IDENTIFYING ANDJ;LASSIFYING REASONS

FOR NONRESPONSJtON THE 1991 FARM

COSTS AND RETURNS SURVEY

Terry P. O'Connor

__ '_H' __

-."'••.•• '~ - .40 -_

-":I -ow ••••••• ~."""' __'=~ '-.-""

- --- - --- -

- -::""C::-~-- ~-

_~ _0",- __ ....!.-._ -_ =~- -'---- _,. '. __ •

Ml)c .~c~;"~'~-C~7°

- -

'~---",'- .

AR

KS

OK

TX

ND

SD

NE

co

NM AZ

Research Division

United States

Department or

Agriculture

December 1992

National

Agricultural

Statistics

Service

SRB Research Report

Number SRB-92-10
IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING REASONS FOR NONRESPONSE ON THE 1991

FARM COSTS AND RETURNS SURVEY, by Terry P. O'Connor. Research

Division, National Agricultural statistics Service, u.S. Department

of Agriculture, Washington DC 20250. December 1992. Research

Report No. SRB-92-10.

ABSTRACT

A research study was conducted during the 1991 Farm Costs and

Returns Survey (FCRS) to identify and classify the reasons given to

field interviewers by potential respondents who refused to

participate in the survey. The reasons given by field interviewers

for coding a sampled unit as inaccessible during the survey were

also identified and classified.

The research was conducted in all 48 surveyed states, and included

6 FCRS questionnaire versions. Upon receiving a refusal,

interviewers were instructed to record the reason given for

refusing on the face page of the questionnaire. If no reason was

given, or in cases where more than one reason was given, the

interviewers were instructed to discuss the concerns of the

respondent in regards to completing an interview, and to identify

the main reason for refusing. When a sampled unit was coded as

inaccessible, interviewers were instructed to explain the reason.

During the manual edit of the questionnaires, the reasons for

refusal or being coded as inaccessible were reviewed and compared

to a coded list of reasons for nonresponse compiled from previous

research into this topic on the FCRS. statisticians could consider

the comments from the interviewers as a match to a pre-coded

response, or add additional codes for unique comments.

The nonresponse rate on FCRS averages 30% per year. The reasons

behind the nonresponse have been a source of speculation for many

years, and previously only anecdotal evidence was available on

which to base efforts to maximize response. This research shows

the anecdotal evidence to have been sometimes on and other times

off the mark.

**************************************************************

This paper was prepared for limited distribution to the

research community outside the u.S. Department of Agriculture.

**************************************************************

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author appreciates the efforts of the State statistical Office

staffs and field enumerators who took part in this project, who

made the extra effort and enabled this research to be completed.

Thanks are due to Dale Atkinson of the Survey Quality Research

Section, Scot Rumburg and Jim Mergerson of the Research Division

and Jack Rutz, Chris Cadwallader and Sammye Crawford of the Survey

Management Division, for their support of this project.

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY ....

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

RESULTS ...

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

· iii

. 1

2

4

. 8

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . .

· · · · · ·

11

APPENDIX A: REFUSAL REASONS, FREQUENCY ORDER.

· · · · · · ·

12

APPENDIX B: REFUSAL REASONS, CODE ORDER. · · · · · · · · ·

14

APPENDIX C: INACCESSIBLE REASONS, FREQUENCY ORDER

· · ·

16

APPENDIX D: INACCESSIBLE REASONS, CODE ORDER · · · · · ·

17

APPENDIX E: PERCENTAGE OF REFUSALS AND

INACCESSIBLES BY STATE · · · · · · · · ·

18

APPENDIX F: REFUSAL REASONS BY VERSION . .

· · · · · ·

19

APPENDIX G: INACCESSIBLE REASONS BY VERSION

· · · ·

25

APPENDIX H: HISTOGRAM OF REFUSALS BY DATE

· · ·

29

APPENDIX I: HISTOGRAM OF INACCESSIBLES BY DATE

· · · · ·

30

,

APPENDIX J: HISTOGRAM OF INCOMPLETES BY DATE · · · · · · · ·

31

ii
SUMMARY

The Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) is a face to face

interview survey conducted annually during February and March by

the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). It is a

survey of the agricultural sector, and is conducted in the 48

conterminous states to collect detailed information on farm

expenditures and income, costs of production and demographic data.

A nonresponse identification research project was conducted during

the 1991 FCRS (conducted during February and March, 1992) to

identify and classify the reasons given to field interviewers by

respondents who refused to participate in the survey. The reasons

given by field interviewers for coding a sampled unit as

inaccessible during the survey were also identified and classified.

The research was conducted in all 48 surveyed states and included

6 FCRS questionnaire versions. A Chemical Use and Farm Finance

Survey (CUFFS) version used only by the Minnesota SSo is not

included in this research. Results of the refusal identification

indicate that a single reason given by respondents for refusing to

participate in the survey ("Would not take the time / too busy")

was the first or second most frequent response in 44 states,

accounting for 24.6 percent of all refusals received on the FCRS.

However, the relative frequency of the reasons for refusing varied

considerably among the states.

The most frequent reason for an inaccessible ("Tried several times:

could not reach anyone for an appointment. Just an extremely busy

person. ") was the first or seconn most frequent response in 33

states, accounting for 27.5 percent of all inaccessibles. There

were fewer reasons provided for inaccessibles and less within state

variation when compared to the refusal identification.

One benefit of this research is that the number of partially

completed FCRS questionnaires is evident for the first time. When

interviewers coded a sample unit with an "inaccessible\incomplete"

Completion Code, they would further identify the partially

completed questionnaires as IIincomplete" by assigning them a unique

Response Code of 150. For the 1991 survey, 263 questionnaires were

coded as incomplete and were not summarized. This amounts to 3.6

percent of the nonresponse, but is only 1.2 percent of the total

survey contacts.

Another benefit of collecting this type of information is that it

provides motivation for survey managers to make adjustments to the

public's perception of a too long interview by testing a shortened

version of the questionnaire (as is being planned for the 1992

FCRS). Headquarters can prepare materials to aid Survey

statisticians in training their interviewers to meet the challenges

of the refusal types common across states. Survey statisticians

should develop materials for use in their state workshops to

iii
prepare interviewers for refusal situations common to their state.

Experienced interviewers who have had success in converting

refusals into respondents should share their techniques through

panel presentations or group discussions.

