United States 

 Department of 

 Agriculture

 

 National

 Agricultural 

 Statistics 

 Service

 Research and 

 Development Division

 Washington DC 20250

 RDD Research Report 

 Number RDD-08-09

 

September 2008

Categorizing 

Nonresponse Occurring 

in the 2007 June Area 

Survey (California, 

Kansas, New York, 

Virginia, and 

Washington) 

Michael W. Gerling 

HoaiNam N. Tran 

Morgan S. Earp 

Terry P. O’Connor 

This report was prepared for limited distribution to the research community outside the United States 

Department of Agriculture. The views expressed herein are not necessarily those of the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service or of the United States Department of Agriculture. 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys United States and Puerto Rico 

agriculture to estimate crops and livestock, assess production practices, and identify economic 

trends. Between 2000 and 2005, Kansas’ June Area Survey (JAS) response rate decreased 17.5 

percent, (from 79.1 percent to 62.6 percent). Due to this falling response rate for the JAS, 

NASS’ Kansas Field Office (KS FO) wanted to know why nonresponse was increasing in the 

JAS and contacted NASS’ Research and Development Division to examine the problem. 

At the national level, the JAS’ response rates from 2000 through 2007 have been gradually 

deteriorating at a half of a percentage point every year. Forecasting this negative trend forward, 

the response rate will drop below 80 percent within three to four years. At that time, the 

response rate will be below the federal government’s threshold rate of 80 percent and raise 

additional concerns about the potential impact of nonresponse bias on the survey’s results. 

The study was expanded to include California, Kansas, New York, Virginia, and Washington. 

The field offices in these states were eager to learn more about their own state’s nonresponse in 

the JAS. 

The table, located on the next page, displays the primary reasons for nonresponse on the 2007 

JAS from the combined data of the five test states. The authors recommend that nonresponse 

research be expanded to all states to better understand the deteriorating response rate of the JAS. 
ii

Top Five Reasons for Nonresponse (Refusal & Inaccessible) Across the Five Test States 

(California, Kansas, New York, Virginia and Washington) 

 Reasons for Refusal Reasons for Inaccessible 

1. Would not take time / too busy. 1. 

Tried several times; could not reach 

anyone for an appointment. Just an 

extremely busy person. 

2. 

Contact attempted, but respondent 

refuses on all surveys, and refused on 

this one. 

2. No respondent, as listed on the label, 

could be found. 

3. The respondent feels that surveys hurt 

farmers more than help. 3. No operation, as listed on the label, could be found. 

4. “I do not like surveys. / I do not do 

surveys.” 4. 

Enumerator workload prevented this 

operation from being contacted during 

the survey period. 

5. Information too personal. / None of your 

business. 5. Access to the address on the label was denied by a gate / guard/ etc. 

This exploration into the reasons for nonresponse, is a proactive step forward. It will provide 

NASS with valuable information on which areas of the data collection process need 

improvement and provide insight on how to accomplish this. 
iii

RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. Expand the tracking and analyzing of nonresponse to all states in order to gain 

national insight into the reasons for nonresponse in the June Area Survey. 

Impact: NASS will be able to determine if particular nonresponse reasons are state 

specific, regional and/or national. This will also enable NASS to focus on those 

aspects of the data collection process (questionnaire design, survey promotion, data 

collection) needing improvement. Thus, by increasing response rates, the quality of 

the estimates should improve. 

2. Emphasize the importance of collecting nonresponse reasons at the survey 

workshops. 

3. Designate a cell on the back page of the questionnaire for capturing the reasons for 

nonresponse. Use the interactive edit to verify that questionnaires marked refusal, 

inaccessible, or incomplete have valid nonresponse codes. 

4. Ensure that field offices coordinate and follow-up with supervisory field enumerators 

to prevent any instances of questionnaires not being completed due to a heavy 

workload.
iv
1 

Categorizing Nonresponse Occurring 

in the 2007 June Area Survey 

(California, Kansas, New York, Virginia, Washington) 

Michael W. Gerling 

HoaiNam N. Tran 

Morgan S. Earp

Terry P. O’Connor1

Abstract 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys farmers and ranchers 

across the United States and Puerto Rico in order to estimate crops and livestock, 

assess production practices, and identify economic trends. One of the surveys 

conducted annually is the June Area Survey (JAS). This survey requires field 

enumerators to visit sampled land areas (segments) designated on aerial photos 

and record all agricultural activity occurring within those specified land areas. 

Over the past eight years, the national JAS’s overall response rate has been 

gradually deteriorating from 86.5 percent in 2000 to 81.7 percent in 2007. 

