SCA - SAMHSA

INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT (SCA) ON NSDUH STAFFING AND DATA QUALITY Contract No. HHSS283201000003C RTI Project No. 0212800.001.108.006.002 Authors:

Project Director:

Kevin Wang Lauren Machingo Hyunjoo Park Bonnie Shook-Sa

Thomas G. Virag

Prepared for: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Rockville, Maryland 20857 Prepared by: RTI International Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 November 2013

INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE IMPACT OF THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT (SCA) ON NSDUH STAFFING AND DATA QUALITY Contract No. HHSS283201000003C RTI Project No. 0212800.001.108.006.002 Authors:

Project Director:

Kevin Wang Lauren Machingo Hyunjoo Park Bonnie Shook-Sa

Thomas G. Virag

Prepared for: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Rockville, Maryland 20857 Prepared by: RTI International Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709 November 2013

Acknowledgments This publication was developed for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), by RTI International (a trade name of Research Triangle Institute), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, under Contract No. HHSS283201000003C. Contributors at SAMHSA listed alphabetically who provided critical input and guidance include Jonaki Bose, Kathy Downey, Art Hughes, and Grace O’Neill. At RTI, in addition to the listed authors, contributors listed alphabetically include Michelle Back, Doug Currivan, Dave Hunter, Valerie Garner, Ilona Johnson, and Thomas G. Virag (RTI Project Director).

ii

Table of Contents Chapter

Page

1.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

2.

Potential for SCA Effects Within 2012 .............................................................................. 3

3.

Potential for SCA Effects Between the 2011 and 2012 Survey Years ............................... 7 3.1 FI Survey Responses ............................................................................................... 7 3.2 Effects of SCA on Response Rates and Attrition Rates ....................................... 11 3.2.1 Pay Rate Difference .................................................................................. 11 3.2.2 Attrition ..................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3 Response Rates ......................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 Comparisons of Pay Rate Changes, Response Rates, and Attrition Rates.......................................................................................................... 16

4.

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 17

Appendix A

2011 and 2012 Survey of FIs for Potential Future Analysis of Service Contract Act (SCA) Effects .................................................................................................................. A-1

B

State-level Attrition and Weighted Response Rates ....................................................... B-1

C

Plots Comparing State-Level Percentages of Interviews Completed by FI Pay Rate Changes with State Level Overall Response Rate Changes and Attrition Rates ............ C-1

iii

iv

List of Tables Table

Page

2.1

Distribution of FIs by SCA Range ...................................................................................... 3

2.2

Distribution of Completed Interviews by SCA Range ....................................................... 4

2.3

Distribution of FIs by SCA Range across Quarters ............................................................ 5

3.1

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Likelihood of Participating in the NSDUH ............................................................................................... 8

3.2

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Importance of NSDUH Data ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Can Convince Reluctant Respondents ........................................................................................................ 9

3.4

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Perceived NSDUH Data Quality ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.5

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Importance of FI Work to the NSDUH......................................................................................................... 10

3.6

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Difficult Challenges.... 10

3.7

Interviews by FI Average Hourly Pay Rate Increases by State, 2012 .............................. 12

B.1

2010 to 2012 Attrition Rates and Average Attrition Rate by State ................................ B-1

B.2

Weighted Response Rates by State and Segment Urbanicity, 2010 ............................... B-3

B.3

Weighted Response Rates by State and Segment Urbanicity, 2011 ............................. B-10

B.4

Weighted Response Rates by State and Segment Urbanicity, 2012 ............................. B-16

v

vi

List of Figures Figure

Page

C.1

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012.................................................................C-1

C.2

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $3 per Hour Pay Increase and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012.................................................................C-2

C.3

Percentage of Interviews by FIs Who Only Completed Interviews in 2012 and FIs with No Change in Pay and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012 ...................C-3

C.4

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase and Attrition Rate, 2012 .........................................................................................................C-4

C.5

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $3 per Hour Pay Increase and Attrition Rate, 2012 .........................................................................................................C-5

C.6

Percentage of Interviews by FIs Who Only Completed Interviews in 2012 and FIs with No Change in Pay and Attrition Rate, 2012 ............................................................C-6

vii

viii

1. Introduction This report provides an assessment of the possible impact of implementing the Service Contract Act (SCA) on interviewer staffing and data quality in the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).1 Under the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA), contractors and subcontractors performing services on prime contracts in excess of $2,500 are required to pay employees no less than the prevailing wage rates and fringe benefits found in the locality. The minimum monetary wages and fringe benefits to be paid are based on prevailing extant wages in the locality. A rate is determined to prevail where a single rate is paid to 50 percent or more of the workers in the same class in a particular locality. If a single rate does not prevail, mean or median rates are used to determine prevailing wage rates for the locality.2 With respect to the NSDUH survey, under SCA, field interviewers (FIs) are paid an hourly rate based upon the location (SCA zone) where they complete the field work. Prior to the implementation of SCA, FIs were paid mostly according to the field supervisor (FS) region in which they were working. An FS region consists of a State, multiple States, or a substate region (e.g., large States such as California or New York may consist of two or more FS regions). Each FS is responsible for one FS region. There were 40 FS regions at the end of the 2012 survey. FSs were provided with targeted pay rates based on average hourly rates being paid for this line of work in their regions. When recruiting new FIs, FSs determined pay rates based on their regions' targeted pay rate and the new recruits past interviewing experience. Since some FS regions contain more than one SCA zone, under SCA, FIs in the same FS region team may have different pay rates depending on the SCA zone in which they are working. In November 2011, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) asked RTI to consider the possible effects of the SCA implementation in the 2012 survey on interviewer staffing and data quality at both the national and State levels. This report focuses on the potential impact of SCA on interviewer attitudes toward the NSDUH and their jobs, attrition rates, and response rates between the 2011 and 2012 survey years. Other measures relevant to data quality, such as interview data from respondents and record of calls (ROC) data, were available and considered, but the current analysis focuses on indicators believed to be adequate to address the main research questions and readily available for analyses. The study set out to answer four questions related to the implementation of SCA: 1. What is the potential impact on data quality from FIs working in more than one SCA zone in which they are paid at different rates in these zones? 2. Did the implementation of SCA in 2012 affect FI attitudes toward the NSDUH survey or their jobs? 3. Did the implementation of SCA in 2012 affect State-level interviewer attrition rates in 2012?

1 2

Information on SCA is available at http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-sca.htm http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/web/SCA_FAQ.htm#wage

1

4. Did the implementation of SCA in 2012 affect State-level response rates between 2011 and 2012?

2

2. Potential for SCA Effects Within 2012 The first step in assessing the impact of SCA was to examine the extent to which FIs in 2011 and the first half of 2012 worked in SCA zones with different pay rates to understand the potential for FIs to spend more hours working in one or more SCA zones with relatively higher pay rates than other assigned zones with lower pay rates. Data from only the first half of 2012 were examined because those were the only data available at the time this was examined. Tables 2.1 to 2.3 show the extent to which FIs in 2011 and the first half of 2012 worked in SCA zones with different pay rates. Specifically, these tables show the range of pay rate differences for (1) FIs working SCA zones that have different pay rates within a quarter and (2) FIs working in SCA zones with different pay rates in consecutive quarters. Table 2.1 shows the distribution of FIs by the maximum differences in pay when FIs worked in different pay zones within the same quarter. A difference of $0 indicates that the FI either worked in only a single SCA zone in that quarter or in more than one SCA zone but there was no difference in pay rates between the SCA zones worked. This analysis was carried out for 2011 and the first two quarters of the 2012 survey year. Also, these data are limited to interviews in which the same FI conducted both the screening and the interview, to remove the potentially confounding effects from FSs reassigning cases to FIs. Because of this restriction, our analysis covers 91 percent of all NSDUH interviews. In addition, all NSDUH segments for 2011 and 2012 were matched to SCA zones, covering all States. The SCA range is the difference between the maximum and minimum pay rates for the SCA zones in which the FI worked that quarter. About 72 percent of FIs in each quarter from 2011 to 2012 worked in SCA zones where there was no difference in pay or in only a single SCA zone, and only about 6 percent of FIs completed interviews in pay zones with a difference of more than $5 per hour.3 Table 2.1

Distribution of FIs by SCA Range 2011 Q1 Num % 486 72.2 34 5.1 47 7.0 24 3.6 23 3.4 29 4.3 19 2.8 3 0.5 4 0.6

SCA Range1 $0 ($0,$1] ($1,$2] ($2,$3] ($3,$4] ($4,$5] ($5,$6] ($6,$7] ($7,$8]

2011 Q2 Num % 470 69.1 32 4.7 42 6.2 35 5.2 32 4.7 32 4.7 24 3.5 8 1.2 3 0.4

2011 Q3 Num % 464 69.4 28 4.2 35 5.2 26 3.9 37 5.5 37 5.5 27 4.0 9 1.4 3 0.5

3

2011 Q4 Num % 479 70.7 36 5.3 39 5.8 33 4.9 34 5.0 16 2.4 18 2.7 16 2.4 6 0.9

2012 Q1 Num % 496 72.6 34 5.0 38 5.6 28 4.1 31 4.5 25 3.7 16 2.3 8 1.2 2 0.3

2012 Q2 Num % 527 73.4 34 4.7 37 5.2 27 3.8 21 2.9 33 4.6 26 3.6 10 1.4 3 0.4 (continued)

Fringe benefits for health as well as holiday and vacation pay are based on the FIs home SCA zone; the benefit does not vary for a given FI by the SCA zone in which the FI is working. As such, these benefits do not affect the calculation of the difference between the maximum and minimum pay rates for each FI.

