Low_income_workshop-Weiss

To survey practitioners, low-income populations are of special interest. Whether one is doing a survey of employment, crime victimizations, health conditions, or health insurance status, the low income population has an abundance of the people who are having difficulty.

To illustrate this fact, consider the criminal victimization rates in 1998 as shown in Table 1. Persons in households with incomes of less than $7,500 per year had much higher violent crime rates than other households.

Income per year	1998 Violent Crime Level
Less than $7,500	63.8
$7,500-$14,999	49.3
$15,000-$24,999	39.4
$25,000-$34,999	42.0
$35,000-$49,999	31.7
$50,000-$74,999	32.0
$75,000 plus	33.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Study, July, 1999.

In their most recent report on poverty, the Census Bureau reported that people who worked at any time during 1998 had a lower poverty rate than nonworkers (6.3 percent compared with 21.1 percent). The Census Bureau also recently reported that 16.3 percent of all people in the U.S. were without health insurance for the entire year of 1998, but that 32.3 percent of poor people were in that category (Current Population Reports).

Of interest to the survey community are the statistics cited by Reed Hundt, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission about access to communication services in the U.S. Of households on food stamps, roughly 30% have no phone service. In 1993, 27% of households with children and below the poverty line did not have phone service. About 12% of unemployed adults do not have phone service (Lannon).

This latter topic, lack of telephone service, shows the importance of including low-income person in in-person surveys. When we look at non-response rates by income type for different surveys, we find that both low-income and high-income populations are somewhat underrepresented. If the low income population is approached only by telephone, the non-response rates will be higher.

In surveys concentrated on low income populations, it is especially important to have high response rates. Outside of the usual concern about nonrespondents causing a potential bias, there is often the need to stratify populations by their relationship to welfare systems. For example, though those that leave welfare are of great interest, so are the stayers, as are potential applicants diverted from programs or who do not apply. If samples are to be large enough to make meaningful comparisons among groups, then non-response must be kept to a minimum.

In-person efforts will be critical to achieving high response rates for people who have no usual residence, those who move frequently, those who have no telephones, and those for whom there must be some immediate gratification before they agree to be interviewed. Often times, concepts and ideas can be explained easier when face to face.

The people we are interested in interviewing in the low-income populations present some special challenges to us. They are often hard to find. Though they may have lived at a fixed address at one time, low-income people move often, mostly within the same neighborhood, but not always. Sometimes they live in regular housing until their money runs out and then live on the streets until the next influx of money occurs. A survey organization must be prepared to spend resources locating respondents. Low-income respondents are often suspicious of strangers and of the government. They often do not want to be found. Names are not always freely given, nor are responses to where people can be found. In NORC surveys, we have often found that it is hard to make and keep appointments with potential respondents. In addition, because of high immigration in the last 15 years, there are many people in the population who do not speak English. In many surveys, people who do not speak English or Spanish are excluded. However, in surveys of low-income populations, these people with language barriers may be extremely important. Thus, a survey organization must be ready to find interviewers who speak the needed languages, as well as have a facility for translating questionnaires.

These special issues that arise in interviewing low-income populations all have appropriate solutions. Which of these solutions can be applied for a given survey will be dependent on budget, schedule, and IRB/OMB constraints. We will illustrate methods used in some NORC surveys for finding and interviewing these populations. To be most relevant for State grantees who are conducting or planning to conduct surveys of low income and welfare populations, we selected studies with the following characteristics: respondents are primarily from low income and/or welfare populations; the sample is clustered within one area rather than being national; paper and pencil interviewing (PAPI) is the mode for all but one of the studies, which is computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI); extensive locating is required; and, respondents are offered an incentive for participation. Other than Spanish language materials, these studies did not offer materials in other languages. (Appendix A provides some basic information about the studies we will reference in the paper as : the Seattle Study, the Woodlawn studies, the New York Minority Youth Study, and the DC Networks Study.)

NORC has adopted the protocol outlined below for obtaining high response rates. It includes measures we have developed to: 1) locate and contact the sample; 2) staff and train interviewers; 3) optimize field support and communications; and 4) control budget and quality.

