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.

[Mary A.]

I can say with certainty that the data they used for their mailing list dates back to the end of 2004 or later, unless they combined data from more than one source.

[XLFD]

Right-- Myrtle Albaitis, and a couple of other name-address combinations I seen seem to be consistent with your assertion. A lot of people move around in a 6 year period.

[XLFD]

Update: Well, it's been 50 days since these Surveys were sent out and I have yet to see or hear it being followed up on or anything since then. But...

I recently came across the Downtown Ludington Board's (aka Downtown Development Authority) minutes for the 5-10-10 meeting of that body. Here is what it said about this survey:

Look at the reason stated for the survey "to potentially remove job-creation from some of our downtown grant programs". Yet the reasons stated on the City website is only this: " The survey will determine our cities eligibility for some grant funding that we are hoping to apply for to help pay for our sewer outfall pipe project and the mandatory renovations we are required to make." The cover letters sent out echoed this, as you can confirm at the site on the thread header.

So guess what? According to the meeting where it was decided to use a fair portion of the facade money to conduct this survey, the only stated purpose of the RCAP survey was to remove 'job-creation' requirements from grant programs.

Is the City then hoping for this survey to show we are in need of more jobs and a sewage system (low income), or not in need of jobs (higher income)? Their methodology, as stated, definitely seems to favor more people of higher income replying.

Ask yourself why the City declares one purpose at their meeting that is decidedly against the Ludington Citizen's job opportunities, but does not declare this intent or effect to those they send this survey to. Why?

[Edie Lindsey]

This is a big development in this story, X. It seems if enough people send in this survey to make it valid, they are actually making it more difficult for them and their neighbor to benefit from any jobs that may come with any grant.

Has there been any follow-up from the city or r-cap yet, and has anyone heard anything more about it?

[XLFD]

Update: After hearing nothing about this survey for over four months, I decided to check into it late this last month and sent the contact person that is tabulating this survey, Michael Burrington, of the Michigan RCAP a polite FOIA request regarding records concerning the Ludington Survey and its current response rate, the minimal return percentage necessary for the survey to be valid, and whether the process of sending surveys to homeowners instead of residents invalidated what the survey was supposed to gather. Here's the E-mail I received from Michael:

"I received a FOIA Request from you regarding the City of Ludington Income Survey. I regret to inform you that I cannot comply with your request. Michigan RCAP is not required to respond to FOIA requests. Furthermore, the information you requested is considered confidential and much of it is not made public or supplied to the City of Ludington. Any request for information regarding the income survey should be requested through the City of Ludington."

Amazingly, though the Federal, Regional, and State RCAPs are funded almost exclusively by your tax dollars, they are when scrutinized, not a public agency-- they can be considered to be private, and thus can dodge an FOIA request on my above decidedly non-confidential info requests including asking them about their confidentiality policy etc. This means that everyone who sent this survey in to the MI RCAP gave their very personal info to a private agency who refuses to discuss their confidentiality policy with you, or even verify whether the process was valid or not (even when it seems to violate the usual survey policy).

I will continue to look into this and keep the Torch to it, I just hope there's not a lot of methane gas in the area.

[Edie Lindsey]

X,
I did notice that the cover letter for the survey you linked to at the top of your thread had a sentence at the bottom that said if there was any questions regarding the survey to contact Mikey Burrington. He then passes it off to the City of Ludington when you try. The smell is getting worse.

[XLFD]

Typical bureaucracy.

They tell you the survey is not part of the US Census, and you can tell. Census workers will give you privacy notices that tells you the many ways of how your confidentiality is protected by their department. You can go to the Census' website and find the various laws in detail that protect your privacy and confidentiality and the steps you can take if you think it wasn't.

This Michigan RCAP outfit never tells you it is not a public entity, in fact they try their darndest to make it look like they are, and the only guarantee of your confidentiality is because they say so. The unwary Ludingtonites who sent their surveys in could find themselves on a new marketing list somewhere geared to people of their income level. Meanwhile, how is the "City of Ludington" supposed to know the MI RCAP's confidentiality policy or their methodology. Don't light a match!

[XLFD]

Income of Ludington residents a bit too high for no-job-strings grant app
LDN Staff - Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Ludington’s recent income survey of residents showed fewer than half the respondents can be classified as having low or moderate incomes.
That can be considered good news by many, but it also means the city lost its chance at hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money for improvements to the wastewater treatment system.

“Unfortunately, we missed by just a little bit,” Ludington Community Development Director Heather Venzke said about the survey’s results.

Perhaps if the City of Ludington Gov't were sending this survey to residents instead of homeowners, they would have got the desired result. Over half of the residences in Ludington are not owner-occupied. Not to mention, owners in general, have higher incomes than those who rent.

[masonco]

I read that too and thought about this thread. Then I wondered why they have to do the survey anyway. There are other sources to gain that information aren't there?

[AQUAMAN]

Nice follow-up there X, and quite revealing investigation. Yeah, this is a bad stinker, and getting worse by the years' end now. Sounds to me like their is a "pile" of blame to go around for fouling this entire survey up, big time. This entire matter needs to go back to the drawing board to restart.

[XLFD]

Thanks, Aq. And here's a couple of other "piles" to go with the blame one. 550 valid surveys were returned according to the LDN article, out of 1299 sent out. That's a 43% return rate, far lesser than the smallest return rate I have seen for RCAP surveys on the web. Here is one that required a 75% return rate, and specified what process that RCAP required (including using the resident list instead of the homeowners list):

http://www.townofgroton.org/xml/town/lost_lake_sewer_committee/meet...

Note: Groton is in Massachusetts, but the process should be uniform throughout the country, one would think. Look at how Ludington did not even nearly follow this process. I've tried three times to find out what the process and minimums are, but Mike Burrington, who had no problem making a presentation to the Newaygo City Council about this process continues to pass the buck and remain mum. By the way, Newaygo, who likely conducted the survey properly, found themselves to be able to receive these grants:

http://michigan-rcap.org/content/city-newaygo

[charlemagnetism]

i stayed up later than i wanted to reading all this. that list of homeowners shows exactly why this thing was a waste of time and more than a 1000 $ of taxpayer $. great research to expose this farce.