3

Table 2.1 SCA Range1 ($8,$9] ($9,$10] Total

Distribution of FIs by SCA Range (continued) 2011 Q1 Num % 3 0.5 1 0.2 673 100

2011 Q2 Num % 1 0.2 1 0.2 680 100

2011 Q3 Num % 1 0.2 2 0.3 669 100

2011 Q4 Num % 0 0.0 1 0.2 678 100

2012 Q1 Num % 4 0.6 1 0.2 683 100

2012 Q2 Num % 0 0.0 0 0.0 718 100

FIs = field interviewers; SCA = Service Contract Act. 1 The SCA range uses an open interval on the left and a closed interval on the right. For example, the range ($0,$1] indicates that the amount is greater than $0 and less than or equal to $1. NOTE: Limited to interviews where the same FI conducted both the screening and interview (91% of interviews).

Table 2.2 shows the number of completed interviews across quarters for each SCA range. In 2011, about 60 percent of interviews were completed by FIs who worked only in SCA zones where there was no difference in pay rates. For the first two quarters of 2012, this percentage is slightly higher, with 65 percent of interviews completed by FIs who worked only in SCA zones with no differences in pay rates. Also, the percentage of interviews completed by FIs in which the difference in pay rates was more than $5 per hour ranged from 6.9 percent in the first quarter of 2012 to 9.2 percent in both the second quarter of 2012 and the third quarter of 2011. Table 2.2

Distribution of Completed Interviews by SCA Range

2011 Q1 SCA Range1 Num % $0 9,155 61.9 ($0,$1] 799 5.4 ($1,$2] 1,320 8.9 ($2,$3] 730 4.9 ($3,$4] 745 5.0 ($4,$5] 953 6.4 ($5,$6] 627 4.2 ($6,$7] 89 0.6 ($7,$8] 216 1.5 ($8,$9] 130 0.9 ($9,$10] 29 0.2 Total 14,793 100

2011 Q2 Num % 10,011 59.0 904 5.3 1,105 6.5 1,282 7.6 1,029 6.1 1,165 6.9 923 5.4 323 1.9 97 0.6 55 0.3 84 0.5 16,978 100

2011 Q3 Num % 10,097 61.0 762 4.6 1,015 6.1 765 4.6 1,195 7.2 1,199 7.2 959 5.8 320 1.9 103 0.6 45 0.3 92 0.6 16,552 100

2011 Q4 Num % 9,436 61.6 904 5.9 1,135 7.4 870 5.7 1,017 6.6 720 4.7 585 3.8 463 3.0 186 1.2 0 0.0 14 0.1 15,330 100

2012 Q1 Num % 9,626 65.3 906 6.1 831 5.6 664 4.5 946 6.4 757 5.1 503 3.4 220 1.5 92 0.6 138 0.9 69 0.5 14,752 100

2012 Q2 Num % 10,843 65.4 934 5.6 825 5.0 882 5.3 659 4.0 904 5.5 1,010 6.1 415 2.5 97 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 16,569 100

FI = field interviewer; SCA = Service Contract Act. 1 The SCA range uses a closed interval on the left and an open interval on the right. For example, the range ($0,$1] indicates that the amount is greater than $0 and less than or equal to $1. NOTE: Limited to interviews where the same FI conducted both the screening and interview (91% of interviews).

Finally, in Table 2.3, we show how common it is for FIs to work in different SCA zones across quarters. Table 2.3 shows the distribution of FIs who worked in a single SCA zone in each of two consecutive quarters (e.g., the first and second quarters of 2011) and the SCA range between those quarters. Very few FIs worked in a single SCA zone in a particular quarter followed by working the next quarter in a single SCA zone with a different rate of pay.

4

Overall, we found that about 72 percent of FIs in each quarter from 2011 through the first half of 2012 worked in SCA zones where there was no difference in pay and only about 6 percent of FIs completed interviews in pay zones with a difference of more than $5 per hour. We also found that it is very rare for FIs to work in one pay zone in one quarter followed by working in another pay zone in the next quarter. These findings suggest that the impact of having FIs work in different SCA zones in a given year is likely to be limited since relatively few interviews are conducted by FIs with large pay rate differences within the survey year. Table 2.3

SCA Range1 $0 ($0,$1] ($1,$2] ($2,$3] ($3,$4] ($4,$5] ($5,$6] ($6,$7] ($7,$8] ($8,$9] ($9,$10] Total

Distribution of FIs by SCA Range across Quarters 2011 Q1/Q2 FIs Num % 354 97.0 1 0.3 7 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 365 100

2011 Q2/Q3 FIs Num % 353 97.5 2 0.6 0 0.0 2 0.6 2 0.6 2 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 362 100

2011 Q3/Q4 FIs Num % 345 97.7 1 0.3 3 0.9 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 353 100

2011 Q4/2012 Q1 FIs Num % 341 96.3 6 1.7 3 0.9 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 354 100

2012 Q1/Q2 FIs Num % 388 97.2 0 0.0 6 1.5 3 0.8 0 0.0 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 399 100

FIs = field interviewers; SCA = Service Contract Act. 1 The SCA range uses a closed interval on the left and an open interval on the right. For example, the range ($0,$1] indicates that the amount is greater than $0 and less than or equal to $1. NOTE: Limited to interviews where the same FI conducted both the screening and interview. Limited to interviewers who worked within a single SCA zone within each quarter analyzed.

5

6

3. Potential for SCA Effects Between the 2011 and 2012 Survey Years In Section 2, the data presented showed that in 2011 and the first two quarters of 2012, few FIs worked in more than one SCA zone where there were large differences in hourly pay rate. In this section, the main question is whether the implementation of SCA in 2012 could have led to differences in several outcome measures related to FI attitudes, data quality, and survey operations between 2011 and 2012. The outcomes examined include (1) responses by FIs to the 2011 and 2012 FI surveys, (2) response rates, and (3) attrition rates. Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI survey were examined to assess the potential for the implementation of SCA to affect interviewer attitudes toward the survey or their jobs as interviewers. Response rates were examined since these are often viewed as a measure of the potential for nonresponse bias. Finally, the potential effects of implementing SCA on interviewer attrition were examined since attrition is a key production measure for the NSDUH project to monitor. In order to maintain production and meet response rate goals, the project must recruit and train new interviewers to replace FIs who have left the project. These recruitment and training efforts can translate into significant expenses to the project.

3.1

FI Survey Responses

SAMHSA was concerned that the changes in NSDUH interviewer pay structure might affect interviewer attitudes, potentially affecting estimates and the ability to measure trends. To evaluate this, a survey measuring FI attitudes was administered to FIs during December 2011 and again during November 2012 (i.e., before and after the implementation of the SCA). When the survey was first administered, interviewers and their supervisors (the FSs) had not been informed about the SCA changes. The FI survey consists of seven questions designed to ascertain FI opinions about their work as NSDUH FIs. In 2011, the survey was sent to 656 FIs; 509 participated for a response rate of 77.6 percent. In November 2012, those who participated in the 2011 survey were sent the same survey. Out of 442 FIs who were sent the survey in 2012 (67 of the 2011 respondents had left the NSDUH), 413 participated for a response rate of 93.4 percent. The content of the survey is presented in Appendix A. Tables 3.1 through 3.6 show the cross-tabulation of responses for the six FI survey questions of interest (the other question asked the FI how long they have been working on the survey) for 2011 and 2012. For example, Table 3.1 shows that out of the 413 FIs who took the survey in both 2011 and 2012, 158 answered "very likely" in both 2011 and 2012 to the following question: "If you had no prior knowledge of the survey and you were selected to be a respondent for the NSDUH, how likely or unlikely do you think you would be to participate?" Similarly, 93 answered "somewhat likely" in both years and only 6 who responded with "somewhat unlikely" and 7 with "very unlikely" gave the same responses in both years. Overall, almost 64 percent gave the same response to this item in 2012 that they gave in 2011. Another 26 percent changed their responses from either "somewhat likely" in 2011 to "very likely" 2012 or vice versa. Overall, 18.4 percent provided a response in a higher category (i.e., indicating that

7

they were more likely to participate) compared with 17.7 percent who provided a response in a lower category (i.e., indicating that they were less likely to participate). Table 3.2 shows that 340 FIs answered "very important" in both 2011 and 2012 to the following question: "In your opinion, how important are the data collected for the NSDUH?" There were 31 FIs who gave the same answer of "somewhat important" in both years. Overall, about 90 percent gave the same response to this item in 2012 that they gave in 2011, 5.8 percent provided an answer in a higher category, and 4.1 percent provided an answer in a lower category. Table 3.1

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Likelihood of Participating in the NSDUH

Q2: If you had no prior knowledge of the survey and you were selected to be a respondent for the NSDUH, how likely or unlikely do you think you would be to participate? 2012 Somewhat Somewhat 2011 Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Total Very Likely 158 55 4 1 218 Somewhat Likely 53 93 8 3 157 Somewhat Unlikely 1 18 6 2 27 Very Unlikely 1 1 2 7 11 Total 213 167 20 13 413 FI = field interviewer; NSDUH = National Survey on Drug Use and Health. NOTE: Percent giving the same response on the 2011 and 2012 FI surveys = 63.9.

Table 3.2

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Importance of NSDUH Data

Q3: In your opinion, how important are the data collected for the NSDUH? 2012 Somewhat Not Very Not at all 2011 Very Important Important Important Important Very Important 340 16 1 0 Somewhat Important 19 31 0 0 Not Very Important 0 5 1 0 Not at all Important 0 0 0 0 Total 359 52 2 0

Total 357 50 6 0 413

FI = field interviewer; NSDUH = National Survey on Drug Use and Health. NOTE: Percent giving the same response on the 2011 and 2012 FI surveys = 90.1.

Item Q4 asked FIs to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: "With enough effort, I can convince even the most reluctant respondent to participate in the NSDUH." As shown in Table 3.3, almost 62 percent (256 out of 413) of FIs gave the same answer in 2012 as they gave in 2011, with most of these being responses of "somewhat agree." In addition, 16.2 percent provided a response in a higher category compared with 21.8 percent who provided a response in a lower category.