The following is a compilation of input regarding this topic from NORC’s top field management team who were actively involved in carrying out these studies successfully.

Ideally, the sample list will be up-to-date, comprehensive and accurate. However, most often it contains aged information provided by the client based on administrative records. The standard information, e.g., full names, most recent address and phone number, dates of birth, etc., can be greatly enhanced by researching other ancillary information. This includes maiden name for women, drivers’ license or state identification number, employers, schools or training programs attended, military service, prison records, and persons likely to know where the sample member can be found (a parent, grandparent, close friend or neighbor). Once obtained, it is essential that this augmenting information and its source be accurately documented for future reference.

The initial correspondence to the respondent is a critical step toward gaining their cooperation. It sets the tone of the survey and must compel their participation. The advance letter should be straight forward and brief. Proprietary terms and legal jargon should be avoided. The letter explains the study and certifies that the interview: 1) will be strictly confidential; 2) is voluntary; and, 3) will be conducted by a properly identified and trained interviewer. If a respondent fee will be provided it should be mentioned, and if such a fee can be exempt from income reporting by virtue of the client obtaining a waiver, that too should be mentioned.. (A respondent fee is strongly recommended as a method of assuring maximum response rates). A toll-free telephone number is supplied in the letter to permit the respondent to ask questions and/or set up an interview.

The advance letter serves another valuable purpose, to update preliminary locating information. The envelope is marked "Address Service Requested." This statement will result in the post office providing information about the address/person; if the post office forwards the mail to another address, they will provide notification of that new address. For all other mail that doesn’t go directly to the addressee, the mail is sent back with the reason for return, e.g., whether or not it is just an apartment number missing, street numbers were transposed, or no forwarding address was filed. If you prefer that the letter not be forwarded, the envelope can be marked "Do Not Forward" and it will be returned, allowing you to remail it to the correct address. Names and addresses from returned letters can be submitted in batch mode through the National Change of Address if time allows. It has been our experience recently that this approach is more useful when the sample is quite outdated, namely five years or more. When time and budget allows, it also helps to work the "unlocatables" through centralized database searches. The sample file should be updated with any leads obtained through this pre-field stage; releasing the sample to interviewers without having made the updates will result in extra costs caused by duplicated efforts.

Informing and/or gaining the support of influential community leaders can be pivotal to the success of the survey. Letters to the local police, Better Business Bureau, ethnic leaders in the NAACP or Hispanic Council, housing authorities and others serve two important purposes. They provide a sense of security to the interviewer, who then knows that appropriate officials have been notified. Respondents can be shown the letter as a reenforcement measure. The leaders, in turn, often supply essential strategic information regarding places to avoid, whether an escort is justified, and safest times to interview. The letter to community authorities should explain the survey, in addition to how and by whom the interviews will be conducted. It assures them that interviewers will wear photo identification badges.

NORC has established and maintains a locating protocol which documents, in order of cost, the basic steps involved in locating people. The locating effort, critical to any project’s success, is influenced by budget, schedule, IRB and/or OMB constraints, and the locating skills of the project’s assigned staff. Therefore, emphasis is placed on centralizing the process before employing the more costly means of in-field locating. Depending on your resources, the centralization of locating can be in your central/home office or in the field (if you have locating experts equipped with computers that can access the relevant databases and Internet). Centralizing this locating effort allows efficient access to the resources to do the preliminary steps of checking phone directories, mailing addresses, contact names, employers, etc. Field staff are then called upon to personally visit the last known address and talk to neighbors, the postman and so on. Interviewers document the results of each locating step on a Record of Calls. Many projects provide the field interviewers with a job aid, referred to as a Locating Checklist. It identifies the steps to be taken by the field in locating a respondent, listing the steps in order of cost. This greatly reduces duplication of effort.

The Seattle Study Experience. The respondents in the Seattle study were first interviewed in their final month of eligibility for drug-addicted or alcoholic Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The baseline sample information included the identity of a payee to whom the prospective respondent’s SSI check was sent. Since many of the payees were agency staff, the interviewers were often able to work directly with the payee to determine when the respondent would be coming in to pick up the check. The agency often let the interviewer have space to interview the respondent at the time of that visit.

