Does this Income Survey have a Bad Smell to It?

[XLFD]

 

 Many of you may have received one of 1299 income surveys mailed out to Ludington addresses from the ‘City of Ludington’ late last week.  http://www.ludington.mi.us/docs/survey_packet_2010.pdf

 

A cover letter explains that it has nothing to do with the US Census, currently still in progress.  It further explains that the Michigan Rural Community Assistance Program (MI RCAP) is conducting the survey, free of charge, so as to see whether Ludington can qualify for applying for a grant to perform necessary expansion and improvements to the city sewer system.

 

 Another page (the survey) has you identify the number of people in the household, and the income range for the household, you then attach that data to the address via the other page.

 

 They say the information will remain confidential between you and the MI RCAP, and they will give a summary of the results to the City so they can see whether they are eligible to apply for grants.

 

 This came out of the blue.  Nothing turns up on the LDN about this survey nor was their prior notice sent by the city; the details they give are a bit vague and does not lend me to want to divulge this very private bit of info to a stranger.  I delved.

 

 On the city’s webpage there is a “City to conduct survey” link http://www.ludington.mi.us/news/news_detail_T2_R320.html which contains the three forms, and a cover letter that explains that if Ludington can have 51% of its residents (households, to be exact) fall in the low to moderate income level (any income less than 80% of the state’s average for a household that size), then they can apply for grant funding to help pay for a sewer outfall pipe project.

 

 It then lets us know the prior income info is from the 2000 Census, and that since the results from this Census will not be available for 1-2 years, they want to expedite the process of getting this data.  MI RCAP, their goals, and the representative also can be found and verified about at this and other websites:  http://www.michigan-rcap.org/

 

 If you like to be part of a survey and trust the government, then fill out your survey and don’t read any more.  Otherwise, here are a few things to ponder:

 

1) Newaygo?:  On the first page of the first website above, it mistakenly says “City of Newaygo” near the bottom of the page.  This is because the member of the Ludington Community Development Department who printed this out copied it almost verbatim from that city of 1600 people April 2010 survey.  It appears that is the only other city who has attempted such a survey in Michigan:  http://www.michigan-rcap.org/sites/default/files/Newaygo_Income_Sur...

2) Census data?:  The city’s information on the Census is incorrect.  Census 2010 has no questions about income.  The bureau has conducted an ongoing survey throughout this last decade called the American Community Survey which has supplanted the long form.  Ludington is too small to have its own data set available, so the city will be waiting forever for income data from the decennial census.  But the recent stats (including 2008 median household income) for Mason County are here:  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/26105.html

3) Sampling Methods?:  Ludington has an estimated 3690 households (http://www.fizber.com/sale-by-owner-home-services/michigan-city-lud...).  A little over a third of these were sent the form, and at least 60% of them must be returned to qualify (about 780 surveys).  Being that only about 20% of our ‘households’ are being surveyed there is a significant margin of error (about 3%), particularly when we have no idea how the original ‘households’ were ‘randomly’ selected. 

 
4) Residents?:  The only survey form I have seen was mailed to a non-resident who owned the property in question, and the address was wrong. The survey forms should have been addressed to the ‘resident’ of that correct address, as per Census forms, and should have a question concerning whether their legal residence was that address.  Non-residents are likely to skew our income data up, so the city will get a smaller percentage of low-incomers if these folks return their survey.  Expect a good amount of ‘vacant’ or ‘vacation’ homes if true randomness was followed, each of which will equal an unreturned survey.

5) Confidentiality?:  There is no guarantee of confidentiality to be found in the MI RCAP or  national RCAP (search the site).  The Census Bureau has to follow strict federal laws to safeguard private data.  The MI RCAP’s prepared summary for the city could provide the income levels and number of people living at an address without the name and say it’s private, but the city has this info ( as does the RCAP, see below).  And this city has a big lack of confidence from the public in confidentiality issues from the top down. 

 
6) Proper Notice?:  RCAP guidelines dictate that pre-publicity is the most important thing for the survey to work.  Public information meetings, preliminary mailings, newspaper articles, radio, etc. telling WHY they are being asked personal questions, emphasizing confidentiality (but not guaranteeing it).  RCAP then needs the mailing list of the target residences from the city/town manager—NOT the homeowner’s list, including name, and phone numbers.  So the RCAP has some of your private info already courtesy of your city manager, and if my one example is prevalent, he has used the homeowner’s list.
7) Validity?:  With all of the above questions left unanswered or vaguely defined, should we take part in this survey?  The city has already spent over a thousand dollars on postage alone (1299 X $.88 = $1143) in a half-hearted attempt to show it has fallen further into poverty than the rest of Michigan.  Unlike the Census, the city and RCAP has no legal right to force anyone into filling the survey out, or to fill in accurate data for that matter. 