8

Table 3.4 shows the cross-tabulation of responses to a question on perceived data quality in which FIs were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the following statement: "The data collected for the NSDUH is of the highest quality." There were 326 FIs who gave the same response to this item in 2012 as in 2011 (about 79 percent). More FIs (53) responded with an increased level of agreement from "somewhat agree" to "strongly agree" than those who changed their level of agreement from "strongly agree" to "somewhat agree" (32). Overall, 12.8 percent provided a response in a higher category compared with 8.2 percent who provided a response in a lower category. Table 3.3

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Can Convince Reluctant Respondents

Q4: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. With enough effort, I can convince even the most reluctant respondent to participate in the NSDUH. 2012 Somewhat Somewhat Strongly 2011 Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Total Strongly Agree 35 33 2 1 71 Somewhat Agree 23 175 39 7 244 Somewhat Disagree 4 25 35 8 72 Strongly Disagree 0 8 7 11 26 Total 62 241 83 27 413 FI = field interviewer; NSDUH = National Survey on Drug Use and Health. NOTE: Percent giving the same response on the 2011 and 2012 FI surveys = 61.9.

Table 3.4

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Perceived NSDUH Data Quality

Q5: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. The data collected for the NSDUH is of the highest quality.

2011 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree 287 32 53 39 0 0 0 0 340 71

2012 Somewhat Disagree 0 2 0 0 2

Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 0 0

Total 319 94 0 0 413


As shown in Table 3.5, for item Q5, among those interviewed in both 2011 and 2012, only two FIs did not agree with the statement "My work on the NSDUH is very important to the overall project" in either year. Not surprisingly, almost 94 percent of FIs gave the same response to this question in 2011 and 2012, while 3.9 percent provided a response in a higher category and 2.7 percent provided a response in a lower category. 9

Finally, Table 3.6 shows that about 58 percent of FIs (241 out of 413) gave the same responses in 2012 that they gave in 2011 when asked to give their level of agreement with the statement "My work as a NSDUH interviewer presents many difficult challenges." Differences in responses were fairly symmetrical in that 45 FIs changed their response from "somewhat agree" in 2011 to "strongly agree" in 2012 and the same number of FIs changed their responses from "strongly agree" to "somewhat agree". Overall, 22.3 percent provided a response in a higher category compared with 19.4 percent who provided a response in a lower category. Table 3.5

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Importance of FI Work to the NSDUH

Q6: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. My work on the NSDUH is very important to the overall project. 2012 Somewhat 2011 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 376 9 1 Somewhat Agree 16 10 0 Somewhat Disagree 0 0 0 Strongly Disagree 0 0 0 Total 392 19 1


Total 387 26 0 0 413


Table 3.6

Cross-tabulation of Responses to the 2011 and 2012 FI Survey: Difficult Challenges

Q7: Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. My work as a NSDUH interviewer presents many difficult challenges. 2012 Somewhat 2011 Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Agree 116 45 6 Somewhat Agree 45 103 25 Somewhat Disagree 4 30 15 Strongly Disagree 3 2 8 Total 168 180 54


Total 167 175 51 20 413


Overall, few FIs changed their responses to these questions by more than one response category, suggesting that the implementation of SCA did not have an impact on FIs in terms of attitudes toward the survey. For questions 3, 5, and 6, nearly 80 percent or more of the FIs gave the same responses in 2012 as in 2011. For the other items, very few FIs provided responses in 2012 that differed by more than one response category from their responses in 2011. Also, differences in responses tended to be symmetrical, indicating there was very little overall change in attitudes by FIs between 2011 and 2012. 10

Because of the absence of indicators showing a strong increase in negative or positive responses to the survey question, further analysis was not done comparing pay rate increases among FIs due to the implementation of SCA with responses to the FI survey. It is possible that if SCA had not been implemented in 2012, more FIs would have changed their responses between the 2011 and 2012 survey and the implementation of SCA actually limited changes in responses.

3.2

Effects of SCA on Response Rates and Attrition Rates

This section examines the relationships between FI pay rate differences between 2011 and 2012 and two key outcomes for the survey: response rates (data quality) and attrition rates (survey operations). 3.2.1

Pay Rate Difference

In Section 2, the point-in-time measure of SCA pay rate ranges were examined. The Section 2 analysis focused on the degree to which FIs are faced with different pay rates during the same quarter. In this section, the focus is on a dynamic measure: pay rate differences experienced over time, before and after the implementation of SCA, between 2011 and 2012. For both 2011 and 2012, timesheet records were used to compute average pay rates for each FI for the year based on only the time charged to the screening and interviewing data collection activities for the main survey. Work charged to the 2012 Questionnaire Field Test was not included in this computation. For 2011, hourly pay rates reflect a $.50 increase in pay for FIs who were on "borrowed" status; that is, the FI was temporarily hired into another FS region on an as-needed basis in order to complete work in that region. In 2012, with the implementation of SCA, "borrowed" FIs were not paid a fixed increment amount of pay beyond their usual pay, but were instead paid by the SCA zone in which they were working. Some FIs showed a very small decline in average pay between 2011 and 2012 since their average pay was higher while on "borrowed" status (in 2011) and receiving the $0.50 increase associated with that status than being paid based on their SCA zone where they worked (2012). For this analysis, FIs with declines in pay rates were considered similar to the group of FIs who showed no increase in average hourly pay between 2011 and 2012 for two reasons. First, the magnitude of the decline is very small. About 83 percent of the FIs who showed a decrease experienced a decline of less than $0.25 per hour. For all except one, the decline was less than $0.50. The single FI with a decline of more than $0.50 per hour on average worked exclusively as a traveling FI for the entire first quarter of 2011. For the remainder of the year, this FI received standard pay and was a "borrowed" FI as well. Except for the first quarter of 2011, this FI was similar to other "borrowed" FIs. Second, these "borrowed" FIs are not qualitatively different from other FIs. That is, specific FIs are not necessarily "borrowed" because of any particular set of skills or attributes related to response rates or attrition. "Borrowed" FIs are typically chosen based on proximity to work and availability. Table 3.7 shows the distribution of completed interviews by average FI pay rate increase between 2011 and 2012. FIs who only worked in 2012 are also included as a separate group in 11

this classification in order to provide context for understanding the impact of SCA on the entire 2012 data collection effort. Since 2004, attrition rates have been around 20 percent and FIs leaving the NSDUH project are replaced by new FIs. This attrition rate has been a relatively constant over time and excluding these FIs from the analysis may result in overstating the potential impact of SCA relative to the entire data collection effort. Interviews completed by FIs who had pay rate increases of more than $5 per hour made up less than 7 percent of all interviews conducted in 2012. Interviews completed by FIs with a pay increase of $3 per hour or more made up 23.4 percent of all interviews. On the other hand, 37.4 percent of all interviews in 2012 were completed by FIs who either were not affected by the implementation of SCA because they had not worked in 2011 or saw no change in pay rate between 2011 and 2012. Table 3.7

State AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA

Interviews by FI Average Hourly Pay Rate Increases by State, 2012

n/% n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Average Hourly Pay Rate Increase between 2011 and 2012 FIs Who Only Completed Negative Less than $1 to Less $3 to Less More than Interviews in or No 2012 Increase $1 than $3 than $5 $5 373 275 63 44 74 0 45.0 33.2 7.6 5.3 8.9 0.0 188 7 48 105 425 128 20.9 0.8 5.3 11.7 47.2 14.2 263 19 317 203 1 110 28.8 2.1 34.7 22.2 0.1 12.05 226 94 107 331 164 0 24.5 10.2 11.6 35.9 17.8 0.0 682 440 363 800 875 448 18.9 12.2 10.1 22.2 24.3 12.4 199 182 176 0 370 0 21.5 19.6 19.0 0.0 39.9 0.0 68 1 289 411 131 64 7.1 0.1 30.0 42.6 13.6 6.6 8 132 147 71 402 202 0.8 13.7 15.3 7.4 41.8 21 40 100 378 375 0 0 4.5 11.2 42.3 42.0 0.0 0.0 653 504 426 1,132 657 172 18.4 14.2 12.0 31.9 18.5 4.9 199 128 19 86 245 208 22.5 14.5 2.2 9.7 27.7 23.5 568 353 17 0 0 0 60.6 37.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 249 321 23 303 0 4 27.7 35.7 2.6 33.7 0.0 0.44 0 297 623 1 0 0 0.0 32.3 67.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 554 458 618 1,040 681 321 15.1 12.5 16.8 28.3 18.6 8.7 114 36 262 110 389 0 12.5 4.0 28.8 12.1 42.7 0.0 36 317 119 431 9 0 4.0 34.8 13.1 47.3 1.0 0.0 61 134 226 182 322 2 6.6 14.5 24.4 19.6 34.7 0.22 6 507 118 0 270 0 0.7 56.3 13.1 0.0 30.0 0.0

12

Total 829 901 913 922 3,608 927 964 962 893 3,544 885 938 900 921 3,672 911 912 927 901 (continued)

Table 3.7

State MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN

Interviews by FI Average Hourly Pay Rate Increases by State, 2012 (continued)

n/% n % n % n % n % N % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

Average Hourly Pay Rate Increase between 2011 and 2012 FIs Who Only Negative Completed Interviews in or No Less than $1 to Less $3 to Less More than 2012 Increase $1 than $3 than $5 $5 195 322 225 213 0 0 20.4 33.7 23.6 22.3 0.0 0.0 64 42 115 247 362 44 7.3 4.8 13.2 28.3 41.4 5.03 48 603 276 10 1 0 5.1 64.3 29.4 1.1 0.1 0.0 394 437 817 476 1002 529 10.8 12.0 22.4 13.0 27.4 14.5 34 170 236 96 115 251 3.8 18.9 26.2 10.6 12.8 27.8 56 72 412 150 81 144 6.1 7.9 45.0 16.4 8.9 15.7 44 204 81 272 300 0 4.9 22.6 9.0 30.2 33.3 0.0 156 401 318 1 0 0 17.8 45.8 36.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 120 96 158 103 319 121 13.1 10.5 17.2 11.2 34.8 13.2 0 671 192 32 0 0 0.0 75.0 21.5 3.6 0.0 0.0 125 239 336 139 101 0 13.3 25.4 35.7 14.8 10.7 0.0 115 291 134 410 0 0 12.1 30.6 14.1 43.2 0.0 0.0 155 6 297 296 103 41 17.3 0.7 33.1 33.0 11.5 4.6 0 579 293 7 0 0 0.0 65.9 33.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 107 80 129 450 137 0 11.9 8.9 14.3 49.8 15.2 0.0 679 759 868 809 453 112 18.5 20.6 23.6 22.0 12.3 3.1 353 733 483 820 1,116 182 9.6 19.9 13.1 22.2 30.3 4.9 0 197 115 252 344 0 0.0 21.7 12.7 27.8 37.9 0.0 152 164 84 146 14 363 16.5 17.8 9.1 15.8 1.5 39.3 692 989 591 1,001 253 54 19.3 27.6 16.5 28.0 7.1 1.51 89 376 154 304 0 0 9.6 40.7 16.7 32.9 0.0 0.0 235 0 179 203 159 162 25.1 0.0 19.1 21.6 17.0 17.3 25 697 156 0 0 0 2.9 79.4 17.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 115 259 315 129 75 3.7 12.4 27.9 34.0 13.9 8.1