Assuming this trend continues, the JAS national response rate will fall below the 

Office of Management and Budget’s threshold rate of 80 percent in three to four 

years. Falling below this rate dictates the need for nonresponse bias analysis and, 

in general, heightens the concern about the potential negative impact of 

nonresponse on survey results. 

This study examines some of the underlying causes of nonresponse in the 2007 

June Area Survey in five states (California, Kansas, New York, Virginia, and 

Washington). 

Key Words: Agriculture, Refusals, Inaccessibles, Data Collection, Nonresponse 

1. INTRODUCTION 

The National Agricultural Statistics 

Service’s (NASS) primary purpose is 

to provide timely, accurate and 

useful statistics on United States and 

Puerto Rico agriculture. NASS 

conducts hundreds of surveys for the 

purpose of making estimates on 

___________________ 

1/ Michael W. Gerling, HoaiNam N. Tran and Morgan S. Earp are Mathematical Statisticians 

and Terry P. O’Connor is the Section Head of the Data Quality Research Section for the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service - Research & Development Division, located at 3251 

Old Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22030. A special thanks to the field offices and field 

enumerators for taking a proactive approach on reducing non-response.
2 

crops and livestock, exploring production 

practices, and identifying economic trends. 

The June Area Survey (JAS) is an annual 

survey that provides information on U.S. 

crops, livestock, grain storage capacity, and 

type and size of farms. 

The JAS sample is comprised of designated 

land areas (segments). A typical segment is 

about one square mile -- equivalent to 640 

acres. Field enumerators visit these 

segments and collect data on all agricultural 

activity occurring within the segment 

boundaries. Each segment is outlined on an 

aerial photo and provided to the field

enumerator. A separate questionnaire is 

completed for each agricultural operation

operating any land in the segment. 

1.1 Problem: June Area Survey 

Deteriorating Response Rates 

Over time, the JAS’ response rate has been 

gradually decreasing by about a half of a 

percentage point a year. In 2000, the 

response rate was 86.5 percent. By 2007, 

the response rate had dropped to 81.7 

percent. If this trend continues, the JAS’ 

response rate will eventually fall below 80 

percent within three to four years. Once 

below 80 percent, a nonresponse bias study 

will be required by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). This 

research will provide NASS with greater 

insight for addressing and thus minimizing 

nonresponse. 

The three types of nonresponse discussed in 

the study include: 1) refusals, 2) 

inaccessibles, and 3) incompletes. 

Refusals are operators contacted for data 

collection, who were not willing to respond 

or participate in the survey. 

Inaccessibles occur when field enumerators 

are unable to contact or reach the operators 

for data collection. 

 

A questionnaire is considered “incomplete” 

if at least one of the questions is not 

answered. 

Overall, survey nonresponse negatively 

impacts data estimates, increases survey 

costs and data collection time, and

significantly complicates the data editing 

and summarizing processes. Nonresponse 

also increases the potential for bias which

can not be easily assessed or 

explained/identified. 

1.2 Purpose 

Past nonresponse research has focused on 

other surveys; most notably the 2006 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

Phase III (Gerling, Tran, Earp 2008). 

However, this is the first formal 

nonresponse study on the JAS. The study’s 

goal is to gain insight into the most common 

reasons for nonresponse occurring in the 

2007 JAS. This will provide insight into 

what areas(s) of the survey process need to

be addressed to prevent the response rates

from falling any further. 

1.3 Definitions 

Segments: Land areas with identifiable 

boundaries such as ditches, 

roads, railroads, streams, etc.

Segments serve as sampling

units in the June Area 

Survey. Segments are 

assigned a permanent number 

and outlined in red on aerial 
3 

photos. Segments generally 

range in size from one-half 

square mile to three square 

miles. 

Tract: An area of land inside a 

segment under one type of 

land operating arrangement. 

There are two types of tracts: 

1.) Ag. Tract consists of 

agricultural land. 

2.) Non-Ag Tract consists of 

residential, shopping centers, 

lakes, woods, and any land 

not considered agricultural at 

the time. 

Usable: Completed reports 

(questionnaires) containing 

usable data. 

2. METHOD 

The 2007 JAS’s sample was comprised of 

10,912 segments, across 49 states (excludes 

Alaska). The enumeration of these 

segments resulted in 41,518 tracts reporting 

agricultural activity. These tracts resulted in 

a national response rate of 81.7 percent 

usables, 8.7 percent refusing, and 9.6 

percent recorded as inaccessible. Five states 

(California, Kansas, New York, Virginia, 

and Washington) participated in the study. 