However, due to the nature of the sample, there were large numbers of respondents who were homeless. The field manager got a list of all the agencies that serviced the homeless and went in person to each place with a list of names. Interviewers would make daily visits to many of these locations and eventually they found many of the respondents. The field staff worked very diligently to identify the extensive homeless network in the area; they asked homeless people where they slept, where they got their meals, where they kept their belongings, and so on. This effort proved to be very beneficial during the baseline interview as well as during the follow-ups which were done at six-month intervals to examine the effects of the program’s termination on former recipients. During this process, the field staff learned that it is important to get the respondent’s "street" name, because many of them do not go by their legal, given names out in the community. Field staff on this study felt it would be very helpful if it were possible to get IRB/OMB approval for the interviewer to take a snapshot of the respondent which could be used during follow up locating efforts.

Also, since the respondents were all in the study because their alcohol and/or drug related SSI benefits had been discontinued, it was expected that another potential locating source would be area taverns, etc. The field manager in charge organized night time locating trips into the areas of Seattle where the homeless gather. Two or three field interviews would travel with the field manager into the core area of the city searching for respondents among those waiting in line for entrance into a shelter for the night, or among those patrons in the taverns and bars frequented by street people. These "pub crawls" as the field interviewers came to refer to them, were very helpful in locating homeless respondents.

Prisons and jails are another valuable source for locating respondents. On the Seattle Study, a census of all of the jails was available and interviewers checked the list regularly looking for names that matched the pending sample list. Some of the interviewers were able to obtain special ID’s after agreeing to a background check done by the jail. These ID’s allowed the interviewers to come and go just as lawyers do and their visits did not impact on the respondent’s allowed number of visitations. To access prisons, in some cases, the client for the Seattle Study had to complete the requisite paperwork before our interviewers could approach incarcerated respondents. On the D.C. Networks Study, a significant effort has been made to gain access to the prison system by working closely with the D.C. Department of Corrections. One of our experienced field staff on that study who has been particularly effective was a private investigator before joining the interviewer and field management staff at NORC. Protocols related to working in jails and prisons vary considerably by state, so it is important to determine the kinds of access that interviewers will be allowed at the outset of the data collection period. Many states now have a Web site and/or telephone number for locating inmates.

On the Woodlawn Studies where the original respondents were first graders enrolled in elementary school in an inner-city, predominantly African American urban neighborhood in 1966 and 1967, the locating challenges were enormous. The client had done some interim contacts with some of the respondents, but much of the sample information was very old, so the field staff relied on intensive locating efforts in the neighborhood. They went to the neighborhood and tried to locate the oldest residents on the block, went to neighborhood churches to talk with long time members, called people with the same last name living in the place of birth looking for relatives of the respondent, and mailed letters to every old address and every new address they found. With regard to the last step, they mailed again and again if not returned by the post office; their persistence paid off in many cases as many of the respondents moved back to their hometown during the course of the field work.

On the New York Minority Youth Study, a very useful locating resource was the schools these respondents had attended. Since the baseline data was collected in the school setting, the client contacted the schools to get permission for us to contact them for locating information. The follow-up interviews were with a sample of inner-city African American and Puerto Rican adolescents and their mothers. Prison contacting was also helpful for this population.

On the DC Networks Study, where 62% of the respondents have a monthly income of $500 or less, 63% have been drug injectors for over 21 years, and only 50% have lived in an apartment or house during the past six months, the locating challenges for follow-up have been intense. This is a study where two outreach workers who are "street wise" and know a lot about the locations where drugs are sold and used identify respondents in the streets and bring them in to the site office to be interviewed. The experienced field staff on the study (four interviewers, a locating expert, and a field site manager) also work on the case, locating by phone or in the field, but they leave the locating in "drug areas" to the outreach workers.

Appendix B indicates some of the specific locating resources that were relied on during these representative studies.

