLS1 households that were not interviewed in 1997.

In 1998, we successfully contacted 60% of the households that were interviewed in IFLS1, but not in IFLS2. Restricting ourselves to the 1,934 households that were interviewed in IFLS2, we reinterviewed over 98% of the original households and in one province, West Nusa Tenggara, we re-interviewed every single household. Our completion rates at the individual level are 94% (including individuals not found in IFLS2) and 96% (of the IFLS2 respondents).

In addition to interviews with households and individuals, we repeated the community-facility survey in IFLS2+. Fieldworkers were instructed to reinterview both the community leaders, and all the facilities interviewed in IFLS2. For each community, interviewers were given a specific list of the names and addresses

of the government health centers, private providers, community health posts, and schools from which data were collected in 1997. Of the providers interviewed in 1997, a total of 219 public providers (about 2.8 per community) and 387 private providers (about 4.8 per community) were reinterviewed in 1998.

The third full wave of IFLS was fielded in the second half of 2000 and sought to follow all IFLS households. There are over 7,700 households in IFLS3 with over 94% of the original IFLS households that were surveyed in 1993 being re-contacted in 2000.

IFLS3 builds on questionnaires developed in previous rounds of the survey, and has sought to maintain comparability with those rounds while incorporating improvments and adding several important innovations. These include, for example, expanding the physical health assessments by adding two anthropometric measurements -- head circumference and, for older adults, waist to hip ratio -- as well as the collecting blood samples which are dried and stored on filter paper for later analysis.

Data from IFLS3 will facilitate the study of long-term demographic and socioeconomic change and also the effects of a major economic shock as experienced in 1998/1999 in Indonesia. In combination with IFLS2 and 2+, it will also be possible to contrast the immediate effects of the crisis with their medium term impacts.

EMP/SKILLS - Skills and Employability Department

Age Group	Both Males and Females			Males			Females
	Total	Interviewed		Total	Interviewed		Total	Interviewed
	Total	N	%	Total	N	%	Total	N	%
Children of head/spouse:
0—5	3545	2686	75.8	1843	1428	77.5	1702	1258	73.9
6—10	3624	2647	73.0	1812	1316	72.6	1812	1331	73.5
11—14	3140	2272	72.4	1573	1140	72.5	1567	1132	72.2
Other children:
0—5	686	81	11.8	353	45	12.7	333	36	10.8
6—10	270	35	13.0	125	20	16.0	145	15	10.3
11—14	178	27	15.2	92	15	16.3	86	12	14.0
Ever-married adults:
15—19	319	149	46.7	38	9	23.7	281	140	49.8
20—29	3128	2246	71.8	1126	709	63.0	2002	1537	76.8
30—39	4288	3850	89.8	2016	1787	88.6	2272	2063	90.8
40—49	2849	2649	93.0	1445	1362	94.3	1404	1287	91.7
Never-married adults:
15—19	3315	382	11.5	1738	206	11.9	1577	176	11.2
20—29	2286	280	12.2	1403	182	13.0	883	98	11.1
30—39	246	47	19.1	123	20	16.2	123	27	22.0
40—49	54	18	33.3	21	6	28.6	33	12	36.4
All older adults:
50—59	2485	2433	97.9	1117	1098	98.3	1368	1335	97.6
60—69	1612	1570	97.4	773	758	98.1	839	812	96.8
70—79	718	686	95.5	334	318	95.2	384	368	95.8
80+	283	269	95.1	104	101	97.1	179	168	93.9

Age Group	Both Males and Females			Males			Females
	Total	Interviewed		Total	Interviewed		Total	Interviewed
	Total	N	%	Total	N	%	Total	N	%
Children of head/spouse:
0—5	2811	2733	97.2	1449	1408	97.2	1362	1325	97.3
6—10	3013	2947	97.8	1558	1527	98.0	1455	1420	97.6
11—14	2797	2692	96.3	1407	1358	96.5	1390	1334	96.0
Other children:
0—5	1041	1001	96.2	495	475	96.0	546	526	96.3
6—10	607	581	95.7	296	279	94.3	311	302	97.1
11—14	524	475	90.7	246	220	89.4	278	255	91.7
Ever-married adults:
15—19	306	291	95.1	42	39	92.9	264	252	95.5
20—29	2776	2618	94.3	972	904	93.0	1804	1714	95.0
30—39	4644	4429	95.4	2147	2038	94.9	2497	2391	95.8
40—49	3491	3293	94.3	1716	1614	94.1	1775	1679	94.6
Never-married adults:
15—19	3574	3247	90.9	1884	1701	90.3	1690	1546	91.5
20—29	2337	2035	87.1	1421	1244	87.5	916	791	86.4
30—39	334	272	81.4	175	143	81.7	159	129	81.1
40—49	73	60	82.2	23	19	82.6	50	41	82.0
All older adults:
50—59	2654	2516	94.8	1206	1150	95.4	1448	1366	94.3
60—69	1802	1685	93.5	825	785	95.2	977	900	92.1
70—79	855	801	93.7	414	387	93.5	441	414	93.9
80+	298	276	92.6	109	101	92.7	189	175	92.6

	IFLS1		IFLS2
	Average per EA	Total	Average per EA	Total
Respondent type:
Community leaders (book 1)	1	312	1	313
Women’s group head (book PKK)	1	312	1	310
Community records (book 2)	1	312	1	312
Village head or women’s group head (book SAR)	NA	NA	1	313
Traditional law expert (book Adat)	NA	NA	.88	277
Community activist (book PM)	NA	NA	.97	303
Facility type:
Government health center, subcenter	3.1	993	2.9	919
Private doctor, clinic	1.7	549	NA	NA
Private nurse, midwife, paramedic	2.8	892	NA	NA
Any private practitioner	NA	NA	5.7	1832
Traditional practitioner	2.0	624	NA	NA
Community health post (posyandu)	2.8	899	1.9	619
Elementary school	1.8	944	3.0	964
Junior high school	2.8	900	2.9	945
Senior high school	3.0	584	1.9	618

Facility Type	IFLS1 Facilities Reinterviewed in IFLS2 (%)	IFLS2 Facilities Also Interviewed in IFLS1	New Facilities in IFLS2
Government health centers	66.5	660	259
Private practitioners	40.4	582	1250
Elementary school	64.9	613	351
Junior high school	55.3	498	447
Senior high school	44.2	258	360