Tables 1 and 2 in Section 3.1 show response 

counts and rates for each participating state. 

2.1 Enumerator Training 

Survey workshops are conducted annually to 

train field enumerators on the collection 

procedures for the JAS. For this study, the 

enumerators were provided the following 

instruction: 

1.) In the event of a refusal, the field 

enumerators were instructed to ask and 

record the operator’s reasoning for not 

participating in the survey. 

2.) For inaccessibles, field enumerators 

were asked to document why the operator 

could not be contacted. 

3.) For incompletes, the field enumerator 

would record why the operator did not 

answer specific questions. 

 

4.) In all three cases, field enumerators were 

instructed to review a supplemental handout 

listing various nonresponse reasons. Each 

reason had its own corresponding code 

number. The field enumerator would then 

record this code in the Office Use Box of the 

questionnaire. [Appendix A contains a copy 

of the supplemental handout.]

Field enumerator training added an 

additional 15 minutes on average to the 

overall training workshop. 

2.2 Project Costs 

No additional field enumerator training costs 

were incurred since the nonresponse field 

training was absorbed into the general 

survey workshop. Also, no additional 

burden fell on the field enumerators since 

recording the reasons for the nonresponse is 

a requirement for all surveys. 

3. FINDINGS 

The results are discussed at the individual 

state level and as a group. 
4 

3.1 Overall Response Rates 

Table 1 displays the number of segments 

surveyed and the number of agricultural and 

non-agricultural tracts within those 

segments. Usable agricultural tracts refer to 

those reports that have data and are deemed 

complete. 

Table 2 shows the response rates for 

(California, Kansas, New York, Virginia, 

and Washington) as well as the U.S. 

average. Virginia’s response rate was the 

only one that met OMB’s 80 percent 

response rate requirement. The U.S. 

response rate (81.7 percent) exceeded 

OMB’s requirement by a meager 1.7 

percent. 

Table 1: Number of Sampled Segments, Surveyed Agricultural Tracts Versus Usable 

Agricultural Tracts, and the Number of Non-Agricultural Tracts

No. of Agricultural Tracts State Sample Size (No. 

of Segments) Surveyed Usable 

No. of NonAgricultural 

Tracts 

California 404 1,373 1,004 1,212 

Kansas 487 1,651 1,237 585 

New York 96 291 221 394 

Virginia 179 579 506 340 

Washington 267 674 530 1,602 

U.S.1/ 10,912 41,519 33,920 41,164 

 1/ Includes all 49 states.

Table 2: Agricultural Tracts: Overall Response Counts and Rates for the Five Test 

 States and the U.S. Average. 

State / Response Type Usable 

Count Percent 

Refusal 

Count Percent 

Inaccessible3/

Count Percent 

California 1,004 73.1 175 12.7 194 14.1 

Kansas 1,237 74.9 267 16.2 147 8.9 

New York1/ 221 75.9 25 8.6 45 15.5 

Virginia 506 87.3 35 6.0 38 6.6 

Washington 530 78.6 82 12.2 62 9.2 

U.S.2/ 33,920 81.7 3,613 8.7 3,986 9.6 

 1/ Total does not equal 100% due to rounding. 

 2/ Includes all 49 states. 

 3/ Includes Incompletes.
5 

4. REASONS FOR REFUSALS 

A refusal occurs when an operator declines 

to participate in the survey. In this case, the 

field enumerator records the reason for the 

refusal, determines which nonresponse 

reason best matches the situation from the 

supplemental handout, and finally codes the 

questionnaire appropriately. 

The findings are displayed in Table 3. The 

data (five states combined) revealed that 

“Refused but no reason given.” occurred 

27.6 percent of the time on 121 reports. 

There were 146 reports for which the field 

enumerators failed to record a nonresponse 

code in the office use box. These 146 

reports were not counted in the analysis. 

The authors recommend that field offices reemphasize to the field enumerators the 

importance of collecting nonresponse data, 

so that NASS can better understand the 

rationale of the growing refusal population. 

Of those questionnaires marked as refusal 

and having valid nonresponse codes, the top 

three reasons for refusal were: 1.) “Would 

not take time/ too busy,” 2.) “Contact 

attempted, but respondent refuses on all 

surveys, and refused this one,” and 3.) “The 

respondent feels that surveys and reports 

hurt the farmer more than help.” 