Optimum results are more likely to be achieved when the data collection plan reflects both the theoretical underpinnings of the client’s research goals and data needs and the "best practices" of the data collection contractor. Such a plan should be pre-approved by the client and precisely match the resources available. This avoids any misunderstanding of what can reasonably be provided by the contractor within the time allowed and budget constraints. Also, as the work proceeds it is important to be in close contact with the client, to share successes and obstacles encountered. Contingency planning within the constraints of the research goals must be addresses in a timely manner.

For example, the Seattle Study was tasked to begin on very short notice, with no flexibility on the start date. This was because it had to be done before the respondent’s SSI benefits ended and needed to be completed as quickly as possible. A data collection plan was rapidly developed and approved by all parties - thus avoiding any ensuing disagreements regarding production results.

On the Woodlawn Study, the client was very supportive and even helped with getting access to some records for locating purposes. She met with the field staff whenever she was in Chicago, if her schedule permitted. When production was low, she remained optimistic and reminded the staff how important their efforts were to her research. The sense of team camaraderie on these projects has been unrivaled on other studies and contributed to an outcome that was satisfactory to the client, even though more time than originally projected was needed to reach the final completion rates of 85% and 79% (Woodlawn Mothers).

Key to assigning interviewers who are appropriate to low income and welfare populations is the recognition that very unique attributes are needed. Not all interviewers, even experienced ones, are equally effective in this environment. Screening prospective interviewers begins in the Help 0Wanted ad. It must specifically state that the job entails interviewing low income persons in their residences, or elsewhere out in the field. The fact that the work will require some evenings and weekends must be understood. Supplying this information beforehand will avoid any misconceptions that must be dealt with later.

During the job interview it is important that applicants be evaluated on their ability to be nonjudgmental and nonplused by the situations to which they may be exposed. If the content of the questionnaire is sensitive, it is useful to show candidates a sample of the questions. Some candidates will eliminate themselves, knowing they would be uncomfortable asking these kinds of questions. The successful candidates, both experienced and new to interviewing, will be comfortable with the gaining cooperation aspect of the job. When conducting exit interviews with interviewers who have left a project, one of the frequently mentioned reasons relates to the "door-to-door sales" aspect of interviewing; they often do not realize how difficult that pre-interview step can be and are not up for the challenge or the rejection that can be associated with slammed doors or hung up phones.

Our experience with studies involving hard-to-reach populations and/or sensitive topics supports the findings by Groves and Couper that experienced interviewers are more adept at gaining cooperation than inexperienced interviewers. Those who thrive in the interviewing environment see each of these situations as personal challenges to which they apply what they have gleaned from their previous experiences. "To select an approach to use, the interviewer must judge the fit of the respondent to other respondent types experienced in the past (either through descriptions in training or actual interaction with them). We believe that experienced interviewers tend to achieve higher levels of cooperation because they carry with them a larger number of combinations of behaviors proven to be effective for one or more types of householders" (Groves and Couper, p.36). On the D.C. Networks Study, all of the interviewers have had experience working in difficult neighborhoods on previous studies in the D.C. area. The experienced locating specialist has been helping them to gain access to prisons and has been doing a lot of street locating.

Interviewers must be well versed in basic interviewing techniques, including reading the questions as worded, neutral probing, "training" the respondent, confidentiality, etc. At NORC, these basic topics are covered in an eight hour general interviewing techniques training session which is required of all interviewers new to NORC. In the recent literature on obtaining high response rates, Sullivan et al put forth a retention protocol for conducting longitudinal studies with mobile populations that includes three phases, the first of which is relevant to training. Sullivan et. al in Phase I of their retention protocol (which relates to setting the stage for future contacts with the respondents) refer to the importance of establishing trust between the researcher and the respondent (Sullivan et al., p. 266). To accomplish this, interviewers need to be able to convey to respondents why the survey is needed and how it might impact on others in similar circumstances, stress confidentiality of data, and so on. Ensuring that interviewers understand these basics is important to the quality of the data being collected.

