Analysis of Influences Related to Interviewer Non-Compliance with - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Analysis of Influences Related to Interviewer Non-Compliance with Established Procedures for SIPP Danquan Prunty U.S. Census Bureau

Survey of Income and Program Participation  SIPP’s mission is to provide a nationally representative sample for evaluating:  Annual and sub-annual income dynamics  Movements into and out of government transfer programs  Family and social context of individuals and households  Interactions among these items  2014 Panel Wave 1-4 data used for this analysis

Quality Assurance  The primary goal of the Quality Assurance program is to maintain the quality of the SIPP survey data collected by monitoring the performance of interviewers through QC Reinterview.  Quality Control (QC) Reinterview is also implemented to detect and deter data falsification. This is accomplished by identifying interviewers who have:  falsified data  misclassified eligible household units as noninterviews to avoid interviewing them  intentionally not followed the established survey procedures with regards to asking all questions, using their laptops for personal visit interviews, or collecting roster data  discrepancies

Discrepancies Discrepancy Numbers and Descriptions Discrepancy Description Number 01 The reinterview respondent said no one contacted this household regarding this survey. 02 The reinterviewer determined that the original status was incorrect. The status of this case was completed by observation in the original interview. The reinterviewer 03 determined that the original status was incorrect. This case was a Type A in the original interview. The reinterviewer determined that the original 04 status was incorrect. The interviewer classified this unit as a Type B or Type C Noninterview, and the reinterviewer 05 determined that it should have been an Interview or Type A. 06 The reinterview respondent indicated that the original status was incorrect. 07 The household roster was incorrect. 08 Not all survey questions were asked in the interview. The interviewer conducted a telephone interview only instead of a personal visit interview, as 09 required. This case was done by a personal visit, and the reinterview respondent said the interviewer did not 10 use a laptop. 11 The interviewer entered a bad telephone number for this case. Any At least one of the discrepancies above 1-11. None None of the discrepancies above. Total Total HUs eligible for SIPP RI.

Top 5 Discrepancies 3000 2671 2500 Number of RI Eliglible SIPP Cases 2000 1839 1500 1000 500 339 229 231 184 0 Discrepancy 1 Discrepancy 2 Discrepancy 7 Discrepancy 8 Discrepancy 11 Any Discrepancy

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Age Distribution 18 to 30 yrs 31 to 45 yrs 46 to 64 yrs 65 yrs plus 17.9% 25.0% 27.4% 29.7% 30.2% 31.5% 31.6% 33.1% 35.8% 38.3% 36.6% 36.7% 34.5% 37.5% 36.9% 37.0% 38.7% 37.2% 36.1% 33.7% 28.6% 24.5% 23.6% 21.9% 22.5% 21.9% 21.0% 21.4% 18.1% 20.1% 17.0% 13.8% 14.5% 11.0% 10.3% 9.9% 9.5% 8.3% 8.8% 8.0% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Sex Distribution Female Male 43.2% 43.9% 44.5% 44.8% 44.9% 45.6% 45.5% 45.8% 48.1% 50.7% 56.8% 56.1% 55.5% 55.2% 55.1% 54.4% 54.5% 54.2% 51.9% 49.3% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Marital Status Distribution Divorced Married, spouse absent Married, spouse present Never Married Separated Widowed 10.9% 11.2% 11.3% 11.9% 11.3% 12.3% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 4.0% 2.8% 4.5% 21.8% 20.0% 19.3% 26.0% 25.9% 25.9% 45.2% 45.4% 45.8% 38.6% 36.2% 36.8% 3.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 18.8% 18.7% 18.4% 18.4% 18.0% 16.9% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 B O T H W A V ES

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Hispanic Origin Distribution Non-Hispanic Hispanic 8.1% 9.0% 11.6% 11.6% 12.5% 12.6% 13.4% 13.4% 15.6% 18.4% 91.9% 91.0% 88.4% 88.4% 87.5% 87.4% 86.6% 86.6% 84.4% 81.6% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Reported Race Distribution Race Reported Race Unreported 17.3% 23.6% 24.0% 24.7% 26.0% 41.4% 82.7% 76.4% 76.0% 75.3% 74.0% 58.6% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 A L L W A V E S

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent HH Tenure Distribution Occupied w/o Pay of Rent Owned Rented 28.6% 28.7% 30.3% 31.1% 31.0% 34.3% 35.2% 35.9% 40.7% 43.9% 67.8% 68.3% 66.7% 66.2% 65.7% 59.9% 61.2% 61.5% 56.3% 52.2% 5.9% 3.9% 3.1% 3.3% 3.6% 3.6% 2.6% 2.8% 3.0% 3.0% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Overall vs Discrepancy SIPP Interviews by Respondent Region Distribution Midwest Northeast South West 6.9% 13.7% 15.0% 18.1% 17.8% 18.5% 19.6% 20.3% 24.9% 25.1% 53.9% 51.9% 46.6% 47.4% 47.0% 45.3% 57.7% 40.8% 51.5% 41.3% 11.1% 14.7% 21.9% 12.2% 14.5% 13.2% 16.7% 17.5% 9.9% 9.2% 23.4% 21.4% 21.2% 20.7% 20.3% 19.1% 18.1% 17.2% 17.7% 16.8% O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y O V E R A L L A N Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y D I S C R E P AN C Y W A V E 1 W A V E 2 W A V E 3 W A V E 4 A L L W A V E S

Major Conclusions  Age:  Age Group 18-30yrs  9.5% of overall RI eligible cases with reported age of respondent vs. 11.0% of cases with one or more discrepancies.  Marital Status:  Divorced  18.0% of overall RI eligible cases with reported marital status of respondent vs. 18.7% of cases with one or more discrepancies.  Never Married  20.0% of overall RI eligible cases with reported marital status or respondent vs. 25.9% of cases with one or more discrepancies.

Major Conclusions (cont.)  Household Tenure:  Renters  30.3% of overall RI eligible cases with reported HH tenure of respondent vs. 35.2% of cases with one or more discrepancies.  Region:  South  45.3% of overall RI eligible cases vs. 51.9% of cases with one or more discrepancies.  Northeast  13.2% of overall RI eligible cases vs. 16.7% of cases with one or more discrepancies.

Future Research  More geographical comparisons  More demographic comparisons  SIPP 2018 Panel as data becomes available  Logistic regression results  Correlation results  Data breakdown by individual Discrepancy  More demographic surveys

Thank You Danquan Prunty U.S. Census Bureau Danquan.Prunty@Census.gov