Indicators and Correlates of Adolescent Pregnancy in Indonesia

Results from 2010 Population Census and2012 Indonesian Demographic and Health Survey

Indicators and Correlates of Adolescent Pregnancy in Indonesia

Results from 2010 Population Census and2012 Indonesian Demographic and Health Survey

Dr. Iwu Utomo

Dr. Ariane Utomo

Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute

The Australian National University

1 November 2013

Disclaimer: Funding for this work was provided by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of UNFPA.

2

3

Contents

Executive Summary 5

1 Introduction 5

2 Data and Methods 6

3 Adolescent fertility: Results from the 2010 Population Census and 2012 IDHS 73.1 Exposure to adolescent fertility: proportion married 83.2 Total fertility and adolescent fertility rates 93.3 Adolescent fertility: Children ever born 10

4 Adolescent pregnancy: Results Indonesian Demographic and Health Survey 2012 124.1 Sample characteristics: all women aged 15-19 124.2 Factors associated with the risk of adolescent pregnancy 134.3 Incidence and prevalence of adolescent motherhood, pregnancy, and abortion 14

4.3.1 Incidence of adolescent pregnancy 2012: ‘Current pregnancy’ and whether wanted or not 14

4.3.2 Prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood 144.3.3 Fertility history and fertility preferences 154.3.4 Abortion 17

4.4 Correlates of adolescent pregnancy and teenage motherhood 184.5 Profile of teenage mothers 19

4.5.1 Socio-demographic profile of teenage mothers and their partners 194.5.2 Reproductive health knowledge 214.5.3 Contraceptive use 224.5.4 Participation in decision making among partnered teenage mothers 23

5 Conclusion 23

6 Appendices 25

References 31

4

List of Tables

Table 1 - Percentage distribution of people aged 10-24 by sex, urban/rural areas, and marital status, 2010 8Table 2 - Percentage distribution of all women aged 10-24 years in urban and rural areas by the number of live births, 2010(a) 11Table 3 - Percentage distribution of ever-married women aged 10-24 years in urban and rural areas by the number of live births, 2010 11Table 4 - Sample characteristics: all eligible women interviewed aged 15-19, 2012 12Table 5 - Percentage of teenage females who had had sexual intercourse by current age and residence, 2012 13Table 6 - Current pregnancies and if wanted or not, 2012 14Table 7 - Percentage of women aged 15-19 who are mothers or pregnant with their first child by survey year, 1987-2007 15Table 8 - Prevalence and incidence of adolescent pregnancy (among women aged 15-19), 2012 15Table 9 - Cumulative percentage of women aged 15-19 who have had first birth, 2012 16Table 10 - Women aged 15-19: distributions by number of children and whether child is still alive or not, 2012 17Table 11 - Ever terminated pregnancy, 2012 17Table 12 - Logistics regression of ever experienced a pregnancy for all women aged 15-19, 2012 18Table 13 - Characteristics of teenage mothers (aged 15-19), 2012 20Table 14 - Teenage mothers: partners’ characteristics, 2012 21Table 15 - Teenage mothers: reproductive health knowledge, 2012 21Table 16 - Teenage mothers: contraceptive use, 2012 22Table 17 - Teenage mothers: participation in decision-making, 2012 23

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Age Specific Fertility Rates for Indonesia, 1971-2010 9Figure 2 - ASFR for women aged 15-19 in selected provinces, 1971- 2010 10Figure 3 - Women aged 15-19: Progression into first birth by urban/rural residence, 2012 16

List of Appendix

Appendix 1 - Age specific fertility rates and total fertility rates by province in urban and rural Indonesia, 1971-2010 25Appendix 2 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19 for selected provinces, 1971-2010 29Appendix 3 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19: 1987-2012 29Appendix 4 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19 by region: 1987-2012 29

5

ExECuTivE SummAry

This report provides an overview of the demographic data of adolescent pregnancy in Indonesia. This report outlines pertinent indicators and correlates of adolescent pregnancy in Indonesia using two major data source: 2010 Indonesian Population Census and 2012 Indonesian Demographic and Health Surveys (IDHS).

Data from the Population Censuses series 1971-2010 indicated that over time, the age specific fertility rates had declined from 155 to 41 births per 1000 women aged 15-19. In 2010, adolescent fertility rates were highest in the province of Central Kalimantan (69 births per 1000 women aged 15-19), and lowest in Jakarta (17 births per 1000 women aged 15-19). Data from the 2012 IDHS indicated that about 19 percent of women aged 18had already had their first sexual intercourse. The onset of sexual intercourse is closely related to union formation. It is estimated that 9.8 percent of all women aged 15-19 had experienced pregnancy. This percentage covers those who had given birth, those who were currently pregnant at the time of the survey, and/or those who had ever terminated a pregnancy. It is estimated that 73 percent of ever married/in union women aged 15-19 had experienced pregnancy.

The results of the multivariate analyses presented in this study are in line with the results of the earlier literature review that pointed to socio-economic disadvantage as a primary driver of early childbearing in developing countries. Among women aged 15-19, the likelihood of having becoming pregnant was higher among those who live in rural areas, had relatively lower education attainment, and among those who came from households with a relatively low wealth index score. About 6 percent of women who were ever in union reported that they had terminated a pregnancy. The corresponding figure for never married women was very small (0.02%).

Over 60 percent of teen mothers and mothers-to-be lived in rural areas and 95 percent were married at the time of the survey. About three quarters of teen mothers were not employed at the time of the survey. One in 10 teen mothers in union have husbands/partners who are also teenagers. Most teen mothers therefore, have older husbands/partners. While knowledge of contraception among teen mothers is high, about one third of teen mothers had never heard of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS.

Future research on the correlates and effects of adolescent pregnancy on both the young mothers and their children in Indonesia will benefit from analyses based on longitudinal datasets. Furthermore, as opposed to relying on estimates from large surveys, micro quantitative and qualitative studies on young people will generate more reliable estimates and the much needed insights on the prevalence of premarital sex, abortion, and adolescent pregnancy, and the needs for reproductive health education and services for men and women in this age group.

1. introduction

The theme of both World Population Day 2013 and the State of World Population 2013 is “Adolescent Pregnancy”. Globally, it is estimated that 16 million girls aged 15-19 gave birth each year (World Health Organization, 2011). In many parts of the world, adolescent pregnancy is closely associated with unsafe abortions. Across developing countries, complications from pregnancy and unsafe abortion are the leading cause of death for girls aged 15-19 (Gennari, 2013; Gray, Azzopardi, Kennedy, Willersdorf, and Creati, 2013). With an estimated 3 million unsafe abortions taking place annually among girls in this age group across developing countries (World Health Organization, 2011), and given that pregnant teenagers face double the risk of dying from pregnancy-related complications compared to women in their 20s (Gennari, 2013), there are many health repercussions of adolescent pregnancy. However, aside from being a major public health issue, adolescent pregnancy is also a pertinent development issue. Whether it occurs inside or outside of

6

marriage, adolescent pregnancy derails young women’s trajectories in their transition to adulthood, and casts a shadow of lost opportunities for these women, their families, and their surrounding communities. In addition, studies have also highlighted the negative association between adolescent motherhood and child outcomes. In developing countries, adolescent mothers are less likely to use maternal and childhealth services (LeGrand et al, 1993; Reynolds, et al, 2006), and children of adolescent mothers face higher risks of low birth weight, increased risk of infant mortality and poor education and socio-economic prospects (Hofferth, 1987; Botting, et al, 1998).1

The UN’s 2010 World Population Prospects estimated that 1.7 million women and girls under the age of 24 give birth annually in Indonesia, and almost half a million are teenagers (United Nations, 2011). Data from the Indonesian Demographic and Health Surveys (IDHS) indicated that the Age Specific Fertility Rate (ASFR) for women aged 15-19 had fallen from 67 births per 1000 married women in 1991 to 35 births per 1000 women in 2007 (BPS-Statistics Indonesia and Macro International, 2008). However, despite the declining trend in adolescent ASFR between 1991 and 2007, sizeable disparities among provinces, regions, and socio-economic segments of the population remain. In addition, a preliminary estimate from 2012 IDHS suggests an increase in the adolescent ASFR to 48 births per 1000 (Susanto, 2013). This ambiguous trend in adolescent fertility in the past two decades is in line with what is happening in the rest of the developing world. In all developing regions, adolescent birth rates had been on the decline between 1990 and 2000, but since then, the decline has slowed or even reversed (Stewart, 2013).

Following an earlier literature review on adolescent pregnancy in Indonesia, this report provides an overview of demographic data on adolescent pregnancy in Indonesia. Using data derived primarily from the 2010 Indonesian Population Census and the 2012 IDHS, the report outlines pertinent indicators and correlates of adolescent pregnancy. Specifically, the primary research objectives of the report are:

y To outline the time trend and current levels of adolescent fertility rates in Indonesia; y To estimate the exposure to the risk of, prevalence, and correlates of adolescent pregnancy among young

women aged 15-19; and y To explore the characteristics of adolescent mothers in Indonesia.

The data and methods of analysis used in the report are outlined in section 2. The following results sections are organised in line with the research objectives specified above. Section 3 focuses on key findings from the 2010 Population Census, outlining exposure to, and the estimated prevalence of adolescent fertility, as well as the fertility outcomes of young women in the population. Specific indicators presented in this section include the percentage distribution of young people by marital status, trends of adolescent fertility rates across time and provinces, and tabulations of all and ever married young women by the number of children ever born. Where applicable, results from the 2010 Population Census are compared to results from 2012 IDHS. Section 4 discusses the results from the 2012 IDHS, focusing on a sub-sample of all women aged 15-19 to estimate the risk, the incidence, the prevalence, and correlates of adolescent pregnancy. Section 5 is an examination of a subsample of all teen mothers (including teenagers who were pregnant at the time of the survey) to explore their characteristics, fertility outcomes, contraceptive practice, and their reproductive health knowledge.

