Analyzing the Cost-Effectiveness of Using Return Receipt and Address Corrections in Mail Surveys

Abstract

Mail surveys remain an effective and popular mode of data collection, given the relatively low and decreasing response rates of Web surveys (Sheehan 2001) and the unreliability of e-mail addresses as compared to physical addresses (Crawford et al. 2002; Shannon and Bradshow 2002). This article addresses the implications of using return receipts/address updates to reduce the costs of self-administered mail surveys at Penn State Harrisburg (PSH). We build upon Dillman’s (1991, 2000) widely-used approach of multiple contact surveys to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness and improvement in completion rates using return receipts. We found that having valid addresses has the potential of reducing costs associated with a mail survey (e.g. copy costs, postage, etc.). However, in determining the efficacy of the return receipt method a priori, two features of the survey must be considered: (1) the relative cost between the return receipt and the additional mailings, and (2) the ratio between usable (deliverable) and nonusable (un-deliverable) addresses (see appendix for a model that demonstrates the utility of return receipts). If the ratio of bad-to-good addresses is higher than the cost of the return receipt relative to the cost of additional mailings, then return receipts are cost-effective.