Skip Navigation


Public Opinion Quarterly Advance Access originally published online on May 28, 2009
Public Opinion Quarterly 2009 73(2):361-367; doi:10.1093/poq/nfp018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
73/2/361    most recent
nfp018v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Martin, E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Can A Deadline and Compressed Mailing Schedule Improve Mail Response in the Decennial Census?

Elizabeth Martin

Address correspondence to Elizabeth Martin; e-mail: betsy{at}folhc.org.

This study reports results of a national mailout–mailback experiment that evaluated the effects of a deadline and compressed mailing schedule on response to census mail questionnaires. The experiment finds that providing a deadline and shorter interval (by one week) in which to complete the census form leads to a significantly higher rate of response (by 2.0 percentage points). Data quality was not impaired and in some cases showed significant improvements in the experimental panel (lower item nonresponse for one item and slight improvements in coverage). These results contrast with previous studies suggesting that a due date is not effective for improving response in mail surveys, and imply that a deadline would lead to significant cost savings in the decennial census.


ELIZABETH MARTIN is retired from the U. S. Census Bureau, Suitland, MD, USA. Thanks to Don Dillman for collaborating on the questionnaire design, to Pamela Giambo and David Cantor for managing the project for Westat, to Kathleen Styles, Chad Russell, and Ann Dimler for providing significant support, to Bob Fay for advice on sample design and calculation of variances, to Tammy Adams, Danny Childers, Don Dillman, Eleanor Gerber, and Jim Treat for helpful comments on earlier drafts, and to Cynthia Rothhaas and Eli Krejsa for checking and correcting tabulations and providing useful comments. The research was conducted while the author was employed by the U.S. Census Bureau, which funded the study.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.