Overall, with the exception of Washington, 

the results did not vary across states. The 

second highest ranked reason for refusal,

“Would not take time / too busy,” occurred 

on only 2 percent of the Washington reports 

compared with 9 to 29 percent in the other 

states. Also, the third highest ranked reason 

for refusal, “Contact attempted, but 

respondent refuses on all surveys,” occurred 

26.4 percent of the time in Washington, but 

only between 5 and 17 percent in the other 

states. (See Appendix B for individual state 

specific tables.) 
6 

Table 3: Reasons For Refusals 

Reasons for 

Refusal 

California 

Count 

California 

Percent 

Kansas 

Count 

Kansas 

Percent 

New York

Count 

New York

Percent 

Virginia 

Count 

Virginia 

Percent 

Washington 

Count 

Washing

ton 

Percen

Refused but no 

reason given. 27 26.5 70 29.2 6 28.6 9 40.9 9 17.0 

Would not take 

time / too busy 18 17.6 55 22.9 6 28.6 2 9.1 1 1.9 

Contact 

attempted, but 

respondent 

refuses on all 

surveys, and 

refused this one.

17 16.7 29 12.1 3 14.3 1 4.5 14 26.4 

The respondent 

feels that surveys 

and reports hurt 

the farmer more 

than help. 

1 1.0 16 6.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 15.1 

"I do not like 

surveys / I do not

do surveys."

6 5.9 13 5.4 1 4.8 0 0.0 4 7.5 

Information too 

personal / none of 

your business. 

7 6.9 12 5.0 1 4.8 0 0.0 2 3.8 

"I will have 

nothing to do with

the Government."

6 5.9 10 4.2 1 4.8 2 9.1 0 0.0 

Known refusal, no

contact 

attempted. 

9 8.8 1 0.4 1 4.8 2 9.1 1 1.9 

Respondent only 

does compulsory

surveys. 

5 4.9 4 1.7 1 4.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 
7 

Table 3 Continued: Reasons For Refusals 

Reasons for 

Refusal 

California 

Count 

California 

Percent 

Kansas Count 

Kansas 

Percent 

New York

Count 

New York

Percent 

Virginia 

Count 

Virginia 

Percent 

Washington 

Count 

Washing

ton 

Percen

Does not believe 

in statistics, so 

will not complete 

an interview.

0 0.0 4 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.7 

Family illness / 

death. 2 2.0 4 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 

"You contact me 

too often" 1 1.0 4 1.7 1 4.8 1 4.5 0 0.0 

I did this survey

before, but not 

again. 

0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 1 4.5 2 3.8 

Would not answer 

the door even 

though they were

home. 

0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 1 4.5 1 1.9 

Violent / 

threatening 

refusal.

0 0.0 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.8 

Does not think the 

information is 

kept confidential. 

1 1.0 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 

Feels the survey

items are too 

complex - too 

much recollection 

is involved. 

0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Would not keep 

appointments 0 0.0 3 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 
8 

Table 3 Continued: Reasons For Refusals 

Reason for 

Refusal 

California 

Count 

California 

Percent 

Kansas Count 

Kansas 

Percent 

New York

Count 

New York

Percent 

Virginia 

Count 

Virginia 

Percent 

Washington 

Count 

Washing

ton 

Percen

"My farm is too 

small to count / 

too small to be 

representative”. 

0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 4.5 0 0.0 

The operator 

called the office 

after reviewing 

the pre-survey 

letter, and asked 

not to be 

contacted further. 

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.8 

Spouse/secretary 

/ etc. will not let 

the enumerator 

see the operator. 

1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5 0 0.0 

"I just did a 

survey for 

someone else." 

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.5 0 0.0 

Mentions a 

specific grievance 

with the FO or 

NASS (other than 

confidentiality). 

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 

Wants to be paid 

for interview time. 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

"This is not a 

farm". 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Quitting farming. 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.9 

Missing1 (Reason 

not recorded). 73 N/A 27 N/A 4 N/A 13 N/A 29 N/A 

Total2/ 175 100.2 267 99.9 25 100.3 35 99.7 82 100.2 

1/ Missing means field enumerator failed to record the reason for the refusal. 2/ Percent total excludes those missing a reason for the nonresponse. Also percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
9 

In 1990 and 1991, NASS examined reasons 

for nonresponse occurring on the 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey 

Phase III (ARMS III), (O’Connor 1991 & 

1992). ARMS III aims to understand the 

financial welfare of the farming industry by 

asking detailed questions regarding farming 

expenses and income. 

Although the JAS and ARMS III surveys 

differ in several ways (questionnaire, focus, 

and sampling scheme), a comparison of 

reasons for refusal across studies was 

conducted. Table 4 displays the 2007 JAS’ 

top five refusal reasons in rank order, 

according to the past ARMS III studies. 