2. Data and methods

The results from the 2010 Population Census drawn from special tabulations available on the online database of the Census (http://sp2010.bps.go.id) are used to outline the time trend and levels of adolescent

1 A more recent study based on a US dataset argued that the negative association between early motherhood and child outcomes is primarily driven by the young mothers’ socio-economic background as opposed to their maternal age (López Turley, 2003). Other time series studies in developing countries have argued that the negative association between young maternal age and child health outcomes persists despite improvements in the country‘s economic conditions (for example, Haldre, et al Rahu, Karro, & Rahu, 2007

7

fertility. Data on adolescent fertility rates (age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19) are compiled from the report Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia published by the BPS (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011).

Apart from looking at ASFRs for adolescent, there are other useful indicators to assess the prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood in the population. These alternative indicators were gathered from data from the 2012 IDHS, and when applicable, from the previous IDHS series to examine relevant temporal patterns. Analyses on the 2012 IDHS are conducted using STATA 12.0, and the online table generator, DHS Stat Compiler (http://www.statcompiler.com/), was used for indicators pertaining to the previous IDHS surveys. Data files from the 2012 IDHS were downloaded from the DHS website (http://www.measuredhs.com). This included a sub-file of individual women, which was used create a subset of all women aged 15-19. From the 45,607 of eligible women aged 15-49 interviewed in the survey, the subset of all women aged 15-19 contained 7,207 observations (6,927 weighted count), or approximately 15 percent of the total women in the sample.

Using this subset of all women aged 15-19, descriptive statistics of weighted frequency and percentage was used to present findings on the sample characteristics of female adolescents in Indonesia. An analysis of age at first sexual intercourse by urban/rural residence is used to gauge the risk to adolescent pregnancy. The incidence of adolescent pregnancy during the survey year was calculated by tabulating the number of respondents who were pregnant at the time of the interview. Next, the prevalence of adolescent pregnancy was estimated using the weighted number of women aged 15-19 who had begun childbearing as well as those who had ever terminated pregnancy as the numerator, and the weighted total number of all women aged 15-19 as the denominator. Also with the subset of all women aged 15-19, multivariate analyses were used to explore the associations between the likelihood of ever experiencing pregnancy and socio-demographic variables such as age, urban/rural residence, education attainment, and household wealth index. The dependent variable represents the likelihood of a woman aged 15-19 to ever experience pregnancy. This variable is coded 1 if the respondent had ever experienced a live birth, and/or was pregnant at the time of the interview, and/or ever terminated a pregnancy, and 0 otherwise. Two models of logistics regression were used. The first model includes single year of age, an age-square variable, an urban/rural dummy, and a categorical variable of highest educational attainment. With the education variable, ‘Incomplete secondary’ was used as the reference category because this category had the highest proportion of respondents in it. In the second model, the same logistics regression was used, except the highest educational attainment variable was replaced with household wealth index. It should be noted that there might be a problem of endogeneity between educational attainment and adolescent pregnancy.

To examine the characteristics and life situations of adolescent mothers, another subset of teen mothers was created with all women aged 15-19 who had at least one child or was pregnant at the time of the survey. Out of the 7,207 women aged 15-19, we identified 728 teen mothers according to the definition above (weighted count = 650), representing about 9.4 percent of women aged 15-19 in our dataset. Descriptive statistics were used to explore their socio-demographic characteristics, contraceptive use, and reproductive health knowledge. Among those who were partnered, the age and education profile of their husband/partners was outlined, along with a number of measures of individual agency.

3. Adolescent fertility: results from the 2010 Population Census and 2012 iDHS

This section outlines tabulations results from the 2010 Population Census on adolescent fertility rates in Indonesia. Statistics on the prevalence of early marriage are first used to gauge the risk of pregnancy and motherhood among adolescents in the population. Time-series data which show in changes in adolescent fertility rates over recent decades at the national level as well as changes at provincial level are presented in section 3.2. Section 3.3 presents a tabulation of children ever born for all and ever-married women aged 10-24 in 5 year age groups.

8

3.1 Exposure to adolescent fertility: proportion marriedIn developing countries such as Indonesia where marriage remains the norm, the risk of adolescent

pregnancy is believed to be closely related to the incidence of early marriage. On the whole, early marriage in Indonesia had been declining since the 1960s, but the trend appears to have reversed between the 2000 and 2010 Census. In 1960, 40.5 percent of women aged 15-19 were ever married. In 2000, only 8.7 percent of women aged 15-19 were ever married (Jones, 2011). However, data from the 2010 Population Census revealed that 14.2 percent of women in the same age group were ever-married. The corresponding proportion for men was lower at less than 7 percent (Table 1).

The slight increase in the proportion of ever-married teenagers is in line with recent estimates of the singulate mean age at marriage (SMAM), which is a useful indicator of fertility. Higher levels of SMAM are associated with lower fertility levels as a later onset of childbearing is associated with a lower number of total children ever born for an individual woman. The estimates of SMAM for women increased from 19.3 years in 1971 to 22.7 years in the 2000 Population Census, but since then has again slightly fallen to 22.3 in the 2010 Census (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011; Hull 2011).

Table 1 - Percentage distribution of people aged 10-24 by sex, urban/rural areas, and marital status, 2010

Marital Status (%)Total

  Never Married Married Divorced Widowed Not Asked

Male - Urban

10-14 98.76 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.65 5,399,311

15-19 92.21 6.25 0.04 0.01 1.49 5,343,102

20-24 71.57 26.59 0.32 0.04 1.47 5,416,588

Male - Rural

10-14 98.97 0.67 0.01 0.00 0.34 6,263,106

15-19 93.41 5.66 0.09 0.02 0.82 5,271,204

20-24 64.42 34.05 0.78 0.09 0.66 4,471,125

Male - Urban and rural

10-14 98.87 0.63 0.01 0.00 0.49 11,662,417

15-19 92.80 5.96 0.07 0.02 1.16 10,614,306

20-24 68.34 29.96 0.53 0.07 1.10 9,887,713

Female - Urban

10-14 98.77 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.70 5,142,856

15-19 87.69 10.55 0.29 0.03 1.44 5,412,484

20-24 50.78 47.24 1.25 0.16 0.57 5,487,223

Female - Rural

10-14 99.16 0.42 0.02 0.01 0.40 5,865,808

15-19 81.14 17.26 0.66 0.06 0.89 4,853,944

20-24 29.25 68.06 2.18 0.26 0.25 4,516,697

Female - Urban and rural

10-14 98.97 0.47 0.02 0.01 0.54 11,008,664

15-19 84.59 13.72 0.46 0.04 1.18 10,266,428

20-24 41.06 56.64 1.67 0.20 0.42 10,003,920

Source: Adapted from Results of the 2010 Population Census website, http://sp2010.bps.go.id (BPS, 2012)

9

3.2 Total fertility and adolescent fertility ratesIntercensal estimates of total fertility rates show that fertility in Indonesia has, until more recent years,

been declining over time. The estimates for Total Fertility Rate (TFR), which is the average number of children born to a woman for her entire reproductive lifetime, had fallen from 5.6 to 2.4 births between the 1970 and 2010 Population Census (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011). The latest TFR estimate from the 2012 IDHS was 2.6 births per woman. Arguably, it is difficult to draw a conclusion on the recent upswing in temporal trends of fertility in Indonesia by comparing the results from the 2012 IDHS and the 2010 Population Census for a number of reasons. First, the 2010 Population Census was supposedly a complete enumeration of the population, while the IDHS is a sample survey subjected to sampling errors. Second, the two surveys employ different fertility estimation techniques. The 2012 IDHS relies on data based on collection of birth history for women in the reproductive age group to estimate fertility levels. In contrast, the fertility estimates from the 2010 Population Census were calculated using indirect estimation techniques since data on women’s birth histories were not collected. Furthermore, any fertility estimates obtained from either the census ot the IFHS are subjected to measurement errors.

The intercensal estimates of fertility levels suggest that fertility differentials across regions remain persistent over time. The 2010 Population Census shows that Maluku had the highest TFR at 3.6 births per woman and DKI Jakarta had the lowest at 1.8 (See Appendix 1).

Figure 1 outlines the intercensal trend of ASFRs for women aged 15-49. A trend indicating delayed childbearing is one of the explanations of the fall in the TFR (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011).2 Relative to ASFR estimates in the earlier years, the peak in the age fertility rates profile had shifted from women aged 20-24 years to women aged 25-29 years in the two most recent censuses.

Figure 1 - Age Specific Fertility Rates for Indonesia, 1971-2010

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010. (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. See Appendix 1 for detailed tabulation.

2 While scholars have noted the role of an efficacious family planning program in facilitating fertility decline in Indonesia, others have argued for a more holistic approach, pointing to socio-economic institutions ‘that have created an environment conducive for fertility reduction’ (Hull, 1987:90). Higher educational attainment and higher labour force participation for women, delayed marriage, changing ideals about family size and gender roles in marriage are examples of the broader social changes associated with economic development in Indonesia.

9Indicators and Correlates of Adolescent Pregnancy in Indonesia

3.2 Total fertility and adolescent fertility ratesIntercensal estimates of total fertility rates show that fertility in Indonesia has, until more recent years,

been declining over time. The estimates for Total Fertility Rate (TFR), which is the average number of children born to a woman for her entire reproductive lifetime, had fallen from 5.6 to 2.4 births between the 1970 and 2010 Population Census (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011). The latest TFR estimate from the 2012 IDHS was 2.6 births per woman. Arguably, it is difficult to draw a conclusion on the recent upswing in temporal trends of fertility in Indonesia by comparing the results from the 2012 IDHS and the 2010 Population Census for a number of reasons. First, the 2010 Population Census was supposedly a complete enumeration of the population, while the IDHS is a sample survey subjected to sampling errors. Second, the two surveys employ different fertility estimation techniques. The 2012 IDHS relies on data based on collection of birth history for women in the reproductive age group to estimate fertility levels. In contrast, the fertility estimates from the 2010 Population Census were calculated using indirect estimation techniques since data on women’s birth histories were not collected. Furthermore, any fertility estimates obtained from either the census ot the IFHS are subjected to measurement errors.

