Methods to Deal with Non-Working Matched Phone Numbers in an - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Methods to Deal with Non-Working “Matched” Phone Numbers in an Address Based Sample Survey Anna Fleeman & Tiffany Henderson 67 th Annual Conference of the American Association of Public Opinion Research

Background • Traditional landline RDD has rapidly declined over last few years • CPO HHs, zero-banks, VoIP assignment • Cell RDD often cost-prohibitive • Federal law mandates hand-dialing and dispositioning • Use of address based sample increasing • Nearly full coverage of all US households (CDSF) • Well suited for screening surveys and small geographic areas

Background Addresses Selected from CDSF Phone Append Process Phone Match No Phone Match Treated akin Mail survey to to RDD sample obtain phone #

Issue • What to do when matched phone numbers are dispositioned as non-working? • Cannot remove from response rate calculations as with RDD sample • Sampling unit = address • To resolve issue: treat as no phone match • Send mail survey/screener to address • Request contact phone number(s)

Research Question • Can non-working dispositions be used as a proxy for vacant / ineligible addresses? • Much cheaper and quicker to rely on phone • No mailing of surveys, waiting for returns to come in, scanning of returned surveys • Lead to calculating an adjustment factor for ABS response rates

Methodology • 85,000+ addresses selected from ABS frame • Concentrated in Northern Alabama and Joplin, MO • Sample Target: HHs with 12-17 year olds • September 2011 – March 2012 • 51% phone match rate • Up to 10 attempts to all to matched phone #s

Methodology • 9,477 matched phone #s dispositioned as non-working • Treated as no phone match records • Sent mail survey/screener to address • Requested contact phone number(s) • Invitation letter and postage-paid return envelope • $5 promised incentive • Out-going envelope addressed to name, if available, and current resident: Sam Smith or Current Resident • Current Resident •

Methodology

Results Type of Non-Working Matched Phone Numbers Fax/ Modem Disconnect / 3% Not In Service Business 93% 4% n= 9,477

Results Mail Survey Outcome Returned Surveys 4% Undeliverable No Return 12% 84% n= 9,477

Results Address Comparison of Returned Surveys Different Address / Same Last Same Address Name 85% 11% Different Address / Different Name 4% n= 333

Results Undeliverable Mail Types No Mail Unclaimed/ Not Receptacle Rfsd Deliverable 2% 1% as Addressed Addressee 81% Not Known at Address 11% Deceased 1% No Such Vacant Number/ 3% Street n= 1,115 1%

Conclusions • Non-working phone dispositions cannot be used as proxy for vacant/ineligible addresses • The real story… • USPS undeliverable codes not uniformly used • USPS inconsistent forwarding rules • “…or Current Resident” ≠ forwarded or ANK status

Next Steps • Better understand USPS undeliverable codes • Push for standardization • Need a better solution for “…or current resident / occupant” • Mail in ABS study should not be forwarded • Address = sample unit • For our survey research field, these are key as use of ABS increases

Thank You Questions / Comments a.fleeman@srbi.com t.henderson@srbi.com