A Methodological Appraisal 



of the Follow-Up Instruments: 



Hillsborough County's CETA Programs 



by 

 A. E. Luloff and P. H. Greenwood^ 



INTRODUCTION 



At the finish of the first report "An Evaluation of Economic 

 Gains of Participants in the Hillsborough County CETA Pro- 

 grams," mention was made of shortcomings in the design and rati- 

 onale of the follow-up procedures. While our focus is on the CETA 

 procedures, the problems we address are generic to survey research. 

 The purpose of this report, then, is to examine the issues of experi- 

 mental design and questionnaire construction as a basic means for 

 improving mail questionnaire research. Shortcomings of the CETA 

 follow-up instrument are explained and alternative mechanisms for 

 reducing some of the biases associated with these problems are sug- 

 gested. Other researchers with the same or similar data should prof- 

 it from the inexpensive procedures suggested herein. 



METHODS AND RATIONALE FOR 

 SURVEY ANALYSIS 



Pursuant to an agreement with the Hillsborough County Prime 

 Sponsor (SNHS) the Institute of Natural and Environmental 

 Resources, University of New Hampshire (INER) engaged in a 

 follow-up evaluation of the following major programs during the 

 period of January 1, 1979 to September 15, 1980: 



Classroom Training Title II B 



Skill Training Title II B 



On Job Training Title II B 



Work Experience Title II B 



Services to Participants Title II B 



PubHc Service Employment Title II B, Part D PSE 



SNHS agreed to provide the necessary intake information on 275 

 participants who terminated from these programs during this 

 period. The INER research team attempted to conduct follow-up 

 questionnaires on these terminees commencing on or about their six 



^Assistant Professor of Community Development and Assistant Professor of 

 Resource Economics, Institute of Natural and Environmental Resources, University 

 of New Hampshire, respectively. 



