Typical Response Rates for Common Survey Types

Generally speaking, it’s preferable to get a high response rate (80% or higher) from a small, random sample rather than a low response rate from a larger pool of potential respondents. But even this general guideline breaks down when we look at the differences between survey audiences.

Surveys that you distribute internally (i.e. to employees) generally have a much higher response rate than those distributed to external audiences (i.e. customers).

Internal surveys will generally receive a 30-40% response rate (or more) on average, compared to an average 10-15% response rate for external surveys.




Membership Survey


44 sent out (42 by email and 2 by mail)

Posted Date June 10, 2019

Reminders sent: June 21, July 9 and July 11

Received 8 submissions:  18% return rate


Facilitator Survey


35 sent out - all by email

Posted Date June 10, 2019

Reminders sent: June 21, July 9 and July 11

Received 5 submissions:  14% return rate


General Notes on Survey Comments




  • Being part of CDRJS is important to members.
  • Members felt that Restorative Justice and CDRJS are important to the community
  • There is some interest in members becoming more involved.
  • Information: Members would like more information about updates, activities and training opportunities.
  • Greater visibility of CDRJS in the community




  • Majority of the current facilitators received training through CDRJS
  • Some have continued to provide service and obtain certification, some have not
  • Most indicated that they would like to continue facilitating or working toward certification
  • Other training requests include Refresher Course and Peacemaking training


Recommendations: ( intended to guide discussion and not to replace it – Doug McPhee)


The intention for the surveys were twofold:

1. Determine the need for future training and, if required, determine any additional training requirements that may be needed.

2. Determine possible discussion items for Strategic Planning or organizational changes as CDRJS moves forward into 2020.

Recommendation 1: People have signed into training for a variety of reasons, but personal and professional.  Within those trained are a few who have continued to work on their RJ facilitation skills and provide service to CDRJS.  I would suggest that we reduce the number of facilitators currently on the list to those who are have provided service within two years of their training and determine the need for future training based on the size of that group.

It is important to note that within all the groups trained have been individuals from communities and RJ Programs outside of our district.  I would suggest that we continue to offer training to other programs, but adjust our needs accordingly.


Recommendation 2: More can be done about and with PR.  This may require further discussion and the possibility of delegating some of this responsibility to other individuals or subcommittee structures.