A comparison of nonresponse reasons 

reported in JAS versus ARMS III shows 

similar ranking of refusal reasons, thus 

implying that the primary reasons are 

consistent with those from the previous 

studies. However, without further research, 

including multiple states over several years, 

such conclusions can not be validated. 

Table 4: Comparison Ranking of the Reasons for Refusal on the 2007 June Area Survey 

 Study with the 1990 & 1991 ARMS III Studies 

2007 June Area 

Survey Study 

Ranking 

1991 

 ARMS III 

Study 

Ranking 

1990 

ARMS III 

Study 

Ranking 

Reason for Refusal1/

1 1 1 Would not take the time / too busy. 

2 5 3 Contact attempted but respondent refuses 

on all surveys, and refused on this one. 

3 4 6 The respondent feels that surveys and 

reports hurt the farmer more than help. 

4 3 4 “I do not like surveys / I do not do 

surveys.” 

5 2 2 Information too personal. / None of your 

business. 

1/ Excludes “Refused but no reason given.” 

 
10 

5. REASONS FOR 

INACCESSIBLES 

A questionnaire is recorded as inaccessible 

if the field enumerator was unable to contact 

the operator. For inaccessibles, the field 

enumerators were instructed to code the 

nonresponse reason on the questionnaires. 

The findings are displayed in Table 5. 

There were 155 reports recorded as 

inaccessible for which the field enumerator 

failed to record a reason. These reports were 

removed from the analysis. An additional 

93 reports were cited as “Inaccessible but 

no reason provided.” In the case of 

refusals, “no reason” is valid, but for 

inaccessibles it is not. This signifies that the 

field enumerators failed to record the 

required nonresponse information. 

Therefore, the authors recommend that field 

office staff emphasize the importance of 

collecting and recording reasons for 

inaccessibility. 

The top five reasons for questionnaires 

being coded as “inaccessible” are displayed 

in Table 5. The number one reason for this 

coding was, “Tried several times; could not 

reach anyone for an appointment”. 

A disturbing discovery is that in 11 

instances questionnaires were coded 

inaccessible because the field enumerator’s 

heavy workload precluded contacting these 

operators. Unlike other nonresponse 

reasons, this is an area that NASS can 

prevent by managing workloads more 

efficiently and by maintaining better 

communication with field enumerators. 

Therefore, the authors recommend 

expanding the exploration of nonresponse to 

all states, because the cost is trivial and the 

benefit of reducing nonresponse is high. 
11 

Table 5: Reasons for Inaccessibles 

Reasons for 

Inaccessible/Incomplete 

California 

Count 

California

Percent 

Kansas

Count 

Kansas 

Percent 

New

York

Count 

New

York

Percent 

Virginia 

Count 

Virginia 

Percent 

Washington

Count 

Washington

Percent 

Tried several times, 

could not reach anyone 

for an appointment. 

Just an extremely busy

person. 

47 42.7 44 34.6 0 0.0 15 55.6 22 57.9 

Inaccessible, but no 

reason given. 20 18.2 59 46.5 8 34.8 1 3.7 5 13.2 

No respondent, as

listed on the label, 

could be found. 

18 16.4 8 6.3 10 43.5 2 7.4 1 2.6 

No operation, as listed 

on the label could be 

found. 

5 4.5 2 1.6 0 0.0 3 11.1 1 2.6 

Enumerator workload 

prevented this 

operation from being 

contacted during the 

survey period. 

0 0.0 2 1.6 4 17.4 0 0.0 5 13.2 

Access to the address 

on the label was denied 

by a gate / guard / etc. 

6 5.5 1 0.8 0 0.0 2 7.4 1 2.6 

Illness / death in the 

family prevents the 

operator from 

responding. 

4 3.6 4 3.1 0 0.0 1 3.7 0 0.0 
12 

Table 5 Continued: Reasons for Inaccessibles 

Reasons for 

Inaccessible/Incomplete 

California 

Count 

California

Percent 

Kansas

Count 

Kansas 

Percent 

New

York

Count 

New

York

Percent 

Virginia 

Count 

Virginia 

Percent 

Washington

Count 

Washington

Percent 

The operator is away

on an extended 

vacation. 

3 2.7 4 3.1 0 0.0 1 3.7 1 2.6 

The operator is away

on business. 3 2.7 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0 1 2.6 

The operator is away

on a brief vacation. 0 0.0 2 1.6 0 0.0 2 7.4 0 0.0 

The address on the 

label is vacant / burned 

out/ no structure exists. 

