**Hanging in the Balance: Using Technology Without Losing Touch in the
Canadian Census of Agriculture**

**Claire Bradshaw, Processing, Census of Agriculture**

**Catherine Cromey, Manager, Census of Agriculture**

**Agriculture Division, Statistics Canada**

**Abstract:** In recent censuses, the Canadian Census of Agriculture has
adopted new technologies in data collection and processing. While these
technological innovations have made collecting and processing the
agricultural census faster and have provided many tools to ensure data
quality, they carry a price. The push to more cost-effective collection
methodologies has coincided with increased demands for privacy and
confidentiality; in combination, the two have decreased the quantity and
quality of personal contact with respondents.

Each five-year census presents new challenges in ensuring that the
agriculture census addresses the important issues of a very rapidly
changing agriculture industry. The collection process, although still
largely paper-based, has incorporated Internet and computer-assisted
telephone interviewing, limiting opportunities for ad hoc feedback and
face-to-face contact. This paper presents the issues and solutions for
balancing respondents' privacy and confidentiality, and the growing
adoption of more impersonal and fragmented data collection options.

1.  **Introduction to the Census of Agriculture**

The Census of Agriculture is a comprehensive stock-taking of Canada's
agricultural industry every five years. The five-year cycle allows us to
track the evolution of farms and the ways they are adapting in order to
stay profitable. It also allows for the timely identification of trends
in a rapidly changing industry, while the small area data provide the
flexibility and precision that make this possible.

The Census of Agriculture retains a strong time series on core questions
while maintaining some flexibility for adding and revising questions
that reflect current issues in the industry. The census collects data on
farm operators, crops, livestock, land management practices, farm
finances, machinery, and computer use. The last census in 2001 counted
approximately 247,000 farms, 167 million acres of total farmland,

101 million acres in crops, 15.5 million cattle, 14 million pigs, and
126 million hens and chickens.

For the past 50 years the Census of Agriculture and Census of Population
have conducted a joint data collection operation. Since the majority of
agricultural operations are household-based, they can be effectively and
accurately enumerated using the same methodology. Preparations are well
underway for the next census in May of 2006, which will continue this
tradition. The joint collection also facilitates a link between the
agriculture and population databases that provides a detailed
socio-economic profile of the farm population.

This paper focuses on the changes in census collection methodology and
coverage erosion that have compelled the Census of Agriculture to find
additional avenues for collection as well as new strategies to enhance
that collection. The role that technology plays, the third component in
this balancing act, is discussed at the end of the paper.

The paper is divided into five sections: this section has set the
background, while the second explains the joint census collection
process and describes the changes for 2006. Section 3 explains past
changes to collection procedures for the Census of Agriculture and the
impact of those for 2006. Section 4 describes the various strategies
that will be put in place to compensate for coverage erosion and looks
at the role technology plays. The fifth section offers concluding
comments.

**2. The** **joint collection process for** **agriculture** **and**
**population**

Understanding the census collection process used in the past and the
extent of the changes coming in 2006 is critical to explaining some of
the challenges the Census of Agriculture is facing.

Between 1971, with the start of self enumeration, and 2001, the census
data collection methods for the joint agriculture and population
censuses changed little. Most households (about 98%) were enumerated by
the drop-off and mail-back methodology. A Census of Population
questionnaire was dropped off at each household in the assignment area
and whenever the census enumerator determined that a farm operator
resided in the household, a Census of Agriculture questionnaire was also
delivered. Respondents were instructed to complete the questionnaires
and forward them in the enclosed postage-paid envelope. A census
enumerator was responsible for delivering, receiving, editing, following
up, and meeting quality standards for an assigned area.