 

A question should also be asked about the proposed project we are seeking funding for.  Is the project necessary?  Can us poorer than average rural folks who just got our sewer rates raised 8% this year, afford the preferred fix even with help?   I want to know what they plan to do if they get this grant, and what they plan to do if we don’t.  State grant money doesn’t come as easy as it once did. 

What do you think?  I especially am interested to hear from those who have gotten the survey, or know someone who has.

[masonco]

I'm not in Ludington, but figure that those who are low income would not bother filling it out anyway. They can access IRS records can't they?

[Victoria George Cook]

Ludington City Government and confidentiality? Oh, please. You leave a yard sale sign up an extra day or make it the wrong size and get your pink slip from the city, and in almost no time DPW workers, city police,etc. are making jokes about it. Loved it back when Jack Byers caught the garbage pile at the Mayors old house.
Havent heard about this, but will keep my ears open.

[AQUAMAN]

Kinda of Stinky subject, don'cha stink/think?

[Sweater Cows!]

I don't think the survey is such a bad thing, but the SOP's (standard operating procedure) used to handle it has not been followed it seems per the guidelines you listed. Which leads me to believe that they have a lazy or untrained office person handling the project. I doubt it is ill intent. More likely lazy or sloppy work.

[XLFD]

The statistical soundness of the survey is my main beef with it. The person I know who has received this survey is not a resident and has never been a resident of Ludington. Presuming they used a homeowners list, the result they will get will be skewed to make Ludington appear more wealthier, as homeowners in general have a greater income than renters/non-owners. That's why I have done a FOIA with the city to find out the 1299 addresses that were sent the survey, and the method they used to choose them randomly.

As I see it they have already spent a few thousand dollars on this survey in mailing, materials, and labor, and if they have done it wrong, then we will likely have to spend more thousands on re-surveying the population. They already have ignored the pre-survey SOPs provided by RCAP and we should realize that the City of Ludington has already supplied 1299 names, addresses, and phone numbers to a state agency who plans on harassing us if we don't tell them this bit of "very personal information" (their words).

[Edie Lindsey]

I asked three Luddites I know about this survey and one had received it. None of them had heard anything about it previously. The one who received it planned on sending it in with the highest income circled even though they're poor as dirt. Reason: they figure this grant for some mystery project will cost them more do-re-mi if the City gets the grant. The peeps are a learnin'!

[Willy]

Doesn't look like George needs any help with his survey. He definately needs custom made underwear and baggy pants.

[Edie Lindsey]

Methinks George Pentka is one of those Cox for governor supporters.
Mr. Richardson must be getting bored again-- hard to imagine with all those inventions he's making for the good of humanity. These pictures just go to show who he is, and what he has not. X, please get rid of these pics before I'm forced to download them, ROFL.

[XLFD]

Deleted, thanks for the 'heads' up.

[XLFD]

My FOIA request has already been processed by the city and here are the results: List%20of%20Households%20for%20Income%20Survey(1).xls This income survey has some fatal flaws which should invalidate it as an accurate study to be took seriously. The 1298 names/addresses is not a list of city residents, it actually appears to be drawn up from an outdated list of homeowners, with a peppering of some businesses. As a case in point, here are the first ten people (alphabetically) sent surveys, when compared to up-to-date assessor information:

1) Abbe, H: actual residence is in Zephyrhills, FL
2) White, Abigail: her name is switched around, and she lives in Stanton, MI
3) Abrahamson, W: he lives at Ludington Woods AFC, not the address the survey was sent to.
4) Adams, David: OK
5) Addington, D: OK
6) Aguilar, V: lives in Austin, TX
7) Ahlgren, R: Sold the property the survey was sent to in 1998
8) Ainsworth, C: Does not live at the address, but at 109 First St.
9) Albaitis, M: Died in Traverse City on 1-3-04
10) Albertson, P: lives in Midland, MI

Five live in other areas, two live in different places in Ludington, one doesn’t even live at all, and only two might actually be valid survey takers.

Here was some other things of interest I noticed in a glance over of the list:

1) Mayor John E Henderson was sent a survey—to an address he has not lived since 2006 when he moved on up to Seminole St.
2) Businessman Bob Neal was sent a survey—to Westnd Development LLC, not his residence.
3) Jane Jebavy, Tom Tyron, and Mark Brody were all sent two surveys to two different addresses— but neither of them lived at either address; they were rentals.

[Mary A.]

Do you know how the surveys were addressed? Did the mailing envelope say something like John Doe or current resident?

[XLFD]

The surveys were addressed to the name and address in column A and B. Those sent to Longfellow Towers, and larger apartment buildings were addressed to occupant, but if you open up the list you will find that there are not a lot of these. If they were addressed to current resident a lot of the validity issues would be quelled. If that trend continued and only two out of ten are properly addressed to a likely resident, you have to worry about how they are supposed to get a 60% response rate without some fudging.

Fortunately, the RCAP is susceptible to being FOIA-ed, so my next project is to get the protocols, rules, and thresholds they use for the survey. In Newaygo, they are two months along, but I have not seen any results from their survey across the web.