3 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Respondent postponed 

the interview beyond 

the end of the survey

period. 

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6 

Non-English speaking 

respondent; interpreter 

not available. 

1 0.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Farm records are not 

available until after the 

survey period closes. 

0 0.0 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Missing1/

(Reason not recorded) 79 N/A 20 N/A 21 N/A 11 N/A 24 N/A 

Total 189 99.7 147 100.0 44 100.0 38 100.0 62 99.9 

1/ Missing denotes field enumerator failed to record the reason for the refusal. Not counted in the percent. 2/ Percent total excludes those missing a reason for the nonresponse. Also percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding
13 

Table 6 compares the 2007 JAS study’s top 

five reasons for recording a questionnaire as 

an inaccessible with those from past ARMS 

III studies. 

Unlike refusals, the rankings varied across 

studies. In the 1990 ARMS III study, the 

main reason for inaccessibility was “The

operator is away on extended vacation.” 

This was ranked tenth in the JAS study. 

Differences in reported reasons for 

nonresponse suggest that there may be 

something unique to JAS (questionnaire, 

sampling scheme, time, publicity, etc...) 

creating these differences between studies. 

Also, the time differences between when the 

ARMS studies were conducted in the early 

90’s and the JAS study was carried out in 

2007 may also be a factor. Further research 

is thus required to determine the reason for 

the variability in nonresponse across these 

surveys.

Table 6: Comparison Ranking of the Reasons for Inaccessibles on the 2007 June Area 

Survey Study with the 1990 & 1991 ARMS III Studies 

2007 June 

Area Survey 

Study 

Ranking 

1991 

ARMS III 

Study 

Ranking 

1990 

ARMS III 

Study 

Ranking 

Reasons for Inaccessible 

1 1 4 

Tried several times; could not reach 

anyone for an appointment. Just an 

extremely busy person. 

2 9 5 No respondent, as listed on the label, 

could be found. 

3 12 11 No operation, as listed on the label, 

could be found. 

4 14t/ 13 

Enumerator workload prevented this 

operation from being contacted during 

the survey period. 

5 13 9 Access to the address on the label was 

denied by a gate/ guard/ etc... 

t/ Represents a tie. 
14 

6. INCOMPLETES 

A report is coded as an incomplete if the 

respondent provided partial information, but 

would not or could not provide enough 

information to make the questionnaire 

complete. Table 7 shows that incompletes 

are rare. 

Table 7: Incompletes by State and their Contribution to their State’s Nonresponse 

Incompletes by State Number Percent of State’s 

Nonresponse 

California 5 0.4 

Kansas 3 0.1 

New York 1 0.3 

Virginia 0 0 

Washington 0 0 

7. LESSONS LEARNED 

Analysis of the data uncovered 36 

inaccessible operations incorrectly coded as 

refusals. Sixteen operations that refused to 

complete the JAS were incorrectly coded as 

inaccessible. There were 301 questionnaires 

missing a nonresponse reason code. 

Therefore, the authors recommend an edit 

check be developed to verify the existence 

of a valid nonresponse code for 

questionnaires coded as a refusal or 

inaccessible. 

 

For future nonresponse studies to run more 

efficiently and effectively, the authors 

recommend designating a cell on the back of 

the questionnaire where the reason for 

nonresponse can be recorded. 

8. CONCLUSION 

Understanding the reasons for nonresponse 

provides NASS with a starting point for 

addressing future nonresponse on the June 

Area Survey. As the understanding of 

nonresponse increases, so does NASS’ 

ability to minimize/prevent it. NASS can 

use this information in demonstrating best 

practices for handling refusals and 

inaccessibles. Research and Development 

Division will continue to work with field 

offices in studying nonresponse in the hopes 

of effectively increasing future response 

rates. 

 

9. REFERENCES 

Beckler, D., J. McCarthy, K. Ott. (2006) The 

Effect of Incentives on Response in 2005 

ARMS Phase 3 Interviews, Research and 

Development Division Report RDD-06-06, 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Beckler, D., P. Horvath, K. Ott. (2005) 

Indirect Monetary Incentives for the 2004 

ARMS Phase 3 Core, Research and 
15 

Development Division Report RDD-05-05, 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Gerling, M., H. Tran, M. Earp., (2008) 

