Overview of 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test and Objectives

1. Overview of2010 EHC-CAPI Field Testand Objectives • Jason Fields • Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division • US Census Bureau • Presentation to the ASA/SRM SIPP Working Group • November 17, 2009

2. “Re-SIPP” Development * Following successful completion of the EHC Paper Field Test

3. “Re-SIPP” Development * Following successful completion of the EHC Paper Field Test * Develop the 2010 plan to test an electronic EHC instrument

4. “Re-SIPP” Development * Following successful completion of the EHC Paper Field Test * Develop the 2010 plan to test an electronic EHC instrument * Broad involvement across Census Bureau - DID - FLD - TMO - DSD - HHES - DSMD - SRD

5. Primary Goals of 2010 Test

6. Primary Goals of 2010 Test (1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality

7. Primary Goals of 2010 Test (1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality - How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel?

8. Primary Goals of 2010 Test (1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality - How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel? - Especially for income transfer programs

9. Primary Goals of 2010 Test (1) Strong evidence of comparable data quality - How well do the calendar year 2009 data from the 2010 EHC-CAPI Field Test match data from the 2008 SIPP panel? - Especially for income transfer programs (2) Strong evidence to guide development and refinement before implementation in 2013 as the production SIPP instrument

10. Basic Design Features (1)

11. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses

12. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities

13. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities “High Poverty” Sample Stratum

14. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities “High Poverty” Sample Stratum - to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected

15. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities “High Poverty” Sample Stratum - to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected State-Based Design

16. Basic Design Features (1) 8,000 Sample Addresses - could have been larger! - enough sample and budget to support research and field activities “High Poverty” Sample Stratum - to evaluate how well income transfer program data are collected State-Based Design - likely (possible?) access to admin records

25. Basic Design Features (2)

26. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010

27. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009

28. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009 Field Representative training in Dec/Jan

29. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009 Field Representative training in Dec/Jan - goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time” - evaluation and improvement of training

30. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009 Field Representative training in Dec/Jan - goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time” - evaluation and improvement of training Use FRs with a wide range of experience

31. Basic Design Features (2) Field Period: Early Jan - mid March 2010 - collect data about calendar year 2009 Field Representative training in Dec/Jan - goal: minimize # of FRs with post-training “down-time” - evaluation and improvement of training Use FRs with a wide range of experience Expand RO involvement

32. Research Agenda

33. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings

34. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system

35. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality

36. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials

37. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training

38. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs”

39. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues

40. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC)

41. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?

42. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?

43. Special Methods 1. Quantify likely cost savings

44. Special Methods 1. Quantify likely cost savings - new cost code(s) established - timing interview length - exchange between 12-month recall and 3 interviews per year

45. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?

46. Special Methods 2. Test the data processing system

47. Special Methods 2. Test the data processing system The data collected in this test will be used to develop and test a new data processing system.

48. Research Agenda 1. Quantify likely cost savings 2. Test the data processing system 3. Evaluate data quality 4. Evaluate “field support” materials 5. Evaluate FR training 6. Identify & document instrument “bugs” 7. Identify “interview process” issues 8. Identify usability issues (esp. EHC) HOW CAN WE IMPROVE FOR 2013?

49. Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality

50. Special Methods 3. Evaluate data quality - administrative records