Download:
pdf |
pdfPART B - APPENDIX A
MEMORANDUM ON THE TAA EXPERIMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sande Schifferes
FROM:
Peter Schochet; Jillian Berk; Pat Nemeth
DATE: 11/20/2008
TAA-138a
SUBJECT:
Short-Term Results of the New Survey Procedures for the TAA Evaluation
The National Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program is a $10.4
million impact study being conducted by Social Policy Research Associates, with Mathematica
Policy Research (MPR) as the subcontractor responsible for the survey data collection and the
statistical aspects of the design. The evaluation, which began in 2004, is scheduled now to end in
March 2010, due to delays associated with the initial Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
clearance process 1 and subsequent problems with recruitment of a number of states to participate
in the evaluation.
The evaluation includes site visits, administrative records data collection, and baseline and
follow-up surveys. The study sample was selected using data from Unemployment Insurance
(UI) claims records and TAA-eligible worker lists that were provided by 26 states. 2 The
treatment group for the study includes UI claimants who were on the TAA-eligible worker lists,
and the comparison group includes UI claimants who were statistically matched to the treatment
group using propensity score matching methods. Matching was conducted using available
baseline data from the UI claims records.
Data collection for the baseline survey began in early March 2008. Initially the baseline
survey for the TAA evaluation included incentive payments of approximately $25 to encourage
survey completion. In an August 2008 memo to OMB, DOL reported a lower than expected
response rate and differences in response rates between the treatment and comparison groups.
For sample members in the seven states where the survey had been conducted the longest, the
overall response rate was about 46 percent, with values of 60 percent for treatment group
members who received Trade Readjustment Allowance (TRA) benefits, 48 percent for other
treatment group members, and 40 percent for comparison group members.
1
OMB provided approval of the information collection request in November 2006. The approval expires
November 30, 2009 and an extension will be sought well prior to the expiration.
2
Currently, data are available for 24 states, but data from two states are expected to available shortly.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
4
In September 2008, OMB approved a revised strategy to increase response rates to the
baseline survey. This plan included changes in operational procedures and an incentive
experiment where sample members could receive increased payments for survey completion.
MPR implemented these plans on September 20, 2008.
This memo provides results on the extent to which the revised strategy increased baseline
survey response rates during the eight-week period between September 20, 2008 and November
20, 2008. It also discusses options for future baseline interviewing which is scheduled to
continue until February 2009.
The memo is in four sections. First, for context, we briefly discuss results of the original
incentive experiment. Second, we summarize key features of the revised survey strategy. Third,
we discuss analysis results, and finally, present options and recommendations for the future.
Before presenting the findings, it is useful for this memo to define four key sample groups:
1. Group A – TAA Participants, who are treatment group members who received TRA
payments.
2. Group B – TAA Participant Comparison Group, who are matches to Group A.
3. Group C – TAA Non-Participants, who are treatment group members who did not
receive (or had not yet received) TRA payments.
4. Group D – TAA Non-Participant Comparison Group, who are matches to Group C.
Most tables reported at the end of the memo present response rates separately for each group, as
well as for all four groups combined.
1.
THE ORIGINAL SURVEY INCENTIVE EXPERIMENT
Between March 6, 2008 and September 19, 2008, an experiment was conducted to test the
impact of variations in the timing of the incentive payment on baseline interview response rates.
About 60 percent of the individuals were randomly assigned to receive $25 for interview
completion, and two groups of individuals were randomly assigned to receive small prepayments with their initial contact letter. Twenty percent of the sample received a $2 prepayment and was eligible for a $25 interview completion post-payment, and the other 20 percent
received a $5 pre-payment and was eligible for a $20 interview completion post-payment.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
5
The prepaid incentives had a small effect on interview completion rates (Table 1). The
overall response rate was about 44 percent for the two prepayment groups, compared to 39
percent for the post-payment-only group. The overall difference in the response rates by
incentive type is statistically significant, but the response rates were low regardless of incentive
structure. A similar pattern holds across Groups A to D.
