STRIKING THE BALANCE BETWEEN PRIVACY AND

PRODUCTION IN DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEYS: 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESPONDENT

IDENTIFICATION POLICY1 

Nancy Bates, Pat Doyle, and Gerald Gates2 

U.S. Census Bureau

Abstract: As a data collection agency, the U.S. Census Bureau is in the business of gathering information about 

individuals and households. Some topic areas are more sensitive than others and issues of confidentiality may arise when, 

for a variety of reasons, interviewers share information from an earlier interview with someone in the household other 

than the original respondent. To address potential privacy concerns about these practices, the Census Bureau instituted 

a Respondent Identification Policy (RIP) in 1998. The policy requires all demographic surveys to obtain respondent 

permission before disclosing any personal information to household members other than the original respondent during 

follow-up interviews. In this paper, we analyze data from two surveys and report on the willingness of respondents to 

allow disclosure of information to other respondents during subsequent visits. We also examine the characteristics of 

those who object to within-household disclosure. We acknowledge that the results included here are not the full impact 

of the RIP policy for two reasons. First, the RIP question is not always interpreted by the respondents as asking 

exclusively about privacy concerns. Second, a lack of willingness to allow disclosure of information only has an impact 

if the respondent for a set of questions changes between two rounds of interviewing. 

Keywords: Dependent Interviewing, Within-Household Disclosure, Confidentiality 

Introduction

In 1998, the U.S. Census Bureau developed a Respondent Identification Policy (RIP) for household 

surveys to better control and protect the sharing of personal information among members of an 

interview unit (Gates, 1998). Longitudinal surveys and data quality reinterviews use dependent 

interviewing techniques where interviewers reveal personal information from a previous interview 

to the current respondent during the process of reviewing, updating, or clarifying answers. If the 

current respondent is not the same as the prior respondent, information sharing results. 

The Census Bureau’s policy requires that interviewers can reveal information provided by one unit 

member (from a previous interview) to a different member of the same unit only if the original 

respondent has given authorization to do so. This authorization is determined at the end of the first 

interview, by asking if we may contact others in the interview unit to update information, in the event 

that the original respondent is not available. If the original respondent does not agree to this request, 

then dependent interviewing can be used in subsequent interviews only if conducted with the original 

1

This paper reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by Census Bureau staff. It has undergone a Census 

Bureau review more limited in scope than that given to official Census Bureau publications. This report is released to inform 

interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. 

2

The authors would like to thank members of the RIP Committee for their guidance in this research. We would 

particularly like to thank Jan Brown and Jeff Moore who provided technical review, Michael T. Morgan for his editorial 

assistance, and Elaine Hock and Liz Griffin for the development and production of the underlying data. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondent. In the absence of the original respondent, the subsequent interview can continue, but 

it cannot take advantage of any information obtained from the prior interview. This policy applies 

only to person-level data–household-level data, including composition, are exempt. 

In this paper, we analyze the willingness of respondents to allow disclosure of information to other 

household members in the context of dependent interviewing. We begin this report with a summary 

of how the policy was developed and follow with a discussion of the context of the research, 

including concerns for the impact of RIP on data quality, a review of related research, and a 

description of the implementation of the RIP questions in two surveys. The potential implications 

of this policy are presented in the subsequent section where we analyze the number and 

characteristics of those who decline to share their information with another household member. We 

emphasize “potential” because respondents may interpret the RIP question more broadly than 

intended and because we have not yet analyzed the interaction between those who decline to share 

their information and those who are in a position to have their information shared. These issues are 

deferred to future research, as discussed in the concluding section. 

The Policy

In 1997, staff expressed concerns to the Policy Office about a situation observed during an interview. 

The concerns centered around the fact that some information, including some thought not to be 

sensitive, was harming respondents when provided in subsequent interviews to another household 

member. One example involved a household where the wife reported a prior marriage to the field 

representative in the first interview. The field representative reported this fact to the husband in the 

subsequent interview as part of the roster update of household members’ demographic information. 