The intercensal estimates of fertility levels suggest that fertility differentials across regions remain persistent over time. The 2010 Population Census shows that Maluku had the highest TFR at 3.6 births per woman and DKI Jakarta had the lowest at 1.8 (See Appendix 1).

Figure 1 outlines the intercensal trend of ASFRs for women aged 15-49. A trend indicating delayed childbearing is one of the explanations of the fall in the TFR (BPS-Statistics Indonesia, 2011).2 Relative to ASFR estimates in the earlier years, the peak in the age fertility rates profile had shifted from women aged 20-24 years to women aged 25-29 years in the two most recent censuses.

Figure 1 - Age Specific Fertility Rates for Indonesia, 1971-2010

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010. (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. See Appendix 1 for detailed tabulation.

2 While scholars have noted the role of an efficacious family planning program in facilitating fertility decline in Indonesia, others have argued for a more holistic approach, pointing to socio-economic institutions ‘that have created an environment conducive for fertility reduction’ (Hull, 1987:90). Higher educational attainment and higher labour force participation for women, delayed marriage, changing ideals about family size and gender roles in marriage are examples of the broader social changes associated with economic development in Indonesia.

10

Along with the decline in TFR, adolescent fertility rates are also declining in the intercensal years (Figure 2). For all of Indonesia, ASFRs for women aged 15-19 years between the 1971 and 2010 Census fell from 155 to 41 births per 1000 women. As with the observed total fertility differentials across region, we also observe regional differences in adolescent fertility levels. DKI Jakarta and DI Yogyakarta are two provinces with relatively low levels of adolescent fertility, with 17 and 20 births per 1000 women aged 15-19 years respectively (Appendix 1 and Figure 1). Central Kalimantan was the province with the highest adolescent fertility rates in 2010 at 69 births per 1000 women aged 15-19. Other provinces with adolescent fertility rates above 60 include Central Sulawesi, West Sulawesi, Gorontalo, and Southeast Sulawesi.

Figure 2 - ASFR for women aged 15-19 in selected provinces, 1971- 2010

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. See Appendix 2 for detailed tabulation.

Estimates of adolescent fertility rates from the 2010 Population Census slightly differ from the estimates obtained from the 2012 IDHS. Thus, the 2012 IDHS figure for the adolescent fertility rate was 48 births per 1000 women aged 15-19, which is higher than the 41 births per 1000 women estimate obtained from the 2010 Census. However, as discussed earlier, it is difficult to assert that there has been a recent increase in adolescent fertility using Census and the IDHS due to their different data collection methods and the ensuing estimation methods.

Comparing the 2012 IDHS estimate of fertility rates for women aged 15-19 (that is, 48 births per 100 women) with estimates from previous IDHS surveys shows a continued decline in adolescent fertility The 1987 IDHS estimated that there were 59 births per 1000 women aged 15-19, and in 2007, the figure had fallen to 51 (See Appendix 3). The level of adolescent fertility is higher in rural areas (69 births per 1000 women) than in urban areas (32 births per 1000 woman). Although this has always been the case, comparing the IDHS inter-survey results indicate that adolescent fertility rates in urban areas are subjected to much fluctuation relative to the steady declining trend for adolescent fertility rates in rural areas (Appendix 3).

3.3 Adolescent fertility: Children ever born Among women aged 15-19 at the time of the 2010 Census, some 5.6 percent had given birth: the

proportion among younger girls in the 10-14 year age group was .02 per cent (Table 2). These figures are approximate figures because the census did not collect information about numbers of births to women who had not married. They may nonetheless be regarded to be fairly reliable as it is rare for never married

10 Indicators and Correlates of Adolescent Pregnancy in Indonesia

Along with the decline in TFR, adolescent fertility rates are also declining in the intercensal years (Figure 2). For all of Indonesia, ASFRs for women aged 15-19 years between the 1971 and 2010 Census fell from 155 to 41 births per 1000 women. As with the observed total fertility differentials across region, we also observe regional differences in adolescent fertility levels. DKI Jakarta and DI Yogyakarta are two provinces with relatively low levels of adolescent fertility, with 17 and 20 births per 1000 women aged 15-19 years respectively (Appendix 1 and Figure 1). Central Kalimantan was the province with the highest adolescent fertility rates in 2010 at 69 births per 1000 women aged 15-19. Other provinces with adolescent fertility rates above 60 include Central Sulawesi, West Sulawesi, Gorontalo, and Southeast Sulawesi.

Figure 2 - ASFR for women aged 15-19 in selected provinces, 1971- 2010

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010. See Appendix 2 for detailed tabulation.

Estimates of adolescent fertility rates from the 2010 Population Census slightly differ from the estimates obtained from the 2012 IDHS. Thus, the 2012 IDHS figure for the adolescent fertility rate was 48 births per 1000 women aged 15-19, which is higher than the 41 births per 1000 women estimate obtained from the 2010 Census. However, as discussed earlier, it is difficult to assert that there has been a recent increase in adolescent fertility using Census and the IDHS due to their different data collection methods and the ensuing estimation methods.

Comparing the 2012 IDHS estimate of fertility rates for women aged 15-19 (that is, 48 births per 100 women) with estimates from previous IDHS surveys shows a continued decline in adolescent fertility The 1987 IDHS estimated that there were 59 births per 1000 women aged 15-19, and in 2007, the figure had fallen to 51 (See Appendix 3). The level of adolescent fertility is higher in rural areas (69 births per 1000 women) than in urban areas (32 births per 1000 woman). Although this has always been the case, comparing the IDHS inter-survey results indicate that adolescent fertility rates in urban areas are subjected to much fluctuation relative to the steady declining trend for adolescent fertility rates in rural areas (Appendix 3).

3.3 Adolescent fertility: Children ever born Among women aged 15-19 at the time of the 2010 Census, some 5.6 percent had given birth: the

proportion among younger girls in the 10-14 year age group was .02 per cent (Table 2). These figures are approximate figures because the census did not collect information about numbers of births to women who had not married. They may nonetheless be regarded to be fairly reliable as it is rare for never married

11

women in Indonesia to give birth: this is supported by the results from the 2012 IDHS which reported that 99 percent of never-married woman had never had sexual intercourse).3 Among ever-married women in the 15-19 year age group, the proportion who had ever given birth was at 43.9 percent and, at 5.6%, a significant proportion of ever-married girls aged 10-14 years had also given birth. As expected, the proportions of female adolescents who had ever given birth was higher in rural areas than in urban areas.

Table 2 - Percentage distribution of all women aged 10-24 years in urban and rural areas by the number of live births, 2010(a)

 % by number of live births

 0 1 2 3 4 5+

Not asked Total number of women

Urban

10-14 99.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 5,142,856

15-19 94.90 3.30 0.24 0.02 0.01 0.00 1.54 5,412,484

20-24 68.05 25.56 4.91 0.64 0.11 0.06 0.67 5,487,223

Rural

10-14 99.53 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 5,865,808

15-19 91.16 7.28 0.54 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.95 4,853,944

20-24 46.34 41.88 9.36 1.58 0.35 0.15 0.33 4,516,697

Urban and rural

10-14 99.39 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 11,008,664

15-19 93.13 5.18 0.38 0.04 0.01 0.00 1.26 10,266,428

20-24 58.25 32.93 6.92 1.06 0.22 0.10 0.52 10,003,920

(a) In the 2010 Population Census, the question on the number of children ever born was only asked to ever-married women. The total number of women corresponds to all women in the corresponding age group.

Source: Adapted from Results of the 2010 Population Census website, http://sp2010.bps.go.id (BPS, 2012)

Table 3 - Percentage distribution of ever-married women aged 10-24 years in urban and rural areas by the number of live births, 2010

% by number of live births

  0 1 2 3 4 5+ Not asked

Total number of ever married women

Urban

10-14 97.30 2.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 27,527

15-19 67.18 30.35 2.17 0.23 0.05 0.00 0.03 588,165

20-24 35.66 52.54 10.10 1.31 0.23 0.13 0.04 2,669,558

Rural

10-14 94.23 5.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 26,205

15-19 55.98 40.53 3.02 0.33 0.06 0.00 0.08 872,351

20-24 24.27 59.41 13.28 2.25 0.49 0.22 0.08 3,184,198

Urban and rural

10-14 95.81 4.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 53,732

15-19 60.49 36.43 2.68 0.29 0.06 0.00 0.06 1,460,516

20-24 29.46 56.28 11.83 1.82 0.37 0.18 0.06 5,853,756

Source: Adapted from Results of the 2010 Population Census website, http://sp2010.bps.go.id. (BPS, 2012)

3 see page 47 of the 2012 IDHS report

12

4 Adolescent pregnancy: results indonesian Demographic and Health Survey 2012

This section sets out key findings from a series of analyses on a subset of women aged 15-19 from the 2012 IDHS dataset. These include statistics pertaining to the prevalence of adolescent pregnancy, motherhood, and abortion, as well as results from multivariate analyses on the likelihood for women aged 15-19 of ever experiencing pregnancy.

