1 / 10

Assessing the quality impacts of posting Census Questionnaires

Assessing the quality impacts of posting Census Questionnaires. Garnett Compton Q2008 Conference, 8-11 July 2008. Overview. Setting the scene – Post-out and the 2007 Census Test Differences in response Quality of the address register Costs Other quality and operational impacts

chacha
Download Presentation

Assessing the quality impacts of posting Census Questionnaires

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing the quality impacts of posting Census Questionnaires Garnett Compton Q2008 Conference, 8-11 July 2008

  2. Overview • Setting the scene – Post-out and the 2007 Census Test • Differences in response • Quality of the address register • Costs • Other quality and operational impacts • Conclusions and questions

  3. Why consider Post-out? • To reduce serious risks experienced in 2001, in particular the failure to recruit a large number of enumerators. • To provide savings to invest in improving response. • Because of the limited success of making contact at delivery.

  4. Household response rates by delivery method and ETC

  5. Success rates at follow-up by delivery method by ETC

  6. Address register coverage • 680 (1.3%) new addresses found during enumeration in hand delivery areas • Nearly 70% of new addresses were sub-premise addresses – suggest existed at time of AC. • About 20% found already existing/available latest update. • About 1/6 found in hand delivery areas during follow-up

  7. Estimated Cost Savings * At the start of follow-up – 23 May

  8. Quality and operational impacts • No difference in under/over count between two methods • No difference in number failing 2 of 4 rule • No large difference in age/sex distributions between delivery methods • 50% more calls to the contact centre in post-out areas • CTES: • No difference in views on “junk” mail • Small difference recognised as “official” mail

  9. Conclusions • Post-out has an impact on return rates, but not success at follow-up. Post-out requires more follow-up to obtain same overall response rate. • Differences in return rates are not affected by the hard to count characteristics of an area (i.e. the ETC). • No significant differences in response quality • A post-out methodology will allow savings to invest in targeted follow-up and community liaison. • The levels of AR undercoverage will be small with minimal, but manageable, impact on the overall quality. • Some operational impacts but manageable through design and development

  10. Thank you Any Questions?

More Related