The husband was unaware of his wife’s first marriage. 

Although the Census Bureau has traditionally recognized and protected privacy for all members of 

the household, it had not considered the importance of privacy for each household member until this 

point. The need for a policy review was clear given that dependent interviewing was likely to grow 

in use, that household relationships were likely to continue to be complex, and that privacy concerns 

were growing in the era of the Internet (Zeller, 2001) 

The decision on the current policy was made after careful analysis of the various uses of dependent 

interviewing—roster updates, quality checks, and the use of feedback. Business surveys were 

excluded since it was determined that establishment-provided information is not disclosed to the 

parent company or another establishment within the company. Further, it was decided that quality 

control checks involving only name and address would not be subject to the policy given that this 

information was routinely checked in the census and was not considered sensitive. The policy was 

limited to information on individuals, thus not applying to household characteristics, such as number 

of rooms or telephones. Information provided by non-household members could not be revealed in 

subsequent interviews with household members. 

Operational considerations were important to the policy. A blanket decision to prohibit dependent 

interviewing for certain survey operations or sensitive questions did not seem warranted or 

appropriate. However, we needed to provide a means of instructing field representatives about who 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

provided the prior information and who was authorized to see it in subsequent interviews. After 

careful analysis and considerable internal discussion, a compromise solution was reached where the 

field representative would ask the respondent that provided information for himself or for another 

household member, who in the household we may contact to update the information if they are not 

available. Only those persons so identified may be provided prior information. 

To facilitate implementation, and not disrupt current survey operations, adherence to the policy was 

subject to the status of the survey. The 2000 Census and all new demographic surveys were 

immediately subject to the policy. Existing surveys would be subject to the policy when their 

samples were redesigned following Census 2000. This was important to minimize operational and 

methodological disruption that could negatively affect important time series. Further, it allowed for 

evaluations related to the characteristics of those persons who declined to permit dependent 

interviewing and how they differed from those who agreed. This would be important in 

understanding what bias might be introduced as a result. 

The process that led to the RIP was hard but quite successful. While maintaining the status quo is 

easy and least disruptive in the short term, all parties recognized that this issue was important and 

worked together to find a solution that met legal requirements, supported Census Bureau policy, and 

was operationally attainable. The Census Bureau’s respect for respondent’s privacy was the 

overriding issue and the policy was successful in meeting that goal. 

Context of the Research

Quality Concerns. The introduction of this policy has been of some concern to cognitive survey 

researchers and to data users, because of its potential lack of clarity to respondents and its potential 

impact on data quality. One area of concern is whether the respondents understand questions or 

concepts like the RIP and are answering the questions we are trying to ask. The Census Bureau 

conducted two cognitive tests of the RIP question wording for this study, resulting in wording that 

conveyed the intent of the question and that was flexible enough to accommodate use for surveys 

with different field periods (DeMaio and Hughes, 2001). However, concern still remains that 

respondents interpret the context of the question in a broader context than the RIP policy. 

Another area of concern is the impact of this policy on the use of dependent interviewing, which 

reduces certain types of measurement error, reduces respondent burden and increases the efficiency 

of the interview (Mathiowetz and McGonagle, 2000, U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 2000, and Dibbs, et al., 1995). For example, the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) uses dependent interview questions like the following: “Last time we recorded 

that [name] got disability income. Does [name] still receive it?” The objective is to reduce spurious 

changes in how income is classified from one interview to the next and to help the respondents 

pinpoint the timing of a change in recipiency, should that occur. The introduction of the RIP will 

likely be accompanied by a reduction in the use of dependent interviewing such as that used in SIPP 

and with that an expected increase in measurement error and reduction in data quality. 

Dependent interviewing increases interviewing efficiency by reducing repetitions of questions over 

time and thus lowering respondent burden. For example, the Current Population Survey (CPS) uses 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dependent interviewing to avoid repeating industry and occupation questions over time, for a person 

with the same job (U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Commerce, 2000). 