In this way, interviewers will maximize response

initial contact by being prepared to discuss

grievances brought up by the respondents, thus

additional time and money costs of are-contact.

rates on the

concerns and

avoiding the

Determining the reasons given for coding a sampled unit as

inaccessible will allow headquarter's staff to consider new

surveying techniques, to identify the few non-farms now coded as

inaccessibles, and to examine modeling assumptions about

nonresponse adjustment procedures.

iv
INTRODUCTION

The Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) is a face to face

interview survey conducted annually during February and March by

the National Agricultural statistics Service (NASS). It is a

survey of the agr icul tural sector, and is conducted in the 48

conterminous states to collect detailed information on farm

expenditures and income, costs of production and demographic data.

The FCRS has a multiple frame design utilizing a list sample of

medium and large ranches and farms, and an area nonoverlap sample

of Resident Farm Operators (RFOs) not represented by the list, most

of whom operate small farms (Rutz, 1991).

While all 48 FCRS states utilize the same survey procedures, the

FCRS includes several questionnaire versions used in different

combinations across the country. The versions used in a particular

state for a given year depend upon the agriculture in that state

and the areas of agricultural specialization being studied. Costs

of producing the various agricultural commodities are studied on a

year-to-year rotating basis. There are variations in geography,

sample sizes, farm or ranch types and sizes, economic conditions

and respondent attitudes about the survey across the country;

therefore, many factors must be considered when making direct state

to state comparisons of the survey results (Rutz, 1991).

The 1991 FCRS national response rate was 67.9 percent, with a

refusal rate of 24.9 percent and an inaccessible/incomplete rate of

7.2 percent. Response rates on the survey have declined slightly

over time, despite extensive efforts to limit nonresponse. While

NASS uses farm expense data from the FCRS in its reports, the

primary user of the FCRS data set ~s the Economic Research Service

(ERS), which utilizes all of the FCRS data in producing economic

analyses and cost of production reports (Rutz, 1991).

A nonresponse identification research project was conducted in 6

states during the 1990 FCRS. The purpose of the project was to

identify and classify the reasons given to field interviewers by

respondents who refused to participate in the survey. The reasons

given by field interviewers for coding a sampled unit as

inaccessible during the survey were also identified and classified.

This research was expanded to include all states for the 1991 FCRS.

The information gained through this research will be beneficial in

aiding interviewers to maximize response rates on the initial

contact.

Other NASS proj ects to minimize nonresponse on the FCRS have

included a refusal conversion project, providing individual farm

financial analyses to respondents, and extensive media blitzes.

According to Rutz (1991), "Despite these extensive efforts, most

agree that the best way to increase response rates would be to

decrease the length of the questionnaire." The results of the

nonresponse identification research seem to support this position.

1
BACKGROUND

The research project to identify and classify nonresponse on the

FCRS stems from four years of preliminary work which the author

completed while on staff in the South Carolina and Indiana State

Statistical Offices (SSOs).

Beginning with the 1985 FCRS, the author required that the South

Carolina interviewers document the reasons given by respondents who

refused to participate in the survey. A similar effort was

underway in the California SSO at the time. Previously,

interviewers were likely to simply write "refusal" across the

questionnaire, and the comments the interviewer received from a

refusal were discussed second or third hand if at all, and were

sketchy at best.

Then on the 1986 FCRS, South Carolina was selected as one of six

states to take part in a refusal conversion research project. All

respondents who refused to participate in the survey during the

initial contact were to be re-contacted with the purpose of

convincing them to complete an interview. It was apparent that

interviewers selected to re-contact a refusal in the current survey

had an advantage if they were aware of the reason the respondent

gave when initially refusing.

The information on "reasons for refusing" gathered during 1985 were

discussed during the training workshop for the 1986 FCRS, and

responses to the reasons were developed by the interviewers. To

prepare for the re-contact required by the research, interviewers

were again required to write on the questionnaire the exact reason

or circumstances behind each refusal received on the FCRS. In this

way, subsequent interviewers were aware of the events of the

initial contact.

The primary benefit of identifying the refusal types was that the

interviewers could PREPARE for common situations before

encountering them in interview situations. According to

interviewer comments, this preparation improved their confidence in

approaching interviews, and even when they could not prevent a

refusal, they were able to set the stage for the respondent's

cooperation on other upcoming surveys. The second benefit was

that, when approaching a re-contact on the refusal conversion

project, the subsequent interviewer could prepare for a specific

situation. A third benefit was that interviewers (with their

supervisor's approval) could eliminate re-contacts of certain

refusal types (violent refusals, death in the family, etc.), saving

money and time during the critical data collection period.

Perhaps because the refusal conversion project was new and received

much attention, or perhaps because the refusal identification

preparation worked, the FCRS response rate in south Carolina for

1986 was 17 percent higher than in 1985 (Dillard, 1987). The

2
author attributes most of this increase to interviewer preparation

on the initial contact since only a small number of refusal

conversions were obtained.

Upon transferring to the Indiana SSO, the author again instructed

the field interviewers to document the reasons given by refusals.

By identifying the most common FCRS refusal types in Indiana, we

were able to devote workshop training time prior to the next survey

to address these reasons. Comments from interviewers who had

successfully converted each refusal type were discussed to better

prepare all interviewers in dealing with these situations. The

idea was to MAXIMIZE RESPONSE RATES on the initial contact by being

prepared to discuss concerns and grievances brought up by the

respondents, thus avoiding the additional time and money costs of

are-contact.

While the refusal identification and interviewer preparation led to

an initial decrease from 35 percent to 31 percent in the refusal

rate in Indiana, no additional gains have been evident, with the

refusal rate averaging 31 percent over the past five years. The

list of refusal types compiled during this time served as the basis

of the refusal list utilized for the nonresponse identification

project on the 1990 FCRS.

The 1990 FCRS research was conducted during February and March,

1991, in six test states including two states that averaged high

nonresponse rates, two states that averaged mid-level nonresponse

rates, and two states that averaged low non response rates on the

FCRS. Resul ts of the refusal identification indicated that a

single reason given by respondents for refusing to participate in

the survey ("Would not take the time / too busy") was the first or

second most frequent response in each of the six states, accounting

for 29.7 percent of all refusals received in these states.