4.1 Sample characteristics: all women aged 15-19Table 4 outlines the sample characteristics of the adolescent women subset from the 2012 IDHS. The

mean age for women in this sample was 16.9 years (the standard deviation was 1.4 years). About 54 percent of the sample lived in urban areas, and the majority, over 60 percent, had incomplete secondary education levels at the time of the survey. Secondary schooling in Indonesia is divided into two levels. The official age for school enrolment is 13-15 for junior high school (years 7-9), and 16-18 for senior high school (years 10-12). The sample of adolescent women is relatively equally distributed across household wealth classifications. About 13.4 percent of women aged 15-19 were ever in union at the time of the survey. This estimate is slightly lower than the estimate of ever-married female teenagers from the 2010 Population Census outlined earlier (at about 15 percent).

Table 4 - Sample characteristics: all eligible women interviewed aged 15-19, 2012

  Weighted

Count Percent

  N= 6927  

Age

15 1,428 20.6

16 1,508 21.8

17 1,459 21.1

18 1,253 18.1

19 1,279 18.5

Residence

Urban 3,698 53.4

Rural 3,229 46.6

Education level

No education 48 0.7

Incomplete primary 183 2.7

Complete primary 524 7.6

Incomplete secondary 4349 62.8

Complete secondary 1404 20.3

Higher 419 6.1

Wealth Index

Poorest 1,187 17.1

Poorer 1,372 19.8

Middle 1,407 20.3

Richer 1,415 20.4

Richest 1,546 22.3

Marital status

Never in union 6,001 86.6

13

Married 875 12.6

Living with partner 15 0.2

Widowed 0 0.0

Divorced 29 0.4

No longer living together/separated 6 0.1

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4.2 Factors associated with the risk of adolescent pregnancyIn 2012 IDHS, women aged 15-49 years were asked a question regarding the age at which they first

had sexual intercourse. This question provides a better indicator for assessing the age-specific likelihood of teenagers becoming pregnant than the measure available from the 2010 Population Census shown earlier in this paper, namely the proportion of teenagers who had ever been married.

Overall, 13.3 percent of respondents aged 15-19 reported that they had had sexual intercourse. This proportion was substantially higher among girls in rural areas (19.3%) than those in urban areas (8.2%) (Table 5). Among those who had ever had sex, the mean age at first sexual intercourse was 16.3 years (standard deviation was 1.68 years), and the minimum age for first intercourse was 10. Being sexually active is closely related to union formation (that is, entry into marriage or cohabitation)4. Among respondents who had never been in a marital or marriage-like union,5 less than 1 percent reported that they ever had sex. Six married respondents and one widowed respondent reported that they never had sex.

Table 5 - Percentage of teenage females who had had sexual intercourse by current age and residence, 2012

Whether had had sexual intercourse

Current Age No Yes

Urban

% %

15 99.8 0.2

16 95.3 4.7

17 91.9 8.1

18 89.1 10.9

19 83.5 16.5

Total Urban 91.8 8.2

Rural

15 96.0 4.0

16 90.7 9.3

17 84.4 15.6

18 69.3 30.7

19 50.4 49.6

Total Rural 80.7 19.3

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4 The mean age at first union is 16.4 years (sd=0.15 years). The correlation between age at first union and age at first sex is 0.9484. 5 Marriage-likeunion/cohabitation.Theofficialcategoryinthedatasetis‘inunion’.IntheensuingDHSpublication,thetermusedwas‘Living

Together’.IntheIndonesianIDHSreporttranslatesthisas‘HidupBersama’.

14

The data shows how the likelihood of having sexual intercourse increases with age for young Indonesian women in urban and rural areas. Young women in rural areas progressed faster into becoming sexually active. In rural areas, around half of the respondents had their first sexual intercourse by age 19. In comparison, the corresponding proportion in urban areas was only 23 percent.

4.3 Incidence and prevalence of adolescent motherhood, pregnancy, and abortion

4.3.1 Incidence of adolescent pregnancy 2012: ‘Current pregnancy’ and whether wanted or not

In 2012, less than 3 percent of women respondents aged 15-19 were pregnant at the time of the survey (2012 IDHS). ‘Current pregnancy’ here may denote the first or subsequent pregnancy for the respondents. When asked, most pregnant respondents indicated that they had wanted to be pregnant. The reported figure for current unwanted pregnancy is very low at less than half a percent.

Table 6 - Current pregnancies and if wanted or not, 2012

    Count %

Currently pregnant

No/Unsure 6,745 97.4

Yes 181 2.6

Total 6,927 100.0

Is current pregnancy wanted?1

Then 169 93.0

Later 8 4.6

Not at all 0 0.2

Invalid answer 4 2.2

Total 181 100.0

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4.3.2 Prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood

This section refers to the definition used by Rutstein and Rojas (2006) to calculate the prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood in the DHS. Here, the percentage of teenagers who have begun childbearing is defined as the combined number of women who had already had a birth and those who were pregnant at the time of the interview, divided by, the total number of women aged 15-19.

In regard to the first of the two sub-groups of women in the above definition, namely adolescents who had already given birth, IDHS results show that the proportion of women in this group has fluctuated over the years during which the IDHS has been conducted (Table 7). The first IDHS conducted in 1987 estimated that 8.3 percent of all women aged 15-19 (teenagers) at interview had given birth. By the 2007 IDHS, the percentage of teenagers who had given birth had declined to 6.6 percent. Estimates from the 2012 IDHS indicate that about 7 percent of all women aged 15-19 had given birth (Table 7). In regard to the other sub-group of women, at 2.5 percent, the percentage of teenagers who had yet to give birth but who were pregnant at the time of the interview was also slightly higher in 2012 IDHS compared to the 2007 IDHS (1.9%). Thus, the overall percentage of teenagers who had begun childbearing was 9.5 percent in 2012, which is higher than the previous estimate of 8.5 percent in 2007. Broadening the definition of prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and motherhood to include women aged 15-19 who ever terminated a pregnancy slightly increased the prevalence rate to 9.8 percent in 2012 (Table 8).

15

Table 7 - Percentage of women aged 15-19 who are mothers or pregnant with their first child by survey year, 1987-2007

 %

  Mothers Pregnant with first child

Percentage who had children or is currently

pregnant

Number of teenagers (women 15-19)

1987 8.3 2.6 10.9 3638

1991 9.1 3.2 12.2 6280

1994 8.9 2.3 11.2 7580

1997 9.4 2.7 12.2 7298

2002/3 8.3 2 10.4 6531

2007 6.6 1.9 8.5 6341

2012 7.0 2.5 9.5 6927

Source: StatCompiler (Indonesian Demographic and Health Surveys series).

Table 8 - Prevalence and incidence of adolescent pregnancy (among women aged 15-19), 2012

  %

  All women Women ever in union

Ever had a child 7.0 52.1

Pregnant with first child 2.5 18.7

Percentage who had children or is currently pregnant 9.5 70.8

Percentage who had children or is currently pregnant or ever terminated a pregnancy

9.8 72.9

N (weighted) 6,927 926

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

Although there is a slight increase in the percentage of teenagers who had children or currently pregnant between the 2007 and the 2012 IDHS, any conclusions about time trends must be made with caution. In the past IDHS, even though the surveys’ household listing contains information on all members of the household, the women’s questionnaire was only administered to ever-married women aged 15-49. In contrast, the 2012 IDHS included never-married women aged 15-49 in the sample.

4.3.3 Fertility history and fertility preferencesSource: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

Table 9, and its associated figure 3, report the cumulative percentage of women aged 15-19 who have had their first birth. We use observations from 3713 urban and 3494 rural women aged 15-19 in the datasets. At each age interval, we look at the proportion of women who had given birth and we take into account censored cases for each interval.

For example, In Table 9, of all the 3713 women aged 15-19 in the urban sample, 1 respondent had given birth at the age interval of 12-13. By age 16, 16 urban respondents have had their first birth. At this particular age interval, 719 cases were censored, meaning that 719 respondents had not experienced first birth, but because they were aged 16 at the time of the survey, they can no longer be observed for the remaining ages. The graphical representation of this analysis can be seen in figure 3. Before age 15, the percentage of young women who have had a first birth is very small (less than 1 per cent). By age 19, the proportion of teenagers who had begun childbearing is twice as high for rural women relative to urban women.

16

Table 9 - Cumulative percentage of women aged 15-19 who have had first birth, 2012

Age interval Beginning

totalFirst birth

Censored Cases

Proportion who had not given birth

Standard error

95% confidence interval

Cumulative percentage of thosewho had

given first birth

Urban

12 13 3713 1 0 0.9997 0.0003 0.9981 1 0%

13 14 3712 2 0 0.9992 0.0005 0.9975 0.9997 0%

14 15 3710 1 0 0.9989 0.0005 0.9971 0.9996 0%

15 16 3709 12 719 0.9953 0.0012 0.9924 0.9971 0%

16 17 2978 45 744 0.9782 0.0028 0.972 0.983 2%

17 18 2189 49 748 0.9517 0.0046 0.9419 0.96 5%

18 19 1392 45 668 0.9113 0.0074 0.8957 0.9246 9%

19 20 679 21 658 0.8566 0.0135 0.8278 0.8809 14%

Rural

11 12 3494 1 0 0.9997 0.0003 0.998 1 0%

12 13 3493 3 0 0.9989 0.0006 0.997 0.9996 0%

13 14 3490 4 0 0.9977 0.0008 0.9954 0.9989 0%

14 15 3486 13 0 0.994 0.0013 0.9908 0.9961 1%

15 16 3473 33 761 0.9834 0.0022 0.9783 0.9873 2%

16 17 2679 75 779 0.9512 0.0043 0.9421 0.9588 5%

17 18 1825 102 661 0.8863 0.0074 0.8709 0.8999 11%

18 19 1062 100 507 0.7766 0.0121 0.7518 0.7993 22%

19 20 455 43 412 0.6425 0.0211 0.5994 0.6822 36%

Source: 2012 IDHS Data Tapes

Figure 3 - Women aged 15-19: Progression into first birth by urban/rural residence, 2012

Source: 2012 IDHS Data Tapes

Table 10presents the percentage distribution of women aged 15-19 by the number of children ever born, children still living, children still living including current pregnancy, and the number of children who had died. The 2012 IDHS provided unweighted counts for teenage mothers who had ever experienced the death of child; 31 respondents had experienced a single child death, and two respondents reported two child deaths.