2.
KEY FEATURES OF THE REVISED SURVEY DESIGN
The revised strategy to increase the baseline interview completion rate had two main
components: (1) changes in operational procedures and (2) changes in incentive payments. These
changes are discussed in detail in the August 2008 memo to OMB, but are summarized here.
For discussion purposes, it is convenient to distinguish between two types of cases when the
new incentive experiment started on September 20, 2008: (1) those who were already contacted
under the old regime—existing cases, and (2) those who were released after September 20,
2008—new cases. All existing cases who had yet to complete an interview were re-contacted
under the new regime except for those who were recorded as a “final refusal” or a “had a final
barrier.”
a.
Existing Cases
The changes in procedures for existing cases were designed to increase contact and
respondent willingness to participate. MPR started sending all correspondences to existing cases
on U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) letterhead, over a DOL official’s signature, with a DOL
contact number, rather than using MPR letterhead with an MPR manager’s signature. It was
hoped that this more “official” correspondence would receive greater attention from respondents
and would lend greater legitimacy to the request than a letter provided from MPR. MPR also
used priority mail to send refusal conversion and locating letters, and sent, about two weeks later,
a follow-up postcard with the incentive amount prominently displayed, so as to alert potential
respondents and their families.
The new procedures were accompanied by a change in the incentive payment structure.
Since the most effective incentive amount is unknown, DOL received permission to conduct an
experiment to test different amounts of the incentive with different sample groups in the
evaluation. The initial period of surveying indicated that the Group A sample was most willing to
complete the survey, so the new incentive experiment included more modest changes for this
group. For Group A, 50 percent continued to be eligible for a $25 interview completion payment,
and the other 50 percent became eligible for a $50 payment. MPR tested more generous
incentives for Groups B, C, and D—20 percent continued to be offered $25, 40 percent were
offered $50, and the final 40 percent were offered $75.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
6
The number of existing cases eligible for the new incentive experiment varies by sample
group (Table 2). Because Group A had a higher completion rate in the initial survey period than
other sample members, Group A had the smallest percentage of existing cases who were eligible
for the new procedures.
b. New Cases
The revised survey design was also structured to facilitate the completion of interviews for
new cases. New cases in Groups A to D were eligible for the higher incentive payments under
the same structure as described above. For these cases, MPR used a new advance letter written
on DOL letterhead with a DOL official’s signature, but sent these letters by regular mail.
Postcards were not sent to these individuals. The analysis sample of new cases includes 1,622
workers from six states (490 in Group A, 887 in Group B, 249 in Group C, and 486 in Group D).
c.
Other Procedural Changes
In addition to letterhead, envelope, and mail mode changes, MPR undertook other
procedural changes to increase response rates. Locating procedures were reviewed to make
optimum use of social security numbers to locate sample members, CATI productivity records
were reviewed, and staff hours were increased at the most productive hours for outgoing and
incoming calls. In addition, more interviewers and locaters were selected and trained, and scripts
for operators answering the incoming toll-free number and the voicemail message on that
number were revised. Finally, all interviewers, supervisors, and monitors attended a debriefing,
which covered best practices for making contact with the sample and successful strategies for
obtaining completed interviews.
3.
RESULTS OF THE NEW PROCEDURES ON RESPONSE RATES
This section provides results on the effects of the revised survey design on baseline
interview response rates during the eight-week period between September 20, 2008 (when the
new procedures were implemented) and November 20, 2008. The results are presented first for
the existing cases and then for the new cases.
a.
Existing Cases
Response rates for existing cases increased under the new regime. During the eight week
follow-up period, the overall response rate for existing cases increased from 41 percent to 55
percent (Table 3). Response rates increased for all sample groups, but the increases were larger
for Groups B, C and D (about 16 percentage points) than for Group A (about 8 percentage
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
7
points). While the response rate gap between treatment and comparison individuals is still
statistically significant, the size of the gap has decreased. For example, the initial gap between
Groups A and B was almost 17 percentage points, but after six weeks under the new regime, the
gap fell to under 10 percentage points.