As noted, not all information used in dependent interviewing is covered by the RIP policy. In 

particular, information about the unit as a whole (which is expected to be known to all persons in 

the unit) is exempt. This includes answers that establish who was present in the unit at the time of 

the prior interview, and who (of those present in the prior interview) has left. 

The interesting feature about this policy, which many find confusing, is its interaction with the policy 

of collecting proxy interviews. If we want to interview person A at time t and that person is absent, 

many surveys will allow us to collect person A’s characteristics from person B (acting as a proxy). 

If person B says that none of the information he provided in time t can be revealed to anyone in time 

t+1 or later, then we cannot recall person A’s characteristics from time t, when interviewing person 

A in time t+1 (unless, of course, person B is the proxy for person A again in the latter interview). 

Related Research. In 1999, the Census Bureau’s Questionnaire Design Experimental Research 

Survey (QDERS) tested respondent reaction to the RIP policy. The QDERS was a random-digitdialing (RDD) survey that collected data to study questionnaire design issues. The survey asked 

questions on a variety of topics, including health insurance coverage, physical disabilities, asset 

ownership, and income recipiency. The QDERS response rate was about 40 percent. At the end of 

the survey, interviewers asked the following question (in households with twoor more adults): “The 

Census Bureau sometimes recontacts households, for quality control or to update information. If we 

do that and talk to someone else in the household, is it OK to refer back to the answers you gave 

today?” 

If the answer was “no” or “don’t know,” interviewers asked what concerns the respondent had about 

the procedure. Of the population eligible for the question, 6% did not agree to the request for 

disclosure (Loomis, 1999). Those who would not allow disclosure often refused on the basis of 

something other than privacy concerns. In fact, write-in entries suggested some lack of 

comprehension of the RIP question; that is, respondents answered “no” because they did not believe 

any other household members could or would participate in future surveys, or because they believed 

the question asked about their willingness to participate in follow-up surveys. 

Data. We used two data sources in the conduct of this study, the American Housing Survey (AHS) 

and an experimental survey conducted as part of the SIPP. In each case a RIP question was 

administered to respondents in households that had two or more adults present, or would have by 

the time of a subsequent interview. The AHS collects data on the nation's housing—including 

apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units. National (AHS_N) data 

are collected every other year, and household units remain in the sample over time (Demographic 

Surveys Division, 2001). This study uses data collected for the AHS-N during August through 

November 1999, with a sample ofapproximately61,000 addresses and a response rate of 91 percent. 

The interview lasted about 35 minutes on average and consisted of a series of questions on selected 

housing and demographic characteristics. At the end of the survey, interviewers asked the following 

question of all respondents in households with two or more adults: “We contact households every 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

two years for this survey. If we talk to someone else in your household next time, instead of you, is 

it OK if we use your answers as a starting point?” 

The SIPP is a longitudinal survey conducted by the Census Bureau to provide data on the distribution 

of income, wealth, and poverty in the United States—and on the effects of federal and state programs 

on families and individuals (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Of particular note for this paper, it is 

primarily a person-based survey, administering a battery of question to each person age 15 or older 

(or their proxy) in interviewed households. 

In 2000, the SIPP programinitiated a research and development project—called the Methods Panel 

Project—to develop and test changes to the instrument, and to improve data quality and the 

administration of the instrument (Doyle, Moore, and Martin, 1999). We used the SIPP methods 

panel Wave 1 instrument fielded in the summer of 2000 to analyze the impact of RIP. That survey 

included 854 households and 2170 persons in a treatment group with a response rate of 83 percent 

and 842 households and 2122 persons in the control group with a response rate of 85 percent. Both 

the treatment and control instruments incorporated the following question: “....The Census Bureau 

sometimes recontacts households for quality control or to update information. If we do that and talk 

to someone else in the household, is it OK to refer back to the answers you gave today?” 

