national multiple family submetering and allocation billing program ...

210 possible in-rent properties with units from 10-100, then the selection interval would be five
(210/40 rounded down to the integer). Then there would be a number randomly selected
between 1 and 5 to be the first member of the sample. Assuming the random number is 3, the 3 rd
account would be chosen, and then every 5 th thereafter would be selected, until the complete list
for the first bin is exhausted. More in-rents properties were selected in order to increase the
chance of finding a close match for each impact property during the matched pair process. There
were three cities (Austin, San Antonio, and Hillsborough) where there were not enough in-rent
responses to send 2 surveys for every 1.2 sent. In all three cases, every identified in-rent
property was sent a manager survey. In the end, approximately 1.4 impact surveys were sent for
every 2 in-rent surveys sent.
It should be noted that originally, the research plan aimed to exclude any properties with
less than 10 units. However, the postcard survey results showed that in Oakland, the vast
majority of properties had less than 10 units. So, in order to keep Oakland as a study site, it was
decided to keep properties with less than 10 units in the sample.
To insure a high response rate, the manager survey was implemented in three mailed
waves and a telephone follow-up with non-respondents. The first wave was addressed to the
“Property Manager” at the service address (i.e. property address) of all of the properties selected
through the aforementioned method. Since many multi-family dwellings do not have a property
manager on-site, or the manager’s unit number was unknown, a considerable number of surveys
were returned, deemed “undeliverable” by the postal carrier. This set up the second wave of
manager surveys. The mailing list for the second wave of manager surveys was comprised of the
undeliverables and the delivered non-respondents to the first wave. The second wave of surveys
were then sent to the billing address (rather than the service address), in hopes that someone
there could answer the survey questions. For the delivered, non-respondents of the first wave,
the second wave survey was re-sent to the service address.
In the third wave, manager surveys were sent to the billing address of any
non-respondents from the second wave. Additionally, if any surveys were found to be
undeliverable at the service and billing address, then the appropriate utility was contacted to find
out if they had any address updates or change in service.
Because of the importance of this survey and the strong desire for a high response rate, at
the conclusion of the third wave survey effort, the research team hired a company that specializes
42