Nonresponse in Phase III of the Agricultural 

Resource Management Survey in Louisiana, 

Research and Development Division Report 

RDD-08-07,, United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 

Gerling, M. (2005) Using Handheld Global 

Positioning System Receivers for Phase II of 

the Agricultural Resource Management 

Survey, Research and Development 

Division Report RDD-05-04, United States 

Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 

O’Connor, T. (1991) Identifying And 

Classifying Reasons For Non-response On 

The 1990 Farm Costs And Returns Survey, 

Research and Development Division Report 

SRB-91-11, United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 

O’Connor, T. (1992) Identifying And 

Classifying Reasons For Non-response On 

The 1991 Farm Costs And Returns Survey, 

Research and Development Division Report 

SRB-92-10, United States Department of 

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 

Ott, L. (1988) An Introduction To Statistical 

Methods And Data Analysis Third Edition, 

Boston, Massachusetts: PWS-Kent 

Publishing Company. 
16 

Appendix A 

Reasons for Nonresponse Coding Sheet 
17 
18 

Appendix B

Reasons for Refusals by State 
19 

Table B1: Reasons for Refusing to Participate in the 2007 June Area Survey in California

Frequency Percent Reason for Refusal 

27 26.5 Refused, but no reason given. 

18 17.6 Would not take the time / too busy. 

17 16.7 Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all surveys, and 

refused on this one. 

9 8.8 Known refusal, no contact attempted. 

7 6.9 Information too personal / none of your business. 

6 5.9 “I do not like surveys / I do not do surveys.” 

6 5.9 “I will have nothing to do with the Government.” 

5 4.9 Respondent only does compulsory surveys. 

2 2.0 Family illness / death. 

1 1.0 “You contact me too often.” 

1 1.0 The respondent feels that surveys and reports hurt the farmer more 

than help. 

1 1.0 Spouse / secretary / etc. will not let the enumerator see the operator. 

1 1.0 “This is not a farm.” 

1 1.0 Does not think the information is kept confidential. 

73 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

175 100.2 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
20 

Table B2: Reasons for Refusing to Participate in the 2007 June Area Survey in Kansas 

Frequency Percent Reason for Refusal 

70 29.2 Refused, but no reason given. 

55 22.9 Would not take the time / too busy. 

29 12.1 Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all surveys, and 

refused on this one. 

16 6.7 The respondent feels that surveys and reports hurt the farmer more 

than help. 

13 5.4 “I do not like surveys / I do not do surveys.” 

12 5.0 Information too personal / none of your business. 

10 4.2 “I will have nothing to do with the Government.” 

4 1.7 Respondent only does compulsory surveys. 

4 1.7 Does not believe in statistics, so will not complete an interview. 

4 1.7 “You contact me too often.” 

4 1.7 Family illness / death. 

3 1.3 I did this survey before, but not again. 

3 1.3 Feels the survey items are too complex – too much recollection is 

involved. 

3 1.3 Would not keep appointments. 

3 1.3 Would not answer the door even though they were home. 

2 0.8 Violent / threatening refusal. 

2 0.8 Does not think the information is kept confidential. 

1 0.4 “My farm is too small to count / too small to be representative.” 

1 0.4 Known refusal, no contact attempted. 

1 0.4 Wants to be paid for interview time and effort. 

27 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

267 99.9 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
21 

Table B3: Reasons for Refusing to Participate in the 2007 June Area Survey in New York 

Frequency Percent Reason for Refusal 

6 28.6 Refused, but no reason given. 

6 28.6 Would not take the time / too busy. 

3 14.3 Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all surveys, and 

refused on this one. 

1 4.8 “I do not like surveys. / I do not do surveys.” 

1 4.8 Information too personal / none of your business. 

1 4.8 “I will have nothing to do with the Government.” 

1 4.8 Respondent only does compulsory surveys. 

1 4.8 “You contact me too often.” 

1 4.8 Known refusal, no contact attempted. 

4 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

25 100.3 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
22 

Table B4: Reasons for Refusing to Participate in the 2007 June Area Survey in Virginia 

Frequency Percent Reason for Refusal 

9 40.9 Refused, but no reason given. 

2 9.1 Would not take the time / too busy. 

2 9.1 Known refusal, no contact attempted. 

2 9.1 “I will have nothing to do with the Government.” 

1 4.5 “I just did a survey for someone else.” 

1 4.5 “You contact me too often.” 

1 4.5 I did this survey before, but not again. 

1 4.5 Spouse / secretary / etc. will not let the enumerator see the operator. 

1 4.5 Would not answer the door even though they were home. 

1 4.5 “My farm is too small to count / too small to be representative.” 

1 4.5 Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all surveys, and 

refused on this one. 

13 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

35 99.7 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
23 

Table B5: Reasons for Refusing to Participate in the 2007 June Area Survey in Washington 

Frequency Percent Reason for Refusal 

14 26.4 Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all surveys, and 

refused on this one. 