Importantly, there were significant increases in response rates in states that had already been
in the field for some time (Table 4 and Appendix Table A.1). Response rate growth had been
very slow in many of these states for several months, but response rates increased sharply after
September 20, 2008. As an illustration, Figures 1 to 3 display the growth trajectory in response
rates for Tennessee, Washington, and Texas. Thus, the sudden increase in state response rates
after the new procedures were implemented is likely to be attributable to the new regime. While
most of the new completions occurred within the first five weeks of the new regime, the
completion rate is still on an upward trajectory (Figure 4).
The response rate increases could be due to both procedural and incentive payment changes.
To isolate the effects of the procedural changes, we examined the completion rate of existing
cases who, under the new regime, were randomly assigned to the $25 incentive group (Table 5).
For these cases, the only regime changes were procedural, not financial. 3 The completion rate
for these cases was 12 percent for Group A, 18 percent for Group B, 23 percent for Group C, and
16 percent for Group D (Table 5). These results suggest that the procedural changes had some
effect on improving response rates.
The procedural changes may have been more effective for Groups B to D than Group A for
several reasons. First, the official letterhead sent by priority mail may have been more important
for those in Groups B to D who may have had little or no awareness of the TAA program.
Second, the original response rates were higher for Group A than for the other groups,
suggesting that existing cases in Group A may have been more likely than their counterparts to
be hard-core nonresponders.
The larger incentive payments also played a role in increasing response rates for the existing
cases (Table 5). For Group A, the response rate was significantly higher for the $50 incentive
group (22 percent) than for the $25 incentive group (12 percent). Similarly, for Groups B and D,
the response rate was significantly higher for the $50 and $75 incentive groups (about 25
percent) than for the $25 incentive group (about 16-17 percent). Importantly, however, we find
no significant differences between the $50 and $75 incentive for these cases. The response rate
for Group C did not vary by the incentive amount, a finding for which we have no explanation.
Finally, we find similar patterns of results across gender and age categories (Table 6).
3
For this analysis we excluded existing cases from Michigan and Ohio because these states that had been in
the field for less than 3 months when the changes occurred.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
8
b. New Cases
The analysis of new cases— those released for interviewing after September 20, 2008—is
based on data from six states (Virginia, Colorado, South Carolina, Missouri, Georgia, and New
York). The follow-up period for this analysis is only about six weeks on average, so it is still too
early to predict final response rates for these cases. Individuals from Florida are excluded from
the analysis, because these cases were released for interviewing within the last week.
We assessed the overall effects of the regime changes on new cases by comparing the
response rates of the new cases to those of earlier cases during the first six weeks after they were
released for interviewing. This analysis provides suggestive evidence, but may not be conclusive
because there may be systematic differences between the two sets of states that are related to
response rates (and because of small numbers of new cases).
Based on this analysis, it appears that the new regime increased response rates for new cases
(Table 7). The overall response rate is 60 percent for the new Group A cases, compared to 44
percent for older cases six weeks after they were released for interviews. Furthermore, response
rate differences between the new and older cases are even larger for Groups B to D. Under the
old regime, their interview completion rate after six weeks was 29 percent, compared to 51
percent under the new regime. Thus, response rate differences between the treatment and
comparison groups appear to be considerably smaller under the new regime.
There is evidence that response rates for new cases are positively correlated with the size of
their incentive payment for the comparison groups (Groups B and D), but not for the treatment
groups (Table 8). For example, the response rate for Group A did not vary by incentive amount,
but the response rate in Group D was about 15 percentage points higher for those in the $50 and
$75 incentive groups than for those in the $25 incentive group (51 percent versus 36 percent).