The Potential Implications of the Policy 

The analysis in this paper is of individuals’ responses to the initial question on whether it would be 

“ok” to share information with another household member, should another respondent be asked to 

update information in a subsequent interview. This is not the full impact of RIP because the policy 

only has an effect if the respondent changes between two rounds of interviewing. Analysis of the 

full impact will be included in a future research project, once we have the data to analyze the 

interaction of RIP and changes in respondents. This is also not a measure of the true impact of the 

policy because the question as now posed is not strictly a question about privacy concerns. It also 

encompasses concerns for the ability or willingness of other household members to respond. 

Table 1 reveals that a large majority of respondents agreed to the disclosure request. In AHS, 

approximately8 percent declined and close to 4 percent answered “don’t know” or “refused.” Thus, 

there are about 12 percent of sample units in AHS where field representatives cannot use dependent 

interviewing techniques in subsequent visits, should the original respondent not be available. In the 

2000 SIPP Methods Panel, where we classified households as declining the disclosure request if the 

household respondent declined, we found 17 percent declined. Among adults (i.e. persons age 15 

or older) in the methods panel project, we found 17 percent of the sample declined and 5 percent for 

whom their opinions were not stated. Thus, there is up to 22 percent of the sample for whom 

interviewers cannot recall information in follow-up interviews. As noted, the figures in Table 1 

overstate the limitations on the use of follow-up interviews, as the limitation only applies if the 

respondent for a given set of questions changes from one interview to the next. 

The percent of those in AHS who did not agree to dependent interviewing with a different household 

member was close to, but slightly higher than that reported in Loomis (1999). The methods panel 

results were significantly higher than that for the Loomis study and AHS. Neither survey asked 
 

 

 

 

 

 

follow-up questions for those declining the request, so they lack any qualitative information 

regarding why people objected and whether their reasons were related to privacy concerns. 

Table 1. Response Distribution to RIP Question

Percent

In households with two or AHS Methods Panel Households Methods Panel Adults

more adults: N = 32,514 N=1,204 N=2,784

Agreed to disclosure 88.5 78.5 78.5 

Declined disclosure request 8.1 16.8 16.6 

Answered “Don’t know”3 3.2 4.6 4.6 

Refused 0.2 0.2 .2 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

To explore whether those who objected to disclosure share certain characteristics, we conducted a 

series of chi-square tests on selected respondent characteristics and response to the RIP question. 

(See Table 2.) We restricted the universe to units with responses to the RIP question. 

Table 2. Respondent Characteristics by Percent Declining RIP Request

AHS Methods Panel 

Characteristic

Households Adults

Declining N Declining N Declining N

Age <65 8.2%* 31,228 17.7% 1141 17.0% 2593 

>65 9.3% 17.5% 20.4% 

Sex Male 7.7%*** 31,277 17.3% 1145 17.2% 2647 

Female 8.9% 18.0% 17.6% 

Marital Married 6.7%*** 31,264 15.5%*** 1145 16.0%* 2647 

Status Not married 13.2% 22.4% 19.7% 

Race White 7.7%*** 31,277 16.6%* 1142 16.9% 2641 

Non-White 11.7% 21.3% 19.0% 

Ethnicity Hispanic origin 11.1%*** 31,277 11.7% 1134 12.5%* 2628 

Not Hispanic 8.1% 17.8% 17.6% 

Education Less than high school 10.0%*** 31,264 18.9%** 1145 20.2%*** 2647 

High school degree 8.0% 19.2% 17.4% 

Some college or more 8.1% 16.4% 16.2% 

X

2 significant at *.10, **.01, or ***.005 level 

The AHS results indicate that respondents who are elderly, female, not married, non-White, of 

Hispanic origin, or who have less than a high school education are more likely to decline the RIP 

request, compared to respondents not having these attributes. In spite of the much smaller sample 

3

“Don’t know” includes persons who could not be asked the question because they were no longer available to be 

interviewed when the question was posed or the interview was discontinued before the RIP questions were administered. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

size, methods panel results confirm the AHS results for marital status and education and to a lesser 

extent for race. The results for ethnicity are reversed in methods panel and AHS but the methods

panel differences are not highly significant. Of the characteristics examined, marital status appears 

to have the strongest relationship, with significantly more single respondents objecting across both 

surveys and across household respondents and all adults. This might suggest that single, unrelated 

adults sharing a household are less inclined to want previous information revealed to other members. 