13

Total 955 874 938 3,655 902 915 901 876 917 895 940 950 898 879 903 3,680 3,687 908 923 3,580 923 938 878 927 (continued)

Table 3.7

State TX

Interviews by FI Average Hourly Pay Rate Increases by State, 2012 (continued)

n/% n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

UT VA VT WA WI WV WY Total

Average Hourly Pay Rate Increase between 2011 and 2012 FIs Who Only Negative Completed Interviews in or No Less than $1 to Less $3 to Less More than 2012 Increase $1 than $3 than $5 $5 699 797 197 1,059 835 38 19.3 22.0 5.4 29.2 23.0 1.1 0 926 0 0 0 0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57 141 0 125 266 305 6.4 15.8 0.0 14.0 29.8 34.1 151 346 348 40 0 0 17.1 39.1 39.3 4.5 0.0 0.0 105 77 30 190 254 272 11.3 8.3 3.2 20.5 27.4 29.3 112 112 282 199 11 159 12.8 12.8 32.2 22.7 1.3 18.2 234 177 129 377 12 47 24.0 18.1 13.2 38.6 1.2 4.8 184 533 211 0 0 0 19.8 57.4 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 9,901 15,657 12,444 14,367 11,382 4,558 14.5 22.9 18.2 21.0 16.7 6.7

Total 3,625 926 894 885 928 875 976 928 68,309

There appears to be considerable variation in pay rate changes at the State level. In four States (Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington) and the District of Columbia, more than 20 percent of interviews were completed by FIs with pay rate increases of more than $5 per hour. In contrast, there are also six States in which more than 75 percent of the interviews were completed by FIs who either did not work in 2011 or saw no change in pay between 2011 and 2012 (Alaska, Hawaii, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming). In another eight States, 50 percent or more of the interviews were completed by FIs who did not work in 2011 or did not see a change in pay between 2011 and 2012. 3.2.2

Attrition

For the purpose of evaluating the potential effects of SCA implementation on attrition, a more refined definition of attrition was adopted. First, the attrition rate during a particular survey year was based on FIs who were working as of January 1st for that survey year. FIs hired during the course of the 2012 survey year (after January 1, 2012) were not considered as part of the numerator or denominator of the attrition rate for that year since they could not be directly affected by the implementation of SCA. FIs who were hired at any time in 2011 and were working as of January 1, 2012, were included in this analysis (unless they did not complete any interviews at all in 2012). Second, attrition itself was limited to FIs leaving the project for the Headway categories of "resignation-normal" and "job abandonment."4 FIs leaving the project for the following reasons were not counted as attrition because these reasons for leaving are presumably unrelated to the implementation of SCA: 4

The subcontractor Headway Corporate Resources is the staffing agency serving as the employer of record for all FIs hired for the NSDUH.

14

•

Leave of Absence

•

Illness/Injury

•

Falsification

•

Normal Disciplinary Process

•

Released from employment (lack of work in the area).

FIs classified as leaving due to "Job Abandonment" are FIs who are no longer working on the project and left without any contact with Headway or the FS. FIs classified as "resignation-normal" are essentially FIs who resigned from the project for reasons other than the ones shown above. The category is also used to denote FIs who are eligible to be rehired. A final refinement of the attrition rate's denominator was to use information gathered during the process of attempting to administer the FI exit interview. These interviews were conducted by survey specialists on the NSDUH operations team. The purpose of the exit interview is to obtain information on FIs in the "resignation-normal" category to learn more about what circumstances led an FI to resign from the project. Responses from the FI exit interview, such as stated reasons for resigning from the project, were not used in the measurement of attrition since the response rate for the exit interview has historically been in the 50 to 60 percent range. Thus, although information obtained during the course of attempting to conduct the FI exit interview was used to further refine the measurement of the attrition rate, information from the interview itself was not used due to potential nonresponse bias. Attrition rates by State are presented in Table B.1 in Appendix B. The average attrition rate at the State level for 2012 was about 15 percent with a standard deviation of 12 percent. There is considerable variation in attrition rates at the State level due in part to some States having a small number of FIs and the attrition rate can change considerably if only a few FIs in a given State leave the project. For 2010 and 2011, the average State-level attrition rates were 19.4 (standard deviation 17.4 percent) and 23.0 percent (standard deviation 15.2 percent), respectively. 3.2.3

Response Rates

Weighted, State-level response rates are shown in Table B.2 in Appendix B. The weighted screening response rate (SRR) is defined as the weighted number of households that complete the screener divided by the weighted number of eligible households.5 The weight for this is the inverse of the unconditional probability of selection for the household and excludes adjustments for nonresponse and poststratification. The weighted interview response rate (IRR) is defined as the weighted number of respondents (completed interviews)6 divided by the weighted number of selected persons. The weight for the IRR is the inverse of the probability of selection for the person and includes household (screener)-level nonresponse and 5

A completed screener is one in which all screening questionnaire items were answered by an adult resident of the households and either zero, one, or two household members were selected for the NSDUH interview. 6 To be a completed interview, the respondent must provide enough information to pass the usable case rule. This rule requires that a respondent answer "yes" or "no" to the question on lifetime use of cigarettes and "yes" or "no" to at least nine additional lifetime use questions.

15

poststratification adjustments (based on the screener). The weighted overall response rate (ORR) is the product of the weighted screening and interview response rates. These were also computed separately for urban and rural segments since FIs are generally paid more for work in urban SCA zones than in rural SCA zones. In general, the average change in the response rate from 2011 to 2012 was fairly small. For example, the average overall weighted response rate change at the State level was -1.3 percent with a standard deviation of 3.0 percent. For some States, however, response rates increased between 2011 and 2012, so changes in response rates at the State level did not uniformly decline. There was no marked difference in declines in the overall response rates by urban/rural status. Overall response rates in urban areas declined by 1.6 percent, while rates in rural areas declined by 1.3 percent. Overall response rates in rural areas showed more variation than those in urban areas. The standard deviation in rural area response rates was 6.9 percent, while it was only 3.4 percent in urban areas. 3.2.4

Comparisons of Pay Rate Changes, Response Rates, and Attrition Rates

Based on a review of the distribution of pay rate changes, three levels were used for classifying percentages of interviews in each State by pay rate increase for comparison with response rates and attrition rates: 1. $5 or more per hour 2. $3 or more per hour 3. No increase (including FIs who only completed interviews in 2012). Plots of the percentages of interviews completed in each State by these categories and changes in overall response rates between 2011 and 2012 and attrition rates are shown in Figures C.1 to C.6 in Appendix C. These plots provide an exploration of the presence of systematic relationships between the percentages of work completed in each State by pay rate change and response rates and attrition rates. For example, if States with higher percentages of work completed by FIs with low pay rate changes also experienced lower response rates or higher attrition rates, this may lead to differences in State-level estimates, which in turn may affect State-level estimates both at a point in time as well as over time. Overall, they do not provide any evidence of strong relationships between the percentage of interviews in each State worked by FIs in a given category of pay rate increase and either changes in response rates between 2011 and 2012 or attrition rates in 2012. About two-thirds of the States experienced overall response rate decline in 2012 compared with 2010 or 2011. This declining pattern does not seem to be related to the proportion of interviews completed by FIs in a given category of pay rate increase. The same is true for attrition rate. That is, there is no clear pattern showing that States with higher FI attrition rates in 2012 were more likely to have higher percentages of interviews completed by FIs in a particular pay rate increase category.

16

4. Conclusions Based on the analyses reported here, the potential for implementation of SCA to affect data quality appears quite limited. FIs do not appear to be deliberately working longer hours in higher paying zones at the expense of work in lower paying zones and thereby affecting data quality. Also, there is no strong evidence of any effects of SCA implementation on (1) interviewer attitudes toward the NSDUH and the job of being an FI, (2) State-level response rates, and (3) State-level attrition rates in 2012. The potential impact on data quality from FIs working in more than one SCA zone in which they are paid at different rates in these zones appears to be minimal. Under SCA, FIs are paid an hourly rate based on where they are working rather than where they live. Some FIs work in more than one SCA zone and if those rates have different pay rates, FIs may attempt to work more hours in higher paying zones while spending less time in lower paying zones, on a per case basis. Based on data from 2011 and the first half of 2012, it appears that relatively few FIs have work assignments in which there is a large range in pay rates in multiple SCA zones within the same quarter. Most FIs either worked in a single SCA zone or worked in multiple zones and there were no differences in pay rates between zones. Thus, the opportunities for FIs to essentially trade-off time spent working in higher versus lower paying zones appears limited. The implementation of SCA in 2012 did not appear to affect FI attitudes toward the NSDUH survey or their jobs. In the FI survey, interviewers were asked several questions on interviewer attitudes toward the NSDUH and their jobs as interviewers in December 2011 and these questions were repeated in November 2012. For some items, few FIs changed their responses between the two surveys. For other items, changes in response by more than one response category were rare. Overall, there was little evidence of major shifts in interviewer attitudes as a result of the implementation of SCA. Changes in pay rates for FIs between 2011 and 2012 at the State level were compared with State-level attrition rates, a key measure related to survey operations. Visual inspection of plots of State-level attrition rates in 2012 with percentages of interviews completed by FIs by several pay rate change categories did not yield obvious relationships between these two measures. There is no evidence that States with higher proportions of interviews completed by FIs with higher pay increases led to lower attrition rates. Finally, response rate changes at the State level, an indicator associated with survey data quality, were also compared with changes in pay rates at the State level. Very little relationship was observed in plots of changes of the overall weighted State-level response rates against Statelevel percentages of interviews completed by FIs by pay rate change. Changes in State-level response rates appear to be independent of the distribution of pay rate changes at the State level.

