2014_EAVS_-_Supporting_Statement_B

Supporting Statement B:
OMB Control Number: 3265-0006
U.S. Election Assistance Commission
2014 Election Administration and Voting Survey
B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and
any sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number
of entities (e.g. establishments, State and local governmental units, households, or
persons) in the universe and the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular
form. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection
had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the
last collection.
This information collection does not use sampling. The respondent universe consists of 55
entities for the 2014 Election Administration and Voting Survey: the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, and the four U.S. territories. The EAC seeks and expects all of the identified
respondents to provide responses to the collection as a whole. In 2008, EAC received
responses from all 55 State and territory respondents. In 2010, EAC received responses
from 53 States and territories (Puerto Rico did not hold federal elections and the U.S. Virgin
Islands submitted its data after the deadline). In 2012, EAC received responses from 54 States
and territories. It is important to note that some of the respondents are exempt from the
NVRA and as such are not required to provide certain data (though most of them did in
2012). In addition, since the manner in which elections are administered vary by
jurisdiction, there are some questions that may not apply to all respondents.
2. Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology
for stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of
accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification; any unusual
problems requiring specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less
frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.
Not applicable to this collection.
3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with nonresponse. The accuracy and reliability of the information collected must be shown to
be adequate for the intended uses.
The EAC has worked closely with State respondents to clarify survey questions and terms,
and encourage full participation. Since 2005, EAC has actively solicited State and local
election officials’ feedback regarding any challenges they may have faced with the survey,
including their experiences with data collection and submission. In addition to election
officials, EAC also consults with social science and elections researchers, voter interest
groups, and other stakeholders to discuss ways to improve the new information collection
based on their expertise. Additionally, EAC presents each new information collection to its
Advisory and Standards Boards, which are composed of 110 state and local election officials,
1

with another 37drawn from various national associations and government agencies that play a
role in the implementation of the Help America Vote Act, and science and technology-related
professionals appointed by Congressional members. Since 2006 the information collection
has also been presented to members of professional associations such as the National
Association of Secretaries of States (NASS) and the National Association of State Election
Directors (NASED) during their annual meetings and their feedback is encouraged.
For both the 2008 and 2010 information collections, these same series of discussions
occurred with these stakeholders. In January 2008, the EAC held conference calls with the
states to discuss issues related to the 2006 survey to solicit feedback on the format for the
2008 survey. That is how we determined that it would be best to split the information
collection into two parts:– the Statutory Overview (qualitative) and the Election
Administration and Voting Survey (quantitative). That format worked well in 2008, which is
why EAC maintained that same format for 2010 and 2012. EAC also sought public comment
on the survey and incorporated many of the more feasible suggestions regarding specific
questions. For 2014, EAC seeks approval for a survey with additional questions taken from
the FVAP Survey of Local Election Officials and added to Section B of the Election
Administration and Voting Survey. In other respects, the 2014 survey will mirror the 2012
During the data collection process, EAC carefully reviews the information submitted by State
respondents to ensure completeness and accuracy of their submissions. In 2010, EAC
implemented an automated error checking function for the data collection template (along
with manual review), which greatly aided in the submission of more quality data. We used
same approach for 2012. Additionally, we also developed approximately 140 error checks
that were applied to the data after initial submission by the States. We will continue to use and
expand this error checking for 2014. Respondents will be contacted by phone and e-mail to
request information regarding missing and/or erroneous data during the data review phase of
the project. Moreover, in an effort to increase response rates, each State and territory will be
assigned to a team leader based on shared characteristics of their election databases, just as
they were in 2008, 2010 and 2012. This team leader will be responsible for communicating
with the State point of contact, supplying supporting materials, answering questions, and
tracking responses. Team leaders will monitor the progress of their assigned States, assisted
by the contractor’s database management team. Email reminders will be sent and telephone
calls placed on an as-needed basis as the data collection progresses. We anticipate all
communication will be via email and telephone. We do not plan to use any interviewer
scripts.
The combination of improved questionnaires and data collection/submission templates, and
additional error checking after initial submission, as well as enhanced technical assistance to
the States is what led to better response rates in 2008 and even better response rates in 2010
and 2012. For example, in 2008, 4,527 local jurisdictions were included in the survey; in
2010, that number increased to 4,678 jurisdictions; in 2012, the number increased to over
8,400. We believe the aforementioned enhancements (along with States’ increased
familiarity with the survey) will lead to similar, if not better, response rates in 2014.
4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Tests are
encouraged as effective means to refine collections, but if ten or more test
respondents are involved OMB must give prior approval.
2

Not applicable to this collection.
5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the
statistical aspects of the design, and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s),
grantee(s), or other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the
information for the agency.
The EAC staff members responsible for conducting this information collection are:
Karen Lynn-Dyson
Director, Research, Policy and Programs Division
1335 East West Highway
Suite 4300
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 563-3919

3

Table taken from page 4 of the 2012 UOCAVA report; full document available at eac.gov

4

Table from Appendix A of the 2012 EAVS Report; full document available at eac.gov

5