16 Indicators and Correlates of Adolescent Pregnancy in Indonesia

Table 9 - Cumulative percentage of women aged 15-19 who have had first birth, 2012

Age interval Beginning

totalFirst birth

Censored Cases

Proportion who had not given birth

Standard error

95% confidence interval

Cumulative percentage of thosewho had

given first birth

Urban

12 13 3713 1 0 0.9997 0.0003 0.9981 1 0%

13 14 3712 2 0 0.9992 0.0005 0.9975 0.9997 0%

14 15 3710 1 0 0.9989 0.0005 0.9971 0.9996 0%

15 16 3709 12 719 0.9953 0.0012 0.9924 0.9971 0%

16 17 2978 45 744 0.9782 0.0028 0.972 0.983 2%

17 18 2189 49 748 0.9517 0.0046 0.9419 0.96 5%

18 19 1392 45 668 0.9113 0.0074 0.8957 0.9246 9%

19 20 679 21 658 0.8566 0.0135 0.8278 0.8809 14%

Rural

11 12 3494 1 0 0.9997 0.0003 0.998 1 0%

12 13 3493 3 0 0.9989 0.0006 0.997 0.9996 0%

13 14 3490 4 0 0.9977 0.0008 0.9954 0.9989 0%

14 15 3486 13 0 0.994 0.0013 0.9908 0.9961 1%

15 16 3473 33 761 0.9834 0.0022 0.9783 0.9873 2%

16 17 2679 75 779 0.9512 0.0043 0.9421 0.9588 5%

17 18 1825 102 661 0.8863 0.0074 0.8709 0.8999 11%

18 19 1062 100 507 0.7766 0.0121 0.7518 0.7993 22%

19 20 455 43 412 0.6425 0.0211 0.5994 0.6822 36%

Source: 2012 IDHS Data Tapes

Figure 3 - Women aged 15-19: Progression into first birth by urban/rural residence, 2012

Source: 2012 IDHS Data Tapes

Table 10presents the percentage distribution of women aged 15-19 by the number of children ever born, children still living, children still living including current pregnancy, and the number of children who had died. The 2012 IDHS provided unweighted counts for teenage mothers who had ever experienced the death of child; 31 respondents had experienced a single child death, and two respondents reported two child deaths.

17

In addition to their birth history, respondents were asked about the number of children that they ideally wanted to have in their lifetime. For all women aged 15-19, the mean number of children that they wanted to have was 2.3. On average, relative to the older cohorts, younger women preferred smaller family size. The 15-19 age bracket had the lowest mean for ideal number of children in the data set. The mean ideal number of children among women in the highest age bracket of 45-49 was 2.9. This is consistent with the idea that a smaller family size is becoming increasingly appealing for the younger generations.

Table 10 - Women aged 15-19: distributions by number of children and whether child is still alive or not, 2012

Number of children per woman

Children ever born

Children still living

Currently pregnancy+ Children still living

Children who died

% % % %

0 93.03 93.14 90.60 99.70

1 6.64 6.64 9.12 0.27

2 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.02

3 0.08 0.00 0.02

Total women 100 99.98 99.98 100.19

N 6927 6927 6927 6927

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4.3.4 Abortion

The prevalence of abortion among women aged 15-19 recorded by the 2012 IDHS was less than 1 percent. There were 71 respondents who reported that they had ever had a pregnancy terminated. Out of those, 12 respondents reported that they also had ‘other such pregnancies’ (meaning that they had had more than one pregnancy terminated). The proportion of respondents who ever terminated a pregnancy is higher once the denominator is switched from all women aged 15-19, to women aged 15-19 who had ever been in union. Among women ever in union aged 15-19, about 6 percent reported that they had previously terminated a pregnancy.6 It should be noted that underreporting of abortion is likely to be the case here, since women may not feel comfortable reporting their instances of having an abortion to the data collectors, especially due to the stigma attached to abortion in wider Indonesian society.

Table 11 - Ever terminated pregnancy, 2012

  Unweighted count Unweighted column percent Weighted column percent

  Never Married

Ever in union

Total Never Married

Ever in union

Total Never Married

Ever in union

Total

Yes 3 68 71 0.05 6.69 0.99 0.02 5.57 0.76

No 6,186 948 7134 99.92 93.31 98.99 99.97 94.43 99.23

Not valid/Missing 2 0 2 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01

Total 6191 1016 7207 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

6 ThereisadearthofstatisticsonabortioninIndonesia.Oneestimateisthatthereare2millionabortionsperyearwitharatioof43abortionto100livebirths,or30percentofpregnancies(Utomoetal,2001;seealsotheearlierliteraturereview,July2013).Anotherstudyestimatedthatyounggirlsbelowtheageof19yearsofageaccountfor10percentofabortionataservicedeliverypoint,andunmarriedwomenfor33percent(HullandHartanto,2009).

18

4.4 Correlates of adolescent pregnancy and teenage motherhoodUsing data from the 2012 IDHS, Table 12 outlines the results of a logistics regression analysis of ever

experiencing a pregnancy among women aged 15-19 years regardless of their marital status. Here, a respondent who has ever experienced a pregnancy is defined as: someone who had experienced at least one birth; someone who was pregnant with her first child at the time of the survey or someone who had ever terminated a pregnancy.7

In model 1, the likelihood of ever experiencing a pregnancy increases with age. Controlling for level of education level, the odds of ever experiencing pregnancy are twice as high for teenagers in rural areas than those in urban areas. There is a negative association between educational attainment and adolescent pregnancy. That is, the likelihood of pregnancy falls with increasing levels of education.

While we can observe a negative association between education and adolescent pregnancy at this stage, we cannot infer on the direction of causality in this relationship. In the literature of adolescent pregnancy, there is a commonly identified problem of endogeneity. On one hand, a pregnancy or early marriage may push young women out of school. On the other hand, early school leavers may progress faster into marriage and childbearing.8

In model 2, we substitute highest educational attainment with household wealth index. The results for age and urban/rural residence variables are similar. As expected, relative to young women in the middle wealth quintile, the likelihood of ever experiencing a pregnancy is higher among those in the lower wealth quintiles, and lower among those in the higher wealth quintiles.

Table 12 - Logistics regression of ever experienced a pregnancy for all women aged 15-19, 2012

    Model 1 Model 2

    Coefficient Odds Coefficient Odds

Age 2.307* 10.04* 3.402** 30.01**

-1.115 -11.2 -1.062 -31.87

Age2 -0.0378 0.963 -0.0760* 0.927*

-0.032 -0.0308 -0.0304 -0.0282

Residence

Urban (ref ) 0.713*** 2.040*** 0.632*** 1.881***

Rural -0.091 -0.186 -0.0929 -0.175

Education

No school 0.152 1.164

-0.334 -0.388

Some primary 1.064*** 2.899***

-0.171 -0.495

Completed primary 0.926*** 2.523***

-0.127 -0.321

Some secondary (Ref ) . .

Completed secondary -1.445*** 0.236***

-0.124 -0.0293

7 This definition excludes teenagerswho ever had experienced amiscarriage. In the dataset,we found 4 respondentswho reported thattheyhadsufferedonemiscarriagebeforeJanuary2007.Outofthe4,3respondentswereclassifiedashavingbegunchildbearing(havehadsubsequentpregnancy/anabortion).

8 It is important to note that analysis of fertility levels among older women who have completed their schooling reveals that women with lower levels of educational attainment have higher levels of fertility, and vice versa. See Table 5.2 in the 2012 IDHS report (the columns for women aged 40-49 years). This issue should be examined further, perhaps with a study of the direct and indirect effects of poverty on teenage motherhood.

19

Secondary+ -2.887*** 0.0558***

-0.305 -0.017

Household wealth index

Poorest 0.723*** 2.060***

-0.123 -0.253

Poorer 0.319* 1.376*

-0.128 -0.176

Middle (ref ) . .

Richer -0.288 0.75

-0.151 -0.113

Richest -1.201*** 0.301***

-0.195 -0.0588

Constant -30.92** 3.74e-14** -38.70*** 1.56e-17***

-9.683 -3.62E-13 -9.231 -1.44E-16

Standard errors in Italics

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4.5 Profile of teenage mothersThis section looks at the characteristics of teenage mothers in the 2012 IDHS. A teenage mother is

defined as a woman between 15 to 19 years of age who has at least one child or is currently pregnant with her first child. By this definition, about 9.4 percent of women aged 15-19 are teenage mothers. The age and education of their partners were tabulated for teenage mothers who were currently married or in union. To get a better profile of teenage mothers in the population, the following factors were reviewed: reproductive health knowledge, contraceptive use, and, among partnered teenage mothers, their participation in decision-making.

4.5.1 Socio-demographic profile of teenage mothers and their partners

Table 13 sets out the characteristics of the 2012 IDHS sample of teenage mothers. Close to half of teenage mothers were 19 years of age at the time of the survey (47.1 percent). Most teenage mothers, over 64 percent, resided in rural areas, and an overwhelming proportion was married. Only 0.3 percent of teenage mothers were never married or never in union. More than half of teenage mothers had gone to secondary schooling but did not complete it (53.9 percent). Assuming that once they began their childbearing, women have relatively little chance to return to school, it is likely that most teenage mothers would not be able to pursue higher levels of education. While those from lower household wealth quintiles are overrepresented among teenage mothers, a sizeable proportion of teenage mothers also came from relatively rich households. About three quarters of teenage mothers reported that they were not working at the time of the survey. Among those who were employed, most were working in sales or as skilled manual workers.