The mailed-back questionnaires were returned to the same census
enumerator that had delivered them, who then edited the forms and
conducted a telephone follow-up for any questionnaires that failed edit.
When dropped-off forms were not returned by mail within a certain period
of time, the enumerator was required to follow up. After all
questionnaires for the enumerator's area, both population and
agriculture, were completed, the entire assignment was moved up the
line. Once quality checks were concluded, the Census of Agriculture
questionnaires were removed and sent to processing operations at
agriculture head office for imaging, automated data capture, and further
processing.

The 2006 Census collection represents the largest change in data
collection methodology in more than 30 years. Several reasons are behind
these changes, but topping the list are concerns for respondent privacy
and confidentiality as well as the potential for cost savings. The
availability of new technologies, such as the Internet, has also played
an important role in the decision.

While most rural households will still have questionnaires dropped off
at the door in 2006 as in previous censuses, the enumerator's edit and
follow-up for edit failures will be eliminated. As well, having all
completed questionnaires mailed directly to a central data processing
centre will restrict the local enumerator's involvement to delivering
the questionnaires, a significant departure from the previous census.
Having a neighbour see a completed form has been a long-standing issue
among rural respondents.

Once the mailed-back form has arrived at the data processing centre, the
unedited questionnaire will be imaged, and the data captured using
intelligent character recognition technology. This marks the first time
the two censuses will share data capture operations. At this point the
data and questionnaire images will be sent to the agriculture head
office to start processing. While eliminating the enumerator edit and
follow-up means that questionnaire data will have more missing entries
and consistency errors, the forms will arrive faster than ever before.

3\. Collection and coverage challenges in 2006

The Census of Agriculture had already seen coverage erosion in previous
censuses, and the new 2006 Census collection process will add new
coverage challenges.

1.  *Changes to Census of* *Agriculture* *collection prior to 2006*

The Census of Agriculture first initiated a change in the standard
collection process as a result of the trend to corporate farms. A
special collection, with contact at the corporate business address, was
formally implemented in 1986. This one-time special collection has since
evolved. Today a unit of people dedicated to this task continually
updates and maintains profiles on large corporate farms for both the
Census of Agriculture and the regular survey program. These operations
are contacted and profiled prior to Census Day and arrangements are made
to collect census information. This unit's work has grown from about 25
businesses in 1986 to over 300 corporate contacts.

In the 1996 Census, changes to collection dates and a new reference date
implemented by the Census of Population meant another change in
agriculture's collection procedures. The traditional reference date of
the first Tuesday in June was moved to the second Tuesday in May, so
that questionnaires could be delivered and completed within the same
month. Although a benefit for the Census of Population, (households that
move, usually at the end or beginning of a month, would not be as easily
missed), this change had an impact on the field crop areas reported by
farm operators.

Much of the field crop seeding across Canada typically occurs before the
first of June. Depending on the spring weather, a large portion of the
crop may not be seeded when respondents complete their forms in May. In
response, the Census of Agriculture implemented the Progress of Seeding
(POS) Survey. The first post-collection POS survey to verify and update
crop data was conducted from Statistics Canada's Regional Offices in
1996 as a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey. It
involved following up with operators who reported less than 90% of their
field crops seeded when they completed their forms. In 1996, a late
spring in many parts of Canada, approximately 115,000 were contacted; in
2001, a relatively early spring, only 44,700 farm operators were
surveyed. The resulting updates were later re-integrated to the
database.

The next collection change was a result of difficulties census
enumerators were experiencing during collection. Making contact at the
door at drop-off had become less frequent as more farm operators
increasingly worked off the farm. Moreover, increasing numbers of farm
operators were living off their operations, making it more difficult for
the census enumerator to determine that an agriculture questionnaire was
required. Trends such as the declining number of farms, the declining
percentage of farm operators among the rural population, and an
increasing number of farms having a non-traditional appearance have all
contributed to this undercoverage.