For new cases in Groups B to D, the response rates for the $75 incentive groups were larger
than for the $50 incentive groups, but, in general, the differences are not substantial (Table 8).
The differences are about 8 percentage points for Group B (and are statistically significant), but
are only about 3 percentage points for Groups C and D (and are not statistically significant). For
Groups B-D combined, the difference is statistically significant at the 10 percent level, a result
which is due primarily to Group B.
Similar findings emerge by gender and age (Table 9). Small sample sizes may explain the
instability of some results.
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
9
D. OPTIONS FOR FUTURE BASELINE INTERVIEWING
The TAA survey presents some unique challenges. Survey staff are typically starting with a
single name, address, and telephone number from the UI claims records that are more than two
years old. This contact information is out-of-date for many sample members. An additional
challenge is that for individuals in Groups B to D, the survey request did not prove to be highly
compelling, partly because they did not have any attachment to the TAA program. After the
initial six months of baseline interviewing, the completion rate was lower than expected and
there was a difference in response rates across the treatment and comparison samples. These
results motivated the earlier request to OMB to modify the incentive payments.
There is evidence that the new regime increased response rates for both existing and new
cases during the eight-week follow-up period. Under the new regime, the overall response rate
for existing cases increased from 41 to 55 percent, and the response rate increased significantly
in states where response rate growth had been very slow for some time. In addition, response
rates were higher for new cases than comparable older cases. Importantly, under the new regime,
the difference between response rates across the treatment and comparison groups fell for both
the existing and new cases.
The response rate increases appear to be due both to procedural changes and higher
incentive payments. The findings from the incentive payment experiment, however, differ
somewhat for the existing and new cases. For Group A, the $50 incentive group had significantly
higher response rates than the $25 incentive group for existing cases, but not for new cases. For
Groups B-D, the $25 group had the lowest response rates for both new and existing cases. For
these cases, however, there were no differences between the $50 and $75 incentive for existing
cases, although there were some differences for new cases.
With these results in mind, options for future baseline interviewing are as follows:
• The procedural changes discussed above should be continued. This would include, for
example, sending all correspondence letters using DOL letterhead.
• A postcard should be sent to hard-to-locate new cases in all sample groups. The
postcard will be sent to nonrespondents about one month after they are released for
interviewing.
• Incentive Payment Option 1: Offer a $50 incentive to remaining nonrespondents and
new cases in all sample groups, where individuals currently eligible for the $25
incentive will be notified by regular first-class mail that the incentive amount has
increased. The justification for this approach is that (1) response rates were higher for
the $50/$75 than $25 incentive groups for existing cases in all sample groups, and for
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
PAGE:
Sande Schifferes
Peter Schochet; Pat Nemeth; Jillian Berk
11/20/2008
10
new cases in Groups B-D; and (2) there were uneven differences in response rates
between the $50 and $75 groups for those in Groups B-D.
• Incentive Payment Option 2: Offer a $75 incentive to remaining nonrespondents and
new cases in Groups B-D and a $50 incentive for those in Group A, where individuals
who are currently eligible for the $25 or $50 incentive will be notified by regular firstclass mail that the incentive amount has increased. The justification for this approach
rather than Option 1 is that for Groups B-D, response rates for new cases in the $75
groups were about 3 to 8 percentage higher than for those in the $50 incentive groups,
although the differences are statistically significant only for Group B.
• Incentive Payment Option 3: Same as Option 1 or 2 for Groups B-D, and offer a $25
incentive payment to new cases in Group A. The justification for this approach is that
for new cases in Group A, there were no differences in response rates between the $25
and $50 incentive (although there were large differences for existing cases).
After consultation with OMB regarding the most appropriate approach and a final decision
is reached, the contractor will (1) notify existing nonrespondents about pertinent incentive rate
increases, (2) release for interviewing cases from the final three states that will be included in the
evaluation, and (3) release additional new cases across all states to achieve the target number of
8,000 completed baseline interviews.