However, only four reasons for refusing made the top ten list in

every state, and the relative frequency of the respondents' reasons

for refusing varied considerably among the six states.

The most frequent reason for an inaccessible among the six states

("The operator is away on an extended vacation") accounted for 13.7

percent of all inaccessibles. There were only three reasons for

inaccessibles common to all six states, with fewer reasons provided

and less wi thin state variation when compared to the refusal

identification.

Comments from the FCRS post-su~ey evaluations completed by survey

statisticians around the country have alluded to problems with

certain refusal types, but with only anecdotal information to

support their impressions. Recent (1989 and 1990) survey

evaluations included the following comments:

* "Comments for refusing ranged from 'Not enough time' to 'The

Government programs do not help me'."

3
* "Some farmers feel it's none of our business."

*"Many of the refusals, I'm convinced, arise from the frequency

in which certain operations are sampled. for our surveys."

*"Many farm operators refused due to the length of the

questionnaire."

*"Most of the second time contacts were refusals and didn't

want to be contacted again."

Some ...many •..most. The 1990 FCRS nonresponse identification

project was expanded to all surveyed states for 1991 in order to

put some numbers on these valid concerns, to better determine what

NASS is up against when trying to minimize nonresponse on the FCRS.

RESULTS

The results of the 1991 refusal identification and classification

research are listed in Appendix A in frequency of response order,

and in Appendix B in code order. In each case, the first column is

a frequency count per refusal type, summed across the 48 states.

Column 2 is a code assigned to each refusal type for consistency

across states. Column 3 provides the reason for the refusal.

Refusal types coded 01 53 were provided in the survey

instructions; codes 200 - 409 were initially left blank for state

use, and the states added refusal types based upon their data

collection experiences with the survey.

The most frequent reason given by the farmers when refusing to

participate in the survey was "Would not take the'time / too busy".

This response was given by 1,395 of the 5,663 refusals encountered

(24.6%), and was recorded nearly twice as often as the next most

frequent response. This seems to be strong evidence for those

involved with the survey who believe that farmers perceive the

interview to take too long or to be too involved.

The second most frequent reason recorded was "Refused, but no

reason given", mentioned 739 times, or 13.0 percent of the total

refusals received. This category represents a difficult type of

refusal to convert to a respondent: they just say NO. They may

understand what NASS is and its mission, and may even recognize the

interviewer from previous contacts, but cut off any attempt at an

interview before their concerns can be identified and addressed.

The third most frequent reason recorded was "Information too

personal/none of your business", mentioned 508 times, or 9.0

percent of the total refusals received. The FCRS interview is an

in-depth analysis of an individual's farming practices and

financial standing. Stressing confidentiality may not be enough;

these farmers may feel that they are givinq deeply to the survey

but may perceive that they are receiving nothing in return.

4
Together these first three reasons account for 46.7 percent of the

total refusals received. The top five reasons account for 58

percent, even though 52 different reasons for refusing were

mentioned during this research.

The Top FIVe Reasons for Refusing

(WIIh ", Olher rleaooI18 Contiled)

O1lhe 1991 FCRS

1000

o

04 08 015 11 08 cmERS

There was variation among the states in reasons given, and

surprisingly, no single refusal reason was mentioned in all 48

surveyed states. The refusal reasons mentioned most widely are as

follows:

04. Would not take the time / too busy. 47 states

05. Information too personal/none of 46 states

your business.

03. Refused, but no reason given. 43 states

II. "I do not like surveys / I do not 39 states

do surveys."

06. The respondent feels that surveys 39 states

and reports hurt the farmer more

than help.

Refusal reasons mentioned as frequently and as widely as these five

should be addressed on a national level. However, 88Gs must review

their state specific data to determine which less widely or less

frequently mentioned reasons are important to their state.

This research also involved identifying and classifying the reasons

given by an interviewer when coding a sampled unit inaccessible,

shown in Appendix C in frequency of response order, and in

Appendix D in code order. In each case, the first column is a

frequency count per inaccessible type, summed across the 48 states.

5
Column 2 is a code assigned to each inaccessible type for

consistency across states. Column 3 provides the reason for the

inaccessible. Inaccessible types coded 75 - 150 were provided in

the survey instructions; codes 500 - 709 were initially left blank

for state use, and assigned reasons by the states based upon their

data collection experiences with the survey. While basically

separate from the refusal identification, certain respondent

situations (such as "Family illness / death") could be coded either

as a refusal, an inaccessible or a valid zero out-of-business

depending upon the circumstances encountered.

One benefit of this research is that the number of partially

completed questionnaires, that is, those questionnaires for which

the respondent could not or would not provide enough information

for the interview to be completed, is evident for the first time.

For the 1991 survey, 263 questionnaires were coded as incomplete

and were not summarized. This amounts to 3.6 percent of the

nonresponse, but is only 1.2 percent of the total survey contacts.

The most frequent inaccessible reason recorded by the interviewers

was "Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an

appointment. Just an extremely busy person.", given for 455 of the

1,653 inaccessibles encountered (27.5%). This is a surprising

finding in light of the six week data collection period.

The second most frequent inaccessible reason recorded was "Illness

/ death in the family prevents the operator from responding",

mentioned 182 times, representing 11.0 percent of the total. This

is a difficult situation for an interviewer to encounter, and

setting the stage to see a respondent under better circumstances in

the future is the best that can be accomplished.

The third most frequent reason recorded was "Farm records are not

available until after the survey period closes", mentioned 172

times, representing 10.4 percent of the total.

Together these first three reasons account for 48.9 percent of the

total inaccessibles recorded, with 23 different reasons for coding

an inaccessible mentioned during this research.

There is less variation among the states in inaccessible reasons

given, and again, no single reason was mentioned in all 48 surveyed

states. The inaccessible reasons mentioned most widely are as

follows:

116. Tried several times; could not reach

anyone for an appointment. Just an

extremely busy person.

84. Illness / death in the family prevents

the operator from responding.

85. Farm records are not available until

after the survey period closes.

6

43 states

42 states

42 states
79. The operator is away on an extended vacation.

86. Respondent postponed the interview beyond the

end of the survey period.

35 states

32 states

The "Illness / death" inaccessible reason is commented on above,

but reasons mentioned as frequently and as widely as these other

four inaccessible types should be addressed on a national level.

