3 ms·

> While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - th

> While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - there is very little reason to lie here, since the data isn't correlated back with, for eg, your ration card. Try explaining this to common Indian villager. Ground reality is they see the same govt employees collecting any data and they have their own assumptions. Govt employees themselves do not do very good job of explaining anything. > NHFS (National Health Family Survey), used here, is a sampled survey (not a census), and has a detailed guide[1] on how they go about accounting for these biases, and ensuring their results remain representative despite sampling. afaik, the results from NHFS have the same limitation as a census - and it is not used for targeting benefit delivery. I assumed so. Its not the question of the process set for NHFS. On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions.

captn3m0 4y ago
> On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions. The people designing the survey are very well aware of the reality, imo. The survey is based on not just what the answers are, but also what the surveyer sees at the household. They have multiple questions to ascertain the actual number of people living in the household, including questions like "who all slept here last night". Initial samplings of the survey are done with control groups (two separate teams) across different intervals to ensure that the methodology is good enough, and survey results are reflective of the ground-truth. One way to validate the results would be to measure them with another methodology, and it turns out that the relevant result (India's Total Fertility Rate) has a fairly similar value (2.0 v/s 2.1)[1] via the SRS (sample registration system, 2020) which is conducted by another body (census of india) via a somewhat different methodology (tracking life-events by a local body, and using birth/death registrations alongside). It's easy to give up and blame lying survey responders or sampling biases, but there are ways to solve for these, that are being used here. [1]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-declined-by-20-in-india-in-10-years-srs-data/articleshow/94464169.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-dec...

captn3m0 4y ago

> On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions. The people designing the survey are very well aware of the reality, imo. The survey is based on not just what the answers are, but also what the surveyer sees at the household. They have multiple questions to ascertain the actual number of people living in the household, including questions like "who all slept here last night". Initial samplings of the survey are done with control groups (two separate teams) across different intervals to ensure that the methodology is good enough, and survey results are reflective of the ground-truth. One way to validate the results would be to measure them with another methodology, and it turns out that the relevant result (India's Total Fertility Rate) has a fairly similar value (2.0 v/s 2.1)[1] via the SRS (sample registration system, 2020) which is conducted by another body (census of india) via a somewhat different methodology (tracking life-events by a local body, and using birth/death registrations alongside). It's easy to give up and blame lying survey responders or sampling biases, but there are ways to solve for these, that are being used here. [1]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-declined-by-20-in-india-in-10-years-srs-data/articleshow/94464169.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-dec...