by Terri Ann Lowenthal
Last week, I tried to cut through the confusion surrounding census response rates – what they do and don’t tell us about participation and accuracy. Now let’s dig a little deeper, to help community organizations and elected officials set appropriate goals and realistic expectations during the first phase (mail-out/mail-back) of the 2010 count.
In 2000, the initial mail response rate (based on a universe of all housing units) was 64 percent. The final response rate, which included late mail returns and telephone and Internet responses, was 67 percent. Then-Census Director Ken Prewitt challenged state and local governments to boost their response rates by five percent over 1990, and many met that target.
Would a similar competition work in 2010? Regrettably, the devastating consequences of the recession and foreclosure crisis, and lingering upheaval from Hurricane Katrina and other natural disasters, might make a plus-5 goal unrealistic in many communities. That’s because high vacancy rates in neighborhoods hit hard by these events will skew mail response calculations. In 1990, an operational fiasco rattled public confidence early in the process, when millions of questionnaires were deemed “undeliverable” because the Postal Service didn’t recognize addresses where residents had their mail delivered to a post office box, no doubt contributing to a plunge in mail-back rates. In 2010, civic leaders must anticipate artificially low response rates in distressed communities and focus the public’s attention not on the uphill battle to match or exceed their 2000 benchmark, but on ways participation can bring much-needed government resources and private investment to struggling neighborhoods.
The Census Bureau can devote more energy and resources to coaxing wary residents from behind closed doors if the mail return rate – a truer benchmark of public cooperation because it is based only on occupied housing units – goes up (although we won’t know this figure until the census is history). The national return rate in 2000 was 78 percent (80 percent for homes that received the short form). If you’re a glass-half-full kind of person, that means four in five households did their civic duty and mailed back their forms (or phoned-in their answers). Not surprisingly, though, return rates for harder-to-count households[i] were markedly lower: Hispanic (69%) v. non-Hispanic (79%); Black (64%) v. White (82%); renter (66%) v. owner (85%); younger (for 18-24, 57%) v. older (for 65+, 89%).[ii]
How can we boost the return rate in 2010, especially for less trusting, more fearful, and isolated population groups? Social science research has shown that people can be persuaded to do the right thing if they see neighbors and friends – people they know and trust — doing it. Some community-based organizations are planning group events to help people fill out their forms (while respecting the privacy of individual responses); arrangements could be made with local post offices to pick up the completed and sealed questionnaires.
Failure to anticipate the effects of high vacancy rates on initial mail response, stakeholder expectations, and the scope of door-to-door operations, and to explain the problem clearly, could damage public confidence early in the process. Reasonable goalposts and credible progress reports could go a long way towards keeping enthusiasm and cooperation high next spring.
[i] Response and return rates are based on the characteristics (e.g. race; Hispanic origin; age) of the “householder” – the person listed first on the census form.
[ii] All mail return rates taken from National Research Council (2004), “The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity,” Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, and Janet L. Norwood, eds., Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
2 responses so far ↓
Julian Johannesen // November 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm |
Thanks, Terri Ann. I had no idea that there was an important distinction between mail response rate and mail return rate before reading your post. I was also heartened by the high return rate among those who received the short form. 80%. Excellent.
Josh Wiese // November 30, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
While I agree that most areas should temper their expectations on response rates, one important operational aspect I did not see in your article is how the media campaign will effect response rates. If what we are being told is true then the Bureau will be blanketing every media outlet from Jan thru May which was not the case in 2000. As we saw in the most recent presidential election media can be a very useful tool. I think that that along with a greater emphasis on the partnership program will help bring the numbers up. Another factor to consider is the HTC outreach that individual communities will be doing on their own. From what I’ve seen those communities that approach this like a political campaign – door to door, phonebanking, using stakeholders to deliver the message etc..- are supplimenting the Census efforts in a way that touches people in a way that can only help.
Thank you for the clarification on this very important operational component.