Starting with the 1996 Census, a missing farms follow-up survey was
implemented to collect data for farms that were missed by census
enumerators. Once agriculture questionnaires were received from field
collection, they were matched to a database of existing farms and larger
farms considered missing were contacted through a CATI survey. The first
missing farms follow-up in 1996 found an additional 3,000 farms. In
2001, about 5,000 farms were added. Their updated information was then
integrated into the census data before publication.

2.  *The 2006 Census* *collection* *picture* *---* *more* *fragmented
    than ever before*

The elimination of census enumerator field edits for 2006 has added an
additional layer to the coverage challenge. In the 2001 scenario, the
census enumerator was responsible for dropping off all population and
agriculture forms as appropriate, then editing the forms and following
up with respondents for failed edit and non-response --- all to ensure
the complete enumeration of "their part of Canada." Now the Census of
Agriculture has had to find a different way to complete this work. Two
separate edit operations are affected by the change.

One is the edit to the agriculture operator screening question on the
Census of Population questionnaire. This agriculture screening question
allows farm operators to self-identify on the population census form to
ensure that farm operations missed at drop-off receive a questionnaire.
As a field aid to identify farm operations, the screening question was a
very effective tool for identifying undercoverage since the enumerator
could quickly deliver any missed agriculture forms. It also worked well
to eliminate overcoverage, as local enumerators generally knew the
people in their area and were able to effectively weed out
"false-positive" responses and, more importantly, confirm and cancel
agriculture forms dropped off in error. The scope of these overcoverage
adjustments reduced the number of questionnaires by about 30,000 across
all of Canada.

In 2006, the two-part screening question on all population forms asks,
"Is anyone (in the dwelling) a farm operator who produces at least one
agricultural product intended for sale?" and "Does this farm operator
make the day-to-day management decisions related to the farm?" The
second part of the question was added for 2006 to reduce the
false-positive responses and the cost of follow-up. Potential new
operators identified by this question but who do not return an
agriculture questionnaire will be followed up at the same time as the
missing farms follow-up survey. Now that this edit will be centralized
and automated, sophisticated logic trails will target those most likely
to be farm operators, for example those in rural areas, and weed out
false-positives even before follow-up begins. We expect the 2006
operation to contact 15,000 population respondents who indicated that
they operated a farm and identify about 1,500 new farms.

[]{.mark}

The second editing process concerns the series of edits completed by the
census enumerator on the agriculture form. In the past, these edits were
usually completed within several weeks of the respondent completing the
form. Generally the edit ensured completeness of the questionnaire and
allowed a cleaner data capture. Over 55% of the agriculture
questionnaires failed the completeness edit and required a follow-up
call by the census enumerator. In 2006, the questionnaire will arrive at
a central processing centre just as they were completed by the
respondent.

The 2006 version of the former enumerator edit of the agriculture
questionnaire will also be conducted as a centralized follow-up CATI
survey. The move to head office presents new opportunities to make the
process more efficient: the edits previously done by the census
enumerator will now be automated, meaning the edit can be restricted to
the most important or most severe edits and focus more on the larger
farm operations, while including a sample of medium and small farms. The
Progress of Seeding survey can also be incorporated into the failed edit
follow-up. The switch from a large decentralized field staff in 2001 to
a smaller centralized and specialized interview staff means we can move
more complex edits that would have been performed by agriculture
specialists in later edit and validation processing to an earlier
process. Questionnaires not selected for follow-up will go to imputation
for edit failure corrections. All these features will also reduce
respondent burden.

One drawback to the new design is timing. The 2006 CATI failed edit
follow-up for agriculture cannot be completed until after the data are
captured, edited for basic logic errors, and an automated edit completed
to identify candidates for the follow-up survey. Although farm operators
will be re-contacted for failed edit as soon as possible, a delay of at
least one month and up to two months will be needed to complete all
steps necessary to identify those respondents requiring follow-up.