Project specific training then focuses on the purpose of the study, the questionnaire, the informed consent procedure, gaining cooperation, sensitivity, safety, production goals, etc. Where a project has unique protocols for locating, such as in a study of battered women conducted by Sullivan et al, this is the forum where such procedures would be covered. They had the respondent sign "a Release of Information form indicating that she gave her permission to the alternate contact to give us her address and phone number. Each participant receiving governmental assistance... was also asked to sign a release form for the government agency handling her case." This is a protocol that has been used successfully at NORC, primarily on drug study follow-up interviews. Contacts are more comfortable knowing (by actually seeing the respondents signature on the form) that the respondent has said it is okay for them to help locate them.

Training on gaining respondent cooperation is essential on all types of studies, and is best when woven throughout the training session, rather than just being covered directly in a module of its own. The ultimate goal in this type of training is to enhance the interviewer’s abilities to tailor his or her reaction to the respondent and to maintain interaction with the respondent long enough to gain cooperation ( See Groves and Couper for elaboration on the concepts of tailoring and maintaining interaction.)

Sensitivity training is frequently appropriate so that the interviewers can be prepared for the situations they may encounter. It is designed to help them respond respectfully to the respondents with whom they will interact and to be unshockable. What is typically covered in sensitivity training is some background information about the kinds of situations likely to be encountered. The presentation of this substantive information can be done by the principal investigator, an outside expert, or an experienced senior level field manager. On a study of the terminally ill, for example, the principal investigators talked with the interviewers at training, the interviewers saw a videotape about terminal illness and its effect on the respondent and his or her family, and there was grief counseling available to field staff during the course of data collection. In addition to providing interviewers with substantive background, the training most often provides opportunities for dealing with emotional responses likely to be experienced by the trainees and how best to handle those reactions in the interview situation. On some studies, the field staff are also invited to attend special conference sessions prior to the study’s implementation, e.g., on the DC Networks Study, the field staff attended an HIV conference to make them more aware of the kinds of situations people would be in.

Supplementing local interviewers with a team of highly experienced traveling interviewers is a strategy that has proven to be successful as well as cost effective on these studies. This is especially true when the sample is clustered and thereby requires a large number of newly hired interviewers. It is also particularly invaluable if the data collection period is very short. On the Seattle Study, several experienced travelers came in at the start of the data collection period. When some of them had to leave, others came in to assume their assignments. Throughout the data collection period, the local field staff worked together with the travelers. It has been our experience that experienced travelers can focus on weak data collection areas and apply their proven skills in locating, refusal conversion, and strong production. They also help to motivate and train local interviewers, providing role models of success for new interviewers to emulate.

Supporting and motivating field staff on low income studies can differ markedly from the traditional methods used on a national study with a mixed sample. Assigning strong, experienced supervisors, with field interviewing expertise, is key to achieving high response rates. Interviewers need continual support, brainstorming opportunities, motivation, locating assistance and morale boosting from involved and caring supervisors. Supervisors must:

Communicate by phone with interviewers no less than twice a week, or more often if indicated.
Discuss numbers, projections, costs, and disposition codes for cases during one call, and have a completely separate call for problem solving. The second call is for question/answer periods and problem-solving, uninterrupted by the administrative process.
Offer to do locating through Central Office or Internet sources, or to help convert refusals. Managers can sometimes do phone interviews for interviewers on projects that allow it.
Pair up new interviewers or ones hesitant to interview during late hours with experienced interviewers or escorts. (For example, we provided traveling interpreters to work with interviewers who needed to interview Chinese, Vietnamese and other ethnic groups on the recent Media Use Study).
Readily transfer cases around once the interviewers have established a work pattern. Supervisors must be quick to recognize procrastinators and replace them with more effective interviewers. This also helps to motivate less productive persons to improve and increase their efforts. Some interviewers prove to be more effective on the telephone than in person, so flexibility is key.

A centrally located site office, whether for the duration of the study or just during the start up and the final crunch phase of the data collection effort has proven beneficial. On the Woodlawn Studies, the field management staff were based at an office at NORC’s University of Chicago location. This office was set up with multiple telephone lines to allow for centralized locating and some telephone interviewing by the field staff. On the New York Minority Youth Study, the office was set up in client provided space at Columbia University. On the DC Networks Study, there is a permanent office set up in a store front centrally located to the sample members. And, on the Seattle Study, the site office was set up at the hotel where training was held and the travelers stayed; for the baseline interviewing it was maintained and staffed for the entire data collection period, whereas for the other rounds of interviewing it was set up for training and maintained for the first couple of weeks of data collection. After that the interviewers were supervised remotely, although the supervisor traveled in at least a couple of times to meet with the field interviewers. There were travelers (experienced interviewers) in for the entire data collection period, although they were not the same individuals over the entire time.