The 2012 IDHS also provides information on the characteristics of the husband/partner of currently married/in union teenage mothers (Table 14). With only 10 percent of teenage mothers are married or in union with males aged younger than 20, it appears that most partnered teenage mothers have older partners. Perhaps corresponding to their older average age, collectively, the education attainment of husbands/partners of teenage mothers is also somewhat higher than that of the teenage mothers themselves. While only 12 percent of teenage mothers had completed secondary schooling, about 27 percent of their partners had done so.

20

Table 13 - Characteristics of teenage mothers (aged 15-19), 2012

Age    %

15 2.6

16 9.2

17 16.2

18 24.9

19 47.1

Residence

Urban 35.7

Rural 64.3

Marital status

Never in union 0.3

Married 94.6

Living with partner 1.5

Widowed 0.0

Divorced 3.0

No longer living together/separated 0.6

Education level

No education 1.0

Incomplete primary 8.2

Complete primary 24.3

Incomplete secondary 53.9

Complete secondary 12.0

Higher 0.6

Wealth Index

Poorest 30.0

Poorer 28.8

Middle 20.7

Richer 14.3

Richest 6.2

Currently working

No 75.7

Yes 24.3

Occupation

Did not work 60.1

Professional/technical/managerial 0.8

Clerical 0.3

Sales 12.1

Agricultural - self employed 9.5

Services 5.4

Skilled manual 10.5

Unskilled manual 1.1

Don't know 0.0

  Missing 0.1

N 650

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

21

Table 14 - Teenage mothers: partners’ characteristics, 2012

    %

Age (N=625)

<20 10.1

20-24 43.2

25-29 33.9

30-34 9.8

35-39 1.5

40-44 0.6

45-49 0.1

50+ 0.6

Missing 0.2

Education (N=648)

No education 1.7

Incomplete primary 9.6

Complete primary 24.1

Incomplete secondary 34.6

Complete secondary 27.2

Higher 2.1

Don't know 0.6

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

4.5.2 Reproductive health knowledge

Tabulations on selected measures of teenage mothers’ reproductive health knowledge suggest that while most teenage mothers have adequate knowledge of contraception, sizeable proportion have poor reproductive health knowledge. For example, about 1 in 3 teen mothers had never heard of Sexually Transmitted Infections or AIDS.

Table 15 - Teenage mothers: reproductive health knowledge, 2012

    %

Knowledge of any method

Knows no method 2.0

Knows only folkloric 0.1

Knows only traditional 0.0

Knows modern method 97.8

Ever heard of STI

No 30.0

Yes 70.0

Ever heard of AIDS

No 30.4

Yes 69.6

N   650

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

22

4.5.3 Contraceptive use

Slightly over half of teenage mothers were using contraception at the time of the survey. The most popular choice of contraceptive methods among users was injections. The unmet need for contraception among teenage mothers for the purposes of spacing births and limiting the total number of births is approximately 6 percent, and most of this is attributed to unmet needs for spacing.9 Among teenage mothers who were using contraception at the time of the survey, more than half (58%) indicated that it was a joint decision between themselves and their husband/partner.

Table 16 - Teenage mothers: contraceptive use, 2012

%

Contraceptive use and intention

Using modern method 54.6

Using traditional method 0.3

Non-user - intends to use later 37.7

Does not intend to use 7.4

Current contraceptive method

Not using 45.0

Pill 6.0

IUD 1.2

Injections 46.6

Periodic abstinence 0.0

Withdrawal 0.0

Implants/Norplant 0.0

Lactational amenorrhea (LAM) 0.1

Exposure to need for contraception

Fecund 48.4

Pregnant 27.9

Postpartum amenorrheic 17.2

Infecund, menopausal 6.5

Unmet need for contraception

Unmet need for spacing 5.8

Unmet need for limiting 0.6

Using for spacing 50.1

Using for limiting 4.8

No unmet need 35.2

Not married and no sex in last 30 days 2.2

Infecund 0.6

Missing 0.6

Decision maker for using contraception (n=353)*

Mainly respondent 28.6

Mainly husband, partner 11.5

Joint decision 57.7

Other 0.8

Missing 1.4

N   650

*Women using contraception are asked who decided on the use of contraception.Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

9 Mosttheteenagemothersinthissample(96%)arecurrentlymarried/livingwiththeirpartner.Only0.3%arenevermarried.Unmetneedforcontraceptionfornevermarriedteenagemothersislikelytobemuchhigher.

23

4.5.4 Participation in decision making among partnered teenage mothers

For partnered teenage mothers, being able to exercise their agency in the decision making process in their family unit is an important indicator of their personal empowerment and welfare. Looking into measures of agency is especially important when examining teenage motherhood not only because these women are quite young themselves, but as indicated by earlier tabulations, also because most teenage mothers are younger than their husbands/partner (see Table 14).

Table 17 outlines four selected measures of individual agency among partnered teenage mothers. While the majority of teenage mothers reported that they took part in decisions relating to their own health care, a sizeable 22 percent of teenage mothers reported that their husband/partner alone made these decisions. The percentage of teenage mothers reporting that their husband/partner is the sole decision maker is highest in the case of the respondent’s health care, and lowest in the case of deciding what to do with the money the husband earns.

Table 17 - Teenage mothers: participation in decision-making, 2012

  N (weighted)

Respondent alone

Respondent and husband/

partner

Husband/ partner

alone

Someone else

Other Missing

Person who usually decides on respondent's health care

625 25.5 50.1 22.3 1.1 0.2 0.7

Person who usually decide on large household purchases

625 20.4 59.4 18.3 0.9 1.1 0.0

Person who usually decides on visits to family and relatives

625 10.8 67.7 20.6 0.3 0.4 0.1

Person who usually decides what to do with money husband earns

619 39.7 46.9 12.0 0.7 0.6 0.2

Source: 2012 IDHS data tapes (measuredhs.com)

5. Conclusion

Intercensal estimates suggest that adolescent fertility rates are declining in Indonesia. The 1971 Population Census estimated that there were 155 births per 1000 women aged 15-19. By the 2010 Population Census, this figure has declined to 41 births per 1000 women aged 15-19. Results from the 2012 IDHS suggest that the age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19 is at 48 births per 1000 women.

At this stage, we cannot make any assertion that there is a recent increase in the adolescent fertility just by looking at the 2010 Population Census and 2012 IDHS estimates. First, the two data sources used different methods in calculating fertility rates. The Population Census estimates on fertility are based on indirect methods that match children in the household to mothers. Here, information on a child’s and the mother’s current age is used to calculate when a child’s birth took place and the age of the mother at the time of that birth. In contrast, the IDHS based their estimates on the birth history of their female respondents. Second, the accuracy of the two sets of estimates depends on errors that are different in nature in both datasets. For the IDHS, the survey-based estimates on fertility are subject to sampling and other measurement errors. For the Population Census, the under enumeration of children relative to women may affect the robustness of the fertility estimates (McDonald, forthcoming).

24

The apparent reduction in adolescent fertility rates is in line with overall fertility decline in the country as women are beginning their childbearing at older ages than in the past. Strong family planning programmes, the expansion of schooling for women, higher labour force participation for women, increase in the age at first marriage, and the general ideational changes associated with socio-economic development are factors associated with delayed childbearing and fertility decline in Indonesia.

While the most recent Population Census suggests that adolescent fertility rates are much lower than in the past, regional differences in adolescent fertility rates remain persistent. Jakarta, the capital, has the lowest adolescent fertility rates, and Central Kalimantan has the highest. Several provinces in Eastern Indonesia also show relatively high levels of adolescent fertility.

Estimates from the 2012 IDHS suggest that about 1 in 10 women aged 15-19 at the time of the survey have begun childbearing. A multivariate analysis indicates that the likelihood for a woman aged between 15 and 19 to have begun childbearing (or ever experiencing pregnancy) increases with age, and is higher among those who live in rural areas, who came from households at the lower end of the wealth index, and those with lower levels of education. Our results are in line with the literature pointing to socio-economic disadvantage as a primary driver of early childbearing (Coley and Chase-Lansdale, 1998; Gordon 2012). Policy initiatives to reduce adolescent pregnancy would benefit from a holistic approach, employing poverty reduction strategies, and strategies to encourage completion of secondary schooling alongside efforts to provide reproductive health services and education for young people.

Further profiling of teenage mothers indicates that most teenage mothers were married or were living together with a partner. Although most teenage mothers reported that they know ‘any modern contraceptive method’, 1 in 3 have never heard of AIDS or sexually transmitted infections. Unmet needs for contraception among teenage mothers surveyed appear to be relatively small at 6 percent. However, the unmet needs for never married teenagers would be much higher since they do not generally have access to family planning services in the country. A substantial percentage of teenage mothers also do not participate fully in decision making in the household. Over 20 percent of partnered teenage mothers reported that their husbands or partners solely decide on their healthcare.

Although this report has outlined the prevalence and correlates of adolescent fertility in Indonesia, further analysis is needed to examine the effects of early childbearing on child health outcomes. Future research on the correlates and effects of adolescent pregnancy on both the young mothers and their children in Indonesia will also benefit from analyses based on longitudinal datasets. Furthermore, as opposed to relying on estimates from large surveys, micro quantitative and qualitative studies on young people will generate more reliable estimates and the much needed insights on the prevalence of premarital sex, abortion, and adolescent pregnancy, and the needs for reproductive health education and services for this men and women in this age group.