17

18

Appendix A: 2011 and 2012 Survey of FIs for Potential Future Analysis of Service Contract Act (SCA) Effects

2011 and 2012 SCA FI Survey Questions 1. How long have you worked on the NSDUH? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Less than 1 year at least 1 year, but less than 2 years at least 2 years, but less than 4 years at least 4 years, but less than 6 years at least 6 years, but less than 8 years at least 8 years, but less than 10 years at least 10 years, but less 15 than years 15 years or more

2. If you had no prior knowledge of the survey and you were selected to be a respondent for the NSDUH, how likely or unlikely do you think you would be to participate? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely

3. In your opinion, how important are the data collected for the NSDUH? 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very important Somewhat important Not very important Not at all important

4. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. With enough effort, I can convince even the most reluctant respondent to participate in the NSDUH. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

5. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. The data collected for the NSDUH is of the highest quality. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree A-1

6. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. My work on the NSDUH is very important to the overall project. 1. 2. 3. 4.


7. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statement. My work as a NSDUH interviewer presents many difficult challenges. 1. 2. 3. 4.


A-2

Appendix B: State-level Attrition and Weighted Response Rates

Table B.1

B-1

State AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT

2010 to 2012 Attrition Rates and Average Attrition Rate by State 2010 Attrited FIs 0 0 3 6 2 4 1 1 1 7 0 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 6 4 0 1 5

2010 Total FIs 5 9 8 11 38 9 8 9 6 24 7 10 8 5 37 10 8 11 7 11 6 6 33 11 9 9 11

2011 Attrited FIs 3 3 5 4 1 1 2 2 1 5 5 4 2 1 5 1 3 0 3 3 1 1 4 4 0 4 2

2011 Total FIs 7 10 8 10 37 7 8 10 7 33 10 10 8 9 42 10 9 12 14 10 6 9 33 11 9 11 8

2012 Attrited FIs 1 2 3 5 5 1 1 0 0 5 2 1 1 0 5 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 2 2 3

2012 Total FIs 9 12 9 11 43 10 7 10 7 33 8 8 8 10 45 12 7 12 14 9 6 9 32 8 9 11 10

2010 Attrition Rate 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 54.55% 5.26% 44.44% 12.50% 11.11% 16.67% 29.17% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% 20.00% 10.81% 10.00% 12.50% 9.09% 28.57% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 18.18% 36.36% 0.00% 11.11% 45.45%

2011 Attrition Rate 42.86% 30.00% 62.50% 40.00% 2.70% 14.29% 25.00% 20.00% 14.29% 15.15% 50.00% 40.00% 25.00% 11.11% 11.90% 10.00% 33.33% 0.00% 21.43% 30.00% 16.67% 11.11% 12.12% 36.36% 0.00% 36.36% 25.00%

2012 Attrition Rate 11.11% 16.67% 33.33% 45.45% 11.63% 10.00% 14.29% 0.00% 0.00% 15.15% 25.00% 12.50% 12.50% 0.00% 11.11% 33.33% 0.00% 0.00% 7.14% 0.00% 16.67% 0.00% 12.50% 12.50% 22.22% 18.18% 30.00%

2010-2012 Average Attrition Rate 17.99% 15.56% 44.44% 46.67% 6.53% 22.91% 17.26% 10.37% 10.32% 19.82% 25.00% 20.83% 12.50% 10.37% 11.28% 17.78% 15.28% 3.03% 19.05% 10.00% 16.67% 9.26% 14.27% 28.41% 7.41% 21.89% 33.48% (continued)

Table B.1

B-2

State NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY Total

2010 to 2012 Attrition Rates and Average Attrition Rate by State (continued) 2010 Attrited FIs 5 2 1 1 3 0 7 9 6 3 2 1 0 3 1 2 7 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 116

FIs = field interviewers.

2010 Total FIs 9 5 9 10 7 6 11 34 32 7 9 33 8 9 4 9 21 8 12 8 7 8 8 10 613

2011 Attrited FIs 4 2 1 0 1 1 4 5 6 1 5 6 0 5 2 0 10 0 4 4 4 2 3 3 143

2011 Total FIs 10 6 9 11 9 12 11 37 35 9 11 31 9 10 8 11 31 9 12 10 10 10 10 15 704

2012 Attrited FIs 2 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 3 1 3 6 1 6 0 1 6 1 3 0 2 1 2 2 100

2012 Total FIs 11 8 12 11 10 12 8 35 37 11 11 33 8 10 7 10 25 9 14 9 8 11 9 11 711

2010 Attrition Rate 55.56% 40.00% 11.11% 10.00% 42.86% 0.00% 63.64% 26.47% 18.75% 42.86% 22.22% 3.03% 0.00% 33.33% 25.00% 22.22% 33.33% 0.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 10.00% 18.92%

2011 Attrition Rate 40.00% 33.33% 11.11% 0.00% 11.11% 8.33% 36.36% 13.51% 17.14% 11.11% 45.45% 19.35% 0.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0.00% 32.26% 0.00% 33.33% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 30.00% 20.00% 20.31%

2012 Attrition Rate 18.18% 37.50% 16.67% 9.09% 0.00% 8.33% 25.00% 2.86% 8.11% 9.09% 27.27% 18.18% 12.50% 60.00% 0.00% 10.00% 24.00% 11.11% 21.43% 0.00% 25.00% 9.09% 22.22% 18.18% 14.06%

2010-2012 Average Attrition Rate 37.91% 36.94% 12.96% 6.36% 17.99% 5.56% 41.67% 14.28% 14.67% 21.02% 31.65% 13.52% 4.17% 47.78% 16.67% 10.74% 29.86% 3.70% 34.92% 13.33% 21.67% 9.70% 25.74% 16.06% 17.77%

Table B.2

State AK

AL

AR

B-3

AZ

CA

CO

CT

DC

Weighted Response Rates by State and Segment Urbanicity, 2010

Urban/Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural

Total Selected DUs 2,226 1,566 660 2,879 1,752 1,127 2,595 1,708 887 2,655 2,325 330 9,282 8,674 608 2,529 2,104 425 2,474 2,415 59 5,113 5,113 0

Total Eligible DUs 1,719 1,288 431 2,284 1,445 839 2,108 1,409 699 2,059 1,824 235 8,087 7,657 430 2,084 1,810 274 2,158 2,112 46 4,192 4,192 0

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 76.86% 82.08% 64.91% 79.41% 83.05% 74.18% 81.22% 82.12% 79.42% 75.02% 76.28% 68.49% 86.15% 88.15% 63.42% 81.53% 84.90% 63.22% 87.08% 87.36% 78.15% 79.55% 79.55% -

Total Completed Screeners 1,583 1,186 397 2,099 1,333 766 1,948 1,283 665 1,861 1,653 208 6,910 6,567 343 1,912 1,665 247 1,812 1,772 40 3,403 3,403 0

Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 92.02% 92.00% 92.10% 91.94% 92.27% 91.42% 92.51% 91.28% 95.06% 90.14% 90.63% 87.33% 85.48% 85.80% 80.50% 92.20% 92.53% 89.81% 83.73% 83.64% 86.89% 79.88% 79.88% -

Total Selected 1,057 792 265 1,121 736 385 1,123 768 355 1,149 1,024 125 4,739 4,551 188 1,117 1,001 116 1,151 1,132 19 1,110 1,110 0

Total Respondents 868 645 223 878 581 297 899 617 282 925 831 94 3,715 3,567 148 904 812 92 926 908 18 935 935 0

Weighted Interview Response Rate 77.75% 76.78% 80.78% 71.86% 71.76% 72.01% 75.16% 75.77% 73.87% 72.97% 74.15% 65.79% 71.96% 72.03% 70.58% 79.29% 79.90% 74.96% 75.17% 74.83% 97.80% 81.34% 81.34% -

Weighted Overall Response Rate 71.55% 70.64% 74.40% 66.07% 66.21% 65.83% 69.53% 69.16% 70.22% 65.77% 67.20% 57.45% 61.52% 61.80% 56.81% 73.11% 73.93% 67.32% 62.94% 62.59% 84.98% 64.97% 64.97% (continued)

Table B.2

State DE

FL

GA

B-4

HI

IA

ID

IL

IN

Weighted Response Rates by State and Segment Urbanicity, 2010 (continued)


Total Selected DUs 2,621 2,224 397 13,206 12,049 1,157 2,385 1,842 543 2,861 2,549 312 2,574 1,790 784 2,624 1,781 843 10,614 9,487 1,127 2,743 2,222 521


Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 80.87% 79.81% 86.69% 74.07% 73.88% 76.04% 83.01% 84.05% 79.21% 84.96% 85.03% 84.33% 84.95% 85.22% 84.34% 76.94% 81.51% 66.23% 86.14% 86.21% 85.57% 83.61% 83.92% 82.39%


Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 87.67% 87.48% 88.60% 89.01% 88.85% 90.72% 91.21% 91.57% 89.83% 85.56% 85.77% 83.79% 94.61% 94.50% 94.88% 94.43% 94.25% 94.94% 80.95% 79.96% 89.14% 91.97% 91.45% 94.07%

Total Selected 1,099 910 189 4,460 4,102 358 1,131 927 204 1,296 1,175 121 1,113 816 297 1,113 801 312 4,762 4,274 488 1,142 946 196

