2010 Indonesia Population Census Evaluation

Presented in the “Workshop on Census Evaluation”Hanoi, Viet Nam 2-6 December 2013

BPS-Statistics Indonesia

Background of 2010 Indonesia Population Census (IPC)

Coverage:33 provinces497 districts/municipality6.580 sub-districts76.581 villagesAround 724.052 census blocks.Around 1.100.528 local administrative unitEstimated 63.645.055 householdsEstimated 233.596.970 people

The 2010 Indonesia Population Census took place within the period of May 1st through May 31st 2010.

The census date was on 15 May 2010

Background of 2010 Indonesia Population Census (IPC)

Field Workers:Involve 800.000 field workersData collection was conducted by enumeration teamsTotal teams: 200.000 teams One team consists of 3 enumerators and 1 supervisorWorkload for field work is 3 – 9 census blocks per

teamEvery 10 teams, supervised by 1 field coordinator

Note: Beside team, there were also Task Force Unit who had responsibility to enumerate non permanent residence and specific areas (elite and corps diplomatic)

IPC Result: Population by age and sex, 2010Age Group Male Female Both Sexes

(1) (2) (3) (4)0-4 11 662 369 11 016 333 22 678 7025-9 11 974 094 11 279 386 23 253 480

10-14 11 662 417 11 008 664 22 671 08115-19 10 614 306 10 266 428 20 880 73420-24 9 887 713 10 003 920 19 891 63325-29 10 631 311 10 679 132 21 310 44330-34 9 949 357 9 881 328 19 830 68535-39 9 337 517 9 167 614 18 505 13140-44 8 322 712 8 202 140 16 524 85245-49 7 032 740 7 008 242 14 040 98250-54 5 865 997 5 695 324 11 561 32155-59 4 400 316 4 048 254 8 448 57060-64 2 927 191 3 131 570 6 058 76165-69 2 225 133 2 468 898 4 694 03170-74 1 531 459 1 924 872 3 456 33175+ 1 606 281 2 228 308 3 834 589

Total 119 630 913 118 010 413 237 641 3264

Demographic Parameters2010

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75+

Jutaan 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Jutaan

PerempuanLaki-laki

Demographic Parameters from 2010 PC

TFR : 2.4IMR : 26Expectation of life : 70.7Dependency Ratio : 51.3%Percentage pop live in urban : 49.8%

2010 PC Data evaluation2010 PC Data evaluation

In general, quality of 2010 PC depends on:In general, quality of 2010 PC depends on:Complicated variablesComplicated variablesUnclear manualsUnclear manualsUnproper trainingUnproper trainingQuality of enumeratorsQuality of enumeratorsQuality of enumeration prosedureQuality of enumeration prosedureQuality of monitoringQuality of monitoringData cleaning process in the fieldData cleaning process in the fieldData processingData processingData evaluationData evaluation

Purpose of census data evaluation

To obtain ”To obtain ”clean raw dataclean raw data” ” and “and “tabulation consistenciestabulation consistencies””-> to produce “-> to produce “realible indicatorsrealible indicators””-> can be used for “-> can be used for “planning purposesplanning purposes” ” -> for “-> for “advanced analysisadvanced analysis” ”

Census data evaluation

During enumeration Post Enumeration Survey ((PES)Before preliminary resultDuring/after processing individual

questionnaireBefore final result

During enumeration 2010 PC field enumeration -> using team, this has

impact on data quality Enumeration using team gives chance to make

editing in the field and has resulted in better supervision.

Any problems relating to enumeration can be solved immediately in the field

Enumeration can be finished on-schedule Self confidence of enumerator is much better Enumeration using team is intended to obtain clean

data in the field Data cleaning is done within one team, and among

team coordinators under one field coordinator

During enumeration As a part of quality assurance in producing qualified

statistics -> BPS conducted “monitoring the quality of the census” and “Post Enumeration Survey”

Monitoring quality of the census were conducted in the beginning period of field work (May, week I-II)

Monitoring quality is to ensure the quality of PC data -> focusing on the operational procedure in all enumeration process, to minimize the coverage error and content error

Monitoring quality is intended to correct the miss-procedure during the enumeration

1,676 students, lecturers of Institute of Statistics, and BPS employees involved in this activity

Monitoring result is reported through SMS-Gateway and can be observed and download by BPS executives in the website http://kualitassp2010.bps.go.id