The relationships reported here betweenrespondent characteristics and reactionto the RIP are similar 

to those of Loomis (1999), who also found that respondents who were age 65 or older, female, not 

married, non-White, or Hispanic were more likely to decline the RIP request. These similarities are 

noteworthy, considering the differences in mode, subject matter, and response rate between the 

QDERS, the AHS-N, and the SIPP methods panel project. 

Table 3 contains the percent of respondents declining the RIP request, broken out by various 

household-level variables—including indicators of low-income status, type of income receipt, 

housing tenure, household size, and the presence of nonrelatives. Both surveys reveal the same 

patterns in the rate of declining the RIP request but there is less significance to the differences in the 

methods panel results due to the small sample sizes, particularly for characteristics that impact a 

relatively small proportion of the population. For example, there are only 23 households in the 

methods panel sample with welfare benefits who qualified for inclusion in table 3. 

Of note, the presence of nonrelatives in the household does not appear related to the likelihood of 

disclosure objection. This finding is consistent with the QDERS, where the difference between 

households with and without nonrelatives was not significant. Consequently, the previously offered 

explanation for the difference between married and single persons is not supported. The number of 

adults in the household was also not found to be associated with disclosure objection. 

Several items were selected to reflect degree of wealth, as were indicators of low income or poverty 

status. In general, households with higher income and asset ownership appear more likely to consent 

to the RIP request, compared to those with fewer assets and evidence of low income/poverty status 

(see Table 3). For example, households in public housing and households with subsidized rent are 

more likely to decline the RIP request. Renter households are more likely than owners to decline and, 

those residing in the lowest housing value units are more likely to decline. Similarly, households 

with lower household income declined more often than wealthier households. Finally, those who 

reported receiving alimony, child support payment, or welfare income (for example, SSI or AFDC), 

declined the RIP request more often than those who did not receive these types of income. 

Conversely, households who reported receiving income from a farm or business, or from stock 

dividends, are less likely to decline (compared to those who did not report these types of income). 

Receipt of unemployment compensation, veteran’s payment, rental income, workman’s 

compensation, or disability, was not found to be significantly related to the RIP question. These 

results are similar to those from the QDERS, where households reporting interest income or 

dividends were less likely to decline the RIP request, while households receiving welfare income (for 

example, SSI, food stamps, or AFDC) were more likely to object (Loomis, 1999). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I 

