Congress is in the midst of addressing the issue of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) – an issue very important to survey research. The information that can be collected - regardless of whether the data collection is conducted for research purposes or other reasons - is at stake.

In July 2005, the House Energy and Commerce Committee issued to CMOR a draft version of a bill called the “Data Accountability and Trust Act” (DATA). While DATA was intended to prevent data breaches that could lead to identity theft, this version of the bill allowed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) leeway to modify the definition of “personal information.”

Such broad rulemaking authority could lead to the inclusion of PII collected for research purposes. CMOR expressed these concerns to the Commerce Committee. We followed through on a strategy that has greatly assisted us in protecting the profession in the past: Those who leak PII, such as financial account information and credit card numbers, are the “bad actors,” along with those who work to steal information that could lead to identity theft and/or severely damaged credit. These are the types of business and activities that should be the target of legislation/regulations. The FTC should not, therefore, be put in a position to alter these terms in ways that could materially impact our profession (the “good actors”).

While CMOR certainly acknowledges and respects the right of the FTC to implement rules and regulations as necessary, we seek to limit the scope within which the Commission can do so. Otherwise, a law that is safe for research when it is passed could wind up being dangerous for research when it isimplemented.

In a more recent draft, the Committee significantly narrowed the FTC’s ability to modify the law. Specifically, DATA would be triggered by:

• The collection of a person’s first and last name in combination with their:
  • Social security number, or
  • Driver’s license number/other State identification number, or
  • A financial account number credit/debit card number, and any security codes or passwords needed to access an individual’s account.

The FTC would now be permitted to modify the definition of “personal information” as necessary to accommodate changes in technology or practices. (The bolded portion was missing from the July draft.)

CMOR remains cautious about how the FTC may interpret their authority. For example, might digital signatures be subject to restriction or regulation as a “change in technology or practices”? If so, that could have an impact on the research profession.

We are, however, pleased to report that the House Commerce Committee has significantly improved this bill from one draft to the next. Since DATA is still in draft form, and has not been formally considered by the Committee, there is still time for further improvements. Along with our Government Affairs Committee, CMOR will continue to strategize the best way to make this bill even safer for research, both from a legislative and regulatory perspective.

By Brian Dautch CMOR Director of Government Affairs

Now that 2005 is drawing to a close, this seems like a good time to summarize where CMOR (and the profession) stand on all the major elements of Government Affairs.

Regarding telephone privacy, although no new federal do-not-call legislation has originated on the federal level, telemarketing legislation continues in the states. We continue to track these bills and act when they may negatively impact on survey research activities. In addition, CMOR has created a Do-Not-Call webinar, with information on the federal do-not-call law/registry, various state do-not-call laws, as well as the Do-Not-Call Advisory Opinion CMOR procured from the Federal Trade Commission in July 2004.

Concerning facsimiles, federal regulators have assured CMOR that so long as survey research faxes do not imply the advertising or promotion of a product, it is unlikely to be perceived as "commercial" thereby triggering federal restrictions. Since research is not commercial in nature, such issues should not prove problematic. We also continue to track legislation on the state level, where fax-related legislation continues to emerge.

Regarding online issues, we are faced with an ever-evolving series of legislative and regulatory considerations. While the Internet is far from the unregulated “Wild West” it may have been several years ago, Congress and federal agencies are still pondering the best ways to regulate Internet activity while still allowing both reasonable privacy rights as well as the continued growth of e-commerce.

The area of spyware, for example, is in a state of flux. On one hand, Congress has been deluged with constituents worried about computer viruses, browser hijackers, and keystroke loggers. In response, a number of spyware bills were introduced.

On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission, according to Chairperson Deborah Majoras, sees no need for the passage of any spyware legislation at all. She feels that the Commission already has the necessary tools to go after spyware, and that the chief problem is locating and identifying spyware purveyors themselves.

Both the legislators and the regulators want to solve this problem. However, the best method of accomplishing this goal is still unclear. As a general proposition, less legislation is better, since more new laws increase the chance of survey research getting caught up in the legal and regulatory framework. Although CMOR has worked diligently (and successfully) to help prevent this from happening, the absence of a specific law could be the best possible outcome from the profession’s perspective.

CMOR has followed and tracked a wide variety of telephone, email, online and data privacy issues, several of which we have reported on in our acclaimed Webinar Series (CD-ROMs) now available for sale. Please contact info@cmor.org or visit the CMOR website for further details on these products and how you can purchase them.

CMOR is in the process of updating and adding content to our website – visit often for Government Affairs information. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact CMOR’s Director of Government Affairs here.

Over the past several years, CMOR has been tracking respondent cooperation and conducting workshops on how to increase cooperation. In September, during this year’s Respondent Cooperation Workshop in Washington, DC, I reviewed our recent Workshops, along with the papers given at the latest one, and came up with 13 proven findings -- divided into 11 rules -- that can be used to increase respondent cooperation. By my rough estimate, if your research company did all of these things, your cooperation rates would go up by at least 20%.

Specific papers and support for these findings are available on our website for purchase (http://www.cmor.org/).

11 Rules from CMOR Conferences/Workshops and Publications for Increasing Respondent Cooperation Right Now:

• Shorter interviews are better, but do not exceed 15 minutes unless you do something else other than a random call (such as pre-screening, an incentive, etc.). (1999 Cooperation Tracking)
• It pays to disclose the length of the interview, especially with shorter interviews. (1999 Cooperation Tracking)
• Pre-notification, combined with incentives, reduces refusals and increases cooperation with conversion attempts. (2003 Workshop and Journal Article)
  • A refusal follow-up letter with cash (2 levels) added a significant increment to cooperation rates, but a pre-interview notification letter with cash did even better in increasing respondent cooperation. (2003 Workshop)
  • In a study of 1,000 interviews, sending letters about an upcoming interview cost $5,400 less than sending postcards and $11,000 less than not sending any advance notice. The postcard beats no advance notice by $5,600. This is about $1,700 saved for each 1% of improved cooperation. (AAPOR Public Opinion Quarterly)
• Early Data from Avoidance Refusal Training suggest sizable impact on cooperation: between 0% and 6%, depending upon the study. (2005 Workshop)
• Be prepared with trained interviewing staffs to be able to handle Spanish-speaking respondents from the point of greeting onward. The proportion of Spanish speakers in the population is high and growing. (2005 Workshop)
• Use the appropriate CMOR introductions when designing questionnaires. (CMOR Task Force, 1999)
• Explore the way you use scales, ratings and reporting scales. A slight change in the way the scales are administered can have a significant impact on length. (Study Reported 1986)
• We can increase the response rates we can achieve by changing the mode of the interview once the respondent has been screened, even though the data requires additional time to collect. The increases in respondent cooperation are astounding. (2005 Workshop)
• When data needs are massive (many questions and many things to rate) if you want to shorten questionnaires, then consider the old reliable incomplete block design where each respondent answers a portion of the complete questionnaire. (Research Technique)
• Bring the client into the need to reduce questionnaire length. (2005 Workshop)
• Provide each respondent with a positive image of survey research, an alternative time and day for the interview, and a way of letting them know that the company that is contacting them is a legitimate company and not a “scammer,” “spammer,” “SUGGER” or “FRUGGER.” (2005 Workshop)

So there you have it: a roadmap to higher cooperation. For more information, please visit the newly redesigned CMOR website or contact me at hheller@cmor.org.

Be sure to renew your membership to continue to receive this e-newsletter and the other great benefits of your CMOR membership! Questions? Please contact CMOR at info@cmor.org.