Controlled Access

Any sampled housing unit to which access by a data collector is physically blocked or impeded is considered to be a situation of controlled access. Impediments may include people (e.g. a “gatekeeper”), structures, and/or animals. Controlled access situations are encountered only in studies using the in-person field data collection methodology. Dealing effectively with these impediments is necessary to further the objectives of a field data collection operation.

Controlled access situations can take many forms and may involve one impediment or multiple impediments occurring simultaneously. For example, a single-family home may be surrounded by a locked fence or may have a growling dog loose in the yard, or both. A secured apartment building may have a locked entrance, a security guard, or both. An entire residential neighborhood may have keycard access-only gated entrances.

It is important to consider that controlled access situations may involve not just one but multiple sampled housing units. For example, in the case of an area probability sample, a locked apartment building may encompass a number of sampled units.

Security features that impede access to housing units are not limited to particular socioeconomic areas. High-crime, lower-socioeconomic status areas may have more gated yards with guard dogs, bars on windows and doors, and locked apartment buildings. More affluent areas may have gates on the street and/or driveway entrances, security guards, and locked apartment buildings.

Another example of controlled access situations affecting multiple sample units is group quarters. University dormitories, military barracks, and other institutionalized living units are primary examples. Similarly, in the United States, Native American Indian reservations often present controlled access challenges.

Addressing controlled access situations will generally fall into one of two approaches: overt or covert. Covert methods often are more efficient and effective provided they do not put the data collector in legal or physical jeopardy. One example would be following a resident into a locked apartment building when he or she open the door. Another would be, once a selected unit resident grants entrance to the building over the intercom, using that access to go to all other selected units in the building. Overt methods, however, may be the only practical means of dealing with some situations. This may involve sending letters and/or making presentations to the controllers (gatekeepers) of the physical barrier (e.g. building manager, homeowners' or tenants' association).

Regardless of the type of intervention, success will depend first on gathering sufficient, detailed information about the situation. After analyzing the information, appropriate options and strategies must be devised and implemented. Although it is sometimes better to “beg forgiveness later than ask permission first,” it may be advisable to require field data collectors to consult with [Page 148]their supervisors before using a covert method of gaining entry to a controlled access environment.

Researchers should include in their procedural manuals and training programs material on how to deal effectively with various controlled access situations. Strategies and tools for dealing with locked facilities, complexes, and neighborhoods should be developed, utilized, and continually enhanced in an effort to negotiate past these impediments. This is particularly important so that data collectors do not find themselves taking unnecessary risks. They must be prepared to exercise good judgment to avoid legal issues such as trespassing or being injured attempting to surmount a physical barrier or outrun an aggressive animal.

...