Table 3. Household Characteristics by Percent Declining Request

Household Characteristic: AHS Methods Panel

Households Adults

Declining N Declining N Declining N

Nonrelatives

present

Yes 

No 

8.8% 

8.3% 

31,277 N/A N/A 

Number of

Adults

Two 

Three 

Four + 

8.4% 

8.4% 

8.3% 

31,275 18.7% 

16.3% 

11.7% 

1,067 N/A 

Tenure Own 

Rent 

No cash rent 

7.9%*** 

9.9% 

7.5% 

31,277 16.7% 

20.6% 

6.6% 

1,108 N/A 

Public Housing Yes 

No 

18.1%*** 

8.3% 

31,236 8.8% 

20.2% 

230 N/A 

Subsidized Rent Yes 

No 

15.3%*** 

8.3% 

31,168 18.2% 

20.1% 

210 N/A 

House Value <$70,000 

$70-114,999 

$115-175,000 

>$175,000 

9.1%*** 

7.5% 

7.7% 

8.2% 

31,277 N/A N/A 

Household

Income

<18,5000 

$18,5-36,999 

$37-67,000 

>$67,000 

12.3%*** 

9.5% 

7.1% 

6.6% 

31,243 20.8%*** 

8.3% 

12.6% 

13.7% 

1,111 N/A 

Alimony/ Child

Support

Yes 

No 

11.4%*** 

8.2% 

31,277 19.1% 

17.3% 

1,111 22.1% 

17.1% 

2617 

Business/farm

income

Yes 

No 

6.6%*** 

8.6% 

31,277 16.8% 

17.5% 

1,111 17.7% 

17.2% 

2617 

Dividends Yes 

No 

7.1%*** 

8.7% 

31,277 14.5% 

18.5% 

1,111 15.3% 

17.7% 

2617 

Unemployment

or veteran’s

Yes 

No 

7.2%* 

8.4% 

31,277 9.1% 

17.6% 

1,111 14.2% 

17.3% 

2617 

Rental income Yes 

No 

8.0% 

8.4% 

31,277 14.5% 

17.6% 

1,111 14.6% 

17.4% 

2617 

Social security

or pensions

Yes 

No 

8.6% 

8.3% 

31,277 19.2% 

16.9% 

1,111 20.2%* 

16.7% 

2617 

Welfare Yes 

No 

12.6%*** 

8.2% 

31,277 13.2% 

17.5% 

1,111 18.6% 

17.2% 

2617 

Disability

income

Yes 

No 

7.6% 

8.4% 

31,277 N/A 1,111 N/A 2617 

Interview Mode Personal Visit 

Telephone 

9.5%*** 

7.5% 

31277 17.6% 

16.5% 

1,111 17.0% 

15.1% 

2617 

X

2 significant at *.10, **.01, or ***.001 level 

Unlike the AHS data, the SIPP data show a higher likelihood to decline the RIP request among social 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

security and pension recipients than among nonrecipients. This parallels the higher concentration 

of decliners among elderly persons in table 2. Note however, this is only weakly significance at the 

person level so we do not place a high weight on this finding. 

The tendency to decline the RIP request varied significantly by mode of interview with respondents 

in personal visit interviews more likely to decline, compared to those in telephone interviews. In 

AHS this is likely related to the fact that personal visits are required for cases that are prior year 

noninterviews and thus are more reluctant or difficult cases, compared to those completed by phone. 

While the bivariate analysis presented in Tables 2 and 3 provide some insight as to which 

respondents are more likely to object to having previous answers revealed, it is likely the individual 

relationships are not independent of one another and should be controlled simultaneously. To better 

understand anyexisting covariation between the characteristics, (Bates, 2000) rantwosets oflogistic 

regressionmodels onAHS data where the response variable was defined as “Agreementto theRIP”= 

0; “Disagreement” =1. Responses of “don’t know” and “refused” were excluded from the models. 

For the most part, the logistic models confirm the conclusions from the bivariate analysis with the 

principle exception being housing value. The coefficient for housing value is positive and 

significant, indicating that as housing value increases, the odds of declining the RIP request also 

increase. This is opposite of the earlier finding, where it appeared that those in the lowest housing 

value category were more likely to decline (see Table 3). 

Conclusion and Future Research

Analysis from the AHS-N and the methods panel indicates that a majority of respondents are 

comfortable with having information they reported revealed to other adult household members 

during follow-up interviews. Approximately 8 to 17 percent, however, would not approve this 

practice, the latter number being significantly higher than the 6 percent reported in a previous study. 

When the percent who declined the request is added to those who answered either “don’t know” or 

“refused,” the total percent of nondisclosure households increases to around 12 percent in AHS and 

22 percent in the methods panel (although this reflects the absolute maximum since the original 

respondent would presumably be located in many of these cases). 

By analyzing respondent-level and household-level characteristics, the study suggests that those 

likely to decline a RIP request are those households with the lowest income and fewest assets. This 

is consistent with previous privacy and data sharing research, which reports that persons with low 

socioeconomic status feel they have little control over how information they provide is used (Bates, 

1995; Singer, 1993; Singer and Miller, 1993). When given the opportunity to choose, these 

individuals appear most likely to take back “control” of their information, by requesting restrictions 

on who can see it. These findings have implications for surveys that over-sample low income areas 

(like the SIPP) and, more generally, for follow-up surveys the Census Bureau conducts, for quality 

control or to measure response bias. 

