Monetary Incentives for Survey Respondents:. Assessing Implementation, Operation, and Performance Measures for Two Census Bureau Demographic Surveys International Field Directors & Technologies Conference Nashville, Tennessee (May 20, 2003). Discussion Topics.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Assessing Implementation, Operation, and Performance Measures for Two Census Bureau Demographic Surveys
International Field Directors & Technologies Conference
Nashville, Tennessee (May 20, 2003)
Survey of Income and Program Participation
Incentive Results for Past and Current Panels
Survey Program Dynamics (SPD)
Incentive Results Past and Current SPD
Lessons Learned on Demographic Surveys
Treatment 1: $40 debit card issued at RO/(S)FR discretion, conditioned on obtaining a completed interview, Waves 1-9 (n=2200, per wave).
Treatment 2: Non-discretionary, unconditional $40 debit card sent via mail to previous wave non-respondents, Waves 4-9
Control No incentive eligibility (W1-9).
Conditional incentive household response rate significantly Higher than control in Waves 1 – 5.
Treatment 2 Conversion rates significantly higher than control group for Wave 5.
In August 2002, all RO’s participated in focus group discussions on implementation, operation, and incentive performance.
phone or in person, to complete interviews with debit cards.
plan since the 2001 incentive experiment started.
Major respondent responses to [email protected], “How do you feel about receiving an incentive?”
and/or considered it a bribe.
Majority of all respondents provided a positive reaction to $40 incentive
SIPP andSPD monetary respondent incentive use resulted in improved response and conversion rates on longitudinal demographic surveys.
Implementation and operation of the incentive program involved an on-going monitoring and improvement of the control and tracking of incentive use.
Regional Office and FLD staff feed back has played an important role in determining the most effective amount and method of incentive dissemination.
Respondents view incentives as an effective compensation for their time