25

6. Appendices

Appendix 1 - Age specific fertility rates and total fertility rates by province in urban and rural Indonesia, 1971-2010

Province Population Census

Period Time Reference

Age Specific Fertility Rates(a) TFR(b)

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49

Aceh 1971 1967-1970 1968 158 324 316 241 130 62 22 6.3

1980 1976-1979 1977 105 281 265 204 120 55 17 5.2

1990 1986-1989 1987 74 224 233 177 105 45 14 4.4

2000 1996-1999 1997 45 141 147 115 69 32 14 2.8

2010 2006-2009 2007 29 125 157 130 81 28 8 2.8

North Sumatra 1971 1967-1970 1968 129 333 351 304 197 94 31 7.2

1980 1976-1979 1977 87 285 310 253 159 73 20 5.9

1990 1986-1989 1987 47 212 241 190 112 44 12 4.3

2000 1996-1999 1997 33 147 177 140 78 32 12 3.1

2010 2006-2009 2007 30 138 176 142 82 27 7 3.0

West Sumatra 1971 1967-1970 1968 129 313 317 255 152 59 11 6.2

1980 1976-1979 1977 102 289 299 244 151 58 8 5.8

1990 1986-1989 1987 49 191 215 174 107 35 7 3.9

2000 1996-1999 1997 32 130 166 143 89 39 12 3.1

2010 2006-2009 2007 28 123 166 140 88 31 6 2.9

Riau 1971 1967-1970 1968 149 299 298 228 140 55 19 5.9

1980 1976-1979 1977 108 281 279 222 133 51 13 5.4

1990 1986-1989 1987 71 214 219 170 95 39 11 4.1

2000 1996-1999 1997 42 128 152 119 69 31 13 2.8

2010 2006-2009 2007 44 136 156 123 72 26 7 2.8

Jambi 1971 1967-1970 1968 217 319 301 229 130 58 24 6.4

1980 1976-1979 1977 143 287 269 218 126 54 17 5.6

1990 1986-1989 1987 97 208 185 141 81 32 10 3.8

2000 1996-1999 1997 62 133 132 103 60 29 13 2.7

2010 2006-2009 2007 57 126 131 101 59 21 7 2.5

South Sumatra 1971 1967-1970 1968 152 326 320 248 150 56 13 6.3

1980 1976-1979 1977 111 283 291 225 135 58 14 5.6

1990 1986-1989 1987 85 224 219 166 98 41 12 4.2

2000 1996-1999 1997 52 136 142 112 70 40 25 2.9

2010 2006-2009 2007 51 126 137 107 61 22 7 2.6

Bengkulu 1971 1967-1970 1968 155 346 330 274 139 70 29 6.7

1980 1976-1979 1977 117 323 308 238 158 76 19 6.2

1990 1986-1989 1987 91 222 204 146 87 35 10 4.0

2000 1996-1999 1997 57 142 137 103 59 27 11 2.7

26

2010 2006-2009 2007 51 128 136 103 58 20 6 2.5

Lampung 1971 1967-1970 1968 216 326 310 224 129 53 13 6.4

1980 1976-1979 1977 151 301 278 218 126 58 18 5.8

1990 1986-1989 1987 88 217 197 155 96 45 14 4.1

2000 1996-1999 1997 54 131 129 102 63 34 17 2.7

2010 2006-2009 2007 43 124 128 104 62 23 7 2.5

Bangka Belitung 2000 1996-1999 1997 56 136 133 102 57 25 10 2.6

2010 2006-2009 2007 65 131 131 98 57 20 5 2.5

Kepulauan Riau 2010 2006-2009 2007 20 91 144 123 69 23 7 2.4

DKI Jakarta 1971 1967-1970 1968 140 266 268 198 110 41 12 5.2

1980 1976-1979 1977 94 208 213 157 87 31 8 4.0

1990 1986-1989 1987 36 121 138 100 49 16 5 2.3

2000 1996-1999 1997 20 73 98 78 39 14 5 1.6

2010 2006-2009 2007 17 73 107 93 52 17 5 1.8

West Java 1971 1967-1970 1968 208 305 280 211 199 50 14 6.3

1980 1976-1979 1977 157 264 237 185 109 49 13 5.1

1990 1986-1989 1987 92 181 170 132 77 33 9 3.5

1990 1986-1989 1987 92 181 170 132 77 33 9 3.5

2000 1996-1999 1997 57 119 123 99 61 30 13 2.5

2010 2006-2009 2007 44 115 128 105 65 24 7 2.4

Central Java 1971 1967-1970 1968 144 284 265 199 115 47 12 5.3

1980 1976-1979 1977 110 245 222 162 89 37 9 4.4

1990 1986-1989 1987 73 176 153 111 65 25 6 3.0

2000 1996-1999 1997 38 101 109 84 49 22 9 2.1

2010 2006-2009 2007 39 111 122 95 51 17 4 2.2

DI Yogyakarta 1971 1967-1970 1968 68 253 252 199 117 48 14 4.8

1980 1976-1979 1977 51 183 189 141 80 31 8 3.4

1990 1986-1989 1987 29 123 127 82 40 12 3 2.1

2000 1996-1999 1997 14 62 88 71 35 13 4 1.4

2010 2006-2009 2007 20 90 117 95 50 14 2 1.9

East Java 1971 1967-1970 1968 149 246 225 169 96 45 14 4.7

1980 1976-1979 1977 114 207 172 115 65 29 9 3.6

1990 1986-1989 1987 69 148 122 84 45 18 6 2.5

2000 1996-1999 1997 37 89 90 66 36 17 8 1.7

2010 2006-2009 2007 41 108 107 82 43 14 4 2.0

Banten 2000 1996-1999 1997 48 119 129 111 72 42 24 2.7

2010 2006-2009 2007 34 104 124 105 66 26 10 2.3

Bali 1971 1967-1970 1968 134 298 300 229 137 67 26 6.0

1980 1976-1979 1977 95 240 200 128 79 38 14 4.0

1990 1986-1989 1987 46 151 127 75 35 16 6 2.3

27

2000 1996-1999 1997 38 109 112 70 31 12 6 1.9

2010 2006-2009 2007 39 117 127 86 42 12 4 2.1

West Nusa Tenggara

1971 1967-1970 1968 155 311 321 278 159 75 32 6.7

1980 1976-1979 1977 109 303 315 268 180 89 34 6.5

1990 1986-1989 1987 81 245 240 199 137 68 25 5.0

2000 1996-1999 1997 58 142 139 112 72 41 19 2.9

2010 2006-2009 2007 45 124 131 110 69 29 10 2.6

East Nusa Tenggara

1971 1967-1970 1968 72 241 292 267 189 94 37 6.0

1980 1976-1979 1977 45 214 281 259 182 95 32 5.5

1990 1986-1989 1987 43 194 241 210 143 69 22 4.6

2000 1996-1999 1997 34 136 171 152 104 52 24 3.4

2010 2006-2009 2007 45 161 189 173 122 55 18 3.8

West Kalimantan 1971 1967-1970 1968 141 297 308 245 146 82 34 6.3

1980 1976-1979 1977 111 275 275 223 131 68 21 5.5

1980 1976-1979 1977 111 275 275 223 131 68 21 5.5

1990 1986-1989 1987 96 229 222 172 107 47 15 4.4

2000 1996-1999 1997 59 143 146 115 71 36 15 2.9

2010 2006-2009 2007 58 130 135 105 65 27 9 2.6

Central Kalimantan

1971 1967-1970 1968 179 322 327 258 173 81 25 6.8

1980 1976-1979 1977 129 305 288 240 139 53 20 5.9

1990 1986-1989 1987 97 216 191 152 93 45 12 4.0

2000 1996-1999 1997 75 144 129 98 60 31 13 2.8

2010 2006-2009 2007 69 127 123 99 62 25 9 2.6

South Kalimantan 1971 1967-1970 1968 179 264 259 202 109 57 15 5.4

1980 1976-1979 1977 127 249 229 169 91 44 10 4.6

1990 1986-1989 1987 76 176 163 126 69 28 9 3.2

2000 1996-1999 1997 56 118 116 90 53 25 10 2.3

2010 2006-2009 2007 55 122 119 93 55 19 5 2.3

East Kalimantan 1971 1967-1970 1968 151 292 260 199 114 54 11 5.4

1980 1976-1979 1977 116 264 250 199 106 46 16 5.0

1990 1986-1989 1987 71 180 170 124 70 30 10 3.3

2000 1996-1999 1997 51 127 131 101 57 25 10 2.5

2010 2006-2009 2007 51 127 138 110 65 23 8 2.6

North Sulawesi 1971 1967-1970 1968 103 312 350 298 199 77 19 6.8

1980 1976-1979 1977 85 256 245 197 126 60 12 4.9

1990 1986-1989 1987 55 163 142 96 52 22 7 2.7

2000 1996-1999 1997 51 116 111 79 43 18 7 2.1

2010 2006-2009 2007 53 124 124 97 60 23 5 2.4

28

Central Sulawesi 1971 1967-1970 1968 147 309 316 261 168 75 30 6.5

1980 1976-1979 1977 114 278 293 250 162 62 21 5.9

1990 1986-1989 1987 85 215 199 140 85 37 10 3.9

2000 1996-1999 1997 63 140 137 110 63 29 13 2.8

2010 2006-2009 2007 66 146 145 118 76 29 9 2.9

South Sulawesi 1971 1967-1970 1968 133 277 281 226 130 67 27 5.7

1980 1976-1979 1977 90 228 244 203 124 63 23 4.9

1990 1986-1989 1987 54 168 187 148 91 43 16 3.5

2000 1996-1999 1997 41 114 130 109 68 35 16 2.6

2010 2006-2009 2007 43 117 132 112 71 27 9 2.6

South East Sulawesi

1971 1967-1970 1968 137 312 314 255 172 83 16 6.4

1980 1976-1979 1977 111 306 292 228 142 68 17 5.8

1990 1986-1989 1987 81 260 255 199 120 50 15 4.9

2000 1996-1999 1997 69 167 167 129 78 37 16 3.3

2010 2006-2009 2007 61 150 160 136 88 34 10 3.2

Gorontalo 2000 1996-1999 1997 67 149 132 100 59 25 9 2.7

2010 2006-2009 2007 62 147 136 106 68 27 7 2.8

West Sulawesi 2010 2006-2009 2007 67 156 161 138 91 39 13 3.3

Maluku 1971 1967-1970 1968 97 267 325 311 225 109 43 6.9

1980 1976-1979 1977 87 268 307 262 189 91 27 6.2

1990 1986-1989 1987 67 215 233 196 127 57 24 4.6

2000 1996-1999 1997 43 144 168 147 98 52 27 3.4

2010 2006-2009 2007 45 150 180 159 109 50 20 3.6

North Maluku 2000 1996-1999 1997 77 155 143 123 70 44 22 3.2

2010 2006-2009 2007 59 147 163 141 96 44 19 3.3

West Papua 2010 2006-2009 2007 53 137 151 135 89 47 24 3.2

Papua 1971 1967-1970 1968 172 367 349 286 173 71 21 7.2

1980 1976-1979 1977 111 243 237 205 134 93 47 5.4

1990 1986-1989 1987 104 224 219 172 116 73 32 4.7

2000 1996-1999 1997 74 168 152 121 76 43 23 3.3