The primary impact of the RIP policy occurs only in repeated interviews that use dependent 

interviewing, and only when the status of the interview changes—such as a change from proxy- to 

self-interview, or a change in the person providing the proxy. To more fully understand the impact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of RIP we will investigate the extent to which the respondent changes from one round of 

interviewing to the next, and how that interacts with the person’s declining the RIP. This analysis 

will be conducted on the methods panel experiment currently in the field, where both Wave 1 and 

Wave 2 instruments include the RIP question. We will also study the interaction between sample 

attrition and RIP to see if those who decline the RIP question are more or less likely to attrite (and 

thus not provide an opportunity to use dependent interviewing.) 

The Census Bureau is also planning a cognitive study to review the use of dependent interviewing 

and the impact of the RIP policy on this practice. This project will provide a more in-depth analysis 

of how the RIP question is viewed and understood by respondents. 

References

Bates, N. 2000. Results of the Respondent Identification Policy (RIP) Question in the 1999 American 

Housing Survey - National Survey. Internal U.S.Census Bureau report to the RIP Committee, 

August. 

Bates, N. 1995. Focus Group Report on Data Sharing and Notification of Data Sharing. Memorandum for 

Privacy Research Team. U.S. Census Bureau, July 13. 

DeMaio T. and Hughes, K. 2001. Report on Cognitive Testing of Question to Address the Respondent 

Identification Policy. Internal U.S. Census Bureau memorandum to Patricia J. Doyle, February 15. 

Demographic Surveys Division. 2001. Survey Abstracts. Washington DC: U.S. Census Bureau, July 

Dibbs, R., Hale, A. Loverock, R. and Michaud, S. 1995. Some Effects of Computer Assisted Interviewing 

on the Data Quality of the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics,” Proceedings of the

International Conference on Survey Measurement and Process Quality. Alexandria VA: American 

Statistical Association, pp 174-177 

Doyle, P., J. Moore and E. Martin. 1999. Methods Panel to Improve Income Measurement in the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Alexandria 

VA: American Statistical Association 

Doyle, P., and J. Moore. 2001. Methods Panel to Improve Income Measurement: Analysis of an 

Experimental SIPP Instrument. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Alexandria VA: 

American Statistical Association, forthcoming. 

Gates, G. 1998. Respondent Identification Policy. Memorandum for Chet Bowie, Chief, Demographic 

Surveys Division. U.S. Census Bureau, August 6. 

Loomis, G. 1999. Preliminary Results of an Analysis to Examine Respondents’ Reactions to the Respondent 

Identification Policy (RIP). Statistical Research Division, Center for Survey Methods Research, U.S. 

Census Bureau, September 8. 

Mathiowetz, N. and McGonagle, K. 2000. An Assessment of the Current State of Dependent Interviewing 

in Household Surveys. Journal of Official Statistics Volume 16 No. 4 pp 401-418. 

Singer, E. 1993. The Impact of Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns on Survey Participation: The Case of 

the 1990 U.S. Census. Public Opinion Quarterly 57: 465–483. 

Singer, E. and Miller, E. 1993. Reactions to the Use of Administrative Records: Results of Focus Group 

Discussion. Center for Survey Methods Research, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Survey of Income and Program Participation: Users’ Guide. 3

rd ed. Washington 

DC: U.S. Census Bureau. 

U.S. Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Commerce. 2000. Current Population Survey: Design and

Methodology. Technical Paper 63. Washington, D.C., March. 

Zeller, S. 2001. "Prying Eyes: The Information Sharing that Makes E-Government Possible is Producing 

a Backlash of Concerns about Privacy" Government Executive, June 2001, pp S-5 - S-12.