SSOs must review their state specific data to determine which

additional reasons are important to their state. For instance,

"The operator is away on an extended vacation", normally thought to

be a Midwest or Northern situation for escaping the snow, was also

mentioned in California, Florida and other warm weather states.

For information, Appendix E shows the refusal and inaccessible

rates for the 48 states and the u.s. for the 1990 and 1991 surveys,

and the 1991 number of contacts for a comparison of FCRS sample

sizes by state. By providing examples of refusal and inaccessible

types, this research assisted the interviewers in accurately

categorizing the non response components.

Identifying the reasons behind the nonresponse on the FCRS will be

beneficial in training by preparing interviewers for the common

situations they are likely to encounter, and provides food for

thought to survey managers for developing procedures, survey

instruments or new initiatives aimed at maximizing survey response

rates. Additionally, the information is useful in the evaluation

of nonresponse adjustment models.

According to Turner (1992) the FCRS nonresponse adjustment factor

is based on an assumption that all nonrespondents are operating

farms; that is, they would provide positive data if interviewed.

The 1991 FCRS supervising and Editing (S&E) Manual specifically

directs that a questionnaire for a potential respondent be coded as

a refusal or an inaccessible" ...only if the operator was qualified

for an interview. If it appears that the sampled name was not

operating anytime the previous year, moved to another state before

the previous year, or represents an operation that never existed,

code the questionnaire completion code 4 - non-farm."

Incorrectly coding valid zero reports as nonrespondents will result

in an upward bias in the expanded indications. Turner (1992)

states that, "Identifying these (nonresponse) reasons will enable

enumerators to improve classification of cases where no farm

appears to exist as a valid zero. Continued emphasis should be

given to classifying only positives as refusals and inaccessibles.

Those nonrespondents that have no indication of being in business

should be coded as out of business."

Appendix F shows the number by type for refusals received on the

different FCRS questionnaire versions. What is striking about the

information in this appendix is that the pattern of refusal types

across the separate versions is so similar, and varies little from

7
the overall, or national pattern of refusal types. One would have

expected some variation in the relative importance of the refusal

types among the versions, especially on the COPS versions where

specific, different types of farms are contacted. The similarity

of the version patterns is also of note since the refusal rates per

version vary from 15.1 percent to 32.9 percent.

Appendix G provides the version information for the survey

inaccessibles and incompletes. Again, the versions display a

pattern nearly identical to each other and to the national pattern

of inaccessibles and incompletes, while the inaccessible /

incomplete rates vary by version from 6.6 percent to 8.5 percent.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMHENDATIONS

Data analysts, survey managers, statisticians and interviewers are

concerned about the levels of nonresponse on the FCRS. Being close

to the survey, they develop impressions about what factors are

"driving" the nonresponse. The purpose of this research is to

identify the reasons for nonresponse, and to attach some numbers to

them in order to rank their relative importance.

Considering the nature of the FCRS, that it is a long, detailed

interview of a respondent's operating procedures, income and

expenses, assets and liabilities and demographic information, many

survey organizations would be thrilled to have a national response

rate averaging 70 percent. Rather than defend this position, the

survey managers at NASS and ERS continually strive to improve the

response rate on the survey.

Following a discussion of the preliminary results of this study and

from previous consideration of the subject, NASS and ERS have

agreed to test a shortened version of the questionnaire for the

1992 survey (conducted in February and March, 1993). A detailed

discussion of the benefits of a shortened questionnaire version can

be found in Dillard (1991). Additionally, NASS will provide

training and materials to the survey statisticians at the regional

workshops in January, 1993, to aid in training their field

interviewers during state workshops. These materials will help to

prepare interviewers to discuss the concerns of those who might

decline to participate in the survey, with the goal of converting

these individuals into respondents on the initial contact.

Look at the pattern of nonresponse across the data collection

period, and an interesting picture appears (Appendix H displays the

number of refusals received by day on the 1991 FCRS). In five of

the seven weeks depicted, more refusals occurred on Mondays than on

any other single day, and during the other two weeks, the number of

Monday refusals is near the peak for the week. This is a byproduct of more interviews being attempted on Mondays, but it may

indicate that Mondays are not the best day to attempt a long

interview without a prior appointment. Otherwise, the distribution

8
of refusals seems normally spread throughout the survey period.

Not all survey refusals are represented on this histogram, since

coding of the interview Julian date was not required for refusals,

inaccessibles or incomplete questionnaires.

Appendix I shows the number of inaccessibles received by day on the

1991 FCRS. As might be expected, the number of inaccessibles peaks

near the end of the data collection period when time constraints

force the interviewers to begin to give up on respondents who

either cannot be located or who continue to put off the interview

when contacted. Not all survey inaccessibles are represented on

this histogram, since coding of the interview Julian date was not

required for inaccessibles.

Appendix J shows the number of incomplete interviews received by

day on the 1991 FCRS. Although there is a spike in the histogram

late in the survey period, the frequency scale is small, and in

general the incomplete interviews seem normally spread throughout

the data collection period. Not all survey incompletes are

represented on this histogram, since coding of the interview Julian

date was not required for incomplete questionnaires.

As the results from the six test states in the 1990 research served

as an excellent predictor of the 1991 results, there does not

appear to be enough yearly variation to justify transferring this

research into an operational aspect of the survey. I recommend

that this research be repeated in three years. In this way, each

SSO can be updated on the causes of nonresponse likely to be

encountered, and patterns of nonresponse can be compared. This

will expand the information available to NASS and ERS for future

decision making on combating nonresponse on th~ FCRS.

Survey statisticians may find it useful to have their interviewers

continue to write the reason for a refusal or an inaccessible on

the FCRS questionnaire, even though the information would not be

summarized as part of the operational program.

Survey managers may want to consider whether the information gained

on the number of partially completed reports not summarized for the

survey justifies the creation of an additional, unique Completion

Code for "incomplete" reports. Currently for NASS surveys,

inaccessible and incomplete reports are coded together under the

same Completion Code, so changing this coding on the FCRS may

necessitate making this change for other surveys.

Finally, one concern that has been raised when discussing ways of

increasing response rates on the FCRS, is the quality of data for

respondents who complete the interview, but under duress. Through

the processes of social exchange or reciprocity for an especially

persuasive interviewer, or due to the receipt of pre-survey

publicity materials, an incentive, or a promised farm analysis, a

potential respondent may feel obligated to grant an interview. If

9
the respondent feels trapped into the interview, data quality on

that interview may suffer or future cooperation on other surveys

may be affected.