TABLE 1
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES UNDER THE FIRST INCENTIVE EXPERIMENT,
BY SAMPLE GROUP AND INCENTIVE GROUP
Sample Group
Incentive Group
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
$25 Post-Payment
50.6*
35.6
43.0
32.2*
39.3*
$2 Pre-Payment,
$25 Post-Payment
61.4
38.7
44.7
36.5
44.4
$5 Pre-Payment,
$20 Post-Payment
55.1
39.6
40.1
38.5
42.9
All Groups
53.7
37.0
42.7
34.4
41.0
Total Cases
1,610
2,865
820
1,537
6,832
Notes:
Sample members were randomly assigned to one of three incentive groups: 1) a $25 post-payment only
group (60 percent of cases), 2) a $2 pre-payment and $25 post-payment group (20 percent of cases),
and 3) a $5 pre-payment and $20 post-payment group (20 percent of cases). The response rates are as
of September 19, 2008.
*F-test of differences in response rates across incentive groups is significantly different from zero at the .05 level,
two-tailed test.
TABLE 2
THE SAMPLE SIZE OF EXISTING CASES WHO WERE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NEW REGIME,
BY INCENTIVE AMOUNT AND SAMPLE GROUP
Sample Group
Incentive Group
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
$25 Payment
337
395
94
199
1,025
$50 Payment
358
663
166
368
1,555
$75 Payment
NA
620
172
363
1,155
Total Cases
695
1,678
432
930
3,735
Note:
Sample sizes measured as of September 19, 2008.
NA = Not applicable
11
TABLE 3
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES FOR EXISTING CASES BEFORE AND AFTER
THE ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME, BY SAMPLE GROUP
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
53.7
37.0*
42.7
34.4*
41.0
After
62.4
52.8*
57.2
50.0*
54.9
Total Cases
1,610
2,865
820
1,537
6,832
Note:
The response rates before the regime change are as of September 19, 2008, and the response rates after
the regime change are as of November 20, 2008.
*The t-test of Group A (Group C) versus Group B (Group D) response rates differences is significantly different
from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.
TABLE 4
OVERALL BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES FOR EXISTING CASES
BEFORE AND AFTER THE ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME, BY STATE
Interview Release
Date
Response Rate Before
New Regime
Current Response
Rate
Total Number of
Cases
Tennessee
3/06/2008
48.3
56.8
487
Washington
3/06/2008
43.6
51.5
344
Minnesota
3/17/2008
60.4
66.3
288
New Jersey
4/04/2008
36.5
42.8
362
Indiana
4/24/2008
46.7
57.4
411
Wisconsin
4/24/2008
55.0
65.7
338
Arkansas
5/29/2008
43.5
56.5
377
New Hampshire
6/09/2008
34.7
45.1
277
Texas
6/09/2008
26.3
41.5
354
Kentucky
6/09/2008
41.6
54.7
322
Rhode Island
6/16/2008
40.2
52.7
366
Illinois
6/27/2008
36.1
49.6
452
Maryland
6/27/2008
38.8
54.1
327
North Carolina
6/27/2008
41.4
57.1
1,055
Ohio
8/05/2008
40.9
58.0
474
Michigan
9/05/2008
29.9
60.7
598
41.0
54.9
6,832
Overall Response
Rate / Sample Size
Note:
The response rates before the regime change are as of September 19, 2008, and the response rates after
the regime change are as of November 20, 2008.
12
FIGURE 1
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES IN TENNESSEE,
BY WEEKS IN THE FIELD
Note: The vertical line indicates the time when the new regime was implemented.
13
FIGURE 2
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES IN WASHINGTON,
BY WEEKS IN THE FIELD
Note: The vertical line indicates the time when the new regime was implemented.
14
FIGURE 3
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES IN TEXAS,
BY WEEKS IN THE FIELD
Note: The vertical line indicates the time when the new regime was implemented.