Total Respondents 889 734 155 3,655 3,367 288 910 743 167 974 878 96 925 678 247 912 665 247 3,609 3,256 353 916 759 157

Weighted Interview Response Rate 77.52% 76.48% 82.17% 77.37% 77.09% 80.11% 75.51% 76.15% 72.73% 66.88% 66.05% 74.83% 78.90% 79.02% 78.63% 78.24% 79.06% 76.45% 70.77% 71.16% 67.68% 73.88% 75.50% 66.53%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 67.96% 66.90% 72.80% 68.87% 68.49% 72.67% 68.88% 69.74% 65.34% 57.22% 56.65% 62.70% 74.65% 74.67% 74.60% 73.88% 74.52% 72.58% 57.29% 56.90% 60.33% 67.95% 69.04% 62.58% (continued)

Table B.2

State KS

KY

LA

B-5

MA

MD

ME

MI

MN



Total Selected DUs 2,340 1,700 640 2,583 1,594 989 2,605 2,056 549 3,116 3,021 95 2,415 2,051 364 3,327 1,538 1,789 10,828 8,245 2,583 2,532 1,739 793

Total Eligible DUs 1,988 1,487 501 2,147 1,369 778 2,092 1,651 441 2,716 2,625 91 2,061 1,739 322 2,404 1,162 1,242 8,669 6,793 1,876 2,087 1,511 576


Total Completed Screeners 1,824 1,360 464 1,991 1,256 735 1,955 1,536 419 2,365 2,284 81 1,692 1,419 273 2,197 1,047 1,150 7,623 5,889 1,734 1,949 1,399 550


Total Selected 1,101 853 248 1,109 710 399 1,112 857 255 1,149 1,116 33 1,096 936 160 1,100 527 573 4,561 3,603 958 1,149 854 295

Total Respondents 885 687 198 900 576 324 906 684 222 930 903 27 883 759 124 924 440 484 3,690 2,906 784 946 710 236



Table B.2

State MO

MS

MT

B-6

NC

ND

NE

NH

NJ



Total Selected DUs 2,642 1,920 722 2,485 1,423 1,062 2,713 1,747 966 2,674 2,008 666 3,053 1,933 1,120 2,336 1,543 793 3,232 2,065 1,167 2,382 2,244 138





Total Selected 1,142 833 309 1,087 590 497 1,137 787 350 1,103 824 279 1,188 783 405 1,120 797 323 1,160 788 372 1,157 1,086 71

Total Respondents 921 671 250 893 481 412 919 651 268 904 677 227 954 631 323 906 638 268 918 623 295 923 863 60



Table B.2

State NM

NV

NY

B-7

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI



Total Selected DUs 2,610 2,036 574 2,674 2,376 298 13,218 11,824 1,394 10,268 8,432 1,836 2,626 1,758 868 2,603 2,442 161 10,193 8,552 1,641 2,574 2,376 198

Total Eligible DUs 2,078 1,685 393 2,063 1,871 192 11,170 10,225 945 8,717 7,144 1,573 2,122 1,411 711 2,293 2,158 135 8,715 7,360 1,355 2,094 1,963 131


Total Completed Screeners 1,959 1,577 382 1,935 1,750 185 8,452 7,626 826 7,947 6,489 1,458 1,903 1,256 647 2,146 2,021 125 6,952 5,871 1,081 1,866 1,747 119


Total Selected 1,117 892 225 1,183 1,104 79 5,061 4,647 414 4,633 3,769 864 1,173 788 385 1,134 1,082 52 3,853 3,277 576 1,117 1,044 73

Total Respondents 912 724 188 958 892 66 3,626 3,308 318 3,731 3,034 697 923 624 299 907 866 41 2,985 2,518 467 915 858 57



Table B.2

State SC

SD

TN

B-8

TX

UT

VA

VT

WA



Total Selected DUs 2,616 1,814 802 2,399 1,161 1,238 2,588 1,916 672 8,885 7,206 1,679 1,507 1,458 49 2,609 2,200 409 2,904 1,294 1,610 2,636 2,175 461

Total Eligible DUs 2,152 1,489 663 2,048 1,019 1,029 2,149 1,606 543 7,290 6,079 1,211 1,324 1,282 42 2,284 1,951 333 2,157 1,082 1,075 2,288 1,928 360


Total Completed Screeners 1,927 1,329 598 1,945 965 980 1,968 1,471 497 6,697 5,571 1,126 1,252 1,210 42 2,037 1,736 301 1,951 979 972 2,103 1,766 337


Total Selected 1,138 809 329 1,115 555 560 1,117 889 228 4,431 3,791 640 1,105 1,071 34 1,096 948 148 1,034 525 509 1,194 1,020 174

Total Respondents 927 660 267 929 456 473 901 722 179 3,590 3,073 517 919 888 31 888 771 117 870 444 426 897 765 132



Table B.2

State WI

WV

WY

B-9

National


Urban/Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural

DU = dwelling unit.

Total Selected DUs 2,438 1,586 852 2,928 1,630 1,298 2,945 1,932 1,013 201,865 160,596 41,269

Total Eligible DUs 2,061 1,410 651 2,316 1,326 990 2,335 1,578 757 166,532 134,973 31,559

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 84.95% 89.11% 77.50% 78.91% 81.30% 75.89% 79.42% 81.67% 75.09% 82.80% 84.37% 76.28%

Total Completed Screeners 1,931 1,318 613 2,112 1,201 911 2,187 1,474 713 147,010 118,094 28,916

Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 93.62% 93.44% 94.00% 91.30% 90.69% 92.12% 93.74% 93.49% 94.28% 88.42% 87.83% 91.16%

Total Selected 1,113 782 331 1,091 636 455 1,138 771 367 84,997 69,409 15,588

Total Respondents 889 622 267 888 506 382 907 622 285 67,804 55,229 12,575

Weighted Interview Response Rate 76.78% 75.81% 79.35% 78.37% 75.39% 82.15% 73.07% 73.19% 72.85% 74.57% 74.42% 75.35%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 71.88% 70.84% 74.59% 71.55% 68.38% 75.67% 68.50% 68.43% 68.68% 65.94% 65.36% 68.69%

Table B.3

State AK

AL

AR

AZ

B-10

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE


Urban/Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural

Total Selected DUs 2,459 1,784 675 4,338 2,931 1,407 2,687 1,658 1,029 2,731 2,436 295 9,464 8,831 633 3,127 2,594 533 2,805 2,729 76 4,627 4,627 0 2,845 2,499 346

Total Eligible DUs 1,911 1,476 435 3,360 2,328 1,032 2,180 1,382 798 2,149 1,940 209 8,223 7,745 478 2,571 2,233 338 2,398 2,327 71 3,808 3,808 0 2,334 2,028 306

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 77.68% 82.85% 64.69% 78.30% 81.15% 72.30% 81.03% 83.16% 77.63% 78.05% 78.85% 70.71% 86.06% 86.84% 75.58% 81.73% 86.82% 58.39% 85.00% 84.77% 92.30% 80.73% 80.73% 81.04% 80.04% 88.41%

Total Completed Screeners 1,700 1,314 386 3,032 2,076 956 2,008 1,278 730 1,915 1,730 185 6,869 6,481 388 2,300 1,991 309 2,025 1,960 65 3,119 3,119 0 2,054 1,797 257

Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 88.87% 88.95% 88.62% 89.89% 88.90% 92.23% 92.12% 92.49% 91.50% 89.43% 89.58% 87.84% 83.58% 83.74% 81.08% 88.95% 88.49% 92.06% 84.35% 84.14% 90.66% 80.97% 80.97% 87.89% 88.49% 83.88%

Total Selected 1,121 843 278 1,708 1,207 501 1,160 732 428 1,126 1,035 91 4,692 4,482 210 1,153 1,025 128 1,200 1,159 41 1,067 1,067 0 1,109 963 146

Total Respondents 905 693 212 1,383 980 403 919 588 331 928 847 81 3,640 3,476 164 921 823 98 951 921 30 900 900 0 900 784 116

Weighted Interview Response Rate 79.52% 80.62% 76.10% 74.64% 74.62% 74.68% 72.47% 74.34% 69.79% 82.24% 81.12% 89.71% 72.25% 72.16% 73.85% 76.05% 76.56% 72.02% 72.47% 72.86% 64.81% 83.28% 83.28% 76.51% 77.43% 69.91%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 70.67% 71.71% 67.44% 67.09% 66.34% 68.88% 66.76% 68.76% 63.86% 73.55% 72.67% 78.80% 60.39% 60.42% 59.88% 67.64% 67.75% 66.30% 61.13% 61.30% 58.76% 67.43% 67.43% 67.24% 68.52% 58.64% (continued)

Table B.3

State FL

GA

HI

IA

B-11

ID

IL

IN

KS

KY



Total Selected DUs 13,954 12,715 1,239 2,255 1,707 548 2,835 2,528 307 2,659 1,824 835 2,237 1,506 731 11,772 10,567 1,205 2,475 1,895 580 2,579 2,020 559 2,619 1,749 870

Total Eligible DUs 10,951 10,012 939 1,909 1,450 459 2,470 2,217 253 2,295 1,586 709 1,842 1,297 545 10,195 9,169 1,026 2,015 1,554 461 2,243 1,775 468 2,188 1,492 696

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 76.11% 76.42% 73.10% 84.11% 84.32% 83.49% 87.07% 87.72% 82.22% 86.41% 87.02% 85.04% 82.69% 86.54% 74.93% 86.77% 86.95% 85.21% 82.34% 82.77% 80.84% 87.01% 87.87% 83.90% 83.74% 85.30% 80.49%


Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 86.92% 86.61% 90.13% 91.50% 90.49% 94.52% 81.14% 81.36% 79.41% 93.15% 91.89% 96.01% 94.05% 94.62% 92.72% 77.53% 76.18% 89.70% 93.20% 93.17% 93.28% 91.08% 90.56% 93.04% 93.62% 93.68% 93.49%

