Uso de enzimas y levaduras vínicas

5.10 A total of 6,573 individuals were added to the electoral registers as a result of the follow-up activities undertaken as part of the pilot, representing 13.2% of the total records that were followed up from data matching. Table 4 sets out the results for each of the pilots using this data, in terms of the numbers followed up and registered.

5.11 The percentage registering from all those followed up ranged from 1% to 44%. However, that 44% was a significant outlier the next highest response rate was 28%.18 _{The majority of the pilots reporting response rates at the higher}

end were ones where a specific area or target group was the focus. Pilots which matched the whole register and followed up a random sample tended to record lower rates.

5.12 The relatively small number of electors being added to the registers from the follow-up, particularly in response to the letters that were issued, is likely to be the result of several factors, including:

 many of the names provided were for people who are no longer resident (or never were in the case of correspondence addresses on the DWP Centric database)

 the fact that the pilots took place alongside the canvass when people are also registering through that process

5.13 Although the pilot groups should, ideally, not have been included in the canvass, in some areas the delays in the process and the complexity of the task meant that all properties were canvassed as normal ahead of contact being made with the pilot group. For example, Greenwich originally identified just over 4,000 names to receive a direct invitation to register but nearly 500 of them were subsequently found to have registered anyway during the canvass. Of the remaining names who were contacted, only 5.7% registered.

5.14 The figures also show that the control groups (see paragraphs 2.15-2.18 for more information on control groups) commonly recorded a better registration rate than the pilot groups (22% against 13.2%). This is unsurprising as the

18 _{The percentage registering in the Blackpool pilot was higher at 29.9% but the denominator for}

this calculation was the number of properties, not people, and as a result the response rate is inflated.

51

control groups were subject to the full annual canvass, including door knocking and reminders, which would have maximised response rates.

5.15 A more revealing comparison is between those pilots (matching the whole register) that sent their pilot follow up letters at the same time as canvass forms were first issued (Southwark and Wolverhampton) rather than during the

canvass (e.g. Camden, Greenwich). Both Wolverhampton and Southwark recorded higher response rates than other authorities matching the whole register, at least partly because the canvass had not already captured the registration of anyone included in the pilot group.

52

Table 4: DWP Centric data: Numbers followed up and registered and control groups Local authority Stage of annual canvass at which

follow-up started Total number followed up Total added to electoral registers New electors as a % of those followed up Control group % of control group registered

Blackpool Alongside annual canvass 2,467 72719 _{29.5% 2,466 31.2%}

Camden After the first canvass reminder letter 9,230 387 4.2% 1,234 15.9%

Colchester Final month of annual canvass (November)

3,693 169 4.6% 1,678 4.2%

Forest Heath - 4,696 - - - -

Forest of Dean After annual canvass 33 5 15.2% 70 72.9%

Glasgow After first annual canvass letter 331 94 28.4% Two

polling districts

80.3%

Greenwich After annual canvass 3,713 211 5.7% 4,176 13.0%

Lothian Prior to commencement of annual canvass

10,215 1,139 11.2% 9,875 31.0%

Manchester No follow up 0 0 No control group

Newham Stage 3: door-knock stage 1,902 79 4.2% No control group

Peterborough No follow-up No follow up 0

No control group

Southwark Alongside annual canvass 5,829 2,545 43.7% 648 42.0%

Stratford-on- Avon

Before and during the first canvass forms

1,035 10 1.0% 141 72.8%

Sunderland After annual canvass 2,408 297 12.3% No control group

Teignbridge No follow-up 0 0 0 0

53

Table 4: DWP Centric data: Numbers followed up and registered and control groups (continued) Local authority Stage of annual canvass at which

follow-up started Total number followed up Total added to electoral registers New electors as a % of those followed up Control group % of control group registered Tower Hamlets - - - -

Wigan Between first and final stage of annual canvass

5,012 187 3.7% 1,138 26.8%

Wolverhampton Majority of letters sent just before annual canvass

3,868 723 18.7% 6,992 12.7%

Total 49,736 6,573 13.2% 28,418 22.0%

Average 14.0% 36.6%

54

Follow-up on register inaccuracies

5.16 The majority of the follow-up activity focused on names not found on the registers (i.e. on improving the completeness of the registers). A few pilots did use the data to explore potential inaccuracies on their registers but only one pilot supplied data on this element of their activities.

5.17 Southwark sent letters to 6,773 names that appeared on their register but could not be found on the DWP Centric database (and subsequently sent

canvassers to 3,742 of them). A total of 2,137 names were subsequently deleted from the register in response to the letters and 349 in response to canvassers (a total of 31.6% of the total number followed up).

5.18 It is difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from such a limited test but given the results from Southwark it is a pity that they were the only authority to provide this data.