2010 2006-2009 2007 56 131 130 106 74 49 29 2.9

Indonesia 1971 1967-1970 1968 155 286 273 211 124 55 17 5.6

1980 1976-1979 1977 116 248 232 177 104 46 13 4.7

1990 1986-1989 1987 71 179 171 129 75 31 9 3.3

2000 1996-1999 1997 44 114 122 95 56 26 12 2.3

  2010 2006-2009 2007 41 117 130 105 61 22 6 2.4

(a) Age Specific Fertility Rate (ASFR): births per thousand women in the age group(b) Total Fertility Rate (TFR): average number of children per a woman over entire reproductive lifetime; this is a cross-sectional measure

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010

29

Appendix 2 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19 for selected provinces, 1971-2010

Province Population Census Year

  1971 1980 1990 2000 2010

Central Kalimantan 179 129 97 75 69

Central Sulawesi 147 114 85 63 66

Papua 172 111 104 74 56

East Java 149 114 69 37 41

West Sumatera 129 102 49 32 28

DKI Jakarta 140 94 36 20 17

Indonesia 155 116 71 44 41

Source: Adapted from Table L3: Angka Kelahiran Menurut Umur Ibu dan Angka Kelahiran Total Menurut provinsi 1971-2010 (Badan Pusat Statistik, 2011: 28-30) Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010

Appendix 3 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19: 1987-2012

  Age-specific and cumulative fertility rates(a)

Total Residence

Urban Rural

    2012 IDHS2 48 32 69

    2007 IDHS 51 26 74

    2002-03 IDHS 51 41 63

    1997 IDHS 62 32 79

    1994 IDHS 61 34 78

    1991 IDHS 67 39 82

    1987 IDHS 59 31 83

(a) Age-specific and cumulative fertility rates for the three years preceding the survey, by urban-rural residence

Source: ICF international, 2012 - MEASURE DHS STAT compiler - http://www.statcompiler.com

Appendix 4 - Age specific fertility rates for women aged 15-19 by region: 1987-2012

Age-specific and cumulative fertility rates (a)

IDHS Year

 Province 1987 1991 1994 1997 2003-03 2007 2012

Java-Bali 59 70 64 64 50 46 44

DKI Jakarta 37 32 25 24 37 14 20

West Java 70 100 83 77 66 53 52

Central Java 58 70 56 58 45 42 35

DI Yogyakarta 15 28 24 17 19 24 32

East Java 64 59 69 74 45 66 53

Banten - - - - 51 32 32

Bali 48 35 53 49 35 18 48

Outer Java-Bali I 50 54 52 58 44 54 53

DI Aceh - 49 52 64 - 44 25

North Sumatera - 41 32 35 26 28 32

30

West Sumatera - 38 30 35 37 38 26

South Sumatera - 70 61 59 39 71 66

Bangka Belitung - - - - 36 58 61

Lampung - 64 86 91 47 46 59

West Nusa Tenggara - 50 65 66 66 59 75

West Kalimantan - 82 72 72 47 84 104 

South Kalimantan - 60 58 73 60 65 73

North Sulawesi - 37 41 59 46 67 68

Gorontalo - - - - 62 86 62

South Sulawesi - 63 48 57 66 64 53

Riau Islands - 67 - - - 48 33

Outer Java-Bali II 69 - 54 58 60 58 59

Riau - 75 58 49 - 39 42

Jambi - 91 68 78 53 82 75

Bengkulu - 75 70 56 62 53 51

East Nusa Tenggara - 29 29 36 61 40 39

East Timor - 60 49 - - - -

Central Kalimantan - 72 61 50 44 98 89

East Kalimantan - 62 77 66 88 52 50

Central Sulawesi - 84 50 67 46 62 91

Southeast Sulawesi - 70 62 59 62 72 57

West Sulawesi - - - 57 98 80 101

Maluku - 57 42 39 - 40 51

North Maluku - - - - - 76 60

Papua - 101 51 85 - 55 53

West Papua - - - - - 81 82

Indonesia 59 67 61 62 51 51 48

(a) Age-specific and cumulative fertility rates for the three years preceding the survey by geographical region. Note that there were changes in the regional administrative areas between 1987 and 2012. The IDHS sample coverage has also increased since the first time it was

fielded. Source: ICF international, 2012 - MEASURE DHS STAT compiler, http://www.statcompiler.com

31

rEFErEnCES

Botting, Beverley, Michael Rosato, and Rebecca Wood. 1998. "Teenage mothers and the health of their children." POPULATION TRENDS-LONDON-: 19-28.

BPS - Statistics Indonesia. 2011. "Fertilitas Penduduk Indonesia: Hasil Sensus Penduduk 2010 [ Fertility of Indonesia: Results from 2010 Population Census]." BPS - Statistics Indonesia, Jakarta.

Brown, Gordon. 2012 "Out of wedlock into school: combating child marriage through education." (2012).

Coley, R. L., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. 1998. Adolescent pregnancy and parenthood: recent evidence and future directions. American Psychologist, 53(2):152.

Gennari, Pamela, J. 2013. "Adolescent Pregnancy in Developing Countries." International Journal of Childbirth Education 28:57.

Gertler, Paul J., and John W. Molyneaux. 1994. "How economic development and family planning programs combined to reduce Indonesian fertility." Demography 31 (1) : 33-63.

Gray, Natalie, Peter Azzopardi, Elissa Kennedy, Elise Willersdorf, and Mick Creati. 2013. "Improving adolescent reproductive health in Asia and the Pacific: do we have the data? A review of DHS and MICS surveys in nine countries." Asia-Pacific journal of public health / Asia-Pacific Academic Consortium for Public Health 25:134-144.

Haldre, K., Rahu, K., Karro, H., & Rahu, M. 2007. Is a poor pregnancy outcome related to young maternal age? A study of teenagers in Estonia during the period of major socio-economic changes (from 1992 to 2002). European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 131(1): 45-51.

Hofferth, Sandra L. 1987. "The children of teen childbearers." 174-206.

Hull, Terence H. 2011. "Statistical indices of marriage patterns in insular southeast asia." in Changing Marriage Patterns in Southeast Asia: Economic and socio-cultural dimensions, edited by G. W. Jones, T. H. Hull, and M. Mohammad. Singapore: Routledge.

Hull, Terence H. 1987. "Fertility decline in Indonesia: an institutionalist interpretation." International Family Planning Perspectives 13(3) : 90-95.

Hull, Terence H and Wendy Hartanto. 2009. "Resolving contradictions in Indonesian fertility estimates." Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 45:61-71.

Jones, Gavin W. 2011. "Teenage marriage trends and issues in Insular Southeast Asia." in Changing Marriage Patterns in Southeast Asia: Economic and socio-cultural dimensions, edited by G. W. Jones, T. H. Hull, and M. Mohammad. Oxon: Routledge.

Leete, Richard, and Iqbal Alam, eds. 1993. The revolution in Asian fertility: Dimensions, causes, and implications. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

LeGrand, Thomas K., and Cheikh SM Mbacké. 1993 "Teenage pregnancy and child health in the urban Sahel." Studies in family planning : 137-149.

López Turley, Ruth N. 2003 "Are children of young mothers disadvantaged because of their mother's age or family background?." Child development 74(2) : 465-474.

McDonald, P., Forthcoming, The Demography of Indonesia in Comparative Perspective. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies.

Reynolds, Heidi W., Emelita L. Wong, and Heidi Tucker. 2006."Adolescents' use of maternal and child health services in developing countries." International family planning perspectives 6-16.

Rutstein, Shea Oscar and Guillermo Rojas. 2006. "Guide to DHS statistics." Calverton, MD: ORC Macro.

32

Statistics Indonesia. and Macro International. 2008. "Indonesia demographic and health survey 2007." Calverton, Maryland: BPS and Macro International.

Stewart, Dianne. 2013. "World Population Day, 11 July 2013, UNFPA Circular."

Susanto, Cornelius Eko. 2013. "Fenomena Kehamilan Usia Remaja Meningkat." in Media Indonesia, Tuesday 28 May 2013. Jakarta.

United Nations. 2011. "World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision."

Utomo, B., V. Hakim, A.H. Habsyah, Irwanto, L. Tampubolon, D.N. Wirawan, S. Jatiputra, K.N. Siregar, L.H. Tarigan, B. Affandi, and Z. Tafal. 2001. "Incidence and Social-Psychological Aspects of Abortion in Indonesia: A Community-Based Survey in 10 Major Cities and 6 Districts, Year 2000." Center for Health Research University of Indonesia, Jakarta.