number of contacts made, sponsorship of instrument, and salience. 



Tracking or locating respondents from an earlier time period for 

 the purposes of gathering longitudinal data on them is a difficult 

 and often time-consuming experience. In the previous report, "An 

 Evaluation of Economic Gains of Participants in the Hillsborough 

 County CETA Programs," intake information was compiled by 

 SNHS which included respondents current addresses and phone 

 numbers. A minimum of six months elapsed prior to the onset of the 

 follow-up questionnaire procedures. If the respondent changed 

 his/her address or phone number and the change was not recorded 

 in the intake data file, then, obviously, tracking the respondent 

 became more difficult. To overcome this problem we called the 

 original number seeking information on new phone numbers or 

 addresses where the respondent could be reached. In addition, 

 "address correction requested" envelopes were mailed to each 

 respondent's former address so that the Post Office could supply us 

 with new forwarding addresses when possible. However, both 

 procedures resulted in long time delays and costly labor overuns. We 

 would suggest that periodic updating of intake information (address 

 and phone number) be instituted at SNHS to help overcome some of 

 these problems. Further, we would suggest that on all new intake 

 forms a new section be added which asks for the phone number and 

 address of the respondents nearest relative or friend who is an 

 established resident (at least 5 years) of New Hampshire. This latter 

 procedure should help to insure the gathering of complete informa- 

 tion on the respondents current location. 



Prior to conducting the actual survey, SNHS agreed to notify all 

 terminees through the mail, of the survey efforts. This letter, signed 

 by James Machakos, CETA Administrator for SNSH, informed the 

 terminees of the follow-up evaluation and requested their co- 

 operation. This initial contact served two main purposes: (1) the 

 endorsement of a major executive administrator of the program lent 

 credibility to the survey effort, and (2) by encouraging the terminees 

 to participate in the follow up effort, the level of salience among the 

 potential respondents was heightened. The letter was mailed 

 approximately two weeks prior to the administration of the actual 

 follow-up survey instrument. Unfortunately this procedure did not 

 greatly enhance the overall completion rate (aproximately 48%). 



The low completion rate suggests many potential hazards in 

 interpretation of this data. Some of these potential problems revolve 

 around the instrument itself. Of most importance is the problem of 

 question and questionnaire length. Questions which are too long 

 often contain several ideas which tend to cause misunderstanding 

 between the respondent and interviewer. This often results from the 

 attempt to transfer questions used in a person-to-person or mail 

 survey to a telephone survey. We suggest the shortening and 

 simplification of many of the questions. An additional aid could be 

 accomplished by offering a "key word summary" which helps to 

 focus the questions while putting them into a more conversational 

 form. 