The end result for the Census of Agriculture will be a data collection
process that is more fragmented than ever before. The single agriculture
census collection vehicle used in the 1971 Census has been replaced by a
complex, multi-mode collection operation. Besides basic collection
through a paper questionnaire or the Internet, in 2006 it will include
four independent collection operations: a special universe collection
for corporate and large farms, and three post-census CATI follow-up
surveys --- the missing farms follow-up, the follow-up to the population
agriculture operator screening question, and a failed-edit follow-up for
completed census questionnaires that fail automated edits.

![](media/image1.png){width="4.192913385826771in"
height="2.9043307086614174in"}

**Figure 1: Collection is more fragmented than ever before.**

**4. The 2006** **challenge** **---** **integrating** **the collection
processes**

Faced with the reality of increasingly fragmented data collection
schedules and a variety of collection modes, the Census of Agriculture
looked for ways to integrate these new processes while maintaining
coverage, data quality and release dates. With data for both population
and agriculture to be captured earlier and faster, processing flows were
examined to see how the new work could be incorporated and the process
made more efficient. This section highlights the new processes and
strategies that the Census of Agriculture has adopted to answer the
collection challenges, particularly the increasing dependence on the
Farm Register and the two new edit follow-up surveys. Finally, the
various technologies that have made a difference are discussed.

*4.1 Increased dependence on the Farm Register*

The Farm Register, a central database that stores administrative data on
all farms in Canada, has become a key coverage tool for the census and
plays an important role in processing the data. After each census, the
Farm Register undergoes a complete update and in the years between
censuses receives updates according to information received from
agriculture surveys and tax data.

At the outset of the Farm Register's development the census was an
important data source. While this relationship remains today, it has
evolved to a point where the Farm Register is also an important list
frame source for the Census of Agriculture. Investments in maintaining
and updating the Farm Register have become very important as its role in
census collection and processing increases.

Census records are matched continuously to the Farm Register as the data
files arrive in head office. Various processing operations use the
matched information, as these examples illustrate:

-   A list of farms from the Farm Register is pre-ranked by size
    according to criteria such as land area or farm receipts. The ranked
    list is used by the follow-up surveys to ensure complete coverage of
    the largest farms and a representative sample of the smaller farms.
    This also allows for a more cost- effective follow-up.

-   The imputation and validation processes use matched data to confirm
    and assess the accuracy of information collected on the Census of
    Agriculture.

Several activities are underway for the 2006 Census to ensure that the
Farm Register is as up-to-date as possible and free from duplicate
operations and those no longer in business. The annual Farm Update
Survey calls approximately 10,000 operations that have not been sampled
in recent surveys to confirm their status. Another 1,000 records
identified by income tax data as "likely" farms are also included. In
2005, a list of agricultural producers collected from various external
sources not already on the Farm Register will be added to the Farm
Update sample.

2.  

3.  *Technology and* *the Census of Agriculture*

For those who have witnessed many censuses, the improvements generated
by technical innovations at each five-year census interval have been
dramatic. The range of tools available for data processing and data
validation has made the work in each successive census proceed faster
and with more accuracy. Within the balancing act of the various
collection activities, these technologies allow us to control and
monitor all components, keep an exact trail of all changes, make sure
the best information is there when needed, automate processes to meet
tight timeframes, and focus our efforts on the most important errors or
contributors. Some key technology tools that have served us well are
discussed in this section, including our central processing system,
imaging technology, automated data capture systems, and data validation
tools.

In 2006, the base for co-ordinating and integrating all processing is
the Central Processing System (CPS). The system consists of a network of
processes through which all records must pass. Unlike the fragmented
data collection process, the single processing environment provides a
unifying central control. To support the various processes, scanned
questionnaire images, Farm Register data, 2001 Census data, electronic
maps, and a number of other reference sources are available online. All
are quickly available through the CPS interface on each employee's
desktop.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.0in" height="4.353472222222222in"}

**Figure 2: The Central Processing System unifies all data sources and
supporting systems throughout the production cycle.**