In many studies the site office served to make interviewers more responsible and provided supervisors greater flexibility to transfer cases and assignments when necessary. Interviewers are required to submit their Time & Expense Reports in person together with their completed cases. This closely tied pay to production and receipt control. Site offices also permit supervisors to review Records of Calls and do the strategy planning face to face with interviewers.

On the New York Minority Youth Study, the front line field manager felt that having a site office for the field interviewers to come to helped in many ways. The respondent population was very transient, presenting multiple locating, refusal aversion and conversion problems. Having a site itself lent a "helping hand" to interviewers who were not strong in these skills. The site office also provided a "physical opportunity" to convey brainstorming ideas with peers. Where one interviewer may have been unsuccessful with a certain case, the field manager could have another interviewer share his or her experience with similar cases or transfer that case for another approach. The field manager felt another benefit of the site office was in the team pressure it created; interviewers had the opportunity to "shine" in person when they had a great week and for those who weren’t as successful they felt pressured to perform better the following week.

Field managers on all projects know that they are expected to be available seven days a week to their interviewers. However, on some of these studies that expectation was intensified. On the Seattle Study, for example, a communication link between the field manager and the interviewers was needed seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Respondents were given a toll-free number that was manned by the senior field manager in charge who could page any of the interviewers if a respondent called and wanted an appointment. On this study interviewers each had beepers and the toll-free number was set up with three way calling, caller ID, call waiting, etc. In this way the supervisor could contact one of the interviewers while she had the respondent on the phone and set up an appointment on the spot. Cellular phones would have been even more efficient, but at the time they were too costly to rent.

Support also comes in the form of working together in teams, during either the interviewing or the locating phases. The team could include a field supervisor or experienced traveler who can model an effective approach at the door and gain cooperation when new interviewers are unsure of themselves. It can also involve sending both a male and female interviewer to an area where the female interviewer alone might be uncomfortable. The team effort can also be invoked for a "blitz" when all of the interviewers and supervisors work together to finish up specific cases.

Successful containment of costs requires strict measures and frequent monitoring. Senior field staff are involved in developing the proposal and the associated budget. During this process, alternative options and tradeoffs are discussed until all are in agreement on priorities and budget caps. Contingency plans, in keeping with the client’s objectives, must be in place. Field staff are then provided with a budget they helped formulate and are given the responsibility to manage it.

During the Woodlawn Study, when the locating became more time consuming than expected, the client extended the field period to give the field staff more time. Where extending the data collection period may not be feasible, as was the case during the baseline interviewing for the Seattle Study, other contingencies were adopted, such as keeping the travelers on site longer than originally anticipated. Others included the need for attrition training if interviewers drop out for one reason or another, lowering targeted response goals, and so on.

The pressures imposed on the interviewers in a study that is characterized by a short field period, low budget, and difficult to locate respondents increases the importance of quality control efforts. It is essential to conduct validation interviews for at least 10% of each interviewer’s cases, sampling from completed cases as well as non-interviews. If possible, especially if there is a site office, plan to have supervisors to do some observations of the interviewing. This displays their interest in quality control.

We agree with the "best practices" for promoting high response rates in surveys of low income and welfare populations identified by Gordon et al. They identify the following factors as being important in follow-up surveys of low-income populations: initial contact information; updating contact information; sophisticated tracking methods; mixed-mode interviewing; and respondent payments (Gordon et al., pages 91-92).