Respondents such as these could easily fall into one of the top

five categories for refusing on later surveys, if they do not

perceive a benefit to themselves from providing the information

required for the FCRS. cooperation from potential respondents may

be more forthcoming if the direct benefits of cooperation (for

example, the individualized farm financial analysis) and indirect

benefits (from producer organizations use of the survey results)

are clearly explained to the farmers by the data collectors and the

data users.

10
REFERENCES

Dillard, Dave (1991). Long-Ranqe Plan for the Farm Costs and

Returns Survey. United States Department of Agriculture, National

Agricultural Statistics Service, Estimates Division, 5MB Staff

Report Number 5MB-91-02.

Dillard, Dave and T. Gregory (1987). 1986 FCRS Analysis. Report

II. Response Rates. Interview Times. and Data Collection Costs.

united States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural

statistics Service.

Gregory, Thomas L. (1990). 1989 Farm Costs and Returns Survey.

Survey Administration Analysis . United States Department of

Agriculture, National Agricultural statistics Service, Agricultural

statistics Board, NASS Staff Report 5MB Number 90-03.

National Agricultural statistics Service (1991). 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns Survey Supervising and Editing Manual.

Rutz, Jack L. and C.L. Cadwallader (1991). 1990 Farm Costs and

Returns Survey. Survey Administration Analysis . United States

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural statistics

Service, Research and Applications Division, NASS Staff Report 5MB

Number 91-04.

Turner, Kay (1992). Modification of FCRS Nonresponse Adiustment

Procedures. Uni ted States Department of Agriculture, National

Agricultural Statistics Service, Research Division, SRB Research

Report Number SRB-92-08.

11
APPENDIX A

Reasons Given By Respondents When Refusing To Participate

on the 1991 Farm Costs and Returns survey,

All states and versions Combined,

Data in Frequency of Response Order.

FREQUENCY CODE

1,395 04.

739 03.

508 05.

332 1l.

313 06.

255 02.

253 10.

195 34.

135 20.

134 12.

128 18.

120 16.

120 17.

105 2l.

97 19.

95 07.

89 Ol.

72 32.

64 24.

58 52.

56 27.

48 28.

46 23.

42 08.

40 22.

36 13.

36 26.

30 25.

29 14.

22 29.

18 09.

18 53.

REASON

Would not take the time / too busy.

Refused, but no reason given.

Information too personal/none of your business.

"I do not like surveys / I do not do surveys."

The respondent feels that surveys and reports hurt

the farmer more than help.

Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all

surveys, and refused on this one.

"I will have nothing to do with the Government."

Respondent will do other surveys, but not financial

surveys.

Family illness / death.

Respondent only does compulsory surveys.

The respondent feels the operation's records are

inadequate to complete the interview.

"My farm is too small to count / too small to be

representative."

"You contact me too often."

Operator would not keep appointments.

Farm records are at the tax advisors / lawyers.

"I did this survey before, but not again."

Known refusal, no contact attempted.

"This is not a farm."

violent / threatening refusals.

Questionnaire was not sent to the field to avoid

jeopardizing cooperation on other surveys.

Respondent is quitting farning.

Out of business now, will not answer for the

previous year.

Wants to be paid for interview time and effort.

"I just did a different survey for your office."

Spouse / secretary / etc. will not let the

enumerator see the operator.

The respondent does not think the information is

kept confidential.

Respondent does not want to report due to legal /

financial problems.

Respondent does not want t:o talk about farming.

The respondent mentions a specific grievance with

the SSO or NASS (other than confidentiality).

Figures for the previous year were not typical.

"I just did a survey for someone else."

Would not answer the door even though they were

horne.

12
FREQUENCY CODE

5 365.

5 366.

4 15.

2 240.

2 260.

2 265.

2 267.

1 215.

1 250.

1 255.

1 256.

1 257.

1 258.

1 262.

1 269.

1 270.

1 335.

1 340.

1 341.

1 367.

REASON

The operator called the office after receiving the

pre-survey letter, and asked not to be contacted

further.

The operator does not believe in statistics, so

will not complete an interview.

The respondent mentions a specific grievance with

the state cooperator.

Needed partner to provide some information;

partner refused.

Getting divorced, too upset to respond.

Operator has a grievance with the IRS.

Fed up.

Water rights curtailed, will not cooperate.

"The government is broke, how can we afford to send

these people out?"

NASS data is not accurate. Too political.

Doing well financially -- does not want to respond.

Operator has several operations and could not

separate records for the sampled unit.

Upset with the government -- has to spend $20,000

to dig up fuel tanks.

Farmhouse and records lost in a fire, January,

1992.

This survey is not needed.

Responded previously on this survey, and asked to

be excused this year.

The respondent feels the operation is too complex

for our survey.

The respondent has a specific grievance with ASCS.

The farm operation is in a blind trust for a

national politician.

His father would not do surveys, so neither will

the son.

5,663 Total Responses

• Code numbers not listed were not used.

13
APPENDIX B

Reasons Given By Respondents When Refusing To participate

on the 1991 Fara Costs and Returns Survey,

All States and Versions Combined,

Data in Code Order.

FREQUENCY

89

255

739

1,395

508

313

95

42

18

253

332

134

36

29

4

120

120

128

97

135

105

40

46

64

30

36

56

48

22

72

195

58

18

CODE

Ol.

02.

03.

04.

05.

06.

07.

08.

09.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

.26.

27.

28.

29.

32.

34.

52.

53.

REASON

Known refusal, no contact attempted.

Contact attempted, but respondent refuses on all

surveys, and refused on this one.

Refused, but no reason given.

Would not take the time / too busy.

Information too personal/none of your business.

The respondent feels that surveys and reports hurt

the farmer more than help.

"I did this survey before, but not again."

"I just did a different survey for your office."

"I just did a survey for someone else."

"I will have nothing to do with the Government."

"I do not like surveys / I do not do surveys."

Respondent only does compulsory surveys.

The respondent does not think the information 1S

kept confidential.

The respondent mentions a specific grievance with

the SSO or NASS (other than confidentiality).

The respondent mentions a specific grievance with

the state cooperator.