Post Enumeration Survey (PES) PES was conducted in 1200 census blocks in 33

provinces, from 5-18 July 2010 Purpose to evaluate instrument, procedure, and result

of census related to coverage and content PES using best enumerators in PC, but working in

different CBs of PC In general, PES result indicates that there is

undercount of coverage for population and household PES also indicates that in general, content quality is

still accurate There are variations in coverage rate and content

quality in provinces

Population Net Coverage Error Rate (%)

Indonesia: 3.6 %; range: 0.36 % – 9.77 %

Household Net Coverage Error Rate (%)

Indonesia: 2.5 %; range: -1.20 % – 7.97 %

National Gross Difference Rate %) and Aggregate Index of Inconsistency %) by Variables

Before preliminary result

Evaluation was also conducted before preliminary result of total population released

Preliminary results of total population -> based on recapitulation from listing questionnaires

Preliminary results were announced on 16 August 2010, during national speech by President on Indonesia’s independence day

Preliminary results include:Total population by administrative areas: national,

province, districtTotal population by genderPopulation growth rate 2000-2010

Before preliminary result BPS prepared worksheet in Excel as template to facilitate BPS

Province/District to do the evaluation The evaluation include:

Population distribution 2000 and 2010 Population growth rate: 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 Sex ratio: 2000 and 2010 Total household 2000 and 2010 Household growth rate: 1990-2000 and 2000-2010 Household size

Note: Comparison of population in one region, was based on the recent condition of the

administrative region. Proliferation of administrat ve region in Indonesia happens rapidly

Evaluation was done from the smallest administrative area to the highest administrative area

Total population also evaluated by comparing with other sources: ministrative records, population projection

Table Population by Reg/MunTabel IA.

L P L+P L P L+P L P L+P(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)1 3401000000 KULON PROGO 182.344 189.965 372.309 182.672 188.272 370.944 190.838 198.381 389.2192 3402000000 BANTUL 342.772 354.133 696.905 388.526 392.487 781.013 455.380 455.380 910.7603 3403000000 GUNUNG KIDUL 316.724 334.280 651.004 326.874 343.559 670.433 348.984 348.984 697.9684 3404000000 SLEMAN 388.144 392.190 780.334 454.683 446.694 901.377 545.506 545.506 1.091.0125 3471000000 YOGYAKARTA 202.002 210.057 412.059 194.106 202.605 396.711 199.684 199.684 399.368

1.431.986 1.480.625 2.912.611 1.546.861 1.573.617 3.120.478 1.740.392 1.747.935 3.488.327

No Kab./Kota1990 2000 2010 (P.211)

Provinsi

Kode 2010

Table population growth rate for evaluationTabel IA.

L+P

(1) (2) (4) (9) (10)

1 3401000000 KULON PROGO -0,04 0,48

2 3402000000 BANTUL 1,15 1,553 3403000000 GUNUNG KIDUL 0,29 0,404 3404000000 SLEMAN 1,45 1,935 3471000000 YOGYAKARTA -0,38 0,07

0,69 1,12Provinsi

LPP 1990-2000 LPP 2000-2010 v.211No Kab./KotaKode 2010

Table sex ratio for evaluation

Tabel IA.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)1 3401000000 KULON PROGO 96,0 97,0 96,22 3402000000 BANTUL 96,8 99,0 100,03 3403000000 GUNUNG KIDUL 94,7 95,1 100,04 3404000000 SLEMAN 99,0 101,8 100,05 3471000000 YOGYAKARTA 96,2 95,8 100,0

96,7 98,3 99,6Provinsi

1990 2000 2010 v.211No Kab./KotaKode 2010

Table population distribution for evaluation

Tabel IA.

1990 2000 2010 v.211 2010 v.212

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

1 3401000000 KULON PROGO 12,8 11,9 11,22 3402000000 BANTUL 23,9 25,0 26,13 3403000000 GUNUNG KIDUL 22,4 21,5 20,04 3404000000 SLEMAN 26,8 28,9 31,35 3471000000 YOGYAKARTA 14,1 12,7 11,4

100,0 100,0 100,0Provinsi

% Distribusi No Kab./KotaKode 2010

During/after processing individual questionnaire

There were evaluations based on individual questionnaires during/after processing individual questionnaires Internal Evaluation (BPS), based on 80 primary tables Internal Evaluation (BPS), based on 80 primary tables

for publication, this includes:for publication, this includes:Evaluation on consistencies within tablesEvaluation on consistencies within tablesEvaluation on contentEvaluation on contentEvaluation based on indicators trendEvaluation based on indicators trend

Evaluation on Evaluation on consistency and imputation related to data processing, and evaluation on some some demographic parametersdemographic parameters by expert Michael J. Levin, by expert Michael J. Levin, from Harvard Center for Population and Development from Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Studies.