To those "best practices" we would add effective field staffing; training with appropriate emphasis placed on the gaining cooperation tasks; and strong field support to this list. Without identifying and deploying the resources to collect the data in the most supportive manner, even the best sample information won’t result in a completed interview. The people involved in the actual data collection tasks are key, from the field interviewers to the field supervisors to the support staff in the home office. Groves and Couper’s concepts of tailoring and maintaining interaction support our recommendations. In terms of the staffing approach, our most effective field staff are expert at tailoring their approach to respondents; staffing as many experienced field interviewers as possible and/or supplementing a staff of less experienced interviewers with experienced travelers is important. On the training front, it is important to cover issues related to training the respondent and gaining cooperation, along with examples and opportunities for practice, throughout the course of training. And, on the field support front, having a site office where interviewers and field managers interact in-person and can brainstorm, allowing early intervention if a problem is developing, further supports the opportunities for the interviewers to learn how important tailoring and maintaining interaction can be.

Finally, due to cost constraints, we recognize that face-to-face interviewing is not going to be affordable in many cases. Therefore, we strongly recommend that more focus be given to planned mixed mode studies, acknowledging that high response rates by mail or telephone are very difficult and potentially miss key parts of this population, such as the homeless and other respondents who move frequently, those who don’t have phones, etc. Part of a successful mixed-mode model would include approaches such as: collaborative locating efforts with agency staff to help cut the locating costs, adapting a Release of Information form for use with locating contacts (Sullivan et al., p. 267), use of respondent incentives, and perhaps even "piggybacking" of some data collection which could offer a more cost effective way to obtain additional data.

Study Name	Location	Sample	Response Rates	Mode
Seattle Study	King County, Washington	571 for baseline at end of 1996	75% baseline 90 - 97% on each of 4 follow-ups	PAPI
Woodlawn Study	Lived in Woodlawn neighborhood of Chicago in 1966 and 1967	1242 African American respondents in 1993	79%	PAPI, some telephone interviews
Woodlawn Mothers	Subsample of mothers of original 1966/7 sample	1026 African American women in 1997	85%	PAPI, some telephone interviews
New York Minority Youth	East Harlem area of New York City. Respondents were 7th - 10th graders in 1990	1330 youth, 666 mothers. Half African American, half Puerto Rican. Interviewed 1995	92%	PAPI
D.C. Networks Study	Washington, D.C. area	500 cases	in progress	CAPI and ethnographic interviews

Locating Effort/Source	Seattle Study	Woodlawn Study	NY Minority Youth	DC Networks Study
Probation/parole Officers	x			x
Doormen/guards at building complexes				x
Known contacts, such as family members, case workers	x	x	x	x
Last known address	x	x	x	x
Jails/detention centers/prisons	x	x	x	x
Halfway houses	x			x
Clinics	x			x
Hospitals, regular and rehabilitation	x			x
Drug treatment centers	x			x
Known geographical areas for drug purchase/use	x			x
Homeless shelters	x			x
Schools			x	x
Churches	x	x
Food banks	x
Old neighborhood	x	x	x	x
Food banks	x
Needle exchanges	x

1995 Maximizing Response to Surveys in Health Program Evaluation at Minimum Cost Using Multiple Methods. Evaluation Review, 19(4): 436-450.

1996 Approaches to Evaluating Welfare Reform: Lessons from Five State Demonstrations. Unpublished report submitted to Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Contract #06587-005.

National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American

1998 Tracking Welfare Reform: Designing Follow-Up Studies of Recipients Who Leave Welfare. Issue brief based on Conference on Tracking and Follow-up Under Welfare Reform, Falls Church, Virginia (February). Prepared by the Center for Best Practices. http://www.nga.org/Pubs/IssueBriefs/1998/980519TrackingWelfare.asp [August 2, 1999].

1999 Conducting Surveys with Welfare Leavers. Unpublished paper provided as background to the Fall 1999 ASPE Welfare Outcomes Grantee Meeting (October 25-26, 1999). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.

1999 Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, Criminal Victimization 1998, Changes 1997-98 with Trends 1993-98.

Sullivan, Cris, Maureen Rumptz, Rebecca Campbell, Kimberly Eby, and William Davidson, II

1996 Retaining Participants in Longitudinal Community Research: A Comprehensive Protocol. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(3), 262-276.

1999 Tracing and Representativeness of Responses. Unpublished paper provided as background to the Fall 1999 ASPE Welfare Outcomes Grantee Meeting (October 25-26, 1999). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC.