Safeguarding 

America’s

Agricultural 

Statistics

A Century of Successful and 

Secure Procedures, 1905-2005

Rich Allen

April 2007

U.S. Department of Agriculture

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Contents 

Dedication i

Acknowledgments ii

Introduction iii

 

1. The Event that Changed Statistical Reporting 1

	 The “Data Leak” of 1905	 	 	 	 	

	 Immediate Reactions to the Data Leak

2. Evolution of Agricultural Statistics Reporting—A Timeline 4

	 Data Sources and Release Procedures in the Early 1900s	

	 Modifications Following Establishment of the Crop Reporting Board (CRB)	

	 Expansion and Decentralization from 1910 through 1930	 	 	 	 	

	 Impacts of the Great Depression on Agricultural Statistics

	 Founding of the Statistical Reporting Service

3. Technology Changes and Advancements 11

	 Impacts of the Modern Era of Statistical Techniques I

	 Impacts of the Modern Era of Statistical Techniques II

	 From Plastic Rulers to Interactive Tools

	 Entering the Electronic Era

4. Governing Laws and Processes 18

Laws Concerning the Agency and the CRB

	 Creation of the World Agricultural Outlook Board

5. Current Practices and Procedures 22

	 Shifting from Day to Night	 	 	 	 	

	 The Present Board Concept and Types of Boards

	 Creating and Adhering to a Calendar

6. The People Behind the Reports 27

Glimpses of Secretaries and Other Report Signers

	 The Special Roles of the CRB and ASB Secretary

7. Uncovering True Stories and Popular Culture 32

	 The True Story of the Soda Deliveryman	 	 	

	 Other Special Security Interpretations	 	 	

	 The CRB in Print and the Movies
8. Our NASS Pledge and Mission 37

	 NASS Employees—The Secret of CRB Success

	 Commemorating a Century of Successful and Secure Procedures

	 The Future

Appendix A: Chairpersons of the CRB and the ASB 40

Appendix B: Secretaries of the CRB and ASB 46

Appendix C: News Releases 49

Appendix D: Testimonials for ASB Commemoration 50

Appendix E: Photographs from ASB Commemoration on July 12, 2005 53

Appendix F: About the Author 58

References 60
DEDICATION 

“Out of Adversity Often Come Great Solutions”

-Unknown Author

This publication is dedicated to the thousands of employees of the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service—and its predecessor organizations—who in the past 100

years have built the premiere statistical confidentiality procedures in the world. It is also intended 

honor the memory of Willet Martin Hays who set those procedures in motion when the responsibility

for the integrity of official statistics was thrust upon him in reaction to a breach of public trust by another

employee.

This presentation is intended to be illustrative, instead of exhaustive, in its detail. Many different sourc

were consulted for the earliest historical events in this summary. A list of suggested references is includ

at the end of this account.

i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication has been written to serve as an oral history of USDA’s Agricultural Statistics Board from

1905 to 2005. However, since no one person was present during all the events in the past century, it w

necessary to rely on a series of former accounts of the history of the National Agricultural Statistics Service

(NASS) and the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB). The most prolific recorder of this earlier history, a

an inspiration for this publication, was Emerson Brooks, USDA, who created at least two earlier summaries.

Through a preliminary release of this publication, many of the specific actions were described or verified

by past Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of Agriculture, Assistant Secretaries for Economics, Chairpersons of the ASB and the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB), and Secretaries of the ASB. The

help was invaluable in creating as complete a story as you now read. Since it is impossible to fully recrea

history and to sort out small differences in recorded dates, spellings and actual actions from different accounts, the author takes responsibility for any incorrect details in this account. In addition, he will assu

responsibility for any misspelling of names, or use of less than favored name forms, in the publication.

ii
INTRODUCTION

This publication commemorates 100 years of protecting United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

statistical publications from improper advanced notification to any outside individuals. It explains t

unfortunate events of 100 years ago, which led to the creation of the Crop Reporting Board (CRB), now

referred to as the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB). It traces the evolution from one small group 

people protecting the pre-release integrity of specific reports to an agency-wide way of life that ensures the

integrity of all data that the organization handles.

This presentation begins in 1905, explaining the discovery of an insider trading scheme and the quick remedies that were taken. The organizational structure and the data sources in 1905, as well as major chang

in statistical procedures and Agency organizational structure across the last 100 years, are traced along with

their impacts on ASB procedures.

Some of thelighter moments in ASB history—and theimpact of its security procedures upon unsuspecting

parties—are covered. The explanations sometimes correct popular folklore that resulted from the telli

and retelling of stories over time. Evolution of new physical and electronic security and release procedur

demonstrate how the Agency has adapted to new technologies over the past 100 years.

Most of all, this story tells about the people who have upheld and improved USDA’s confidentiality procedures. The Agency received one of its highest compliments, in 1969, when followers of consumer activi

Ralph Nader (dubbed “Nader’s Raiders”) spent the summer studying and investigating the operations and

security procedures of many Federal Government agencies in the Washington, D.C. area. At one point,

Nader publicist commented that they found the Department of Agriculture protected secrets better than

any other organization they studied.

iii
Chapter 1

THE EVENT THAT CHANGED STATISTICAL REPORTING

The “Data Leak” of 1905

	 The summary and release procedures for

the USDA Bureau of Statistics’ reports in the early 1900s produced separate summary tabulations

for each data source available (up to six sources,

in some cases). The indications from all sourc

were brought together only shortly before a report

was scheduled for release. Three specific individuals, led by the Chief of the Bureau, reviewed t

indications, compared them to data from earlier

months and years, and decided on the state and national figures to publish. This process needed to 

finished in sufficient time to allow for typing and

setting up the telegram formats that were transmitted across the country at the moment of release.

It is also relevant that the release time for cotton

reports in those years was noon, Eastern Time, and

that the commodity markets discontinued trading

for an hour starting at noon on release days. T

original procedures allowed the three people who

had determined the final numbers to go about their

business, or even leave the building if they wished,

once a report’s contents had been set.

	 In 1904 there were rumors about insider

trading. As came to light later, one of the three Bureau of Statistics people, E.S. Holmes, Jr., did ha

an outside partner, a NewYork cotton trader named

Louis Van Riper. Shortly after an estimate was se

Holmes would meet Van Riper and tell him what

cotton estimate was going to be published. Van

Riper would take whatever market action would be

most profitable based on the advance information.

	 Bureau Chief John Hyde did not believe

that insider trading was possible. However, he announced an additional measure to demonstrate t

“integrity” of the system by decreeing that none of

the three members would leave the work area until

1
the report had been released. That did not det

Holmes and his partner. They worked out a sign

system using a particular window blind to indicate

the level of the figure to be published. They apparently estimated a probable level for the national figure and if the actual total was close to their estima

Holmes raised the window blind to the middle of

the window. If the total was higher or lower, Holmes adjusted the blind based on the scale they h

contrived.

	 Bureau Chief Hyde felt he had taken care

of any possible opportunity for data being leaked

but the insider rumors persisted. The scheme ca

to light following the cotton acreage report issued

on June 2, 1905. The three members met and adopted thestate and national figures to be publishe

After Holmes had sent his signal, one of the other

people who had worked on the report asked for

reconsideration. After further review, the figur

to be published were revised. At that point, t

outside partner had already interpreted the original

signal and proceeded to place trades.

	 The scheme came to light when Van Riper

charged in a telegram that a “fraudulent” report

had been released. In explaining why he thoug

this was a false report, he unwittingly revealed that

he had the information ahead of time. Evidently,

Holmes’ outside partner had an overabundance of

ego, but not a good balance of common sense in

going public with his story.

Immediate Reactions to the Data Leak

	 In 1905 no insider trading prohibitions

were in place. Holmes was removed from offi

and a number of grand jury indictments were issued. Since the specific grounds for prosecuti

were not as clear as they are today, it took several

years to prosecute him. Holmes received a fine of

$5,000 and some other parties to the scheme were

also fined.

	 Bureau Chief Hyde resigned in frustration.

Hyde was an honorable person who had made

many improvements in the USDA crop estimating

procedures after hetook over in 1897. However, 

had suffered through multiple criticisms and investigations—including a hearing before the House of

Representatives Committee on Agriculture about

the 1904 cotton crop, in which he persuasively

demonstrated the rigor of the survey indications

received and the accuracy of the data that had been

released. His resignation letter mentioned that h

medical advisor worried about the impact stressful

conditions had already had on his health.

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Willet M. Hays 

signs an official statistical report, in March 1910, 

as members of the Crop Reporting Board watch. 

Pictured (L to R) are Private Secretary to the Chief 

Statistician M.M. McKenna, Field Statistician John 

J. Darg, Chief Statistician Victor H. Olmsted, State 

Statistical Agent for Indiana Duncan, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Willet M. Hays, and Associate 

Statistician Nat C. Murray. Photograph from Special 

Collections, National Agricultural Library.

	 Secretary of Agriculture James “Tama Jim”

Wilson, who had earlier in 1905 persuaded Willet

Martin Hays to leave the University of Minnesota

and join USDA as an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, assigned Hays to temporarily head up the

statistical program. Hays was known for his wo

in teaching field studies of agricultural economics

and farm management techniques. His work 

Minnesota, before joining USDA, had been to establish a system of agricultural high schools, which

were associated with the university. His US

work in agricultural education was successful in

putting projects in motion that eventually led to

the landmark Smith-Lever Act in 1915, which is

still providing research funding to the States today.

2
	 Hays did not view himself as an agricultural

statistician, particularly not of the John Hyde caliber. Instead of continuing the three-member, fix

panel approach to setting estimates, he developed

an approach of identifying eight qualified individuals (four in Washington and four State Agents) who

would bring statistical and agricultural knowledge

to the crop estimating work. His approach was 

have four of the eight individuals participate in setting the estimates for each major report. The Sta

Agents would particularly bring firsthand knowledge of current crop and market conditions.

	 Hays’ new concept was adopted immediately and, by August 1905, reports were labeled as

being released by the “Crop Estimating Board of

the Department of Agriculture,” instead of the former, “issued by the Bureau of Statistics.” The fir

use of the specific Crop Reporting Board term appeared in November of 1905 and became the standard.

	 Two special reports were issued in August

1905. The first was a revision (correction) of t

cotton acreage that had been released on June 2.

The new U.S. estimate, based on a thorough review

of all indications that were present in June, was

for a reduction in planted acres compared to the

originally published 11.4 percent. There is so

evidence that Holmes had originally pushed for an

even smaller reduction than the 11.4 percent. T

second special report was a correction to the 1905

tobacco acres by type estimate. In this instance,

it appears that the original estimate had not been

manipulated but three computational errors were

overlooked in preparing the June summary during the tumultuous period after Hyde resigned and

Hays assumed his new duties.

	 The 1905 Yearbook of Agriculture contained a seven-page synopsis of the work of the Bureau of Statistics. That write-up served as a bas

“scope and methods” document and expressed the

basic philosophy of why impartial statistical reports

were essential to agricultural producers. It did reference the unfortunate June report and closed with

the following strong sentiments:

	 “...Theresponsibility forthis ‘leak’ is shared

by everyone who, to get money without work, gambles in farm products. When this form of indust

ceases, these parasites who tempt Department officials will have to work for their bread.”

3
Chapter 2

EVOLUTION OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS 

REPORTING—A TIMELINE

Data Sources and Release Procedures in the Early 1900s

	 The Department of Agriculture was a different organization at the turn of the 20th century compared to the organization that exists

now—100 years later. The two original functio

of the Department were to collect statistics and to

distribute seeds. Additional functions evolved 

the early 1900s but a very close tie remained between the Secretary of Agriculture and the statistical estimates. The explanation of the revised Cr

Reporting Board procedures included in the 1905

Yearbook of Agriculture specified that the Board

would meet on report days “...under the personal

supervision of the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary.”

	 The earliest statistical work of the Department for domestic estimates had been based on

regular (mostly monthly) schedules completed and

sent to Washington, D.C., by large numbers of

county correspondents. Paid, part-time State Statistical Agents were added in 1887, each of wh

developed his own corps of correspondents. 

1905 State Agents were located in 43 States. T

backgrounds of the State Agents further illustrate

the close relationship of the Bureau of Statistics to

the Secretary of Agriculture—and the U.S. Congress. The Georgia State Agent was an ex-governo

The Alabama Agent was an ex-Confederate Army

General and professor at Alabama A&M. T

Mississippi Agent was a prominent farmer recommended by both senators and the governor. T

North Carolina Agent was a professor of agriculture at the State College.

	 A system of township correspondents had

been added in 1896. Somewhere along the li

some paid, part-time special Field Agents were

named who were responsible for evaluating the

4
conditions in more than one State. John Hyde h

developed three additional types of reporters while

he headed up the statistical work: cotton ginner

bankers and merchants, lists of specific growers.

	 Since Hyde had already instituted a locked

door policy for the detailed review of the various indications, it appears that Hays’ contributions were

first to define the rotational Board approach and

second to be sure the curtains were drawn, and any

additional physical security measures employed,

while the Board deliberated up to the release time.

USDA officials retrieve the “Special A” envelopes 

containing summaries and recommendations sent 

from State and Field Agents to USDA headquarters 

in Washington, D.C. 

	 For reports such as the first acreage report

of the year, all six data sources might be employed.

Questionnaires coming to Washington, D.C., from

each data source (county correspondents, township

correspondents, cotton ginners, specific growers,

and bankers/merchants) were tabulated separately

and the individual tabulations were not compared

with one another until the work area doors were

locked. The State and Field Agents sent their summaries and recommendations by sealed Special “

envelopes or, if they were located far from Washington, D.C., by telegraph using a cipher system.

The documents were kept securein a double-locked

mailbox which served as a safe. The reports from

the State and Field Agents were not removed from

the mailbox and opened until after the doors had

been locked. Two sets of keys were required to unlock the dual locks to ensure the reports were kept

secure.

	 Most statistical reports were based on percentage change opinions (for acreage) or condition

percentages in the case of evaluating crops during

the growing season. Statisticians used the most recent census of agriculture data as benchmarks, a

reports that had been issued since the last census of

agriculture were re-evaluated and revised if needed

when new census data became available.

	 If sources of information for a particular

report did not closely agree, weight was given to

historical performance of indications from each of

the sources.

USDA officials unlock the safe/mailbox. Two sets of 

keys were required to unlock the dual locks to ensure 

the reports were kept secure.

USDA officer closes and seals the window blinds to 

maintain security.

5
	 Even in the early 1900s, due care was taken

to inform all interested parties as uniformly as possible. Reports related to cotton were released 

the 3rd of the month at noon during the growing

season. Reports on other principal farm crops a

livestock were released on the 10th of the month at

4 p.m. Reports were handed to all interested parties who attended and to the Western Union Telegraph and the Postal Telegraph Cable compani

for transmission to the press and to commodity

exchanges. A short, mimeographed report containing narratives and data tables, which includ

previous estimates and final production figures,

was sent to a mailing list of press, exchanges, and

individuals that same day. A printed card with t

report details was mailed to all 77,000 post offices

in the United States for public display. Details 

all reports released during a month were included

in the 8-page monthly (except for February) Crop

Reporter, which had a circulation list of more than

100,000 correspondents and other interested parties.

From the Telegraph Room in the USDA South 

Building, the Crop Report is sent to all parts of the 

world.

Bureau of Statistics Chief Victor H. Olmsted (1910). 

Photograph from Special Collections, National Agricultural Library. 

changes were documented in the Crop Reporter

annual reports.

	 A new permanent Bureau of Statistics

Chief, Victor H. Olmsted, was appointed on June

16, 1906. In 1907 State Agents were located 

45 different States and 17 traveling Field Agents

were in place. There were county corresponden

in 2,800 counties replying directly to Washington,

D.C.

	 By the end of 1907, the Crop Reporting

Board, for any specific report, consisted of the

Chief of the Bureau as the Chairperson and four

othermembersselected fromallstatisticians,Agents

(both State and Field), and officials of the Bureau.

Board members always did their own review before recommendations were compared among the

members of the CRB. In 1907, a total of 18 meetings of the CRB were held with participation by s

Field Agents and eight State Agents.

	 Olmsted took a leave of absence to assist

the Census Bureau with a special population census project and C.C. Clark served as Acting Bureau

Chief for much of 1908. By the end of 1909, the

were 19 Field Agents, 44 State Agents, 135,000

voluntary county reporters, 33,000 voluntary

township reporters, and 25,000 individual farmer

correspondents. The standard CRB make-up h

the Bureau Chief chair the meetings with participation by the Assistant Chief, one Bureau expert

statistician, and two Field or State Agents.

6

Modifications Following Establishment of 

the Crop Reporting Board (CRB)

	 The previous paragraphs illustrate that

many physical security procedures used today were

in place in the early 1900s. There were slight shif

in the procedures for Crop Reporting Board makeup in the first few years after 1905. Some of tho
	 There were some interesting references in

the Annual Summary included in the 1911 Crop

Reporter. To speed up tabulation of large surve

in Washington, D.C., a system of Crop Reporting

Districts (often 8-10 districts per state) was created

for each State. After the proof of concept, da

were summarized by district rather than by county, which greatly reduced the amount of detailed

weighting needed to get State indications. The

was also mention that some 2,582 questions had

been asked of the correspondents in 1910, compared to 483 in 1905. However, the overall response rate in 1910 was 60.5 percent, compared 

49.4 percent in 1905.

USDA also expanded during this period; additional commodities were included in traditional reports

as well as new data series.

	 In 1913, Nat Murray, who had been serving

as Associate Chief of the statistics unit, was asked

for recommendations for improving the statistical

procedures. Key among his recommendations w

to shift from part-time to full-time employees serving all States and to provide more prestige to the

role of State Agents by creating State Statistical Offices. Both recommendations were adopted, wi

the State Statistical Agent positions now being covered under Civil Service provisions. An agent w

named for most States but single offices were created to serve the six New England States, Maryland

and Delaware, and Utah and Nevada.

	 Funding was received for agents’ salaries

but not for renting office space. The State Statistical Offices during this era were located in the livi

space of the State Agents. Similarly, there was 

budget for hiring office staff so agents often relied

on family members for assistance in addressing and

mailing inquiries. The agents also did their o

editing and summarization.

	 The establishment of the State Offices and

full-time State Agents in 1914 was particularly

timely since there were many increased requests for

agricultural statistics during the period of preparation before the United States entered World War

I in 1917. After the war, demands for agricultural

statistics again increased when the United States

provided aid in the form of food shipments to Europe. The new statistical reports included estimat

of the production of several vegetables, cotton production forecasts during the growing season, fertilizer utilization, livestock inventories, and prices

and wage data. Many of these efforts led to ongoing data series that were retained as standard features of the Burea

	 Even with the tight budget constraints,

there was a concerted effort to utilize similar practicesin all States. One oftheimportantmechanis

for making improvements was a 1917 conference

of Bureau employees. Many of the experienc

agents were called upon to discuss their suggestions

for handling various responsibilities.

The CRB in March 1910. Pictured (L to R): Agricultural Statistician for Washington George K. Holmes, 

State Statistical Agent for Indiana Duncan, Chief of 

the Bureau Victor Olmsted, Statistical Field Agent 

for Bryantown, Md., John J. Darg, and Principal 

Statistician for Washington Nat C. Murray. Photograph from Special Collections, National Agricultural Library.

7

Expansion and Decentralization from 

1910 through 1930

	 The era from 1910 to 1920 was important

as far as shaping the work and structure of agricultural statistics within USDA. State Statistic

Offices with full-time employees were established.

The unique State/Federal cooperative agreements

that have been so important for providing efficient,

unduplicated, statistical service to agriculture originated in 1917. The scope of statistics covered 
	 One major advantage of the new full-time

positions was the opportunity to work closely with

State officials also involved with collection of agricultural statistics. Many States had long establish

“state farm census” programs—often carried out

by assessors’ offices. These programs varied fr

State to State in terms of coverage, definitions, and

procedures. In 1917 in Wisconsin, Commissioner of Agriculture Alan Norgood, and State Age

William F. Callander signed an agreement to establish the first cooperative crop reporting service

in the United States. This type of cooperati

was endorsed by the organization now know as

the National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture and many other States soon followed

Wisconsin’s lead.

	 One of the most noticeable advantages of

the state/Federal cooperation was avoiding two sets

of statistics for the same state. Other significa

benefits were the pooling of staffing, space, and financial resources and the possibility of expanding

the total coverage of statistics since duplicative data

collections were eliminated.

	 State office structure continued to evolve

and expand during the 1920s. By the middle of th

decade the township and county reporter lists were

merged into an expanded township list of individuals who responded to monthly questionnaires from

Washington. Starting in 1927 the responsibili

for the township lists was gradually turned over to

the state field offices. By 1933 the field offices we

responsible for mailing and receiving all inquiries.

By this time, reporting of prices had shifted to midmonth and most prices were collected from dealers

and merchants. With the state offices involved 

the data collection, and spreading the workload out,

it was possible to do more analyses. For exampl

acreage questionnaires usually asked individuals to

report how many acres of each crop were going to

be grown during the survey year, along with the

actual acres for the previous years. This allowed t

calculation of current to historical ratios of change.

Field offices could also match up questionnaires for

the individuals who reported the previous year and

calculate a current-to-current ratio indication of

change.

Impacts of the Great Depression on 

Agricultural Statistics

A farmer reviews his accounts in April 1936. 

	 A program was implemented nearly immediately to plow up nearly one-quarter of the cotton

acreage planted in 1933. Plans were made for

wheat allotment program, which would pay farmers to reducethe planted acreagein 1934 and 1935.

One of the most ambitious programs was the effort

to control the production of hogs and corn. H

prices were already at extremely low levels when

the AAA was established and large supplies were

8

	 By the end of the 1920s – a more detailed

livestock statistics program was in place. Month

egg and milk production were estimated, along

with periodic information on hog production and

lamb production. All estimates were at the sta

and national level only. However, this wou

change as the country dealt with the severe economic conditions of the Great Depression. Mon

was extremely tight and prices of agricultural commodities were at very low levels. In 1933 there w

also the possibility of producing surpluses, which

would drive prices even lower. In May of 193

Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act

that established the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) to develop programs to balance out supplies of agricultural products and to

improve commodity prices.
expected to come to market in the fall and winter

of 1933. More than 6 million pigs and 200,0

sows were purchased and slaughtered to reduce the

future supplies, with most of the meat going into

relief efforts.

	 To control supplies in 1934 and 1935, producers were offered favorable loans for reducing

production. This required county-level information on usual corn acreages, potential corn yields

per acre, and usual production of hogs. The Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates was call

upon to analyze all available data and to create the

necessary county estimates. Ninety-two junior statisticians were hired for state offices to handle the

added workload, one of the largest staffing increases ever for USDA statistics. The CRB did not me

to approve all new county estimates but did issue

instructions to be followed in creating them.

the operational names of the statistics unit. Another significant change took place on April 

1961, when the Statistical Reporting Service (SRS)

and the Economic Research Service (ERS) were established as separate USDA agencies. The acti

established SRS with one clearly defined mission—

collection and dissemination of basic agricultural

statistics.

	 Dr. Harry Trelogan was named as the first

SRS Administrator. Dr. Trelogan spent some ti

as a college professor following his Ph.D. from

the University of Minnesota and was particularly

known for his work in marketing economics. 

spent most of the 1940s and 1950s serving in various USDA positions, including Division Chief in

the War Food Administration. At the time S

was founded, he was serving as an Assistant Administrator in the Agricultural Marketing Service

and was well aware of the statistical program but

had not worked with the statistics functions themselves. All later Administrators have come from

within the Agency with broad varieties of experience.

	 Dr. Trelogan was not a “hands on” administrator as far as the details of CRB operation. 

devoted much of his energy and efforts to establishing the Washington Data Processing Center within

SRS. However, he expressed his vision for SRS 

a 1962 statement: “To serve the whole spectrum of

users, the information must be accurate, reliable,

complete, and timely.”

	 At the state level, SRS was still often referred to as the Crop Reporting Service or the Crop

and Livestock Reporting Service, depending on the

traditional labels that had been used. The C

was even more clearly defined than ever as a “function” of SRS and all reports were labeled as being

released by the Crop Reporting Board.

	 The Statistical Reporting Service name became familiar to most people in agriculture but

was often criticized as confusing. It did not speci

what types of statistics were covered, unless it was

referred to as the Statistical Reporting Service of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There we

also concerns about the term “Reporting” not indicating the full range of statistical procedures being

conducted.

	 The severe drought conditions of 1934 and

1936 led to the creation of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to lessen the economic impact

of poor crop conditions on farmers. Once agai

additional county estimates were requested and the

agency has continued to create county estimates

ever since.

Founding of the Statistical Reporting 

Service

9

Drought conditions and blowing soil buried machinery on a farm in South Dakota in May 1936. 

	 Earlier sections discussed changes that took

place in the statistical function within USDA and
	 There were often calls for changing or “improving” the Agency name. That finally came abo

in 1986 when the Agency name was changed to the

National Agricultural Statistics Service and each

state office began to be referred to as the [State]

Agricultural Statistics Service. That meant that

number of state acronyms duplicated other states

but it did establish a closer tie between the national

and state organization names. At this time, t

Crop Reporting Board was also renamed the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB).

10
Chapter 3

TECHNOLOGY CHANGES AND ADVANCEMENTS

Impacts of the Modern Era of Statistical Techniques I

	 The “modern” era of USDA statistics, the

shift to probability sampling, is usually measured

from 1957. In response to questions and concerns from the U.S. Congress in the early 195

about the quality of certain forecasts and estimates,

funding was obtained starting in 1954 to explore

improved methodologies. A long-range plan 

implement improved procedures was presented to

Congress in February 1957. That plan of only 

pages included four major projects, simply referred

to as A, B, C, and D.

	 Project A called for the implementation

of area frame-based probability estimates for crop

acreages through interviews of producers on randomly selected segments of land. It also propos

to improve yield forecasts and estimates by selecting random fields from the area frame survey and

making field counts and measurements during the

growing season. Research studies were already underway on both area frame sampling and objecti

yield techniques and the Congressional funding

advanced the testing and pilot work.

A USDA official reviews an area frame map with a 

farmer in Arkansas, 1951. 

11
	 By 1964 the Agency had completed testing and had increased area frame sample sizes to

operational levels for the 48 contiguous states. T

process completely changed operations in the state

offices since they needed to hire and train part-time

enumerators for the June and December area frame

surveys and for objective yield surveys in those

states with significant acreages. Because area fra

sampling works best for major crops, thetraditional

mail surveys were continued to provide indications

for all crops and for county estimates at the end of

the season.

	 Because of therudimentary computer capabilities available around 1960, summary procedures

for the new surveys shifted to Washington, much

like the process of 50 to 60 years earlier. Processi

the 1964 June Enumerative Survey required 360

hours of running time on an IBM 7074 computer.

Headquarters staff members were assigned to shifts

in order to devote 24 hours a day to the necessary

data entry and computer maintenance needs of this

large processing effort.

	 Analysis procedures changed in the states

and for the CRB. States had two sets of indications. One set had statistical precision meas

for the direct expansion and ratio indications but

limited history (while there was a long history for

the traditional surveys). The biggest impact of t

new statistical tools was on the CRB. Since t

greatest statistical precision of probability surveys

is achieved at the highest (U.S.) summary level, by

1965 the CRB shifted to a “national board” approach. In a national board, the CRB membe

concentrated first on examining all indications at

the U.S. level and then examined the summary

indications for specific regions made up of combinations of states. The CRB, in its face-to-fa

meeting, did not adopt final estimates for all states.

Instead, it adopted target totals for the U.S. and

each region. Once that was done, the commodity statistician assigned to the specific commodit

the Field Crops Section Head, and probably one of

the field office people assisting with that report performed an intensive review and finalized the state

estimates in line with the U.S. and regional targets,

within rounding.

	 The new probability survey procedures led

to another change in the CRB operations. Becau

of the detailed sampling procedures and the multitude of new estimates from the probability surveys,

it was prudent to always assign a member of the

statistical methodology staff to the CRB for its deliberations.

An IBM machine. 

12

Impacts of the Modern Era of Statistical 

Techniques II

	 The area frame approach was extremely

successful for measuring total land in farms, numbers of farms, and acreages of major crops. Lists 

extremely large livestock operations in each state

normally supplemented the area frame. Estimat

were created for the sum of those operators and

their livestock information was excluded from the

area frame estimates if they did fall within an area

frame segment. That extreme operation conce

helped somewhat but the area frame approach still

was not effective for measuring livestock numbers

and minor crop acreages. Because of concer

about livestock estimates, new Congressional funding was received in the early 1970s to implement

multiple frame survey techniques. The multip

frame approach was a list-sampling frame of farm

operations with as much attribute information as

possible about each operation. Information included size of livestock operations, total farm income,

and acreages of specialty crops. The list-sampli

frame could be stratified and probability selected

samples drawn. The area frame samples still provided an independent estimate of state totals b

now the area frame also provided an indication of
list completeness by matching the area frame operation names against the full list.

	 In the early 1980s, NASS began developing

procedures for computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI). CATI allowed data to be collect

by telephone instead of by personal visit, and the

survey results were automatically captured instead

of needing additional listing and data entry operations. During the 1980s the multiple frame emphasis remained primarily on improving hog a

cattle inventory estimates.

	 By 1990 the probability sampling approach

was implemented for crop yields. Yields during t

growing season had been based on responses to the

monthly Farm Report survey, which was an ongoing panel of individuals who were willing to report

each month about probable yields in their vicinity.

The improved approach conducted a large probability selected survey in June to measure actual

plantings. Samples of individuals reporting cro

of interest in June were then selected for monthly

yield telephone calls in time for the August, September, October, and November Crop Production

reports.

	 The new probability crop yield surveys,

conducted largely by telephone, enabled NASS

state offices to collect and summarize data more

quickly. As a result, NASS shifted the survey dat

so that data collection was centered on the first of

each month, instead of the former approach in

which almost all respondents had to submit their

information before the first of the month to allow

for mail to reach the state offices.

	 One new consideration for making estimates under the multiple frame survey approach

was the impact of “outliers,” particularly in livestock surveys. Just as a corn plant growing in

soybean field would be considered to be a weed,

an outlier is a correct report but it is unexpected

within the stratum in which the reporting unit was

selected. An example of the most common type 

outlier is a feedlot operation that has been operating at a fairly low level and was selected as a member of a small size stratum. If the feedlot had increased its capacity in the past year or two and n

had several times more cattle than expected in that

stratum, that report would be out of place. Su

operations skew the results for the specific stratum

and perhaps for the entire state. Outliers are to 

expected and usually are accepted at the national

level. (There are always operations increasing a

decreasing their size across the country.) Howeve

the survey indications for some states would not be

acceptable as state estimates. This became a n

part of the Board process—determining how to allocate or “smooth” the impact of the outliers in setting final estimates. A number of approaches we

implemented in order to make the decision process

as consistent as possible.

	 One other impact of the new emphasis on

probability sampling and estimation was to expand

the CRB membership for livestock inventory and

crop acreage and yield reports. One representati

of the Survey Administration Section takes part as

a member of the Board to discuss any special sampling and survey operation factors that might have

impacted survey results.

USDA officials record receipt of the envelopes as 

soon as they are retrieved from the locked safe.

13

From Plastic Rulers to Interactive Tools

	 During most of the first 100 years of the

Crop Reporting Board, the tools available to Agency analysts were rather basic, compared with present day options. For most of that period, photocopy technology was not available and electron

communication and electronic spreadsheet analyses were unheard of. Agency personnel were always creative in adapting available technologies 

provide the most consistent, accurate analysis and

estimation procedures.

	 Because photocopies were not feasible, the

Agency had to mail original documents back and
forth. A shuttle sheet approach was common

used, in which the documents, with all past and

current indications, would betransmitted in special

handling envelopes (with precautions that authenticated the mailing and the fact that the envelopes

had not been opened before receipt). Indicatio

and records of past recommendations and estimates

were meticulously entered in ink in official record

books at each end of the process.

	 When the CRB met on a particular estimate, such as crop acreage, there was only one set

of materials for each state. There might be four 

five sheets of paper for each state, including past

indications and estimates, present indications,

comments from the state office, and graphs which

displayed past relationships. To facilitate the wo

of the Board, a simple approach, often referred to

as “The Box,” was used. A wooden box, which w

slightly lower in height than filefolders, was created

with dividers which would hold the folders upright

for each state. The individual slots were identifi

by state. Each Board member would select a folde

review all contents, enter his judgments on a summary sheet, and then return the folder to the correct slot and repeat the process for each state.

	 Using “The Box” did allow CRB reviews to

proceed relatively efficiently. However, it usual

turned out that two Board members were waiting

on the same state, after everyone else had finished.

If there was a delay, other Board members might

use the opportunity to re-examine materials for selected states. The usual process was to return the

individual recommendation sheets to the Chair,

who would compile the matrix of recommendations. If there seemed to be differences of opinio

on a particular state, the Chair might call for all

members to re-examine those materials.

	 Since automated charting and printing

capabilities were not available, the graphs and displays for the Board were created by hand. Grap

included past indications and estimates but no current information. Typically, the first Board member reviewing a state made a notation of the current indication as a small arrowhead towards t

bottom of the graph. It was often important f

Board members to “read” out some bias in making

their recommendations. An example of bias w

the documented fact that producers who had only

livestock and pasture on their operations were less

likely to return crop acreage questionnaires than

producers of row crops.

	 Before rotary calculators made mathematical regression calculations more feasible, the analysis approach commonly used involved examining

past relationships and approximating the correct

relationship between indications and estimates by

using a clear plastic “ruler.” The plastic strips, whi

were about 1 inch wide, did not have any markings on them but did have a straight line etched

in the middle running from one end to the other.

The Board member would lay the ruler across the

graph and shift it until he or she felt the etched

“The Box” contained folders for each state and was 

labeled with the commodity and state names on the 

outside.

A statistician returns his recommendations to the 

Chair of the Board, who compiles the recommendations.

14
line best represented the best relationship between

indications and estimates. He or she would th

see where the current indication would intersect

that line and look to the side axis to determine the

actual value to recommend.

	 NASS offices were also ingenious in developing quality control procedures. In the ear

1900s the monthly questionnaire asked for condition of a number of crops and the answers were

nicely arrayed in a single row across the page. O

reference from that time period implied that the

statistical assistants (who, interestingly, were referred to as “skilled computers”) overlapped the

forms for a county or district to expose the lines of

answers. In this manner, they could quickly a

down to subtotals for that set of questionnaires.

The subtotal sheets were added to district and state

totals and averages.

	 As survey content changed and fuller explanations were needed for specific questions,

Agency questionnaires mainly became rows of

questions with the answer cells along the right column of the form. Someone had the excellent id

of holding questionnaires in place for calculations

through a process that came to be known as “peg

stripping.” (While he didn’t seem to be the originator of the approach, Glenn Simpson, who w

the CRB Secretary in the mid- 1950s, pushed for

experimentation in order to reduce the burden of

hand tabulation.) The questionnaires were print

on paper that had a series of precisely determined

holes across the top. Returned questionnaires we

sorted by county and placed on metal bars containing a row of short pegs, in a “shingled” fashion

with just the answer cells showing. The last questionnaire in line became a summary page for th

set of questionnaires. The summary pages oft

were printed in a separate color to make it easier to

distinguish them. The questionnaires were held 

place by another long bar which snapped over the

pegs, holding everything tightly in alignment. F

major surveys, large numbers of these peg strips of

completed questionnaires were needed and a good

control system was in placefor how many peg strips

were needed for each county. Questionnaires we

not removed from their strip until counts had been

verified by a second person.

	 The addition of photocopiers and early

computer technology made it possible to provide

each Board member with his/her own copies of review materials and to actually plot regression relationships on Board materials. Members cou

enter the new indication into a formula and determine the modeled estimate, instead of estimating it

with the plastic ruler.

	 In the 1980s analysis of many data series

indicated that a regression analysis approach was

often misleading. Reasons for this included th

regression could be overly influenced by one extremely good or bad year in the case of yields or

might not provide much analysis power if most

data points were close together from year to year.

Analysis shifted to a timeseries approach—with additional regression analyses for more information.

The clear plastic “rulers” used actually had no markings or guides.

A respondent completes a survey for the January 1, 

1965, Grain Stocks Report. Each survey had a precise line of holes across the top that was used during 

tabulation.

15
A time series, or comparison table, approach created data arrays of indications and final estimates for

past data periods (usually 10 or more). The difference (either absolute or percentage, depending 

the type of data item) was calculated and displayed

for each time period, along with the average difference. Adding the average difference to the current survey indication provided a recommendati

for each data source. Analysts could also see t

impact of unusual years in the data set and adjust

their conclusions, if necessary.

	 Most processes today are automated for

state offices, as well as for the Agricultural Statistics

Board (ASB), formerly known as CRB. Curre

indications are brought into the comparison table

spread sheets and the adjusted indications are visible on the computer screen. Most NASS syste

will also allow analysts to view and update charts

and graphs as well as numeric data tables. Becau

of the new tools, Board members can spend more

time looking at interrelationships in the data rather

than having to worry about entering numbers and

calculating by hand.

Staff prepare “release copies” of the June 1947 crop 

report on mimeograph machines set up inside the 

lockup area.

An official uses a comptometer to assist with the 

computations and tabulations for the June 1947 

crop report. 

16

Entering the Electronic Era

	 NASS prides itself in being customer oriented and providing the most appropriate delivery

of its products. However, it purposely delayed offering electronic access to its reports when th

capability first became feasible. A number of universities and private organizations were initially

interested in offering electronic access to NASS

reports. However, each of them wanted files 

somewhat different formats. NASS felt that offering files to any one of the organizations wou

obligate the agency to provide files to each of the

others, which would require considerable time and

personnel resources. NASS refused to provide fil

to any vendors until some standard format became

available.

	 The standard format requirement was resolved when the U.S. Department of Agriculture

announced a competitive bidding process for selecting an electronic dissemination vendor. This was

requirements contract, meaning that any USDA

agency seeking to release data electronically needed

to provide those files to the selected vendor. It al

imposed strict requirements on the competing bidders. The winning bidder had to make electron

files available to other venders (level 1 user) before

they provided data to their paying customers (level

2 users).

	 The new contract became known as the

Computerized Information Dissemination System

(CIDS). During the first year of operation agencies were required to issue identical formats f

printed and electronic media. Since most electronic data users at the time had limited capability 

computers and printers, downloading and printing

reports was time consuming. Data table lines often

wrapped to multiple lines on customers’ printers.

	 Electronic data users were quickly frustrated with the slowness and service quality. NASS
took the complaints to heart and redesigned its

printed reports. For example, the signature Cr

Production report, the most requested electronic

report, had a traditional format that included, in

order, highlights, table of contents, detailed narrative write-ups, summary data tables, and commodity data tables. Data users primarily interested 

the corn or soybeans data tables might need to view

or print some 30 pages before they got to the information they were seeking.

	 Since alternative formats could not be used

for CIDS, NASS changed the printed tables and

narratives to not exceed more than 79 characters

per line. The report order was rearranged to include highlights, detailed data tables, summa

tables, narratives, and index. Thus, all users cou

more quickly access the data tables. Instead 

forcing electronic users to suffer through the traditional formats, NASS essentially adopted the electronic version as the de facto standard for written

publications.

	 NASS customers were very appreciative of

their actions, but the process was still quite slow,

particularly if a user wanted to access both the detailed tables and the narratives for the same commodities or was primarily interested in the summary tables. Users were disappointed with agenci

that did not make the adjustments that NASS did.

	 When the CIDS contract was re-negotiated, NASS introduced the capability of segmenting

the electronic version reports – as long as the entire

report was still available. By segmenting the da

tables, users could select small portions of the report and greatly reduce their access time and printing costs.

	 Even with modifications, the CIDS contract provided only rudimentary service. Howeve

it provided an opportunity for data users to receive

faster access to data sets than waiting for mailed or

faxed copies. It also provided a stopgap until t

emerging Internet capability became more widely

available.

17
Chapter 4

GOVERNING LAWS AND PROCESSES

Laws Concerning the Agency and the CRB 

	 NASS and its predecessor organizations

have benefited historically by the fact that their actions have not been overly specified in statutes. T

Agency has normally been able to adjust to changes

in data user needs and preferences because report

details and timing were not locked in statutorily.

However, the Agency has also benefited greatly by

a few specific laws on confidentiality and disclosure

avoidance. It also benefited from statistics bei

mentioned as a duty of the Secretary of Agriculture in the May 15, 1862 Act, signed by President

Abraham Lincoln, that established the Department

(then Bureau) of Agriculture and the position of

Secretary (originally, Commissioner) of Agriculture.

	 Since there were no insider trading prohibitions in place at the time of the curtain incident

in 1905, there were efforts, starting in 1905, to

provide a legal basis for penalties. Two new statutes were implemented as of March 4, 1909. 

first, codified as 18 United States Code (USC) Sec.

1902, deals with the “disclosure of crop information and speculation thereon.” It states that any

“...officer, employee or person working for or on

behalf of the United States...” is subject to fines

or imprisonment or both if they divulge any information ahead of a scheduled release. (The origin

wording specified a fine of no more than $10,000

but that limit was removed in 1994.)

	 The second statute enacted in 1909, 18

USC Sec. 2072, deals with “false crop reports.” It

calls for penalties of fines, imprisonment, or both

if a government officer or employee “...knowingly

compiles for issuance, or issues, any false statistics

or information as a report of the United States....”

The originally stated maximum fine was $5,000

18
but that limit was also removed in 1994.

	 Another significant statute was enacted

on March 4, 1909. Codified as 7 USC Sec. 411

it deals with “monthly crop reports; contents; issuance; approval by Secretary of Agriculture.” It

specifies that the monthly crop report “...shall be

printed and distributed on or beforethetwelfth day

of each month....” It also states “...it shall be submitted to and officially approved by the Secretary

of Agriculture, before being issued or published.”

A later act, in 1924, established the eighth of the

month as the prescribed date for issuing monthly

cotton crop reports. A modification in 1972 allowed cotton reports to be included with oth

crops in the monthly Crop Production report and

the concepts from the two statutes were informally

combined to set the allowable release dates for the

monthly Crop Production report to fall between

the 8th and 12th of each month.

	 In the late 19th and early 20th centuries,

cotton was definitely the most prominent and politically sensitive crop in the United States. Referen

was made earlier to the House of Representatives

Hearing of 1904 on the level of cotton estimates.

Similar concerns and complaints surfaced every few

years whenever one side of the industry or another

was upset with the impact of statistical reports on

prices and income.

	 The high level of oversight of cotton statistics led to a number of specific statutes. In 19

a cotton law was passed, stipulating that the July 1

Acreage report, which published the planted acres

for other crops, should show the cotton acres in

cultivation on that date. The concept was confusing to reporters but it illustrates the concern in t

cotton industry that no USDA report should lead

to an overestimate of the crop potential. The l

remained in place until it was amended on May

29, 1958, to change from reporting cotton acres in

cultivation to reporting cotton acres planted and

remove the confusion of having two different concepts in the Acreage report.

	 The classic case of the impact of specific

cotton legislation on the operations of the Agency

was the cotton crop reports law enacted on May 3,

1924. The law (codified as 7 USC Sec. 475)

many facets, such as specifying release of USDA reports on cotton condition, progress, and probable

number of bales to be produced simultaneously

with cotton ginning reports by the Department of

Commerce. The reports were to be released at 

a.m. on the 8th day of each month from August to

December. The bigger impact of thelaw was therequirement that the CRBs for cotton production reports had to have five or more members, includi

“...not less than three of which shall be supervisory

field statisticians of the Department of Agriculture

located in different sections of the cotton-growing

States, experienced in estimating cotton production and who shall have first hand knowledge of

the condition of the cotton crop based upon recent field observations....” The law finished by requiring that the majority of the CRB members for

cotton reports shall be familiar with the methods

and practices of producing cotton. With the communication techniques available in the mid-192

it might have been particularly helpful to have representatives from the various cotton-producing areas. However, later in the century communicatio

were greatly improved and the survey procedures,

indications, and State office analysis procedures in

place meant that the CRB did not need to depend

so much on first-hand knowledge for each report.

Nonetheless, Chairpersons and Secretaries of the

CRB continued to name three Field Office representatives from cotton-producing states for the

August to December reports until the law was repealed on April 4, 1996.

A farmer cultivates cotton on a farm during the Dust 

Bowl. CRB members were required to be familiar 

with techniques used to produce cotton. Photograph 

from USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

19
	 The statute that is most essential for NASS

operations, Confidentiality of Information (USC

Sec. 2276), was not enacted until December 23,

1985. This statute provides one of the stronge

and most inclusive confidentiality protection provisions of any statistical organization. It specifi

that only summary-level data, which will not allow

identification of any individual or organization, can

be released. It qualifies data reported to NASS 

immune from mandatory disclosure in legal matters and states that copies of reports to NASS kept

in respondents’ files shall be immune from subpoena or other legal inquiries.

	 The first Agricultural Supply and Demand

Estimatesreportwas issued on September 17, 1973,

and focused on U.S. supply, demand, and trade.

The domestically based reports quickly became a

fixture in the commodity market information system of the United States, as well as providing valuable planning and decision-making information to

USDA. The World Agricultural Outlook Boa

(WAOB), originally named the World Food and

Agricultural Outlook and Situation Board, was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on June 3,

1977, to assure the consistency, objectivity, reliability, and timeliness of USDA’s economic situation

and outlook publications.

	 Report Number 107, on October 14, 1980,

was the first report entitled World Agricultural

Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) and the

first report to analyze and provide breakouts for the

world, U.S., total foreign, major exporters, major

importers, and other categories. The reports d

not include any individual country estimates. T

WASDE reports interpreted the available information and projected the season average prices and

carryout stocks. WASDE Report 177, issued on

January 11, 1985, was the first report to add individual country data. For example, Argentina, Australia, and Canada were listed separately as maj

exporters and China and the former Soviet Union

were listed as major importers.

	 The WAOB functions through a system of

Interagency Commodity Estimating Committees

(such as oilseeds, cotton, feed grains, etc.). Ea

committee is chaired by a WAOB specialist who

convenes meetings of the knowledgeable specialists

from other USDA agencies that have relevant proJerry Bange, WAOB Chairperson, provides a briefing 

during a 2005 lockup. 20

Creation of the World Agricultural Outlook Board

	 In 1973 the USDA made a major improvement in how commodity economics information

was handled by redefining the roles of the Outlook

and Situation Board (OSB), which reported to the

Assistant Secretary for Economics. Theimpetus f

the change was the frustration and embarrassment

associated with the 1972 crop year. Agents working for Russia were successful in quietly purchasing large portions of the 1972 grain crop at low

prices than extra demand for the product warranted. These purchases were commonly referred to 

“The Great Grain Robbery.”

	 When the purchases were investigated, it

turned out that many individuals in USDA were

aware of some of the purchase activity. Howeve

there was no mechanism at the time to compile

and share information across agencies and various government programs. This led to a series 

congressional hearings on how to improve USDA’s

economic intelligence system.

	 The USDA response was to create a process

to bring all USDA information together for review.

The OSB served as the clearance organization for

the interagency commodity estimation committees

that were chaired by the Agricultural Stabilization

and Conservation Service to evaluate information

regarding government program crops. The revie

led to specific USDA reports: the World Crop Production report and the Agricultural Supply and

Demand Estimates report.
gram, production, and trade information for the

specific commodities. The committees use a wi

variety of information sources, including published

NASS data, administrative data from other government and trade organizations, foreign attaché reports, reports published by foreign countries, travel

reports, and weather and satellite-based interpretations.

	 The WAOB, from its outset, applied Agricultural Statistics Board security procedures and

issued its reports from lockup conditions. At firs

WAOB was located in a different part of the USDA

South Building than NASS and required its own

security facilities for its deliberations. Escorted 

a guard, WAOB analysts would take the reports to

the ASB release room just before release. By ear

1982 WAOB was collocated with NASS and the

ASB staff provided security and logistical support

for both agencies.

	 WASDE reports were typically issued after

each major NASS release, such as Crop Production

and Grain Stocks. In 1984 a number of data users

expressed concerns about “mixed messages” from

USDA economic reports. Reference was ma

particularly to January 1984 when some data users

felt they received one impression from the NASS

Annual Crop Production report, a different signal

from the subsequent WASDE report, and then

quite different signals about 2 weeks later when the

NASS Grain Stocks report and another WASDE

were issued. NASS and WAOB decided to coordinate timing so that the WASDE could be finished

during the lockup for the Crop Production report

and both reports would be released at the same

time. This change was made for the January 1

1985, reports.

	 In December 1984 Secretary of Agriculture

John Block named a Blue Ribbon Panel to study

the timing and procedures that USDA agencies

used for commodity-related reports. His news release also announced that timing would be chang

so that the Crop Production and WASDE reports

were released simultaneously each month.

	 That panel, headed by Darrel Good of the

University of Illinois at Champaign/Urbana, concluded that USDA did not have too many reports

but had too many report days. They recommended that NASS release the Crop Production Annu

and Grain Stocks reports on the same date in January. NASS was already pursuing the possibility 

shifting the corn marketing year from an October

1 start to September 1, which would fit in well with

a shift of grain stocks from a January 1 to December 1 reference date. Work proceeded on maki

necessary changes in surveys, issuing proper announcements, and creating a historical data series

for the new Grain Stocks survey months. The final

changes were implemented as of January 1987.

	 The co-release arrangement meant that all

interested parties had access to both updated U.S.

crop forecasts and the economic interpretations at

the same time—and the Secretary of Agriculture’s

office did not need to attend lockup briefings 2

days in a row. This change was particularly helpf

in avoiding situations in which the Crop Production report was released the last working day of a

week and the WASDE would not be available until

after the weekend.

	 The co-release arrangement did require

modifications on the part of both NASS and

WAOB. The WAOB Interagency Committe

needed to do more work on preparing likely U.S.

production scenarios—and their impacts on world

supply and trade—ahead of the lockup day since

there was less time for deliberations in lockup. T

work of the CRB had to start 2-3 hours earlier to

allow time for the WAOB to review the new U.S.

figures and to finish its work in time for the 3 p.m.

release.

21
Chapter 5

CURRENT PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES

Shifting from Day to Night

	 In 1986 the CRB was renamed the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB). This renaming

coincided with the renaming of the agency as the

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Years later,

in May 1994, one of the most significant changes

in ASB delivery of statistical reports occurred when

the release of major crop-related reports shifted

from 3 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. Lockup periods for so

of those reports now started before midnight in order to enable the Board to complete all analysis and

publication operations.

	 Considerable review, planning, and debate

went into the final decision to shift to morning releases. A small group of data users contacted t

Secretary of Agriculture asking for the change.

They cited the fact that major Principal Economic

Indicator reports of other Cabinet departments

were already morning releases. They also point

Reporters in the press room anxiously cross the line 

to retrieve copies of a report once the official Crop 

Reporting Board clock strikes 3 p.m.

22
out that USDA data released at 3 p.m. were u

for trading in futures markets around the world before U.S. markets opened the next morning.

	 Many major farm and commodity organizations initially opposed the proposal due to concern that security might be compromised. Th

was a valid concern since the individuals requesting the change suggested that NASS use its normal

estimating procedures and timing to prepare the

reports but then secure the reports overnight for

morning release (an approach similar to that used

by other Federal Government statistical organizations). However, NASS and the World Agricultural Outlook Board would not agree to such a shi

in security levels. They responded that, if relea

timing was changed, they would continue to finalize major reports under lockup conditions and release the reports from lockup. With that assuran

of continued security, major organizations agreed

with USDA on a 1-year trial of morning releases.

	 The first morning release was on May 10,

1994, and all major crop releases the rest of 1994

were at 8:30 a.m., except for cotton-related information. Maintaining the afternoon cotton releases

was due to a legislative quirk. Earlier in the 20

century, cotton forecasts were issued about the 8th

of each month, separate from the Crop Production

report which contained the other major crops due

to a specific cotton report law. When legislati

was passed to allow cotton to be added to the Crop

Production report, the amendment specified that

cotton information be released at 3 

time of day was listed since it was the traditional

Crop Production release time, although the general

Crop Report law did not specify a time.

	 Cotton industry representatives were not

a party to the original request to shift the timing.

They were not necessarily opposed to the shift but

didn’t want to be driven by grain industry considerations. Therefore, NASS followed the cottonspecific law. Since the 1994 Crop Production release calendar had already been announced, NA

released reports at 8:30 a.m., which contained all

tables and narratives except for cotton. If cott

wereto beincluded for a particular month, a lockup

was reinstated about 10 a.m. and the cotton portion of the report was finished under secured conditions. An accommodation was made to allow t

WAOB cotton interagency estimates committee to

work in NASS space so the WAOB workspace did

not need to be secured during the day. At 3 p.

the full Crop Production report was released. Th

Adouble duty@ approach required a number of

changes in logistics and careful attention to which

individuals were needed at particular times of day

to complete all analysis, composition, and release

procedures. Most individuals who worked on the

overnight portion were able to go home before the

10 a.m. lockup was initiated, but the Chairperson

and Secretary of the ASB ended up working both

of the back-to-back lockups each month.

	 For the year 1995, NASS shifted the order

of the reports. A shorter lockup was used to issue the cotton data at 3 p.m. one day and th

an overnight lockup was implemented with the full

report coming out at 8:30 a.m. the next day. Th

minimized the numbers of pages that had to be

printed and avoided someone picking up a Crop

Production release that looked complete but was

missing the cotton data. By the third year, the l

specifying 3 p.m. had been changed and no special

accommodations were needed.

23

The Present Board Concept and Types of 

Boards

	 Much of this story has focused on the full

lockups with all outside communications cut off

and an armed guard on duty. Those procedures f

the most market-sensitive reports are critically important. However, NASS practices strong securi

procedures for all operations and all reports that are

issued. The procedures and the levels of security are

adapted depending on the time that is required to

complete each report and the types of individuals

involved.

	 One purpose of the ASB process, in addition to preserving security, is to ensure accuracy in

compiling and interpreting survey results and indications. The Board approach of having a seco

level of review for all indications and recommendations is just as important today as it was 100 years

ago. In fact, a case might be made that the seco

review is now even more important. In 1905 a
calculations were made by a relatively small group

of skilled statistical assistants. With today’s spreadsheets and the abundance of different surveys wi

relatively small sample sizes, statisticians often enter their own data. It is necessary to have an independent review to uncover entry errors not initial

recognized.

	 Since NASS field offices evaluate survey

data and formulate initial recommendations, it is

clear that the State offices are performing a critical Board function. Many offices even parall

the Board process by having State mini-Boards

in which multiple staff members meet to review

the indications for the most important commodity recommendations to be sent in for ASB action.

This is an excellent training opportunity for newer

staff members to see first hand how the process will

work later in Washington. Readers need to reali

that each State office has access only to their data

and indications so they are not previewing the actual National Board results.

	 There are at least five different types of

“Boards” that NASS currently uses for specific reports. The most common is often not thought 

as a Board by the participants. It is the Commodi

Section Review Board that is implemented nearly

every working day of the year. For ongoing reports, such as the Weekly Broiler Report, the commodity statistician, his or her statistical assistant

and their Section Head serve as the de facto Board

for reviewing all indications and recommendations

from the Field, following up on any unusual data

relationships, and compiling the report.

	 One important approach for very detailed,

less market-sensitive reports is referred to as a “Review after Summary Board.” This is an importa

quality control procedure for reports such as the

monthly Prices and the quarterly Agricultural Labor reports. Staff members work through all t

calculation and review procedures on those reports

and compile the full report for a Board meeting

about 24 hours before release. All narratives ha

been drafted by that time and Board members review the major data items in the report to be sure

that State-to-State and commodity-to-commodity

relationships seem reasonable and are explained by

the report narratives.

	 The annual Farm Production Expenditures

report,which creates national and regionalestimates

for major expenditure categories based on relatively

small sample sizes, necessitated a new type of Board

review. An “Outlier Review Board” is held after basic editing and analysis steps are completed. B

on the underlying statistical distributions of the

expanded data for the current year’s reports, all records are identified that had overwhelming impacts

on the estimates of any category at the regional or

national level. If a particular operation appears 

belong to higher strata (due to expansion of the

operation after control data were determined), the

Board might choose to re-summarize that operation in new strata. In some cases, the reported da

are correct for a large operation in the highest strata

and the Board will recommend actions to smooth

the regional estimates since the operation has valid

national impact.

	 One of the most common Board procedures is the “Speculative ‘Need to Know’ Board”

used for reports such as Acreage, Cattle, Grain

Stocks, and Hogs and Pigs. Those are very market-sensitive reports with so many State and category interrelationships that national-level figur

are needed to guide all of the detailed review and

estimate-setting activities. If the full speculati

Board approach were to be used, the output of the

several hours review after lockup would likely be

one page of U.S.-level numbers. Instead, NA

conducts the formal Board meeting 4-5 days before

release. Board members receive detailed information on the survey data and any unusual data situations. The members then review all indicat

and createtheir recommendations for Board targets

for key elements such as total cattle, calf crop, and

numbers of beef cows. After the targets are set, t

commodity statistician, along with the help of field

office representatives, does the intense review of the

interrelationships. The Head of the Commodi

Section serves as the key reviewer. All members 

the Board operate on a strict need-to-know basis.

Details are not discussed with any other staff members and all materials are secured when not in use.

The full report is finished in time for final composition and printing of immediate release copies. 

the time printing is underway, copies do not exist

24
outside of the lockup area.

	 The ultimate security setting is the “Full

Lockup Speculative Boards” used for monthly Crop

Production reports. The first few days of work 

Crop Production reports are under the need-toknow approach. However, for thespeculative cro

of corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, and citrus, the

focus is to complete work on all but the speculative

States. Thus, the statement is often made that “

one could have had the August 1 U.S. corn yield

forecast ahead of the release morning” because that

figure was not created until after lockup was in

place and no one can leave the lockup area until

8:30 a.m. when the report is released to everyone.

	 Both the World Agricultural Supply and

Demand Estimates and the Crop Production reports, along with five other NASS data series, are

Principal Economic Indicators (PEI) of the United

States. One of the operating procedures for repor

in the PEI series is to provide information to the

Council of Economic Advisors an hour and a half

ahead of release. NASS and WAOB have alwa

maintained that no information can be provided

ahead of release time but, if the Council did want

the information ahead of time, Council members

would be allowed to enter the lockup facility but

could not leave or communicate with anyone outside lockup until release time.

	 The lockup facility and the reporter release

room are assets for the Department of Agriculture.

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service uses the reporter release room for one of its ongoing reports.

On rare occasions, analysts of the Department have

used the lockup facility to make decisions on final

program details and then announce those details

out of lockup.

Backup and contingency procedures for handling

security for NASS reports have covered nearly every possibility, including not being able to get to

the South Building work location.

	 During the first Gulf War, when there were

concerns about possible retaliation against U.S.

Government buildings, the Chairperson, the Secretary of the Board, and one other person made

arrangements that would have allowed the Agricultural Statistics Board to complete work and issue a

skeleton report from a non-Government location.

However, that procedure dealt only with a 1-day

emergency and would not have enabled orderly

functioning for an extended period of time. Aft

September 11, 2001, more detailed plans and the

creation of necessary electronic file backups and

alternative locations were implemented to ensure

the agricultural statistics infrastructure would not

be totally cut off by the loss of a key building or a

number of key participants.

	 The work on alternatives to standard procedures has already paid off on multiple occasions.

The backup system of laptop computers was able

to keep operations on schedule when USDA Internet connectivity was totally cut off for a period

of time. NASS has also been able to remotely release (non-lockup) reports on days when Washington, D.C., offices were closed for situations such 

the World Trade Organization protests and when

severe storms were expected in the aftermath of a

hurricane. However, there have been three instances in the past 10 years when situations did arise

that caused the delay of a scheduled report release.

A description of the handling of those situations

might round out the explanation of the NASS

commitment to security and confidentiality.

	 The first situation was the East Coast blizzard of 1996. The storm deposited 20-plus inch

of snow on the Washington D.C., area the second

weekend of January. The January Crop Production report was scheduled for release Wednesday,

January 10, and the Crop Production Annual and

WASDE reports were scheduled for Thursday, January 11. The storm was severe enough that on

limited road transportation was possible through

Wednesday. Washington area airports did not resume service until Wednesday, which was the d

25

Creating and Adhering to a Calendar

	 The NASS record for issuing a report on

time seems like the old Postal Service motto: “Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stay

these couriers from the swift completion of their

appointed rounds.” NASS has built such detail

contingency plans into the operational procedures

that it takes a massive disaster situation to delay or

postpone release of a speculative statistical report.
that the ASB Chair, who had been out of town,

was able to return to Washington. By Tuesday, t

Administrator, the Statistics Division Director, and

one field representative were able to make it to the

office and spent much of the day answering telephone calls and communicating with USDA officials. The ASB and WAOB notified USDA a

the news services that 2 working day’s notice of the

new dates and times for the releases would be given

to everyone. (Internally, ASB members agreed th

they could put out the reports the second day after

the cotton specialist could get out of his neighborhood and make it to work.) NASS worked close

with WAOB in evaluating the status of personnel

and data sources and issued a Thursday, January

11, notification that all reports would be issued on

Tuesday, January 16, following the Monday holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday.

	 The second instance was caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Cr

Production and World Agricultural Supply and Demands Estimates reports were scheduled for release

at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12. Wo

was well along on the morning of September 11,

when the first reports were received of the planes

hitting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Speculative State recommendations had not yet

been transmitted to Headquarters. When the word

came to close down government operations and

evacuate, Fred Vogel, the ASB Chairperson, and

Jerry Bange, the WAOB Chairperson, made some

critical, appropriate decisions. They held a meeti

with their joint staffs and instructed everyone to

stop work, save files, shut down all computer operations, and not resume any release deliberations

until order and security were restored. NASS and

WAOB responded in a manner that assured that

data security was not compromised by the disruption of normal procedures. Vogel and Bange prepared a simple announcement that the following

day’s reports would be delayed (see Appendix C).

By that time, no one was in the USDA Office of

Communications. However, Roger Runningen 

Bloomberg News was in the adjoining hallway and

he made sure that the notice went out to all wire

services—an excellent example of the press and

statistical agencies working together. Once agai

NASS and WAOB gave 2 days’ notice that the reports would be issued on Friday, September 14.

	 The third departure from the established

Crop Production and World Agricultural Supply

and Demands Estimates calendar occurred in 2004.

In this case, NASS and WAOB decided on short

notice to issue reports a day early. The change w

prompted by the death of former President Ronald

Reagan. The reports were scheduled to be releas

on Friday, June 11. President Reagan passed aw

the weekend before and by Monday, June 7, plans

were shaping up for a National Day of Mourning on the 11th. June Crop Production is one 

the smaller reports of the year and Statistics Division staff members felt that they could finish work

in time for a Thursday morning release. WA

staff members agreed but the WAOB Chairperson

needed to communicate with the other agencies

contributing members to the Interagency Crop Estimation Committees. The decision to release a d

early was widely applauded within the agriculture

community since commodity and futures markets

preferred to be closed on the Day of Mourning (see

Appendix C).

	 The ASB calendar for each year is prepared

well ahead of time and is widely publicized so all

interested in agriculture are aware of the upcoming

releases. The calendar has been described as “stab

but not static.” Improvements such as addition

data breakouts are constantly being added to improve the customer service value. One of the fir

steps in creating the calendar each year is to establish the release dates for the Crop Production reports. The releases take place between the 8th a

12th of the month. The specific dates depend on

the timing needed to collect the survey data, centered around the first of the month, and to complete processing in the States and in Headquarters.

Release timing is definitely affected by how the

weekends fall each month. The relative timing 

most other reports is similar from year to year but

specific principles are built into the planning, such

as the livestock industry preferring to receive most

livestock reports on Friday afternoons rather than

during the marketing week. NASS planners al

bring in a number of special considerations such as

not issuing reports on Good Friday.

26
Chapter 6

THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE REPORTS

	 	

Glimpses of Secretaries and Other Report Signers

	 As this write-up indicates, the Secretary of

Agriculture was very closely associated with the statistics activities in the early 1900s. As the scope 

the Department of Agriculture expanded and most

employees came under civil service provisions, the

statistical agency became independent of day-today communications with the Secretary. NA

contacts the office of each new Secretary and determines what procedures will work best in terms of

alerting the office of all reports that require signing

and of special features of any report—such as visitors who will be attending the briefing. Most Secretaries are interested in the statistics program a

the opportunity to get immediate notification of

important changes in production and world supply

and demand and have placed a priority on signing

reports when they are available. Since the maj

crop-related reports are now released at 8:30 a.m.,

instead of 3 p.m., it is often easier for the Secretary

to incorporate the signing of a report into his or her

schedule.

Secretary Johanns signs his first USDA report in 

2005.

27
	 Briefingsforthe Secretary have also changed

tremendously over the past 100 years. There are

some interesting historical pictures of CRB members crowded around a desk while the Chairperson

highlights the report details for the Secretary. Presently, the briefing is more formal, with data tabl

and results projected on a screen and the Secretary

is able to leave the briefing with a full-color set of

the briefing materials as well as the report(s). WASDE briefings often contain some satellite images

depicting current vegetative indexes or summaries

of rainfall in major producing regions around the

world. Visitors attend most briefings. Many of

visitors are producers or members of farm organizations. The earliest identified farm groups we

from North Carolina in the late 1970s. However, a

delegation from the Illinois Farm Bureau attended

the August 1982 Crop Production release and that

organization has sent a new group to visit every

August since. Other producer organizations have

followed suit in planning occasional visits.

	 Most Secretaries of Agriculture haveseemed

to enjoy the signing and briefing experience. 

someone once said, “Why shouldn’t they enjoy it?

When they come over they know they will befree of

telephones and reporters for at least half an hour.”

Secretaries of Agriculture have had a wide variety of

personalities and they have exhibited quite different approaches to the briefings. Many have tak

in theentire presentation and then asked a question

or two for clarification. Some have preferred 

ask for clarifications as the briefing progresses. 

times, a Secretary has wanted to get a quick opinion on what actions the Department might take

and has asked questions of the Chief Economist

or other advisors in attendance. In those cases, the

briefing has momentarily been placed on hold.

	 The ASB first rule for briefings is “never

surprise the Secretary.” If there are going to be a

special features in the briefing, if there are going to

be any visitors or reporters in attendance, or if photo requests have been made, the Secretary’s office

must be notified in advance. The person escorti

the Secretary to the lockup area will remind the

Secretary of those special circumstances. Visito

who are attending are asked to read and sign off on

the basic rules of attendance. One primary condition is that visitors are being allowed the privilege of listening in on the briefing prepared for t

Secretary and they are not to ask any of their own

questions.

	 Just as there are classic stories involving

people who have ended up in lockup by mistake,

there have been some interesting anecdotes involving theindividuals who havesigned thereports over

time. Agriculture Secretary Clayton Yeutter plac

a very high priority on signing reports whenever

he was in town and often left other meetings on

Capitol Hill or elsewhere to get back for a release.

Staff members working on the reports were pleased

to have such interest but they breathed easier when

the Secretary did rush in just in time to sign. Ju

in time was also the catchword for the early reports

of the Mike Espy administration. Hardly any subcabinet members had been confirmed and Secreta

Espy was working on details such as new nominations, so he was often pressed for time. Somethi

happened one afternoon and he got to the guard’s

desk just at 3 p.m. when the guard was opening

the doors. Thus, the Secretary didn’t need to sh

a pass and never broke stride on the way to the

briefing room. (The Chairpersons of the ASB a

WAOB were making plans to go to the Secretary’s

office and brief him there since he hadn’t arrived.)

	 There are two anecdotes that perhaps will

be best remembered by staff members who have

been involved in Board briefings in the past 20

years or so—and they both involve a Deputy Secretary who was signing in the absence of the Secretary. The first was Ann Veneman, during her fir

tour with the USDA. The first time she signed

A USDA official signs a report. 

28
report as Acting Secretary was a September Crop

Production report. Visitors that day included

delegation from the Iowa Farm Bureau and a small

group from the Mississippi Extension Service.

When Ms. Veneman entered the room, the southern gentlemen from Mississippi rose as one. It w

second nature to the visitors but no signer had ever

gotten a standing reception and the briefing was

delayed by such good-natured comments as “Gee,

Mr. Chief Economist, no one ever stands when you

come over to sign.”

	 The second story involved Rich Rominger,

who was the Deputy Secretary during the Clinton

administration. Mr. Rominger signed many reports during his tenure and was usually very punctual. It seemed strange that he didn’t arrive at

usual time for a 3 p.m. Hogs and Pigs release.

got closer and closer to release time and still no

Deputy. Finally, at about 2:55 p.m., USDA Chi

Economist Keith Collins arrived without the Deputy. Collins explained, “Rich really wanted to si

the report but Jane Fonda is in his office and didn’t

leave on time.” To finish that story, the plann

briefing was presented to Collins and about halfway through Rominger did arrive. He was interested enough in the report that he found his o

way over to the lockup area as soon as Jane Fonda

left his office.

	 In addition to the value to Secretaries of

Agriculture from attending the briefings, there is

a great value to the staff members who work on

the reports. People feel more pride in their effor

when the Secretary is willing to attend and see first

hand what the staff members have compiled. Ev

staff members who did not work on the specific

report(s) being released appreciate the Secretary’s

presence at briefings and signings. Whenever

new Secretary has taken office and the word is out

that he or she is coming over, there will be extra

staff members in the hall to catch a glimpse of their

new leader.

The Special Roles of the CRB and ASB 

Secretary

	 There are several references that provide

various amounts of detail about the individuals

who have served as the Chairperson of the CRB

and ASB. Unfortunately, the individuals w

served in the crucial Secretary position were not as

well documented. The Secretary always worked 

close harmony with the Chairperson in setting the

annual release calendar, scheduling the dates and

members of the board, and assuring that all materials were ready for board action and that reports

were compiled and released on schedule.

	 Since the late 1900s, there have been clear

distinctions between the security roles of the CRB

Secretary and the members of the actual estimates

setting boards. Only the Secretary and immediate members of the Secretary’s staff are allowed 

communicate with the guard corps. The logic 

that because the Chairperson and other “voting”

members of the boards worked with the numbers

they should not have any contact with the guards

located outside of the lockup doors.

	 From the 1960s into the 1990s, the CRB

and ASB Secretary also served as the Chief of the

Data Services Branch. That Branch was responsib

R.K. Smith, Acting Chairman of the Board, and J.K. 

Pallesen, Secretary of the Board, bring copies of the 

approved report out from the lockup for general release, June 1947.

29
for receiving data files and recommendations from

the State offices, providing proofreading and editorial assistance for reports, final typing and printing

of all reports, and release of physical and electronic

versions of the reports. The Branch carried out a

communications with State office personnel and

outsiders on behalf of the CRB.

	 Rather than listing the duties and functions

of the Secretary position, it might be more enlightening to list some characteristics that are essential

for a successful Secretary. Those are listed belo

along with some illustrations that indicate why the

characteristics were helpful.

	 An ASB Secretary must be well organized

and detail oriented. If the reports are going to 

released on time, the proper staff and all materials must be present before the CRB lockup area is

secured. Detailed time schedules need to be prepared, communicated, and constantly tracked a

adjusted as needed. The range of details is extensive. When daytime lockups were the norm, det

extended to being sure that all people who were going to be in lockup had placed a food order ahead

of time. Arrangements were made with the cafeteria to bring up a large cart with all of the orders 

about noon.

	 An ASB Secretary must be perceptive. Th

need to analyze all facets of the processes that are

required for establishing a lockup and identify all

things that might go wrong. The normal philosophy of an ASB Secretary is to have a backup pl

for each eventuality—and at least one more backup

for the backup. For example, the lockup facili

currently has one very high-capacity copier/printer

and a second, lower capacity, machine. Since bo

machines are normally pressed into service when

the Crop Production and the World Agricultural

Supply and Demand Estimates reports are printed

in a short period of time before the 8:30 a.m. release, another reasonably high-speed copier stands

as a back-up, with the final backup being photocopy machines located in the lockup area.

	 It goes without saying that the ASB Secretary must be extremely security oriented. Chairpersons and Secretaries of the board were always absolute sticklers for confidentiality and never giving

anyone even a hint of numbers to be released. Th

extended even through the last couple of minutes

before a lockup report was going to be released.

When the Chairperson and the Secretary of the

Board would leavethelockup area 2 minutes before

release to take the printed reports to the waiting reporters, they always reminded themselves to “look

neither to the left, nor the right.” Today, the ASB

Secretary must constantly look to new alternatives

and techniques that will ensure proper security will

be maintained. This constant search for improvements has led to advances such as the acquisiti

of scanner technology to monitor for transmission

devices within the lockup area and the installation

of security cameras.

	 An ASB Secretary must be diplomatic.

Past Secretaries have been successful in negotiating

some special concessions, such as having USDA

officials not schedule any fire drills during lockup

hours and gaining permission to remove the special

hallway emergency phones during lockup hours

so there were truly no outside telephone communications. Diplomacy and perseverance have al

been needed to convince the correct officials that

air conditioning must be operational for overnight

lockups.

	 An ASB Secretary must be customer-service

oriented. The Secretaries have often been the ma

contact for news services and reporters wanting to

cover releases. In addition, they have usually tak

the lead in dealing with the offices of the Secretary

of Agriculture and other policy officials in arranging the details for signing reports. ASB Secretari

have normally had two guiding customer service

principles. First, NASS never wants to surpri

the Secretary of Agriculture by having unexpected

visitors present at a report signing. Secondly, t

agency never wants to surprise reporters and other

data users by having different formats or contents

than expected.

	 An ASB Secretary must be flexible, yet decisive. There are always some small delays and unexpected events that need to be managed on ea

report occasion. The ASB Secretary needs to 

thinking one or two steps ahead regarding adjustments that can be made to preserve quality and

timeliness. However, he or she needs to step 

and take specific actions when the unusual occurs.

30
Perhaps L. Duane Jewell provided the best example of decisiveness by an ASB Secretary. Duri

a daytime lockup, a visitor appeared at the guard

desk with a confusing story of “needing to pick up

something.” The guard did not understand h

to handle the situation and pushed the buzzer to

alert Duane. Duane stepped into the area between the two sets of doors to talk to the guar

In the course of the discussion, the guard slightly

opened one of the outside doors in order to better

hear Duane. The visitor then pushed on the do

and stepped into the space between the two sets

of doors. Duane did not hesitate. He opened

inside door and pulled the visitor through saying,

“You are inside now and are going to stay inside.”

The visitor was taken to a table and chair (in plain

sight of NASS staff members) and required to wait

there until lockup was over. For the record, no o

ever completely understood what the person was

really after.	

31
Chapter 7

UNCOVERING TRUE STORIES AND POPULAR CULTURE

The True Story of the Soda Deliveryman 

	 Over the many years of lockup reports there

have been a number of instances of individuals inadvertently ending up in the secured area when

they did not belong. However, none are as we

known and often repeated as the perils of the soda

deliveryman.

	 Like many folklorestories,errors have crept

into the story as it has been retold and embellished

over time. The following paragraphs attempt to s

the record straight for, as you will see, the real story

might be more interesting than the myths.

	 A common version of the story is that the

person was in NASS space stocking a machine

when the area was locked up. Neither the timi

nor the actions are correct. There was no soda machine in the NASS space and the incident occurr

after a lockup was underway.

	 Duffy Barr was one of the ASB staff members in charge of internal security on the infamous

day and Debbie Williams was the external contact. As Duffy explains, the machine the pers

wanted to restock was actually in the Washington

Data Processing Center (WDPC), located in the

sub-basement of the Agriculture South Building’s

Wing 2. The most direct way to reach WDPC (except during lockup periods) was a special elevat

that served only the NASS space in the Wing 2

basement and the WDPC. During lockup, th

elevator was locked and WDPC had to be reached

by staircases located outside the NASS space.

	 Lockup had been initiated at 3:15 a.m. on

that August 1979 day with the release scheduled

for 3 p.m. The delivery person came to the g

securing the doors about 8:30 a.m. with a full load

of sodas. The guard failed to consider the prop

access procedures and admitted the person. 

32
soon as the person went to the elevator, he asked

Duffy why it was not working. The soda man w

informed by Duffy, and other CRB staff members,

he could not get to WDPC that day and could not

leave the lockup area. He pleaded his case but w

informed that no exceptions could be made to the

“do not leave” rule and he would have to stay until

the 3 p.m. release.

	 Some versions of the folk tale have the person’s soda truck double parked on Independence

Avenue—or even double-parked with the motor running. Neither the location nor the doub

parking is accurate. The truck was in the insi

parking court used for commercial deliveries, but

the driver had indeed left the motor running. The

driver was also concerned about money he had left

in the truck.

	 NASS did make special accommodations

in the interest of safety. The delivery person w

asked for his office telephone number. The telephone number and information about truck location were verbally given to the guard and passed on

to Debbie Williams. Debbie went to the court, located the truck, turned off the engine, removed t

keys, and locked the truck. She then returned 

her office and called the soda company supervisor.

The supervisor was incredulous and did not believe

that anyone, other than a law enforcement agency,

could lock up his employee. Debbie stood h

ground and informed the company that the truck

could not stay in the court all day and needed to be

moved. Someone did arrive to retrieve the truc

	 Another part of thefolkloreisthat the guard

who admitted the soda man was fired. That is n

known, but he never worked another lockup.

in, asking for the car keys in order to turn off the

lights. That request was granted but only the ke

were passed out with no note or other attachment.

	 There are many rumors and stories of individuals ending up in lockup when they had not

intended to be there. Some of them can be documented and are presented belo

	 Employees of other USDA agencies entered by mistake on two occasions shortly before

the change to morning releases and they did end

up spending the day with NASS. The first instan

involved a new Chief Meteorologist with WAOB.

That person had been through at least one joint

NASS/WAOB lockup and had the correct pass

to be admitted. However, he missed the fact th

NASS locked up three times a year in the morning (for Grain Stocks reports) without WAOB.

On those days, WAOB employees had to enter

their space from the front of the building and not

through NASS space. The very first time one 

those lockups was in place the Meteorologist entered and turned the corner to see a set of closed

doors instead of the access to his office. A note w

sent out to have the guard call WAOB and let them

know the Meteorologist would be spending the

day. It turned out to be a golden opportunity f

him to learn more about NASS and for NASS staff

members to learn more about the WAOB weather

program.

	 The other instance involved an employee

of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).

That person had a lockup pass since she often entered Crop Production lockups shortly before 3

p.m. to obtain a disk of the current report. S

then would create a file that reordered the commodities so AMS could load a file at 3 p.m., which

was tailored to their data users. That person al

took part in the release of a once-a-week AMS report at 10 a.m. from the NASS release facility for

reporters. On a particular lockup day, she thoug

she was to help with the morning release but it

was not going to be issued that day because of the

NASS lockup. Once she entered she was not allowed to leave. However, she was asked to give

name of her supervisor and the guard was given a

note to call that person and have them lock up the

purse she had left in her office.	

33

Other Special Security Interpretations

	 Passing out information in order to move

the soda truck was not the only time that such an

accommodation was allowed. A few years late

multiple Crops Branch employees had car-pooled

together for a lockup, arriving just after dawn. Th

parked in a regular NASS car-pool spot but inadvertently left the lights on. Other staff membe

arrived about an hour later, recognized the car, and

surmised what had happened. A note was pass
	 The most dramatic instance of a person

inadvertently ending up in lockup occurred when

Wayne Gardner was the Deputy Security Officer.

This was in the fifth floor lockup area, which had

a soda machine located close to the elevators. O

of the procedures in implementing the lockup was

to use a key to prevent the elevator from stopping

at the fifth floor. As a second security measur

steel doors that covered the two elevator doors

were closed and locked. On this particular d

the mechanical procedures failed. A woman w

trying to reach the soda machine in the early afternoon. Instead of bypassing the fifth floor, t

elevator stopped and the lights went out. The la

started screaming and pounding on the doors. 

took Gardner quite some time to calm her down

enough to suggest she try pushing the various buttons on the control panel. When it seemed obvious that the door was not going to open, he explained that he could get her out of the elevator b

she would have to stay with us until 3 p.m. On

she agreed, Gardner opened the steel doors and was

able to open the door to get her out of the elevator.

She made herself as comfortable as possible in his

office—and he bought the soda for her.

	 NASS does have emergency procedures for

nearly any contingency, including evacuation during a lockup. On two occasions, word came in th

a hospitalized family member of a person in lockup

had suffered a severe medical setback. A decisi

was made that the affected person could leave but

would be escorted by a guard until the time lockup

was finished. The guard then prepared a detailed

account of all activities and contacts after leaving

lockup, up to the scheduled release time.

	 The closest that the ASB ever came to

having to evacuate came shortly before the Crop

Production reports were shifted from afternoon

to morning. About 1 p.m. on release day the fi

alarms went off and shortly thereafter employees

could hear some fire department sirens. The A

Secretary checked with the guard on duty. 

found that the lockup area was not in any immediate danger but he asked the guard to arrange for at

least two other guards to escort all of the people in

lockup to another area. The Chairpersons of 

ASB and the WAOB instructed their staffs to shut

down all computers and to secure all working files.

Since some copies of the reports to be released had

been printed, those were placed in a briefcase to

be taken to the new location. If evacuation of t

South Building was required but not the Whitten

Building, thetwo Chairpersons would have goneto

the Secretary of Agriculture’s office shortly before 3

p.m. and done the briefing there. The ASB Secretary would have taken the public release copies 

the press office in the Whitten Building. Some employees were lined up ready to leave the area wh

the guard checked again with the ASB Secretary. 

turned out that there had been a small fire in wing

six (more than a city block from the lockup area)

and the fire was now out. The people went back 

their normal activities.

Historical photograph of a guard positioned outside 

of the lockup area.

34

The CRB in Print and the Movies

	 The uniqueness of the CRB has often been

interesting to others. NASS staff members w

work in the Washington, D.C., area are often asked

by new acquaintances, once they say they work at

USDA, “Are you one of those people that they lock
up?” It is no surprise that newspaper articles a

occasional television features have been prepared

about the ASB and the security/confidentiality

procedures.

	 One of the earliest articles that has been

preserved is a story entitled “Drama Behind the

Crop Forecasts,” which was printed in the August

1955 Readers Digest. That article, written by I

Wolfert, particularly emphasized the physical security procedures but also added many examples of

the value of the data and the need for security.

	 There was increased interest in the Board

procedures when the monthly Crop Production reports were shifted to the morning release schedule

from the traditional 3 p.m. releases. Sally Schuff,

a reporter with the Colorado Rancher & Farmer,

attended the first 8:30 a.m. release and printed a

nicely donefeature articleentitled “Where arethese

people? And, why are they locking them up?

month or two later, Max Armstrong of WGN radio

and television in Chicago attended a lockup release

and filmed the security and release procedures for

his U.S. Farm Report program.

	 The agency prepared its own films to portray its statistical procedures, its focus on confidentiality and equal access to information, and its

special release procedures on at least five occasions.

The first such film was “Alice in Numberland,” created in 1962 to commemorate 100 years of statistics in USDA. The film was not widely used sin

many State Directors felt the light tone of the presentation would not convey well to their serious

agricultural producers. The agency put considerable effort, hiring a professional actor to be t

on-screen narrator, into “The Fact Finders” shortly

thereafter. That movie followed the Statistics Division and CRB staffs through the various stages 

operations on a specific lockup with multiple cutins that traced the activities going on in agriculture

that year. It also depicted how a specific farmer interpreted the results of reports earlier in the crop

year and how he decided to react when the report

in the movie was released at 3 p.m. This was n

an “action flick,” but it did include some Civil War

cannons for effect, emphasizing the historical importance of agriculture in the United States.

	 A short film, “The New Numbers,” was

prepared in 1967 to highlight the new enumerative

survey approach and the use of computers to calculate the probability survey indications. Another

movie that did not receive much play was “Facts

for Farming: Crop and Livestock Reports,” created

about 1980 when SRS was part of the Economics,

Statistics, and Cooperatives Service for a short period of time.

	 An interesting movie, “The Need to Know,”

was created in 1988 under the direction of Dave

Carter of the Economics Management Staff of

USDA. That movie skillfully employs a “surpri

beginning” and well-chosen music to cause the audience to consider how critical it would be if no

statistical information were allowed to be released.

	 Regardless of the efforts of the agency and

agricultural press representatives to portray the seriousness of its security and confidentiality procedures, much of the public relates to the work of the

CRB through the 1983 feature comedy film “Trading Places.” The movie seems to be loosely adapt

Today, a guard is still used during lockup to maintain security. 

Norman Bennett, chief of the Survey Administration 

Branch, is filmed by a USDA video crew while he 

speaks about the confidentiality pledge.

35
from the book “The Money Harvest,” written in

1975 by Ross Thomas. The book and the mov

both depict somewhat accurately the special locked

mailbox in which speculative recommendations

from State Offices were stored until the morning of

the CRB actions. Artistic license was taken by t

author and the screenwriters to indicate that the

CRB would simply adopt the answer in the Florida

envelope (both the book and movie use the citrus

forecast as the report that is manipulated) and that

the CRB would not have any other information

upon which to question the false materials substituted for the Florida recommendations. It h

always been easy for NASS staff members to point

out the fallacies in the “Trading Places” depiction.

	 In great contrast to “Trading Places” was

an extraordinary effort to capture the essence of

NASS security and release procedures by Leighton

Spann and Artis Ford of the Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service. They have a weekly publ

television show called “Farmweek.” In 1999 th

attended the September release of the Crop Production and World Agricultural Supply and Demands Estimates reports. The two did a masterful

job taking NASS terminology and converting it

into a clear explanation of the whys and wherefores

for their audience. Their television broadcast w

so successful that NASS arranged to get copies for

every State office to use internally and at agricultural meetings. The two gentlemen were invit

to return in September 2004 in order to video the

newly designed lockup security area and to better

focus on the World Agricultural Outlook Board

procedures.

	 Two other short recognitions of the CRB

may be worthy of note. In 1988 The Washingt

Post Sunday Magazine included a picture and short

article on the Chairperson in its “Talking Jobs” feature on unique jobs in the Washington, D.C. area.

That was followed a couple of years later by a picture and short article on the Board Secretary in a

feature by Washingtonian magazine on protecting

secrets.

36
Chapter 8

OUR NASS PLEDGE AND MISSION

NASS Employees— The Secret of CRB Success

This summary has included a number of 

references that broadly describe the security procedures that NASS has implemented to ensure the 

integrity of all releases. Those procedures have 

not been explained in detail. That was by design. 

The first axiom of good security is to never reveal 

all security details.

The second axiom of security is that no 

matter how complete procedures are, the biggest 

potential threat comes from the employees within 

an organization. NASS has benefited from creating an organizational climate that makes security 

an operational principle. That climate starts the 

minute a person comes on board. Security procedures are explained and the employee reads and 

signs a confidentiality pledge as part of his or her 

immediate orientation to the agency. Every year 

all employees review the security and confidentiality regulations and recertify.

Security goes well beyond a once-a-year 

reminder. It is reinforced in every ASB meeting. 

Nearly every day of the year, some staff members are working on details of upcoming reports 

and blue security caution signs are posted. Staff 

members are constantly on the alert to identify 

outsiders who are not allowed in the work areas. 

That definition of outsiders extends to NASS 

staff members not assigned to work on the specific report(s). One example is that each of the 

last three NASS Administrators readily refrained 

from entering restricted work areas on occasions 

when they stopped by to speak to field representatives who were in Headquarters to work on reports.

The employee climate of strict adherence 

to the daily security procedures might be best il37
lustrated by two examples. The first occurred a 

summer morning when lockup was not in place 

but most offices in the Crops Branch had the blue 

“Do Not Enter” signs on the doors. The ASB 

Chairperson was walking into the Crops Branch 

work area when he noticed an individual in a delivery company uniform stop in front of one of 

the doors and then enter. Coming from the other 

direction was Bill Dowdy, the Section Head for 

Field Crops. Dowdy and the Chairperson got 

to the door at the same time. Before they could 

enter, the door opened and the outside visitor 

emerged, walking backwards. He was walking 

backwards because Sheila Wilcox, the statistical 

assistant working in that office, was poking him 

in the chest saying, “You can’t come in here!” 

The visitor turned out to be a friend of Wilcox’s 

but she was upholding the security procedures.

The second instance was late one afternoon when most employees had left for the day. 

The Chairperson needed some specific information about cattle. Shirley Woodruff, the cattle 

statistical assistant, was the only person in the 

unit at that time. She explained to the Chairperson that she knew where the material was kept in 

the Branch Chief’s office and went on to say, “If 

you stay here, I will go get it and bring it back. If 

you don’t stay here, I need to lock up the material 

I am working on before I leave the office.”

The good examples of Wilcox and Woodruff upholding strict adherence to the security and 

confidentiality procedures are surely repeated every week in all NASS offices. Their pride and 

dedication to the public trust are in stark contrast 

to the violations committed by E.S. Holmes, Jr., 

one hundred years ago which were detailed at the 

start of this account.

The availability of timely, informative statistical reports from the United States Department of 

Agriculture has become a hallmark of the U.S. 

agricultural system. All market participants and 

interested parties know these vital reports will be 

issued on schedule and provide a level playing 

field for everyone. 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service and the World Agricultural Outlook Board 

commemorated the past 100 years with a special 

celebration on July 12. The celebration featured 

several keynote speakers, including: Rich Allen, 

Chairman of the Agricultural Statistics Board; 

Dr. Joseph Jen, USDA Undersecretary of REE; 

Charles Conner, USDA Deputy Secretary; Dr. 

Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist; Allen 

Heishman II, Virginia FFA President; and R. 

Ronald Bosecker, NASS Administrator. 

This special event celebrated the dedicated service provided by the Agricultural Statistics 

Board and honored the remarkable agricultural 

leaders, such as Willet Martin Hays, who have 

been instrumental in safeguarding America’s agricultural statistics since 1905. Ancestors of Hays 

joined in our celebration to salute him and the 

changes he implemented in the estimates process 

that laid the foundation for the Agricultural Statistics Board. 

The official procedures for the Agricultural Statistics Board were established a century 

ago because one person with inside knowledge 

decided to profit on cotton estimates. The lesson 

provided by this experience has never been forgotten. 

The procedures developed to prevent a recurrence of insider trading have been continually 

upheld by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service and the World Agricultural Outlook 

Board. It is the dedication and commitment of 

the men and women in these agencies that have 

made NASS and WAOB successful at maintaining proper security and being adaptable to changes in USDA, the evolving needs of agriculture, 

and the technological advances throughout the 

past century. 

38

Commemorating a Century of Successful and Secure Procedures 

Thanks in part to dedicated NASS employees, July 12, 2005, marked a monumental day in agricultural history. On this day, the 

Agricultural Statistics Board commemorated 

a century of successful and secure procedures. 
The Future

While commemorating 100 years of continuous service, we must also recognize the future 

needs for U.S. agricultural statistics. It is official 

USDA statistics that reveal the facts and fuel the 

markets in agriculture. These statistics have been 

and will continue to be vital to producers, suppliers, buyers, public officials, researchers, and 

many other data users. It is accurate, unbiased 

and on-time USDA statistics that provide a level 

playing field for everyone.

NASS employees realize that we are a 

link in a long chain of service that will continue as long as America’s agriculture continues to 

provide food, fiber, and energy for people here 

and around the world. NASS employees will remain dedicated and committed to upholding ASB 

procedures and are prepared to confront the challenges of the future. 

Our pledge, as we enter our second century of successful and secure procedures, is to 

continue upholding the model of security to safeguard data until they are made available to everyone simultaneously and fairly. We will continue 

to maintain the trust we have established in our 

data and our procedures from America’s farmers and ranchers, our data users, the agricultural 

industry, and statistical organizations and governments around the world. We will continue to 

ensure that the “curtains always remain sealed” 

so everyone benefits equally from the U.S. agricultural statistics system. Furthermore, we will 

continue the NASS mission of providing timely, 

accurate, and useful statistics in service to U.S. 

agriculture. 

We must also remember that one cannot 

look towards the future without first examining 

the trials, tribulations, and successes of the past. 

This historical account is an interim report, covering the past 100 years of secure and confidential reports from the Agricultural Statistics Board. 

The role and importance of the Agricultural Statistics Board must not be taken lightly. American 

agriculture is continually counted, measured, 

priced, analyzed, and reported to provide the 

facts needed by people working throughout this 

vast industry. We must continue to document the 

saga of the Board and its future technological 

evolutions and advances. 

39
Appendix A: Chairpersons of the CRB and ASB

	 About 20 individuals have served as the

Chairperson of the Crop Reporting Board/Agricultural Statistics Board over the past 100 years.

Particularly in the past 20 years, the ASB has emphasized contingency back-up plans and other

individuals have chaired particular ASB sessions.

This listing does not include those individuals who

have served as Acting Chairperson for specific reports.

	 Before 1961 the leader of the organization responsible for USDA domestic statistics

often served as the Chairperson. Since then, t

Chairperson position has been separated from the

Agency Head role. Information is included in t

following listing to indicate the working organization name and the position title of each person

designated as Chairperson, along with some background information.

Willet M. Hays 

July 1905 to June 1906

40

Hays was a relatively new Assistant Secretary of

USDA and had not been involved with the statistical reports until being asked to serve as Acting

Chief of the Bureau of Statistics upon the resignation of John Hyde.

Victor Olmsted 

July 1906 to April 1907

Olmsted had been named as Associate Statistician

when Hays became the Acting Chief. In July 190

he became the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics. Olmsted had formerly served as the Chief of the Division of Domestic Crop Reports.
41

Charles C. Clark 

May 1907 to October 1908

Olmsted took a temporary reassignment to lead a

special population of census project for the Bureau

of the Census. During his absence, Clark, who became Associate Bureau Chief when Olmsted w

named Bureau Chief, served as Acting Chairperson

and Acting Bureau Chief. Clark had served as t

Chief Clerk of the Bureau of Statistics before the

shuffling that occurred in 1905.

Victor Olmsted 

November 1908 to March 1913

Olmsted returned from his Census duties and

resumed his duties. Clark took a position as t

Chief Statistician of the International Institute of

Agriculture in Rome. One historical account implies that Olmsted was encouraged to leave his position by newly named Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Beverly T. Galloway and was appointed as

the State Field Agent for Virginia.

Nat C. Murray 

March 1913 to September 1913

Murray had joined the Bureau of Statistics in 1904

as a Field Agent assigned to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,

Michigan, and Kentucky. He cameto Washingto

D.C., in 1906 as an Associate Chief. Murray w

described as a good manager but not interested in

serving as the permanent Chairperson, particularly

under the circumstances of Olmsted’s departure.

Leon M. Estabrook 

September 1913 to July 1922

Estabrook had formerly worked for Assistant Secretary Galloway. He and Murray worked well together and made many improvements to the statistic

procedures. In 1914 the name of the organizati

was changed to the Bureau of Crop Estimates. 

1921, the Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates

was formed. Estabrook was named as Associa

Chief of the new Bureau and Murray was named

the Chief of the Division of Crop Estimates. In Ju

1922 Henry C.Taylor was successful in merging all

activities dealing with agricultural economics into

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics (BAE). T

Crop Reporting Board was now under the Division

of Crop and Livestock Estimates. Estabrook apparently took on new duties within the new Bureau.	

	 	

Nat C. Murray 

July 1922 to December 1923

Murray found himself again in an acting role as

the Chairperson and the Division Head of Crop

and Livestock Estimates. He resigned at the e

of 1923 to take a position with the private firm of

Curtis, Clement & Co.

William A. Schoenfield 

January 1924 to September 1924

Schoenfield was Assistant Chief of the Bureau of

Agricultural Economics. He served as the C

Chairperson in an acting capacity while keeping

his BAE position.

W. F. Callendar 

September 1924 to August 1935

Callendar had been statistician in charge of Wisconsin and then Ohio. He had come to Washington, D.C., in 1921 as Assistant to the Chief of t

Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates. He became the Head of the Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates when Murray lef

Joseph A. Becker 

August 1935 to May 1937	 	

Becker became the Division Head when Callendar

becamethe Assistant Administrator and Comptroller of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration

(AAA). Becker had been the Principal Divisi

Statistician and led most adjustments in procedures

for new statistics required because of the Great Depression. In 1937 Becker toke extended sick leave

because of poor health.
42

W. F. Callendar 

May 1937 to July 1942

Callendar was recalled from the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to again take over as the

Division Head and Chairman. Becker returned 

a technical assistant and Paul L. Koenig, who had

worked with the statistics units before July 1935,

returned as Administrative Assistant to the Division Head. In October 1938 the Agricultural Marketing Service was formed with statistics and t

CRB under the Agricultural Statistics Division of

AMS.

Joseph A. Becker 

July 1942 to August 1944

When Callendar left Washington, D.C., to become

the Florida State Statistician, Paul L. Koenig was

named as Division Head. However, Becker, t

Assistant for Technical Work, was designated as the

Chairperson of the CRB.

Paul L. Koenig 

August 1944 to January 1946

Becker transferred to the Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations in 1944. Koenig served as the 

Chairperson until 1946 when Callendar, who had

been detailed from Florida to the agricultural census program, returned to serve as the Chairperson.

W. F. Callendar 

January 1946 to December 1949

Callendar remained as the Division Head and

Chairperson until his retirement at the end of

1949.

Sterling R. (Bert) Newell 

January 1950 to April 1962

Bert Newell was appointed as Assistant Chief of

BAE and Chairperson of the CRB when Callendar

retired. When the Agricultural Estimates Divisi

of AMS was formed in 1953, he became the Director of the Division and remained as the Chairperson. When the Statistical Reporting Service (SR

and the Economic Research Service were formed

on April 3, 1961, Newell became the Deputy Administrator and Chairperson, serving until his retirement in 1962.

Glenn D. Simpson 

April 1962 to May 1971

Upon Newell’s retirement, Glenn Simpson became

the Deputy Administrator and the CRB Chairperson. Simpson started his agricultural statisti

work as the Wyoming Agent in 1934. He transferred to New York in 1938 and on to Washingto

D.C., in 1939. He served in the armed forces fr

late 1942 until December 1945. In April 1953, 

was promoted to be the “Principal Assistant” and

Secretary of the CRB. He became the CRB Chairperson in 1962, and remained until his retireme

in 1971. He was an avid student of organization

structures and was instrumental in shaping the SRS

functional structure.

Bruce M. Graham 

May 1971 to July 1979

Bruce Graham becamethe CRB Chairperson when

Glenn Simpson retired. Bruce was particular

known for pioneering work directing the Survey

Operations Group responsible for developing manuals and training materials when the organization

started using probability surveys involving personal interviews. Graham started in the Richmon

Virginia, office in 1946 and transferred to Seattle,

Washington, in 1948. He came to Washingto

D.C., in 1956 and worked in various survey positions before being named Deputy Administrator

in 1971. Graham continued as the Chairpers

until his retirement in 1979 but his working title

changed in January 1978 to being an Assistant

Deputy Administrator when SRS was combined

with the Economic Research Service and the Rural

Cooperatives Service into the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Service (ESCS).
43

John W. (Wally) Kirkbride 

August 1979 to February 1980

Wally Kirkbride is perhaps best remembered for

his leadership of the agency’s estimation program

and people may assume that he had long tenure

as the Chairperson. However, his main CRB association was as Estimates Division Director a

Deputy Chairperson from July 1972 to August

1979 when Bruce Graham retired. Kirkbride started as an agent in Kansas in 1939. He served in

armed forces during World War II and transferred

to Kentucky on his return in 1946. He spent mo

of the rest of his career in Headquarters except for

an assignment in Columbus, Ohio. He advanc

through a number of positions in the Estimates

Division, including serving as the Deputy Director before taking over as the Director of the Survey

and Data Division in 1966. Kirkbride became t

Estimates Division Director as part of a 3-way Division Director shift in 1972. He was named as t

Chairperson of the CRB in August 1979 and then

retired in February 1980.

James L. Olson 

March 1980 to June 1981

Jim Olson started in the South Dakota office but

spent most of his early career in Colorado. During his first tour in Washington, D.C., he work

in the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Branch and

then rotated to the soybeans statistician position.

He did such a commendable job in handling the

fallout from a “bust” in the estimates on one stocks

report that he was soon selected as an Assistant

to the Administrator. His next position was 

the State Statistician in Idaho before returning to

Washington, D.C., as a Branch Chief and Division

Director. He served as an Assistant to the ES

Administrator before replacing Wally Kirkbride as

the CRB Chairperson. The agency name chang

to Economics and Statistics Service (ESS) while

Olson was the Chairperson. In 1981 he moved 

Raleigh, North Carolina, as the State Statistician

and retired from there in 1990.

William E. Kibler 

July 1981 to April 1982

In 1981 the ESS organization was dissolved and

the Statistical Reporting Service became a separate

agency again. Administrator Bill Kibler did n

immediately name anyone as CRB Chairperson

when Jim Olson left for North Carolina but served

as the Acting Chairperson himself. Kibler work

originally as a student aid in Georgia in 1951 before starting in the North Carolina State office and

later transferring to Georgia. He was one of t

first individuals selected for an agency-sponsored

mathematical statistics training program and spent

the 1960-61 school year at North Carolina State

University before transferring to Washington, D.C.

He served in multiple positions in the Standards

and Research Division and later became the Director of the Research and Development Division in

1970 and the Survey and Data Division in 1972.

He took over as North Carolina State Statistician

in late 1974 and moved back to Washington, D.C.,

a year later, as the Associate Administrator before

becoming the Administrator in November 1976.

Kibler retired as the Administrator in May 1987.

Wilbert H.Walther 

April 1982 to February 1984

Wil Walther started with the agency in New Mexico and also worked in Kansas before moving to

Washington, D.C., for the first time in 1963. H

first assignment was in the Field Crops Branch but

he was most known for his later work in livestock

statistics. He served as the Texas State Statistici

from November of 1975 to April 1980. He w

the Survey Division Director in 1982 when he

was named as the Deputy Administrator and CRB

Chairperson. He retired in February 198

Raymond R. Hancock 

March 1984 to September 1986

Ray Hancock started as a student trainee in Georgia in 1955 and joined the Georgia office full time

in 1956. He also worked in the Florida office b
44

fore moving to Washington, D.C., in 1965. 

assisted with Crop Reporting Board activities and

then worked in the Standards and Research Division before taking over as the cotton commodity

specialist. He was serving as a Section Head in t

Field Crops, Fruit, and Vegetables Branch in 1973

when he was selected as the State Statistician for

Kansas. He returned to Washington, D.C., in 1975

as the Chief of the Data Collection Branch. 

later served as the Deputy Director of the Estimates

Division and was selected as the State Statistical

Division Director in 1980. He was promoted 

be the Deputy Administrator and CRB Chairperson in March of 1984. When SRS changed to t

National Agricultural Statistics Service in October

1986, Hancock became the Deputy Administrator

for Operations and no longer had the CRB duties.

Charles E. Caudill 

October 1986 to May 1987

Charlie Caudill was a student in North Carolina

for 2 summers before starting full time in North

Carolina in 1957. He also served in the Maryla

State office before spending the 1961-62 school

year in Ames, Iowa when the agency expanded the

mathematical statistics program to include Iowa

State University. Caudill served in the Standar

and Research Division and then the Agricultural

Estimates Division, heading up the Methods Staff.

He took over as the Texas State Statistician in 1972

and returned to Washington, D.C., in 1975 as the

Director of the Research Division. A major activity, while in that position, was serving as the US

Manager of the multi-departmental remote sensing

program known as AgRISTARS. In 1984, he became the Director of the State Statistical Divisio

Caudill became the first Deputy Administrator for

Programs and Chairperson of the Agricultural Statistics Board as part of the reorganization in October 1986. Caudill was named as Administrat

when Bill Kibler retired in 1987.

Richard D. (Rich) Allen 

June 1987 to September 1999

Rich Allen started with SRS in the Iowa Office in

1963. He spent the 1967-68 school year in t

mathematical statistics program at Iowa State University before moving to the Standards and Research Division in 1968. He served as the Depu

State Statistician in the Illinois office between 1972

and 1976 and then transferred to the Methods

Staff in the Estimates Division. He led the Li

Frame Team Project and served as the Chief of the

Remote Sensing Branch before

becoming the Director of the Survey Division in

1982. He later headed up the Estimates Divisi

before being named as the Deputy Administrator

for Programs when Charlie Caudill became Administrator. In 1995, following a reorganizatio

he became the Associate Administrator, while still

serving as ASB Chairperson. When the Depu

Administrator for Programs and Products position

was established in 1999, the Chairperson duties

shifted to that position.

Frederic A. (Fred) Vogel 

October 1999 to November 2002

Fred Vogel began his SRS career while a student

in Colorado in 1963 and then started working full

time in California in the spring of 1964. He spe

the 1968-69 school year at Iowa State University

in the mathematical statistics program and moved

to Washington, D.C., in 1969. He held vario

assignments in Research and Development, in the

Methods Staff, and back to Research and Development as a Section Head before transferring to the

Illinois office in 1976 as the Deputy State Statistician. He returned to Washington, D.C., in 19

as the Chief of the Methods Staff. He became t

Director of the Statistical Research Division in

1984 and later served as the Director of the State

Statistical Division and the Estimates Division. 

1999 he became the first Deputy Administrator

for Programs and Products and Chairperson of the

Agricultural Statistics Board. He remained in th

position until his retirement in November 2002 to

become the Global Manager of the International

Comparison Program at The World Bank.
 

45

Rich Allen 

November 2002 to October 2005

After Fred Vogel’s retirement, Rich Allen shifted to

the Deputy Administrator for Programs and Products position and once again served as the ASB

Chairperson until his retirement.
Appendix B: Secretaries of the CRB and ASB

	 Throughout the history of the Crop Reporting Board/Agricultural Statistics Board there

has been one key individual at all times who “made

things happen.” That individual was responsib

for logistics and coordination and needed to have

data, people, and processes in place to complete

Board analyses and issue reports on time. However, the term “CRB Secretary” apparently does n

appear until 1953.

	 Interestingly, the first person designated as

the Secretary of the CRB, Glenn Simpson, carried

out quite different responsibilities than his successors. When Bert Newell selected Simpson as t

Principal Assistant and Secretary, he announced

that Simpson would travel extensively on behalf of

the Board. Much of that travel was intended 

improve and standardize agency procedures such as

the use of peg strips.

	 Later Secretaries did not find much timefor

agency travel while in their position. Mel Koe

(pronounced Cane), who held the position for

the longest tenure, once commented in the early

1970s that he needed to go to some agency training

schools “because the younger people coming in on

Board calls are calling me Mr. “Cohen.”

	 Every Secretary has had key assistants who

took on much of the day-to-day responsibility for

physical security and report logistics. Many peop

rotated through those positions and went on to future supervisory and management roles. Specif

assignments and responsibilities varied so much

over time that it is impossible to compile a comprehensive list of those major participants. Therefor

this section will focus on the backgrounds of the

people serving as the Secretary.

46
Glenn D. Simpson 

April 1953 to March 1961

Details on Glenn Simpson’s career were provided

in the Chairperson section.

Melvin Koehn 

March 1961 to June 1979

Mel Koehn really defined therole of CRB Secretary.

He was an excellent multi-tasker, he engaged and

effectively utilized his entire staff, and he smoothly

coordinated all processes, with backup procedures

in placefor nearly every eventuality. Koehn work

in the South Dakota State Office before coming to

Washington, D.C., in 1959. He was originally assigned to Crop Reporting Board activities upon h

arrival in Headquarters and ended up making that

his career.

Paul A. Walsh, Jr. 

June 1979 to October 1980

Paul Walsh originally worked in the Minnesota and

Iowa offices before his first stint in Washington,

D.C. He then served as a statistician in Wyomin

the Deputy State Statistician in Mississippi, and

the State Statistician in Alabama before returning

to Washington, D.C., to take over as Chief of the

Data Services Branch and CRB Secretary. In 198

he rotated to the Systems Branch Chief position.

Gerald L. Clampet 

January 1981 to September 1984

Jerry Clampet worked in the Illinois, Ohio, and

Missouri State offices before coming to Washington, D.C., in 1970. Clampet had become dual

qualified as a statistician and a computer systems

analyst and assisted on development of some new

agency computer systems in addition to commodity assignments. He moved to North Carolina 

the Deputy State Statistician in 1977 and returned

to Washington, D.C., in 1981 to become the CRB

Secretary. Clampet transferred to the Office of t

Administrator in 1984.

L. Duane Jewell 

October 1984 to November 1990

47

Duane Jewell worked in the Idaho State Office

early in his career before coming to Washington,

D.C., in the Fruit and Vegetable statistics program.

He then served as the Deputy State Statistician in

Arkansas before returning to Washington, D.C., in

the Livestock Section. He was next in charge of t

Colorado State Office before returning once more

to Washington, D.C., to head up the Data Collection Branch in 1980. He rotated to the Da

Services Branch Chief and Secretary of the Board

position in 1984 and remained in that position until retiring in 1990.

Michael Hunst 

February 1991 to June 1994

Mike Hunst started as a statistician in the Oregon

State Office in 1965. He showed an interest 

data processing applications and became dually

qualified as a computer systems analyst. When 

came to Washington, D.C., in 1972, his original

assignments were in data processing applications.

He later transferred to the Indiana State Office

as the Deputy State Statistician and returned to

Washington, D.C., in 1988. Hunst was the Secretary responsible for preparing new timetables a

assignments in order to shift the Crop Production

and Grain Stocks releases to 8:30 a.m. releases instead of the traditional 3 p.m. In 1994 he beca

the Minnesota State Statistician and served in that

role until his retirement.

William L. Pratt 

June 1994 to December 1999

Bill Pratt started his agricultural statistics career in

the Kansas State Office in 1967. He transferred 

the North Carolina office and spent the 1972-73

school year at North Carolina State University in

the agency’s mathematical statistics program. Between 1974 and 1983, he had various assignmen

in the Research and Development, the Methods

Staff, and the Prices and Labor Branch of Estimates
48

Division. He became theTexas Deputy Statistici

in 1979 and then returned to Washington, D.C.,

in 1986 as the Chief of the Livestock and Poultry

Branch. Pratt and his staff worked out the arrangements for allowing reporters to enter lockup t

last hour before release so they could prepare their

news stories and be ready to transmit when communications were restored. Pratt served as the A

Secretary until his retirement in1999.

Brad E. Schwab 

December 1999 to December 2000

When the Marketing and Information Services Office wasestablished through reorganization, the duties of ASB Secretary were assigned to the Administrative Support Section Head. Brad Schwab h

been serving as the deputy to the ASB Secretary

and he became the first ASB Secretary under the

new structure. Schwab was another individual w

had become dually qualified as both an agricultural

statistician and a computer specialist. Most of h

original assignments in Arkansas and Virginia were

as a statistician but his assignments in Washington,

D.C., before the ASB work were in network and

technical support roles. Schwab became the Illinois State Statistician at the end of 200

Forestine H. Chapman 

January 2001 to Present

Forestine Chapman started in the Alabama State

Office and also worked in the Iowa State Office before coming toWashington, D.C., in 1992. Amo

other assignments, she worked in survey training

and the Fruit and Vegetable Section. Howeve

her willingness to take an extended detail to assist

with ASB report preparation and printing during

the extended illness of another employee was a key

factor in her selection for the ASB Secretary position when Brad Schwab transferred. One development during Chapman’s tenure has been creati

and testing of a network of laptop computers as a

backup to regular processing equipment.
Appendix C: News Releases

49
Appendix D: Testimonials for ASB Commemoration

The Honorable Terrence A. Duffy

Chairman of the Board

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.

Cattle contracts, respectively. The NASS Livestock

Slaughter report provides official confirmation of

shorter-term slaughter estimates, and the NASS

Milk Production report provides similar official

confirmation of milk supplies on a State-by-State

basis.

	 In addition, NASS has been responsive to

CME requests for changes that make NASS data

more useful. A few recent examples include:

•	 NASS designed and conducted a special

survey of Milkfat Prices which was used to help

CME and the dairy industry assess the potential

for a futures contract.

•	 NASS began releasing the quarterly Hogs

and Pigs report earlier in December so that market

participants could more easily make year-end position adjustments.

50

	 Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME)

congratulates USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for its 100 years of outstanding service to the agricultural industry. CME is a

data-driven organization, and NASS reports play

a critical role in the success of our livestock, meat,

and dairy markets. For example:

	 The NASS Dairy Product Prices report

provides the raw data for the cash settlement of

CME’s Class III and Class IV Mild contracts.The

NASS Cold Storage, Hogs and Pigs, Cattle On

Feed, and Cattle reports provide valuable supplyrelated information for users of CME’s Frozen

Pork Bellies, Lean Hogs, Live Cattle, and Feeder
•	 NASS is currently conducting a special tabulation of the Census of Agriculture that will allow

CME to fine-tune the locations of its Live Cattle

delivery points.

	 All of these efforts by NASS allow CME to

provide the agricultural sector with more efficient

markets, and more effective risk management and

price discovery tools. We are pleased to have NASS

as a partner in these efforts, and we wish NASS

continued success as it begins its second century as

“The Fact Finders of Agriculture.”

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Mike Hunst

ASB Secretary

Feb. 1991 - June 1994

	 Looking back on my NASS career, I regard

my stint as ASB Secretary as the highlight of my

career. I always took very seriously my duty of ensuring the confidentiality of ASB reports and doing

everything in my power to get each report out on

time. In my job as MN Agricultural Statistics Director, I often had the opportunity to explain the

NASS report preparation, confidentiality, and release procedures; and my position as ASB Secretary

gave me the first-hand experience to speak with authority.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Jerry Clampet

ASB Secretary

Jan. 1981 - Sept. 1984

	 The sense of security that surrounded almost everything we did in the Crop Reporting

Board was with me virtually all of the time. That

aspect of our responsibility required us to be vigilant, regardless of whether we were in lockup or

not. Closing the lockup door often generated some

thought of isolation. Opening the door to release

the report often generated feelings of being liberated. Walking out the door with the stack of reports in hand was often a “high moment.” This was

especially true with Crop reports. “Looking neither

to the right nor the left” was serious. People were

anxious to see what we had done inside lockup. So

when we laid copies of the reports face down on

the telephone booth shelves, we were about ready

to communicate real news to a lot of people. That

was “heady” sometimes.

	 ...Crop Reporting Board tasks, along with

the associated accomplishments and frustrations

helped many of us to grow in knowledge and management skills. I sincerely appreciate all of the support that our branch provided to our SRS colleagues

and our non-SRS customers. It was very good to be

a part of that team during the 1981-1984 period.

	 I thank and applaud the current NASS

leadership for their attention to this event, the

documentation through the “Safeguarding America’s Agricultural Statistics” publication, and the

requests for input from many of us who were involved during the past century. My best regards

and appreciation to all of you.

51

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Rich Rominger

Deputy Secretary of Agriculture

1993-2001

	 I appreciated receiving a copy of the Preliminary Release of “Safeguarding America’s Agricultural Statistics.” I enjoyed reading the history of

“crop reports” and the evolution of the reports and

the security and confidentiality procedures over the

past 100 years. As a farmer most of my life, I know

the great value of accurate, timely and uncompromised statistics available to everyone at the same

time. This is one of the important elements that

make U.S. agriculture and our private enterprise

system the envy of the world. As a Deputy Secretary who received the briefings and signed many of

those reports, I was pleased to be part of the system.

	 ...Congratulations and Best Wishes to the

National Agricultural Statistics Service(NASS) and

the World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)

for 100 years of outstanding service to the nation.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	
Jim Donald

WAOB Chairperson

1982-1994

52

Congratulations on 100 years of ever-improving

statistics. Those statistics provided the basis for

sounder decisions by Government officials and by

all participants in the nation’s food and fiber system. My knowledge of NASS capability came early

in my 37-year career with USDA, following my assignment to cotton situation and outlook work. I

soon learned that statisticians, like Hosea Harkness

of the soybean desk, knew an awful lot about production and statistical data and methods used to

arrive at sound, objective estimates.

	 I continued to be impressed with NASS

people and products over the years in connection

with commodity situation and outlook reports. It

became quite evident that statisticians were accomplishing missions through sound training, discipline, dedication and hard work.

	 I really got to know NASS when I became

Chairperson of WAOB in 1982. I recall that SRS

Administrator Bill Kibler went out of his way to

congratulate me and to say he looked forward to

our agencies working together. That spirit of cooperation was kept alive with subsequent NASS

Administrators and Statistics Board Chairpersons

and was a key to WAOB’s successfully pursuing its

goals.

	 As a responsible person leading to the publication of official USDA long-term agricultural

projections, I have a new projection to share: I

see a demand for NASS products for the next 100

years.	 	 	 	

	 	 	
Appendix E: Photographs from ASB Commemoration on 

 July 12, 2005

USDA’S AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BOARD CELEBRATES 

THE PAST 100 YEARS 

A Century of Successful and Secure Agricultural Statistics

	 July 12, 2005, marked a monumental day

in the history of agricultural statistics. On that day,

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) commemorated

a century of the Agricultural Statistics Board (ASB)

and its procedures. The availability of timely, informative statistical reports from USDA has become a

hallmark of the U.S. agricultural system.

	 The official ASB operating procedures were

established in 1905 in response to an insider trading scheme. A USDA employee working on the

cotton estimates leaked information to a New York

cotton trader and made significant profits from h

inside knowledge. When the data leak was discovered, strict new procedures were adapted to uphold

the integrity of the ASB and its statistical reports.

	 These procedures included what is known

today as “lockup”, the process in which USDA employees compiling speculative reports are locked in

a secure area with no means of outside communication until the scheduled release time. Lockup

procedures ensure that no information will be prematurely released.

	 Today, market participants and interested

partiesknow that vital reports issued by the ASB

will be released at the scheduled time to provide a

level playing field for everyone. These procedures

have been continually upheld by NASS and the

World Agricultural Outlook Board for the past 100

years.

This historical achievement was celebrated

July 12, 2005, at a commemorative ceremony held

at USDA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The

ceremony featured several keynote speakers including: Rich Allen, ASB Chairman; Dr. Joseph Jen,

USDA Under Secretary of Research, Education

53
and Economics; Charles Conner, USDA Deputy

Secretary; Dr. Keith Collins, USDA Chief Economist; and R. Ronald Bosecker, NASS Administrator.

	 The program focused on the past, present,

and future of the ASB and agricultural statistics.

Special recognition and honor were given to the

dedicated members of the ASB and the remarkable agricultural leaders who were instrumental in

safeguarding U.S. agricultural statistics for the past

century.

	 A tribute was made to Willet Martin Hays,

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture under President

Theodore Roosevelt, for implementing changes in

the estimates process that laid the foundation for

the ASB. Descendants of Willet Hays were among

the participants in the celebration.

	 Throughout the program, speakers and attendees continually touched upon the importance

of the ASB and the importance of statistical reporting. Remarking on the 21st century, USDA

Chief Economist Dr. Keith Collins proclaimed,

“Relevant and accessible statistical and economic

information will be more essential than ever for

market participants and policy officials because, I

believe, the challenges are more complex than ever.

The 20th century gave us the rise of the science of

statistics.

	 “In the 21st century, we’re going to have

new ways of collecting data, new technologies

like computer power that are unimaginable, satellite technology, new forms of technology that we

haven’t even dreamed of yet, as well as tremendously powerful database management systems. With

these advances, I think the ability of statisticians

and economists will be greater than ever to reach

new levels of understanding of global agriculture

and thereby help world leaders make more rational

and effective public policy decisions,” added Collins.

	 As the ASB commemorates 100 years of

continuous service, government officials, representatives from the agricultural industry and researchers now turn their focus to the future needs of U.S.

agricultural statistics. It is the accurate, unbiased

and timely USDA statistics that reveal the facts and

fuel the markets in agriculture. These statistics will

continue to serve a vital role for producers, suppliers, buyers, public officials, researchers and other

data users.

	 Pledging to uphold the mission and high

standards of NASS and the ASB, NASS Administrator R. Ronald Bosecker remarked, “We realize

that we are a link in a long chain of service that will

continue as long as America’s agriculture continues

to provide food, fiber and energy for people here

and around the world. We welcome the coming

challenges as we enter our second century.”

Prior to the release of the July 12 Crop Production 

report, visitors are given a tour of the lockup facility. 

Carol House explains the process that occurs leading 

up to the official release at 8:30 a.m.

Visitors and special guests attend the secretary’s briefing for the July Crop Production report to recognize 

100 years of secure agricultural statistics.

54
In honor of the centennial celebration, the July 12 

crop report was printed with a Crop Reporter header 

similar to what was used in 1905.

USDA Chief Economist Dr. Keith Collins and Deputy Secretary Charles Conner attend the briefing for 

the July 12 crop report immediately preceding the 

commemoration celebration.

USDA Deputy Secretary Charles Conner addressed 

the audience by emphasizing how vital agricultural 

statistics and ASB reports are to the U.S. agricultural 

community. 

55

USDA Chief Economist Keith Collins enthusiastically shares his vision for the future of agricultural 

statisticians and economists.

Attendees at the celebration received handouts with 

historical information and photographs documenting the past 100 years of the Agricultural Statistics 

Board.

Master of ceremony Rich Allen (in costume as Willet Hays) began the event by welcoming the speakers 

and special guests who were able to participate in the 

festivities.
Dr. Joseph Jen, USDA Under Secretary, offered high 

praise for NASS and its employees. 

NASS Administrator Ron Bosecker closed the program with a few special words of appreciation to 

Rich Allen and the Agricultural Statistics Board.

Among the audience were guests including: Ruth Bascom, granddaughter of Willet Hays and her husband 

John Bascom, Carol House of NASS, Ewen Wilson 

of the Bureau of the Census, Joseph Reilly of NASS, 

Dwight Gadsby of USDA’s Economic Research Service, and Katherine Wallman and Paul Bugg of the 

Office of Management and Budget.

56

To stay true to the past, present, and future theme 

of the celebration, Allen Heishman II, Virginia FFA 

President, spoke about ag leadership in the future.

The patio in the USDA Whitten Building provided 

the perfect background for this historical occasion.

Descendents of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 

Willet Hays attended the celebration, which included a salute to Hays for his contributions to the Crop 

Reporting Board. Rich Allen (front row, center) was 

able to locate Hays’ descendents in Texas and Oregon.
57

Rich Allen, ASB Chairman, attended the celebration 

in costume as a salute to Willet Hays. Ruth Bascom, 

granddaughter of Willet Hays, was pleased to help 

him cut the ceremonial cake.
Appendix F: About the Author

	Rich Allen dedicated 42 years of

service to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

Having earned a

Bachelor of Science

degreeinAgricultural Economics from

Iowa State University in 1963, he immediately began his

career with NASS in the Iowa Field Office. Rich

later returned to Iowa State University in 1967 to

study statistics as part of the NASS full-time training program.

	 Before retiring on Oct. 3, 2005, Rich’s remarkable career included serving as a leader, role

model, mentor, career advisor for junior employees, and a guardian of policies and procedures

within the statistical community. In addition, as a

representative of the agency’s statistical program he

traveled to Spain, Pakistan, Germany, Switzerland,

Italy, Canada, Mexico, Sweden, and China.

	 Several noteworthy career highlights include: Member, Senior Executive Service for nearly 23 years; Deputy Director, Illinois Field Offic

Leader, List Frame Project Team; Director, Survey

Division; Director, Estimates Division; Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board for 15 years; Chair, Program Planning Council for 18 years; Chair, Human

ResourcesCouncilfor 15 years;DeputyAdministrator for Programs; Associate Administrator; Deputy

Administrator, Programs and Products; Instructor,

58
USDA Graduate School; and Agency Ethics and

Freedom of Information Act Officer, the deciding

official on all requests for special data tabulations,

data sharing, and confidential data analyses.

	 Rich earned many honors throughout his

career, including: Fellow, American Statistical Association; Recipient, American Statistical Association Founders and Outstanding Chapter Memb

Awards; Recipient, Washington Statistical Society

Julius Shiskin Award for Economic Statistics and

Presidents’ Awards; and First Recipient, Jeanne E.

Griffith Mentoring Award for which there were 43

seconding letters to the nomination within NASS

and 7 outside NASS; and Twice Recipient, Senior

Executive Service Meritorious Rank Award.

	 Publications and papers by Rich include:

The Evolution of Agricultural Data Collection in

the United States; Long Range Planning for a Statistical Agency; Standards for Evaluating and Using

Administrative Data; Customer-Driven Quality in

the National Agricultural Statistics Service; and

Customer-Driven Data Suppression.

59
REFERENCES 

Brooks, E. M. (1977). As we recall: The growth of agricultural estimates, 1933-1961. Washington, 	 	

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.

Brooks, E. M. (1962). The founding of the crop reporting service, a review of the struggle to

	 establish an agricultural estimating service in the U.S. department of agriculture, 1863-1903.

	 Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.

Landis, J. (Director). (1983). Trading Places [Motion Picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.

Mississippi State University, Office of Agricultural Communications (Producer). (1999). Coverage of

	 September 10, 1999 USDA crop report lockup [Television series episode]. Farmweek.

	 Mississippi State.

Schuff, S. (1994, July). Where are these people? And, why are they locking them up? Colorado Rancher

	 and Farmer, 10-17.

Taylor, Henry and Anne D. (1952). The Story of Agricultural Economics. Ames, IA: The Iowa State

	 College Press.	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Thomas, R. (1975). The Money Harvest. New York: Warner Books, Inc.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. (1938). Seventy-fifth anniversary of

	 the United States Crop Reporting Service, 1863-1938. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Statistics. (1905, January). Crop Reporter (Vol. 6, No. 9).

	 Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Motion Picture Service (Producer). (1962). Alice in numberland

	 [Motion Picture]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Motion Picture Service (Producer). (1967). The new numbers

	 [Motion Picture]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Motion Picture Service (Producer). (1980). Facts for farming: Crop

	 and livestock reports [Motion Picture]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (1988). Monthly report of

	 the condition of the crops, July 10, 1863. [Brochure]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. (1987). The nation’s first

	 crop reporter was the father of our country. [Brochure]. Washington, DC.

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

Office of Communications (Producer). (1988). The need to know [Motion Picture]. Washington, DC.

60
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. (1966, July). Agricultural Situation:

	 One hundred years of crop reporting, 1866-1966 (Vol. 50, No. 7). Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. (1966, October 14). Centennial

	 dinner, celebrating 100 years of continuous crop and livestock reporting for the entire United

	 States. [Program]. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service. (1969). The story of U.S. agricultural

	 estimates, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1088. Washington, DC.

Van Biema, D. (1988, November 13). Talking jobs, eight Washington workers tell why they do what

	 they do. The Washington Post Magazine, 30-31.

Wolfert, I. (1955, August). Drama behind the crop forecasts. Readers Digest, 67, 107-111.

61
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of 

discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.