Total Selected 4,941 4,515 426 1,082 825 257 1,260 1,143 117 1,137 766 371 1,124 754 370 4,929 4,462 467 1,104 839 265 1,164 958 206 1,113 794 319

Total Respondents 4,029 3,694 335 878 665 213 950 856 94 933 629 304 916 616 300 3,655 3,313 342 896 682 214 915 756 159 899 648 251

Weighted Interview Response Rate 74.96% 75.26% 72.09% 77.49% 75.86% 81.60% 72.08% 70.98% 82.55% 78.95% 77.29% 82.26% 76.97% 76.99% 76.91% 68.90% 69.23% 65.76% 73.89% 75.00% 70.51% 75.45% 75.96% 73.15% 76.19% 76.86% 74.62%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 65.16% 65.19% 64.98% 70.91% 68.65% 77.13% 58.49% 57.75% 65.56% 73.54% 71.02% 78.98% 72.39% 72.85% 71.31% 53.41% 52.74% 58.99% 68.86% 69.88% 65.77% 68.71% 68.79% 68.06% 71.33% 72.00% 69.76% (continued)

Table B.3

State LA

MA

MD

ME

B-12

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT



Total Selected DUs 5,114 4,322 792 3,419 3,201 218 2,587 2,314 273 3,568 1,590 1,978 11,276 8,279 2,997 2,723 1,844 879 2,501 1,814 687 3,478 1,893 1,585 3,075 1,753 1,322

Total Eligible DUs 4,039 3,443 596 2,941 2,748 193 2,290 2,046 244 2,517 1,231 1,286 9,000 6,919 2,081 2,369 1,652 717 2,073 1,544 529 2,708 1,479 1,229 2,483 1,474 1,009


Total Completed Screeners 3,768 3,213 555 2,518 2,346 172 1,842 1,648 194 2,313 1,106 1,207 7,698 5,832 1,866 2,135 1,466 669 1,925 1,431 494 2,504 1,347 1,157 2,340 1,389 951


Total Selected 2,126 1,798 328 1,230 1,156 74 1,121 1,003 118 1,039 508 531 4,667 3,601 1,066 1,160 803 357 1,127 839 288 1,462 805 657 1,194 735 459

Total Respondents 1,746 1,466 280 975 916 59 924 830 94 865 413 452 3,685 2,849 836 940 647 293 912 686 226 1,226 683 543 956 597 359



Table B.3

State NC

ND

NE

NH

B-13

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH



Total Selected DUs 2,843 1,765 1,078 3,321 1,832 1,489 2,547 1,726 821 3,003 1,971 1,032 2,534 2,453 81 2,478 1,828 650 2,125 1,858 267 14,528 13,339 1,189 11,134 8,940 2,194

Total Eligible DUs 2,319 1,446 873 2,629 1,556 1,073 2,123 1,488 635 2,402 1,642 760 2,163 2,088 75 1,876 1,482 394 1,680 1,511 169 12,454 11,551 903 9,463 7,606 1,857


Total Completed Screeners 2,112 1,314 798 2,476 1,461 1,015 1,956 1,367 589 2,099 1,419 680 1,898 1,828 70 1,769 1,403 366 1,584 1,423 161 9,093 8,330 763 8,496 6,779 1,717


Total Selected 1,103 647 456 1,133 696 437 1,178 857 321 1,228 865 363 1,129 1,071 58 1,134 923 211 1,125 1,034 91 5,123 4,736 387 4,697 3,752 945

Total Respondents 935 552 383 904 563 341 908 660 248 945 673 272 894 845 49 938 761 177 907 837 70 3,531 3,264 267 3,695 2,969 726



Table B.3

State OK

OR

PA

RI

B-14

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT



Total Selected DUs 2,614 1,805 809 2,729 2,355 374 10,738 8,793 1,945 2,634 2,382 252 2,978 1,995 983 2,495 1,284 1,211 2,590 1,807 783 9,328 7,726 1,602 1,797 1,698 99

Total Eligible DUs 2,068 1,488 580 2,389 2,116 273 9,207 7,612 1,595 2,140 1,968 172 2,441 1,661 780 2,128 1,139 989 2,149 1,537 612 7,741 6,510 1,231 1,590 1,511 79


Total Completed Screeners 1,895 1,345 550 2,171 1,912 259 7,401 6,211 1,190 1,896 1,741 155 2,205 1,480 725 2,027 1,076 951 1,914 1,355 559 7,096 5,957 1,139 1,505 1,427 78


Total Selected 1,128 781 347 1,190 1,082 108 4,011 3,337 674 1,155 1,057 98 1,143 755 388 1,107 620 487 1,110 771 339 4,478 3,796 682 1,125 1,075 50

Total Respondents 890 619 271 951 870 81 3,074 2,550 524 930 851 79 927 610 317 913 531 382 911 642 269 3,636 3,108 528 918 871 47



Table B.3

State VA

VT

WA

WI

B-15

WV

WY

National


Urban/Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural

DU = dwelling unit.

Total Selected DUs 2,726 2,329 397 3,217 1,492 1,725 2,950 2,538 412 2,708 1,658 1,050 3,238 1,855 1,383 3,057 2,068 989 216,521 171,107 45,414

Total Eligible DUs 2,431 2,085 346 2,581 1,260 1,321 2,586 2,257 329 2,284 1,465 819 2,546 1,476 1,070 2,441 1,707 734 179,293 144,517 34,776

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 89.32% 89.62% 87.56% 79.25% 83.04% 75.93% 87.71% 88.94% 79.88% 83.59% 88.85% 76.35% 78.96% 80.26% 77.20% 80.01% 82.58% 74.44% 83.14% 84.64% 77.02%

Total Completed Screeners 2,074 1,764 310 2,326 1,150 1,176 2,298 2,001 297 2,125 1,360 765 2,258 1,277 981 2,197 1,545 652 156,048 124,447 31,601

Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 85.29% 84.61% 89.36% 90.14% 91.19% 89.14% 88.23% 87.94% 90.31% 92.73% 92.31% 93.40% 87.80% 85.12% 91.58% 89.85% 90.35% 88.64% 86.98% 86.12% 90.85%

Total Selected 1,105 946 159 1,136 554 582 1,254 1,106 148 1,167 746 421 1,166 669 497 1,095 769 326 88,536 71,462 17,074

Total Respondents 939 810 129 925 458 467 959 854 105 902 575 327 938 533 405 892 629 263 70,109 56,593 13,516

Weighted Interview Response Rate 81.71% 83.27% 75.22% 78.83% 81.23% 76.45% 72.78% 73.88% 64.89% 75.45% 74.41% 77.15% 75.61% 72.79% 79.49% 78.14% 78.73% 77.06% 74.38% 74.27% 74.86%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 69.69% 70.46% 67.21% 71.06% 74.07% 68.14% 64.22% 64.97% 58.60% 69.97% 68.69% 72.05% 66.39% 61.96% 72.80% 70.21% 71.13% 68.31% 64.69% 63.96% 68.01%

Table B.4

State AK

AL

AR

AZ

B-16

CA

CO

CT

DC

DE



Total Selected DUs 2,424 1,731 693 3,012 2,118 894 2,776 1,639 1,137 2,771 2,526 245 9,489 9,086 403 3,071 2,520 551 2,855 2,573 282 5,055 5,055 0 2,847 2,541 306

Total Eligible DUs 1,869 1,454 415 2,372 1,684 688 2,292 1,396 896 2,143 2,006 137 8,314 7,982 332 2,579 2,196 383 2,535 2,300 235 4,104 4,104 0 2,292 2,043 249

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 76.83% 84.02% 59.73% 78.65% 79.27% 77.22% 82.70% 85.02% 79.48% 76.44% 78.34% 55.15% 86.08% 86.23% 82.78% 83.17% 88.07% 64.32% 88.73% 89.40% 82.55% 80.88% 80.88% 78.08% 77.68% 81.66%


Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 87.82% 89.13% 83.43% 90.30% 89.83% 91.41% 90.92% 89.90% 92.43% 90.16% 90.58% 83.48% 82.37% 82.61% 76.84% 85.23% 83.87% 92.42% 82.76% 82.66% 83.67% 80.90% 80.90% 87.57% 87.42% 88.91%

Total Selected 1,076 899 177 1,145 802 343 1,212 725 487 1,139 1,057 82 4,779 4,640 139 1,188 1,001 187 1,261 1,153 108 1,125 1,125 0 1,110 977 133

Total Respondents 829 705 124 901 638 263 913 546 367 922 853 69 3,608 3,515 93 927 779 148 964 882 82 962 962 0 893 785 108

Weighted Interview Response Rate 73.34% 75.43% 65.57% 74.57% 75.23% 73.09% 69.77% 66.94% 73.41% 77.11% 77.21% 76.06% 70.20% 70.47% 62.24% 74.95% 74.38% 77.40% 72.36% 72.32% 72.70% 80.64% 80.64% 79.90% 79.70% 81.22%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 64.40% 67.23% 54.70% 67.34% 67.59% 66.81% 63.43% 60.17% 67.85% 69.52% 69.93% 63.50% 57.82% 58.22% 47.82% 63.88% 62.38% 71.53% 59.88% 59.78% 60.83% 65.24% 65.24% 69.97% 69.67% 72.22% (continued)

Table B.4

State FL

GA

HI

IA

B-17

ID

IL

IN

KS

KY



Total Selected DUs 12,768 11,641 1,127 2,365 1,556 809 3,212 2,818 394 2,529 1,647 882 2,300 1,644 656 11,385 10,188 1,197 2,491 1,794 697 2,598 1,944 654 2,852 1,936 916

Total Eligible DUs 10,055 9,222 833 2,042 1,357 685 2,761 2,474 287 2,199 1,429 770 1,939 1,430 509 9,964 8,939 1,025 2,110 1,522 588 2,198 1,705 493 2,407 1,654 753




Total Selected 4,579 4,197 382 1,144 774 370 1,285 1,196 89 1,137 724 413 1,136 807 329 4,871 4,394 477 1,171 830 341 1,109 868 241 1,184 839 345