The addition of questionnaire images in the 1996 Census was a milestone
in census processing in terms of major improvements in efficiency and
accuracy. Questionnaire images were made available to all the processes
that had required access to paper questionnaires in the past. The 1996
innovation had many benefits, including greatly reducing the amount of
paper handled and completely eliminating the need to track and control
questionnaires. Several processing operations witnessed considerable
time savings and quality gains by having images quickly available. Most
importantly, imaging allowed more than one analyst to view a
questionnaire image simultaneously. In agriculture large farming
operations make significant contributions to many data variables and
these questionnaires are in frequent demand. Again in 2006, the process
will permit instant access to an electronic image of the questionnaire
in order to check the accuracy of capture, review forms that fail
automated edits and look for any explanatory notes the farm operator may
have written.

Since imaging is the enabling technology for automated data capture,
this step was implemented in the 2001 Census. The questionnaire was
redesigned for automated data capture technology with segmented boxes to
encourage respondents to keep characters clearly delineated. Automated
data capture was completed using 65% fewer employees than manual data
capture in the same amount of time as the previous census. Overall the
quality of the data capture was comparable to error rates found in
traditional "heads-down" data capture, although the type of error was
quite different.

For 2006, the automated data capture operation will be conducted with
the Census of Population. With the benefit of economies of scale, the
data capture is expected to be completed in half the time of the
preceding census. Adjusting the edit strategy to detect automated data
capture errors is one of the new initiatives in the 2006 edit system.

Finally, the data validation process has used efficient computerized
tools (reports, graphs, maps) to make analysis quick, efficient and
thorough. Some specific examples include:

-   A standard query library using an inexpensive \"off-the-shelf\"
    software package

-   A custom-built online report system that shows top contributors
    within specific geographic regions, comparisons to previous census
    data at several levels of geography and impact-of-processing tables
    that show the impact of imputation and validation. (These reports
    are generated in an Excel format so that validators can easily add
    value to them with new formulas or by sorting.)

-   A custom-built form for updating the database that automatically
    checks updates for accuracy and consistency

-   A custom-built graphical mapping utility that can produce charts and
    graphs to illustrate patterns and changes in variables.

**5. Conclusion**

Many of the new questions raised by changes in collection and edit
procedures will be answered by the outcome to the 2006 Census of
Agriculture. Specifically, we are looking for answers to these
questions:

-   How effective is the two-part screening question on the population
    questionnaire at identifying new or missed farm operations?

-   Can a centralized CATI failed-edit follow-up that targets more
    severe edits and larger operations reduce respondent burden and
    provide data quality similar to the former field edit?

-   Can the fragmented data collection overcome additional coverage
    challenges?

-   Will improvements to the Farm Register make it a more effective tool
    for identifying missing farms and aiding in processing operations?

The answers to these and other questions will direct decisions for the
2011 Census of Agriculture. In the 2011 Census we expect the Census of
Population to extend the mail-out/mail-back collection methodology to
most rural areas in Canada, putting increased pressure on an accurate
and complete Farm Register. We expect to find fewer but larger farms in
terms of numbers, land area, and sales. We also expect farms to be less
household-based and have more complex operating arrangements. All of
these expectations will further complicate the task of completing an
accurate and comprehensive census. These changes will increase the
impersonal nature of the data collection (mail-out/mail-back), adding
even more distance from our respondents. The balancing act will continue
as we look to strengthen strategies to maintain coverage and data
quality and release the data results faster than before.

**References**

Duggan, J., Bradshaw, C., Julien, C., Villani, R. (2001) Data Collection
Methods for the 2001 Census of Agriculture, *Symposium 2001 Achieving
Data Quality in a Statistical Agency:* *A Methodological Perspective,*
Statistics Canada.

Julien, C. (2001) Using Administrative Data for Census Coverage,
*Conference on Agricultural and Environmental Statistical Applications
in Rome,* Volume II, 303-312.