15
FIGURE 4
RESPONSE RATES OF ALL EXISTING CASES UNDER NEW REGIME,
BY WEEKS SINCE THE ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME
Note: The figure excludes sample cases from Michigan and Ohio because these states were in the field for fewer
than 6 weeks prior to the onset of the new regime.
16
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING CASES COMPLETING INTERVIEWS AFTER THE START OF
THE NEW REGIME, BY INCENTIVE AND SAMPLE GROUP
Sample Group
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Groups B-D
Combined
$25 Payment
12.0*
17.7*
23.4
16.1
18.0*
$50 Payment
22.3
25.4
26.5
25.4
25.6
$75 Payment
NA
26.3
25.3
23.5
25.2
Overall Rate
17.3
24.0
25.4
22.6
23.7
Total Cases
571
1357
359
778
2,494
Incentive Group
Notes:
The table excludes sample cases from Michigan and Ohio because these states were in the field for fewer
than 6 weeks prior to the onset of the new regime. The response rates of the existing cases eligible for the
new regime are as of November 20, 2008.
* F-test of differences in response rates across incentive groups is significantly different from zero at the .05 level,
two-tailed test.
NA = Not applicable
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE OF EXISTING CASES COMPLETING INTERVIEWS AFTER THE START OF
THE NEW REGIME, BY GENDER AND AGE
Sample Group
Subgroup
$25 Payment
$50 Payment
$75 Payment
Overall Rate
Full Sample
16.0
24.8
25.2
22.5
Female
Male
17.0
15.2
24.2
25.3
30.9
21.1
24.2
21.2
Under 40
40 – 49
50+
15.9
14.0
17.7
24.6
25.9
24.1
22.8
24.7
27.8
21.7
22.4
23.4
Total Cases
836
1274
955
3065
Notes:
The table excludes sample cases from Michigan and Ohio because these states were in the field for fewer
than 6 weeks prior to the onset of the new regime. The response rates of the existing cases eligible for the
new regime are as of November 20, 2008.
17
TABLE 7
RESPONSE RATE AFTER SIX WEEKS IN THE FIELD, BY INCENTIVE REGIME AND SAMPLE GROUP
Sample Group
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Groups B-D
Combined
New Regime
59.6
51.2
53.8
48.8
50.9
Old Regime
After 6 Weeks
43.6
29.7
33.9
26.5
29.4
Sample Size:
New Cases
Old Cases
490
1,370
887
2,395
249
699
486
1,295
1,622
4,389
Incentive Group
Notes:
The response rates under the new regime excludes cases from Florida because this state was in the field
for fewer than 2 weeks prior to November 20, 2008. The response rates under the old regime excludes
Ohio and Michigan because these two states were in the field for fewer than 6 weeks under that regime.
Response rates for the new cases are as of November 20, 2008.
NA = Not applicable
TABLE 8
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES FOR NEW CASES RELEASED AFTER THE
ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME, BY INCENTIVE AND SAMPLE GROUP
Sample Group
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
Groups B-D
Combined
$25 Payment
59.6
40.6*
51.1
36.3*
40.9*
$50 Payment
59.6
49.9
52.6
50.8
50.5
$75 Payment
NA
57.8
56.2
52.5
55.9
Overall Rate
59.6
51.2
53.8
48.8
50.9
Total Cases
490
887
249
486
1,622
Incentive Group
Notes:
The table excludes new cases from Florida because this state was in the field for fewer than 2 weeks prior
to November 20, 2008. Response rates for the new cases are as of November 20, 2008.
* F-test of differences in response rates across incentive groups is significantly different from zero at the .05 level,
two-tailed test.