"My farm is too small to count / too small to be

representative."

"You contact me too often.lI

The respondent feels the 9peration's records are

inadequate to complete the interview.

Farm records are at the tax advisors / lawyers.

Family illness / death.

Operator would not keep appointments.

Spouse / secretary / etc. will not let the

enumerator see the operator.

Wants to be paid for interview time and effort.

Violent / threatening refusals.

Respondent does not want to talk about farming.

Respondent does not want to report due to legal /

financial problems.

Respondent is quitting farming.

Out of business now, will not answer for the

previous year.

Figures for the previous year were not typical.

"This is not a farm."

Respondent will do other surveys, but not financial

surveys.

Questionnaire was not sent to the field to avoid

jeopardizing cooperation on other surveys.

Would not answer the door even though they were

home.

14
FREQUENCY CODE

1 215.

2 240.

1 250.

1 255.

1 256.

1 257.

1 258.

2 260.

1 262.

2 265.

2 267.

1 269.

1 270.

1 335.

1 340.

1 341.

5 365.

5 366.

1 367.

REASON

Water rights curtailed, will not cooperate.

Needed partner to provide some information;

partner refused.

"The government is broke, how can we afford to send

these people out?"

NASS data is not accurate. Too political.

Doing well financially -- does not want to respond.

Operator has several operations and could not

separate records for the sampled unit.

Upset with the government -- has to spend $20,000

to dig up fuel tanks.

Getting divorced, too upset to respond.

Farmhouse and records lost in a fire, January,

1992.

Operator has a grievance with the IRS.

Fed up.

This survey is not needed.

Responded previously on this survey, and asked to

be excused this year.

The respondent feels the operation is too complex

for our survey.

The respondent has a specific grievance with ASCS.

The farm operation is in a blind trust for a

national politician.

The operator called the office after receiving the

pre-survey letter, and asked not to be contacted

further.

The operator does not bel ieve in statistics, so

will not complete an interview.

His father would not do surveys, so neither will

the son.

5,663 Total Responses

*Code numbers not listed were not used.

15
APPENDIX C

Reasons Given By Enumerators When coding a Sample Unit as

Inaccessible/Incomplete on the 1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey,

All States and All versions Combined,

Data in Frequency of Response Order.

182 84.

172 85.

169 86.

142 79.

80 8l.

67 80.

27 76.

26 94.

18 82.

12 75.

9 83.

7 78.

7 87.

5 59l.

3 667.

2 92.

2 119.

1 120.

1 540.

1 56l.

1 565.

1 580.

FREQUENCY

455

263

CODE

116.

150.

REASON

Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an

appointment. Just an extremely busy person.

INCOMPLETE Respondent provided partial

information, but would not or could not provide

enough information to make the questionnaire

complete.

Illness / death in the family prevents the operator

from responding.

Farm records are not available until after the

survey period closes.

Respondent postponed the interview beyond the end

of the survey period.

The operator is away on an extended vacation.

The operator is away on business.

The operator is away on a brief vacation.

No respondent, as listed on the label, could be

found.

Inaccessible, but no reason given.

The address on the label is summer-seasonal

housing.

No operation, as listed on the label, could be

found.

Access to the address on the label was denied by a

gate / guard / etc.

The address on the label is vacant / burned out /

no structure exists.

Enumerator workload prevented this operation from

being contacted during th(~ survey period.

The operator moved away during 1991.

The questionnaire was returned too late to be

included in the summary.

Non--English speaking respondent; interpreter not

available.

Enumerator mistake; caught it too late to complete

an interview within the survey period.

Operator has several operations and could not

separate records for the sampled unit.

Questionnaire from the enumerator lost in the mail.

Operator had just gotten out of jail and would not

talk with anyone from the government.

Enumerator did not contact sufficiently; gave up

too soon.

Enumerator error, should not have collected the

data.

1,653 Total Responses

• Code numbers not listed were not used.

16
APPENDIX D

Reasons Given By Enumerators When codinq a Sample Unit as

Inaccessible/Incomplete on the 1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey.

All States and Versions combined,

Data in Code Order.

FREQUENCY CODE

12 75.

27 76.

7 78.

142 79.

67 80.

80 81-

18 82.

9 83.

182 84.

172 85.

169 86.

7 87.

2 92.

26 94.

455 116.

2 119.

1 120.

263 150.

should not have collected the

an extended vacation.

a brief vacation.

business.

label is summer-seasonal

1

1

1

1

5

3

540.

561-

565.

580.

591-

667.

REASON

No operation, as listed on the label, could be

found.

No respondent, as Iisted on the label, could be

found.

The address on the label is vacant / burned out /

no structure exists.

The operator is away on

The operator is away on

The operator is away on

The address on the

housing.

Access to the address on the label was denied by a

gate / guard / etc.

Illness / death in the family prevents the operator

from responding.

Farm records are not available until after the

survey period closes.

Respondent postponed the interview beyond the end

of the survey period.

Enumerator workload prevented this operation from

being contacted during the survey period.

Non-Engl ish speaking respondent; interpreter not

available.

Inaccessible, but no reason given.

Tried several times; could not reach anyone for an

appointment. Just an extremely busy person.

Enumerator mistake; caught it too late to complete

an interview within the survey period.

Operator has several operations and could not

separate records for the sampled unit.

INCOMPLETE Respondent provided partial

information, but would not or could not provide

enough information to make the questionnaire

complete.

Questionnaire from the enumerator lost in the mail.

Operator had just gotten out of jail and would not

talk with anyone from the government.

Enumerator did not contact sufficiently; gave up

too soon.

Enumerator error,

data.

The operator moved away during 1991.

The questionnaire was returned too late to be

included in the summary.

1,653 Total Responses

• Code numbers not listed were not used.

17
APPENDIX E

Number of 1991 Contacts: Percentage of Refusals and Inaccessib1es/

Incomp1etes on the 1990 and 1991 Farm Costs and Returns Surveys.

