1 / 17

International Household Survey Network (IHSN) and Accelerated Data Program (ADP)

Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics Advisory Board meeting, Paris, November 15, 2007. International Household Survey Network (IHSN) and Accelerated Data Program (ADP). Household Surveys in MAPS. 2 recommendations:

arleen
Télécharger la présentation

International Household Survey Network (IHSN) and Accelerated Data Program (ADP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Marrakech Action Plan for StatisticsAdvisory Board meeting, Paris, November 15, 2007 International Household Survey Network (IHSN) and Accelerated Data Program (ADP)

  2. Household Surveys in MAPS 2 recommendations: • Establish the International Household Survey Network (IHSN) to improve the effectiveness of survey programs • Make urgent improvements in the availability of data to report on results  Pilot Accelerated Data Program (ADP)

  3. IHSN • Established in September 2004 • Light secretariat (DFID / PARIS21 / WB) • Management Group (7 agencies) • Members: key international survey sponsors • Core program implemented as a PARIS21 satellite program since March 2006 • DGF funding: $900K in FY06; $750K in FY07 and FY08

  4. IHSN Objective 1Better use of existing data Survey sponsors, both national authorities and donors, have an interest in maximizing the value of the information produced. (MAPS) • Lots of data collected, not all exploited • Various causes: funding, capacity, issues of quality (reliability, comparability), but mainly accessibility and preservation.

  5. IHSN Objective 2Collecting better data Surveys are complex undertakings. To be useful they must be properly designed and administered [...] (MAPS) Need more focus on quality (relevance, comparability, reliability, periodicity, timeliness) • Questionnaires not always aligned to priorities • Inconsistencies across sources, over time and across countries (sometimes for good reasons; often as result of ad-hoc support) • Many surveys have significant design problems • Timing and sequencing not optimal

  6. IHSN activities for Objective 1 • Survey catalog: 3,300 surveys/censuses • Microdata Management Toolkit and guidelines for good practice in data documentation and dissemination (DDI standard, XML technology) • Software available in 6 languages; widely used • Microdata dissemination policy guidelines • Anonymization tools and guidelines

  7. IHSN activities for Objective 2 • Question Bank • A modular repository of international survey recommendations (XML/DDI) • New activity; quick take off (various custodians) • Analysis > Assessment > Recommendation • Survey Quality Assessment Framework • With guidelines for survey managers • Mix of DESAP and Statistics Canada Quality Guidelines

  8. IHSN challenges • No major challenge; mainly: • Expertise in some areas difficult to find • Small staff for a fast growing work program • No legal status; no official mandate • Constraints associated with DGF funding

  9. ADP Pilot At the origin: launch new surveys to fill data gaps. But IHSN experience showed that: - Lots of data are collected; many remain under-exploited for various reasons - Difficult to know what's available/planned, so difficult to identify immediate needs - Implementing a survey program, even pilot, would require more resources than available from DGF

  10. ADP Pilot - Objectives • Invest in quality and use of data, not (much) in collection • Making data more usable, relevant, accessible, comparable • Complements IHSN • Use IHSN tools and guidelines • Takes advantage of close cooperation with network members

  11. ADP Pilot - Status • Pilot ADP is a PARIS21 satellite program • DGF funding of $2,000K per year (FY06-FY08) • Small core team (same team as IHSN) • Implemented with partners (ESCAP, IADB, UNICEF, interest from ESCWA)

  12. ADP implementation – 3 tasks • Task 1: build national data archives (inventory, documentation, dissemination of existing microdata) • Task 2: assessment of data quality, and harmonization/improvement of methods (national question banks) • Task 3: data collection if crucial (no specific type of survey; flexible approach)

  13. ADP implementation strategy • Initial plan was to start Tasks 1, 2 and 3 in a few countries. • Revised strategy: • Year 1: focus on Task 1 • Year 2: expand Task 1 to more countries; build regional expertise and partnerships for scaling up • Year 3 (starting now): continue Task 1 with partners, but increased focus on piloting Task 2 Task 3 only if / where crucial (limited funding), to complement other funding

  14. ADP progress • Task 1: Feasibility and affordability demonstrated (extensive use of IHSN tools) • 25 countries; could have more (large demand) • Alliances: MICS, CWIQ, MECOVI, Regional Award for Innovation in Statistics, … • Regional expertise and communities of practice • Task 2: Will start soon (in Africa) • Task 3: Niger, Haiti, DRC

  15. ADP geographic coverage

  16. ADP challenges • Task 1: challenge is mainly technical: data and metadata lost, scattered, etc. Also, requests to expand to other sources of data (administrative) • Task 2: still need to pilot it. Important to define priorities. Expect some resistance to change. • Requests for Task 3: what can ADP do? • Constraints of DGF funding and administrative (short-term horizon; grant and sub-grants processing time)

  17. Conclusion • IHSN and ADP: Demand growing, resources decreasing (US$)  scaling up or slowing down? • ADP: • Task 1: from pilot to full scale. Important not only for accessibility (use), but also for quality of future surveys • Task 2: priority for coming year • Task 3: feasible only if less ad-hoc funding can be secured

More Related