NA = Not applicable
18
TABLE 9
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES FOR NEW CASES RELEASED AFTER THE
ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME, BY GENDER AND AGE
Incentive Group
Subgroup
$25 Payment
$50 Payment
$75 Payment
Overall Rate
Full Sample
49.1
53.0
55.9
52.9
Female
Male
53.1
45.2
56.3
49.2
60.1
51.8
56.6
48.9
Under 40
40 – 49
50+
41.5
44.9
54.4
45.9
56.0
54.5
51.5
53.3
60.1
46.7
52.6
56.1
Total Cases
548
913
651
2,112
Note:
The table excludes new cases from Florida because this state was in the field for fewer than 2 weeks prior
to November 20, 2008. Response rates for the new cases are as of November 20, 2008.
NA = Not applicable
19
APPENDIX TABLE A.1
BASELINE INTERVIEW RESPONSE RATES FOR EXISTING CASES BEFORE AND AFTER
THE ONSET OF THE NEW REGIME, BY STATE AND SAMPLE GROUP
ARKANSAS
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
58.0
40.6
40.0
35.7
43.5
After
70.5
53.8
51.1
50.0
56.5
88
160
45
84
377
Total Cases
ILLINOIS
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
46.5
38.0
36.5
22.1
36.1
After
52.5
52.3
55.8
38.5
49.6
Total Cases
101
195
52
104
452
INDIANA
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
55.7
47.9
49.0
34.7
46.7
After
62.9
57.9
63.3
50.0
57.4
97
167
49
98
411
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
52.9
35.5
40.0
39.5
41.6
After
56.5
51.2
57.5
56.6
54.7
85
121
40
76
322
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
49.4
36.7
37.2
32.9
38.8
After
60.0
51.9
53.5
51.4
54.1
85
129
43
70
327
Total Cases
KENTUCKY
Sample Group
Regime Change
Total Cases
MARYLAND
Sample Group
Regime Change
Total Cases
20
Appendix Table A.1 Continued
MICHIGAN
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
38.8
22.7
34.3
33.0
29.9
After
64.2
56.8
64.2
63.2
60.7
Total Cases
134
264
67
133
598
MINNESOTA
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
70.6
52.4
71.4
56.2
60.4
After
73.5
61.0
76.2
61.6
66.3
68
105
42
73
288
Total Cases
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
46.8
31.2
24.4
31.3
34.7
After
53.2
43.1
39.0
41.7
45.1
79
109
41
48
277
Total Cases
NEW JERSEY
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
51.8
31.6
41.9
27.2
36.5
After
54.2
37.4
51.2
37.0
42.8
83
155
43
81
362
Total Cases
NORTH CAROLINA
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
56.8
67.1
50.4
30.1
41.4
After
64.4
56.7
61.3
48.3
57.1
Total Cases
236
464
119
236
1055
21
Appendix Table A.1 Continued
OHIO
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
58.5
35.9
37.0
35.2
40.9
After
67.0
54.9
51.9
58.3
58.0
Total Cases
106
206
54
108
474
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
50.6
34.0
42.9
40.2
40.2
After
65.1
46.5
61.9
47.6
52.7
83
159
42
82
366
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
66.1
47.4
43.7
34.6
48.3
After
68.8
56.8
58.2
44.6
56.9
Total Cases
109
213
55
110
487
RHODE ISLAND
Sample Group
Regime Change
Total Cases
TENNESSEE
Sample Group
Regime Change
Before
TEXAS
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
29.9
21.6
32.6
27.1
26.3
After
39.1
40.3
48.8
42.4
41.5
87
139
43
85
354
Total Cases
WASHINGTON
Sample Group
Regime Change
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
63.0
36.7
41.5
37.3
43.6
After
67.9
46.9
48.8
44.0
51.5
81
147
41
75
344
Group A
Group B
Group C
Group D
All
Before
65.9
52.3
52.3
48.7
55.0
After
73.9
64.4
61.4
60.8
65.7
88
132
44
74
338
Total Cases
WISCONSIN
Sample Group
Regime Change
Total Cases
22
| File Type | application/pdf |
| Author | PSchochet |
| File Modified | 2012-03-13 |
| File Created | 2012-03-13 |