NUMBER PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT

OF OF OF OF OF

STATE CONTACTS REFUSALS REFUSALS INACC/INC INACC/INC

1991 1990 1991 1990 1991

ALABAMA 561 9 17 5 4

ARIZONA 429 23 28 18 15

ARKANSAS 484 20 22 9 5

CALIFORNIA 1,082 21 25 10 8

COLORADO 463 27 35 10 3

CONNECTICUT 87 10 10 8 10

DELAWARE 88 35 51 18 16

FLORIDA 626 20 31 5 8

GEORGIA 822 13 21 10 9

IDAHO 334 23 23 8 5

ILLINOIS 767 24 30 8 4

INDIANA 603 30 32 4 2

IOWA 1,026 32 36 7 5

KANSAS 721 29 41 10 9

KENTUCKY 557 18 18 7 7

LOUISIANA 503 15 22 5 6

MAINE 103 18 26 6 6

MARYLAND 221 29 33 12 5

MASSACHUSETTS 114 9 18 13 13

MICHIGAN 632 20 28 9 12

MINNESOTA 1,032 28 30 5 7

MISSISSIPPI 581 11 11 3 3

MISSOURI 632 21 32 8 6

MONTANA 175 14 15 7 6

NEBRASKA 794 51 51 6 4

NEVADA 84 8 21 23 11

N. HAMPSHIRE 79 11 10 4 5

NEW JERSEY 249 8 11 12 10

NEW MEXICO 221 18 21 14 11

NEW YORK 346 19 17 11 12

N. CAROLINA 1,024 8 17 9 13

N. DAKOTA 263 34 27 4 8

OHIO 586 25 30 7 6

OKLAHOMA 534 22 24 10 7

OREGON 450 10 16 2 4

PENNSYLVANIA 602 12 15 7 10

RHODE ISLAND 76 19 34 13 16

S. CAROLINA 532 8 10 8 5

S. DAKOTA 437 36 36 8 10

TENNESSEE 555 7 19 2 3

TEXAS 1,441 15 19 10 10

UTAH 169 6 8 4 4

VERMONT 98 13 14 4 4

VIRGINIA 470 12 20 7 3

WASHINGTON 366 13 25 10 16

W. VIRGINIA 287 6 8 2 7

WISCONSIN 550 25 24 5 5

WYOMING 182 23 24 9 3

U.S. 22,782 22 25 8 7

18
APPENDIX F

A Print of Refusal Reasons By version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

-------------------------EXPENDITUREVERSION--------------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING FREQUENCY

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY PERCENT

04. Would not take time

03. Refusal, no reason.

05. Too personal.

11. Dislike surveys.

06. Surveys hurt farmer

02. Contacted, refuses.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

34. No financial survey

12. Compulsory only.

20. Illness / death.

18. Records inadequate.

16. Farm too small.

17. Contact too often.

19. Records unavailable

21. Broke appointments.

07. Not again.

01. Known refusal.

52. Avoid jeopardizing.

32. Not a farm.

23. Wants to be paid.

24. violent / threatening.

27. Quitting farming.

28. Out of business.

22. Gatekeeper.

13. Not confidential.

08. Did different survey.

25. No farm talk.

14. NASS grievance.

29. Year not typical.

26. Legal problems.

09. Did others survey.

53. Ignored doorbell.

365. Pre-s~rvey letter.

366. Disbelieves statistics.

15. Cooperator grievance.

260. Getting divorced, upset.

265. IRS grievance.

250. Governments broke?

255. Data political.

256. Doing well.

257. Cannot separate records.

258. Upset with regulations.

270. Excuse this year.

335. Complex operation.

* Less than one percent.

712

408

282

177

162

133

126

114

78

71

69

64

59

53

51

48

42

40

39

32

32

31

27

26

25

22

19

17

15

14

10

8

4

4

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

712

1120

1402

1579

1741

1874

2000

2114

2192

2263

2332

2396

2455

2508

2559

2607

2649

2689

2728

2760

2792

2823

2850

2876

2901

2923

2942

2959

2974

2988

2998

3006

3010

3014

3016

3018

3020

3021

3022

3023

3024

3025

3026

3027

24

13

9

6

5

4

4

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 11,925; VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 25." Percent.

19
A Print of Refusal Reasons By version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

------------------- FARM OPERATOR RESOURCES VERSION --------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING

04. Would not take time.

03. Refusal, no reason.

05. Too personal.

11. Dislike surveys.

02. Contacted, refuses.

06. Surveys hurt farmers.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

17. Contact too often.

34. No financial surveys.

16. Farm too small.

01. Known refusal.

18. Records inadequate.

07. Not again.

32. Not a farm.

19. Records unavailable.

20. Illness / death.

12. Compulsory only.

21. Broke appointments.

52. Avoid jeopardizing.

24. violent / threatening.

27. Quitting farming.

28. Out of business.

08. Did different survey.

23. Wants to be paid.

26. Legal problems.

14. NASS grievance.

22. Gatekeeper.

09. Did others survey.

13. Not confidential.

25. No farm talk.

29. Year not typical.

53. Ignored doorbell.

267. Fed up.

15. Cooperator grievance.

262. Farmhouse fire.

340. ASCS grievance.

365. Pre-survey letter.

367. Father/son.

* Less than one percent.

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 5,672;

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

285 285 23

167 452 14

105 557 9

71 628 6

66 694 5

62 756 5

62 818 5

36 854 3

34 888 3

30 918 2

29 947 2

28 975 2

26 1001 2

26 1027 2

24 1051 2

24 1075 2

20 1095 2

15 1110 1

14 1124 1

13 1137 1

11 1148 1

10 1158 1

7 1165 1

7 1172 1

7 1179 1

6 1185 *

6 1191 *

5 1196 *

5 1201 *

5 1206 *

5 1211 *

4 1215 *

2 1217 *

1 1218 *

1 1219 *

1 1220 *

1 1221 *

1 1222 *

VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 21.5 Percent.

20
A Print of Refusal Reasons By Version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

----------------------------- CORN VERSION ----------------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING

04. Would not take time.

03. Refusal, no reason.

05. Too personal.

06. Surveys hurt farmers.

11. Dislike surveys.

02. Contacted, refuses.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

20. Illness / death.

21. Broke appointments.

12. Compulsory only.

18. Records inadequate.

16. Farm too small.

17. Contact too often.

19. Records unavailable.

34. No financial surveys.

08. Did different survey.

07. Not again.

26. Legal problems.

27. Quitting farming.

24. violent / threatening.

