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.

[AQUAMAN]

Who's that St Hillary person? I can't open that Newaygo link for some reason. Remove what job creation grants? Rolls Eyes again.......................yawn. The City create new private sector jobs, when, where?

[XLFD]

Amanda St. Hillaire is a ceramics artist, one of the proprietors of the "Red Door Gallery" in the House of Flavors area, and a member of Ludington's DDA. The Newaygo link isn't opening for some reason, but if you cut and paste it to your search engine, you'll get there.

The gist is that if the survey had shown that if there were 51% or more residents with low or moderate incomes the city may have received grant funding for the wastewater treatment department improvements without having to add so many jobs because the work would benefit a poor community (DDA Director, Heather Venzke).

You see, since we are not poorer, for about every $30,000 in sewer grant money the city will have had to create one permanent full time job. Thus a $650,000 grant for the sewer work will mean the city would have to create 22 new permanent jobs in the water/sewer department. When you add all the fringes, the 22 full-timers would likely cost the city about the amount of that grant each year in a department (water/sewer) that cut two permanent jobs last year. If we were poorer, there wouldn't have been any stipulation to create new permanent jobs.

I hope Ms. Venzke was mistaken about this, but it sounds like something silly our government (all levels) may devise. Totally ridiculous. Totally wasteful.

[XLFD]

Thanks for catching my error, John-- I gave them an extra percent. Thanks also Charlemagnetism, for your comments. I am really surprised at the amateurish way this survey was conducted and the Badger TIGER Grant was applied for. But I guess I shouldn't be, it is a continuing theme.

I am going to continue to try and find out why it was bungled. And try to find out why Mike Burrington of the RCAP thinks this was a valid survey in the first place by going up his command chain. It's my hobby.