Total Respondents 3,544 3,250 294 885 591 294 938 871 67 900 567 333 921 658 263 3,672 3,312 360 911 659 252 912 711 201 927 662 265



Table B.4

State LA

MA

MD

ME

B-18

MI

MN

MO

MS

MT



Total Selected DUs 2,741 2,006 735 3,064 2,920 144 2,680 2,344 336 3,866 1,768 2,098 11,441 8,642 2,799 2,483 1,742 741 2,879 1,934 945 2,553 1,421 1,132 3,295 1,531 1,764

Total Eligible DUs 2,143 1,598 545 2,653 2,525 128 2,308 2,023 285 2,858 1,485 1,373 9,207 7,261 1,946 2,160 1,571 589 2,409 1,687 722 2,087 1,187 900 2,610 1,299 1,311


Total Completed Screeners 1,977 1,459 518 2,208 2,095 113 1,802 1,574 228 2,585 1,312 1,273 7,826 6,114 1,712 1,975 1,425 550 2,188 1,536 652 1,951 1,093 858 2,415 1,191 1,224


Total Selected 1,100 810 290 1,253 1,186 67 1,074 932 142 1,134 599 535 4,606 3,687 919 1,092 836 256 1,149 816 333 1,100 638 462 1,109 580 529

Total Respondents 901 653 248 955 910 45 874 768 106 938 494 444 3,655 2,931 724 902 698 204 915 649 266 901 530 371 876 469 407



Table B.4

State NC

ND

NE

NH

B-19

NJ

NM

NV

NY

OH



Total Selected DUs 2,848 1,830 1,018 3,374 1,841 1,533 2,556 1,673 883 2,990 1,803 1,187 2,622 2,593 29 2,771 2,007 764 2,354 2,265 89 14,547 12,899 1,648 11,722 9,313 2,409

Total Eligible DUs 2,246 1,492 754 2,633 1,533 1,100 2,175 1,476 699 2,507 1,582 925 2,227 2,205 22 2,052 1,577 475 1,879 1,823 56 12,547 11,310 1,237 10,122 8,064 2,058


Total Completed Screeners 1,990 1,330 660 2,461 1,428 1,033 2,018 1,368 650 2,191 1,374 817 1,935 1,914 21 1,889 1,460 429 1,721 1,673 48 9,115 8,051 1,064 9,023 7,128 1,895


Total Selected 1,117 756 361 1,156 694 462 1,170 862 308 1,259 843 416 1,155 1,138 17 1,101 875 226 1,134 1,100 34 5,267 4,690 577 4,827 3,759 1,068

Total Respondents 917 626 291 895 543 352 940 701 239 950 641 309 898 886 12 879 704 175 903 878 25 3,680 3,256 424 3,687 2,880 807



Table B.4

State OK

OR

PA

RI

B-20

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT



Total Selected DUs 2,960 2,144 816 2,547 2,092 455 11,907 9,923 1,984 2,620 2,360 260 3,306 2,043 1,263 2,636 1,594 1,042 2,532 1,748 784 9,048 7,474 1,574 1,793 1,670 123

Total Eligible DUs 2,382 1,810 572 2,250 1,898 352 10,256 8,703 1,553 2,190 1,975 215 2,666 1,658 1,008 2,163 1,398 765 2,095 1,464 631 7,651 6,443 1,208 1,558 1,477 81


Total Completed Screeners 2,173 1,629 544 2,019 1,690 329 8,453 7,071 1,382 1,957 1,769 188 2,374 1,465 909 2,031 1,309 722 1,929 1,347 582 6,792 5,709 1,083 1,474 1,398 76


Total Selected 1,189 901 288 1,165 1,008 157 4,705 3,900 805 1,131 1,017 114 1,171 752 419 1,113 739 374 1,105 796 309 4,612 3,944 668 1,099 1,047 52

Total Respondents 908 698 210 923 795 128 3,580 2,956 624 923 826 97 938 600 338 878 580 298 927 675 252 3,625 3,102 523 926 881 45



Table B.4

State VA

VT

WA

WI

B-21

WV

WY

National


Urban/Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural Overall Urban Rural

DU = dwelling unit.

Total Selected DUs 2,576 2,029 547 3,292 1,470 1,822 2,700 2,287 413 2,440 1,603 837 3,222 1,851 1,371 3,109 2,308 801 214,274 168,085 46,189

Total Eligible DUs 2,293 1,831 462 2,637 1,242 1,395 2,306 1,976 330 2,041 1,414 627 2,675 1,585 1,090 2,425 1,884 541 178,586 143,353 35,233

Weighted DU Eligibility Rate 88.97% 90.23% 84.42% 78.85% 84.30% 74.74% 85.67% 86.61% 80.57% 83.27% 88.37% 73.98% 82.94% 85.50% 79.26% 77.59% 81.84% 65.30% 83.43% 85.08% 76.76%

Total Completed Screeners 2,027 1,619 408 2,317 1,087 1,230 2,078 1,778 300 1,890 1,295 595 2,399 1,393 1,006 2,222 1,731 491 153,873 121,968 31,905

Weighted DU Screening Response Rate 88.47% 88.51% 88.31% 87.81% 87.47% 88.11% 90.10% 90.03% 90.55% 92.37% 91.33% 94.63% 89.39% 87.46% 92.39% 91.72% 91.97% 90.80% 86.07% 85.15% 90.21%

Total Selected 1,095 880 215 1,136 533 603 1,218 1,081 137 1,098 760 338 1,217 736 481 1,148 925 223 87,656 70,828 16,828

Total Respondents 894 714 180 885 425 460 928 841 87 875 621 254 976 578 398 928 751 177 68,309 55,206 13,103

Weighted Interview Response Rate 76.50% 75.66% 79.74% 73.81% 75.16% 72.73% 71.82% 74.18% 55.38% 75.55% 77.16% 72.68% 74.07% 70.53% 79.35% 77.48% 77.10% 78.83% 73.04% 72.83% 74.02%

Weighted Overall Response Rate 67.68% 66.97% 70.42% 64.82% 65.74% 64.08% 64.71% 66.78% 50.14% 69.79% 70.47% 68.77% 66.21% 61.68% 73.31% 71.07% 70.91% 71.58% 62.87% 62.01% 66.77%

B-22

Appendix C: Plots Comparing State-Level Percentages of Interviews Completed by FI Pay Rate Changes with StateLevel Overall Response Rate Changes and Attrition Rates

Figure C.1

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012

Overall Weighted Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012

0.07 UT TN

0.05

0.03

0.01

RI

NE MS KS ID WY NH MT

-0.01

MN

DE

IL

NJ

MI AL

PA NY WV

LA ME ND NV

OH

WA MO SCWI OR

CT

SD IN HI MD

VA

DC

CA AR

-0.03 OK CO MA AZ

KY TX IA FL

-0.05 VT AK NM

NC

GA

-0.07 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with Greater than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase FIs = field interviewers.

C-1

0.40

Figure C.2

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $3 per Hour Pay Increase and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012


0.07 UT TN

0.05 RI

0.03

0.01

DE

NY

PA

ME ND

MS

IL

NJ WV

MT

-0.01

NE

IDKS WY NH

WI

MO

NV

SC LA

CT

OH

SD CA

HI

-0.03

AR MA

AZ

KY

TX

OK CO

IA FL

-0.05 VT NM

AK

-0.07 0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with Greater than a $3 per Hour Pay Increase FIs = field interviewers.

C-2

0.40

Figure C.3

Percentage of Interviews by FIs Who Only Completed Interviews in 2012 and FIs with No Change in Pay and Overall Response Rate Change, 2011 to 2012 UT

0.06


TN RI

0.04 MN

DE

0.02

MS IL ID

NJ MI WA AL

CT

NV DC IN

-0.02

WY

NH NYWV PA

WI SC

MO

0.00

NE KS

OR

MT LA

ME

ND

OH

VA

SD CA

MD

HI

AR OK KY

AZ

-0.04

CO

MA

TX IA FL

-0.06 0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with No Change in Pay FIs = field interviewers.

C-3

1.00

Figure C.4

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase and Attrition Rate, 2012

0.65 SC

0.55 AZ

Attrition Rate, 2012

0.45 ND

0.35

AR

IN MT

OR NV

0.25

GA

TX WV

WY MS PA NE

0.15

MD FL

RI HIIA AK UT CO OK NH NM LA

MO NC

VA

AL

CT CA

IL TN

MI

MN WI

OH NY

0.05 DE MA ME SD KS VT ID KY

-0.05

WA

DC

NJ

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with Greater than a $5 per Hour Pay Increase


C-4

0.4

Figure C.5

Percentage of Interviews by FIs with More than a $3 per Hour Pay Increase and Attrition Rate, 2012

0.65

SC

0.55 AZ


0.45 ND

0.35

IN

AR MT OR NV

0.25

WV WY

PA

NE

AK

0.05 -0.05 -0.05

FL IL

WI TN

NH NM

LA NY NJ

SD VT MA ME IDKS DE

0.05

0.15

WA VA

MS CT

RI HI IA 0.15 UT

GA

TX MO NC MD

AL

CA MNMI OKCO OH

KY

0.25

0.35

DC

0.45

0.55

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with Greater than $3 per Hour Pay Increase


C-5

0.65

Figure C.6

Percentage of Interviews by FIs Who Only Completed Interviews in 2012 and FIs with No Change in Pay and Attrition Rate, 2012

0.7 SC

0.6


0.5

AZ

ND

0.4 IN

AR MT

0.3

OR GA TX WV

WA NV MO

0.2

NC MS AL

MD CT TN

0.1

VA

FL

MN MI IL CA OK WI OH

DC DENJ KY

ID

PA

NE

WY RI

IA

CO NH

NM

LA NY KS

HI UT

AK

MAVT

ME

SD

0 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Percentage of Interviews Completed by FIs with No Change in Pay FIs = field interviewers.

C-6

1