Internal Evaluation (BPS), based on 80 primary tables Internal Evaluation (BPS), based on 80 primary tables for publicationfor publication

Consistencies evaluation:Consistencies evaluation: Within tablesWithin tables Out of range data in tableOut of range data in table Wrong recognizion by machineWrong recognizion by machine Editing and rule validation programe are not strictlyEditing and rule validation programe are not strictly Tracing to raw dataTracing to raw data

Checking trend indicators (national and province), such as:Checking trend indicators (national and province), such as: PPercenercentatage population by age groupge population by age group PerPercentage of urban populationcentage of urban population Percentage of population by religionPercentage of population by religion Population by genderPopulation by gender Percentage of single womenPercentage of single women PerPerccentaentage of population by schooling statusge of population by schooling status Mean age at marriageMean age at marriage Mean children ever born per womanMean children ever born per woman Mean children surviving per womanMean children surviving per woman PerPercentagecentage of migrant populationof migrant population PerPercentage of labour forcecentage of labour force PerPercentage of working peoplecentage of working people

Content checking: disability data, deaths by age group, labour force -> Content checking: disability data, deaths by age group, labour force -> also compared by other sourcesalso compared by other sources

Evaluation assisted by International Expert

Evaluation of consistency and imputation

Consistency was done to confirm that the data is consistent with the master file and range, for field which has certain range

Imputation was done for inconsistent data and empty field that should be filled. Imputation used cold-deck and hot-deck

Rule validation program was upgraded gradually to produce consistent data

Evaluation assisted by International Expert

Evaluation on some some demographic parametersdemographic parametersPopulation pyramidsPopulation pyramidsUN Age Sex IndicesUN Age Sex IndicesSingle-Year ages: Whipple’s index, Myer’s, Single-Year ages: Whipple’s index, Myer’s,

producing various graphs for interpreting dataproducing various graphs for interpreting dataRunning Own-children methods -> to see ASFRs

and TFRs and compares with last censusesChildren ever born and children surviving -> to see

the change in parity over time and the percentage of children surviving by age group

Evaluation on age of males using Index Myers

Evaluation on age of females using Index Myers

Evaluation on age using UN Index

Evaluation before final result

Evaluation on maternal death dataStarting with the consultation to international expert

from Harvard University: Prof.Kenneth Hill -> to finalize questions on maternal mortality in PC questionnaires

Workshop on calculation of maternal mortality ratio from census data

Evaluation of maternal mortality data from 2010 PC by senior experts/demographers -> maternal mortality ratio (pregnancy-related death ratio).Comparing MMR with PMDF method, MMR with other

sources

Further evaluation on maternal death data Detail evaluation by tracing the raw data and verifying/visiting the

household again to ascertain death as maternal death. Household is revisited and verified, if:

1. there was an ever married woman who died during pregnancy, delivery or childbirth within two months after delivery

2. there was a woman age 15-49 died3. there was a male household member with the marital status

widower4. there was household member age 0 year and there was no

married women living in the house

Revisiting the households for cases no.1 and 2 Sampling the households for cases no.3 and 4 Using snowballing method (by asking to head of community),

whether there is a maternal death in their neighbouring unit.

Maternal mortality ratio (pregnancy-related death ratio)

Total cases of maternal deaths from Popultion Census: 13.956

Total cases of maternal deaths after revisiting the household: 8.437

Maternal Mortality Ratio: 259 deaths per 100.000 births.

Challenges in evaluation

Methods of evaluation on census data should be planned and organized since the beginning of census preparation; and there should be a standard format of census evaluation (from UN) particularly on assessing demographic parameters

Evaluation on census data should be done in all BPS regional offices, started from lowest level administrative area (bottom up areas). Staffs in regional offices know exactly their area’s condition

The role of international and internal experts are important in the collaboration of census evaluation

THANK YOU