analysis of post-out 2007 census test analysis of post-out garnett compton field design manager,...
Post on 02-Jan-2016
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2007 Census Test Analysis of post-outAnalysis of post-out
Garnett ComptonGarnett Compton
Field Design Manager, 2011 CensusField Design Manager, 2011 Census
1. Setting the scene – Post-out and the 2007 Census Test
2. Differences in response
3. Quality of the address register
4. Costs
5. Other quality and operational impacts
6. Conclusions and questions
Overview
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.
2007 Census Test – High-level Design
• Address checking
- Conducted in all Test areas during Sept and October
- Split discretionary and full contact methods• Delivery
- 50% Post-out, 50% hand delivery
- For hand delivery 3 attempts at contact over 2 week period• Collection/Follow-up
- Central post-back- 23 May – 22 June- 3 attempts everywhere
- Reminder letter to all outstanding addresses as at 31 May
2007 Census Test – Some caveats ….
• Voluntary:
Relied on public’s good will to complete a return.
• Publicity:
Pre-delivery information cards.
• Sample:
Skewed to harder to enumerate areas.
• Follow-up:
Fixed number of follow-up attempts everywhere.
Household response rates by delivery method and ETC
ETC Hand delivery
Post-out Difference P value
Total 53.4% 50.6% 2.8% <1%
1 66.9% 63.4% 3.6% 1%
2 55.7% 51.2% 4.5% 4%
3 47.8% 44.7% 3.1% 9%
4 36.8% 37.0% -0.2% 54%
5 33.8% 29.3% 4.5% 1%
Success rates at follow-up by delivery method by ETC
ETC Hand delivery
Post-out
1 37.1% 35.4%
2 27.0% 26.9%
3 23.6% 22.2%
4 16.5% 17.6%
5 14.9% 13.6%
Overall 26.0% 25.8%
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
Comparative costs
Developed a cost model with three key parameters:
• Percentage mix of delivery method;• Differences in initial return rates (i.e. amount
of follow-up); and• Success rates at each follow-up visit.
Estimated Cost Savings
Estimated cost savings between 100% post-out and 100% hand delivery
Initial return* rate difference
(%’age points)
Estimated savings
5 £28m - £35m
6 £25m – £33m
10 £6m - £21m
15 -£18m - £1m
* At the start of follow-up – 23 May
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
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
Conclusions cont ….
Therefore:• Post-out will be the primary means of
delivering questionnaires in 2011;• Approximately 95% of England and Wales
Supporting post-out for 2011
• Revised addressing strategy• Targeted address checking• Working with the postal service provider• Publicity• Operational Intelligence (questionnaire
tracking)
Thank you
Any Questions?
top related