9 17.0 Refused, but no reason given. 

8 15.1 The respondent feels that surveys and reports hurt the farmer more 

than help. 

4 7.5 “I do not like surveys / I do not do surveys.” 

3 5.7 Does not believe in statistics, so will not complete an interview. 

2 3.8 Violent / threatening refusal. 

2 3.8 I did this survey before, but not again. 

2 3.8 Information too personal / none of your business. 

2 3.8 The operator called the office after reviewing the pre-survey letter, 

and asked not to be contacted further. 

1 1.9 Quitting farming. 

1 1.9 Would not take the time / too busy. 

1 1.9 Would not answer the door even though they were home. 

1 1.9 Family illness / death. 

1 1.9 Mentions a specific grievance with the FO or NASS (other than 

confidentiality). 

1 1.9 Does not think the information is kept confidential. 

1 1.9 Known refusal, no contact attempted. 

29 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

82 100.2 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
24 

Appendix C 

Reasons for Inaccessibles and Incompletes by State 
25 

Table C1: Reasons for Inaccessibles in the 2007 June Area Survey in California

Number Percent Reason for Inaccessible 

47 42.7 Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an appointment. Just 

an extremely busy person. 

20 18.2 Inaccessible, but no reason given. 

18 16.4 No respondent, as listed on the label, could be found. 

6 5.3 Access to the address on the label was denied by a gate / guard / etc. 

5 4.5 No operation, as listed on the label could be found. 

4 3.6 Illness / death in the family prevent the operator from responding. 

3 2.7 The operator is away on an extended vacation. 

3 2.7 The address on the label is vacant / burned out/ no structure exists. 

3 2.7 The operator is away on business. 

1 0.9 Non-English speaking respondent; interpreter not available. 

79 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

189 99.7 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.
26 

Table C2: Reasons for Inaccessibles in the 2007 June Area Survey in Kansas

Number Percent Reason for Inaccessible 

59 46.5 Inaccessible, but no reason given. 

44 34.6 Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an appointment. Just 

an extremely busy person. 

8 6.3 No respondent, as listed on the label, could be found. 

4 3.1 Illness / death in the family prevent the operator from responding. 

4 3.1 The operator is away on an extended vacation. 

2 1.6 No operation, as listed on the label could be found. 

2 1.6 The operator is away on a brief vacation. 

2 1.6 Enumerator workload prevented this operation from being contacted 

during the survey period. 

1 0.8 Farm records are not available until after the survey period closes. 

1 0.8 Access to the address on the label was denied by a gate / guard / etc. 

20 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

147 100.0 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 
27 

Table C3: Reasons for Inaccessibles in the 2007 June Area Survey in New York 

Number Percent Reason for Inaccessible 

10 43.5 No respondent, as listed on the label, could be found. 

8 34.8 Inaccessible, but no reason given. 

4 17.4 Enumerator workload prevented this operation from being contacted 

during the survey period. 

1 4.3 The operator is away on business. 

21 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

44 100.0 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 
28 

Table C4: Reasons for Inaccessibles in the 2007 June Area Survey in Virginia

Number Percent Reason for Inaccessible 

15 55.6 Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an appointment. Just 

an extremely busy person. 

3 11.1 No operation, as listed on the label could be found. 

2 7.4 The operator is away on a brief vacation. 

2 7.4 Access to the address on the label was denied by a gate / guard / etc. 

2 7.4 No respondent, as listed on the label, could be found. 

1 3.7 Illness / death in the family prevent the operator from responding. 

1 3.7 The operator is away on an extended vacation. 

1 3.7 Inaccessible, but no reason given. 

11 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

38 100.0 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 
29 

Table C5: Reasons for Inaccessibles in the 2007 June Area Survey in Washington 

Number Percent Reason for Inaccessible 

22 57.9 Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an appointment. Just 

an extremely busy person. 

5 13.2 Enumerator workload prevented this operation from being contacted 

during the survey period. 

5 13.2 Inaccessible, but no reason given. 

1 2.6 No respondent, as listed on the label, could be found. 

1 2.6 The operator is away on an extended vacation. 

1 2.6 No operation, as listed on the label could be found. 

1 2.6 The operator is away on business. 

1 2.6 Respondent postponed the interview beyond the end of the survey 

period. 

1 2.6 Access to the address on the label was denied by a gate / guard / etc. 

24 N/A Missing Data (No reason provided on the questionnaire.) 

62 99.9 TOTAL (Missing Data is not counted in percent total.) 

1/ Percent total may be less than or greater than 100% due to rounding.