Transcript Development of the 2007 Census of Agriculture Mail List Stan Hoge and Bill Iwig National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Development of the 2007 Census
of Agriculture Mail List
Stan Hoge and Bill Iwig
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
List Development Cycle
2002 Census Coverage Results
Census Coverage Goals
Steps to Meet Established Goals
List Building Results
Suggestions for the 2012 CML
Background
• NASS has responsibility for an annual agricultural
survey program and the Census of Agriculture every
five years.
• The NASS list frame supports both programs
requiring:
• Adequate production coverage and accurate control data
for the survey programs.
• Adequate farm coverage for the census.
• List development is an on-going process involving
adding new records and updating current records.
List Development Cycle
Record
Linkage
Updated List Frame
(active, inactive and potential farm records)
Annual
Survey
Program
Updates and
Maintenance
Census
Mail
List
Screen for
Potential Farms
New
List
Sources
2002 Census Coverage Results
Category
All Farms
Total
Percent from
Coverage
Adjustment
2,128,982
17.90
938,279,056
2.40
Less than $1,000
570,919
32.77
$1,000 to $2,499
255,639
33.92
$2,500 to $4,999
213,326
15.46
$5,000 to $9,999
223,168
11.45
Land in Farms (acres)
Farms by Value of Sales:
2002 Census Coverage Results
Minority Group
No. Farms
Percent from
Coverage
Adjustment
Female
237,819
24.18
Hispanic
50,592
43.14
Am. Indian or Alaska Native
15,494
20.19
6,285
18.60
29,090
43.87
983
18.01
7,661
22.88
Asian
Black/African Am.
Native Hawaiian
More than one race
2002 Census Coverage Results
Coverage Adjustment of Total Number of Farms
Census Coverage Goals
• Increase minority farm coverage from 68% to
73%.
• Maintain coverage of farms with $50,000 or
more in agricultural sales at 95%.
• Reach at least 75% coverage of all farms for
all States.
• Set a Target CML Size = 3.1 million records.
CML Size vs. Farm Coverage
90
88
6
89.6
4.1
88.2
3.6
86
86.3
3.2
4
2.85
84
82.1
82
2
80
78
0
1987
1992
1997
2002
CML Size (Millions) .
Farm Coverage (%) .
92
Steps to Meet Established Goals
• Aggressive list-building guided by annual
Field Office (FO) list-building plans.
• Outreach to minority and socially
disadvantaged farm operators.
• Introduction of the Agricultural Identification
Survey (AIS).
• Improvements to record-linkage processing.
• Set State level target CMLs.
Census List Development by Source,
2002 and 2007
Source
New Adds
(Million)
Reactivated Criteria
(Million)
1998-2002
2003-2007
1998-2002
2003-2007
FTI/FSA/InfoUSA
.526
.678
.268
.370
State Sources
.452
1.098
.051
.047
Total
.987
1.776
.319
.417
Minority Counts (U.S.)
List Control vs. Census Adjusted
Type
Am Indian
2002
Census
January
2005
June 2007
% Increase
15,494
10,993
44,683
306
8,375
5,148
8,160
59
29,090
14,770
43,871
197
237,819
163,755
333,435
104
7,661
7,394
21,092
185
Native
Hawaiian
983
1,481
3,384
129
Hispanic
50,592
21,914
44,518
103
Asian
Black/African
American
Female
More than one
race
Agriculture Identification Survey Results
(Screener for Potential Farms)
Survey Period
Total
Mailed
In-Scope
1/
Out of
Scope
Not Returned
Fall 2004
171,717
32,833
18,542
110,990
Spring 2005
102,722
31,112
17,481
34,257
Fall 2005
133,179
47,540
19,044
49,902
Spring 2006
260,663
51,260
32,734
108,053
Fall 2006
1,065,311
472,728
157,990
361,558
Total
1,733,592
635,473
245,791
664,760
1/ Response with data and available for CML
Set State-level CML Targets
• Allocation of U.S. Target CML (3.1 million).
• Based on State coverage history, population
distribution and current farm number estimates.
• Provided guide to FOs in managing list building.
• Expect approximately 3.4 million available
records so plan to trim marginal records for
some States.
•
•
•
•
Potential farm records with probable bad addresses
Records from poor quality list sources
FO Input through CML Target Evaluation and Trim Plans
Records identified by Classification And Regression Trees
Model (CART), based on percent active on survey frame.
Suggestions for the 2012 CML
• Analyze the effectiveness of available list
sources.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the AIS and the
entire Census list-building process.
• Provide firmer and earlier guidance to the
FOs on list-building expectations.
• Increase automation of record linkage as
appropriate.
END