22. Gatekeeper.

53. Ignored doorbell.

13. Not confidential.

14. NASS grievance.

23. Wants to be paid.

28. Out of business.

01. Known refusal.

25. No farm talk.

240. Partner refused.

15. Cooperator grievance.

29. Year not typical.

32. Not a farm.

52. Avoid jeopardizing.

341. Blind trust.

366. Disbelieves statistics.

*Less than one percent.

FREQUENCY

160

89

67

48

46

35

34

20

19

17

16

11

11

11

11

9

7

7

7

6

5

5

4

4

4

4

3

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY

160

249

316

364

410

445

479

499

518

535

551

562

573

584

595

604

611

618

625

631

636

641

645

649

653

657

660

662

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

PERCENT

24

13

10

7

6

5

5

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 2,037; VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 32.9 Percent.

21
A Print of Refusal Reasons By version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

----------------------------- COTTON VERSION --------------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING

04. Would not take time.

03. Refusal, no reason.

05. Too personal.

11. Dislike surveys.

06. Surveys hurt farmers.

34. No financial surveys.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

20. Illness / death.

21. Broke appointments.

02. Contacted, refuses.

12. Compulsory only.

17. Contact too often.

07. Not again.

18. Records inadequate.

01. Known refusal.

26. Legal problems.

32. Not a farm.

16. Farm too small.

24. Violent / threatening.

19. Records unavailable.

28. Out of business.

08. Did different survey.

22. Gatekeeper.

27. Quitting farming.

09. Did others survey.

14. NASS grievance.

25. No farm talk.

52. Avoid jeopardizing.

23. Wants to be paid.

29. Year not typical.

53. Ignored doorbell.

215. Water rights.

269. Survey not needed.

* Less than one percent.

FREQUENCY

118

46

30

25

21

17

15

14

14

13

13

11

9

9

8

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY

118

164

194

219

240

257

272

286

300

313

326

337

346

355

363

369

375

380

385

389

393

396

399

402

404

406

408

410

411

412

413

414

415

PERCENT

28

11

7

6

5

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 1,609; VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 25.8 Percent.

22
A Print of Refusal Reasons By Version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

-----------------------------PEANUTSVERSION--------------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING

04. Would not take time.

03. Refusal, no reason.

05. Too personal.

06. Surveys hurt farmers.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

11. Dislike surveys.

34. No financial surveys.

02. Contacted, refuses.

21. Broke appointments.

24. Violent / threatening.

01. Known refusal.

12. Compulsory only.

16. Farm too small.

20. Illness / death.

07. Not again.

18. Records inadequate.

13. Not confidential.

19. Records unavailable.

25. No farm talk.

27. Quitting farming.

28. Out of business.

08. Did different survey.

09. Did others survey.

17. Contact too often.

23. Wants to be paid.

26. Legal problems.

52. Avoid jeopardizing.

* Less than one percent.

FREQUENCY

86

22

16

15

14

11

11

7

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY

86

108

124

139

153

164

175

182

188

194

199

204

209

214

218

221

223

225

227

229

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

PERCENT

36

9

7

6

6

5

5

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 928; VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 25.5 Percent.

23
A Print of Refusal Reasons By Version, For The 1991 Farm Costs

and Returns survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

----------------------- FLUE-CURED TOBACCO VERSION ---------------------

REASON FOR REFUSING

04. Would not take time.

05. Too personal.

34. No financial surveys.

03. Refusal, no reason.

06. Surveys hurt farmers.

16. Farm too small.

18. Records inadequate.

19. Records unavailable.

01. Known refusal.

10. Anti-Govt bias.

11. Dislike surveys.

17. Contact too often.

24. Violent / threatening.

27. Quitting farming.

02. Contacted, refuses.

07. Not again.

12. Compulsory only.

20. Illness / death.

23. Wants to be paid.

26. Legal problems.

28. Out of business.

FREQUENCY

34

8

8

7

5

5

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY

34

42

50

57

62

67

70

73

75

77

79

81

83

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

PERCENT

37

9

9

8

6

6

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 611; VERSION REFUSAL RATE: 15.1 Percent.

24
APPENDIX G

A Print of Inaccessible and Incomplete Reasons By version, For The

1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

----------------------------EXPENDITUREVERSION-----------------------

CUMULATIVE

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

116. Could not reach. 213 213 25

150. INCOMPLETE. 140 353 17

86. Postponed interview. 93 446 11

84. Illness / death. 88 534 10

85. Records unavailable. 84 618 10

79. Operator long vacation. 75 693 9

81- operator business trip. 47 740 5

80. Operator brief vacation. 35 775 4

94. Inaccessible, no reason. 15 790 2

76. No respondent found. 14 804 2

82. Summer-seasonal housing. 12 816 1

83. Access denied. 8 824 1

75. No operation found. 5 829 1

87. Enumerator workload. 5 834 1

78. Address vacant. 3 837

*

92. Non-English speaking. 2 839

*

667. Questionnaire late. 2 841

*

540. Questionnaire lost. 1 842

*

561- Operator jailed. 1 843

*

565. Enumerator gave up. 1 844

*

*Less than one percent.

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 11,925; VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 7.1 Percent.

25
A Print of Inaccessible and Incomplete Reasons By version, For The

1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey: Data In Frequency of Response Order.

--------------------- FARM OPERATOR RESOURCES VERSION ------------------

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE

116. Could not reach.

150. INCOMPLETE.

84. Illness / death.

79. Operator long vacation.

85. Records unavailable.

86. Postponed interview.

80. Operator brief vacation.

81. Operator business trip.

75. No operation found.

76. No respondent found.

82. Summer-seasonal housing.

591. Moved away.

94. Inaccessible, no reason.

78. Address vacant.

83. Access denied.

87. Enumerator workload.

120. Combined operations.

580. Enumerator error.

667. Questionnaire late.

*Less than one percent.

FREQUENCY

121

63

46

44

42

))

19

19

7

7

6

5

4

2

1

1

1

1

1

CUMULATIVE

FREQUENCY

121

184

230

274

316

349

368

387

394

401

407

412

416

418

419

420

421

422

423

PERCENT

29

15

11

10

10

8

4

4

2

2

1

1

1

*

*

*

*

*

*

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 5,672: VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 7.5 Percent.

-----------------------..--- ---- CORN VERS ION --.-------------------- -----

CUMULATIVE

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

116. Could not reach. 33 33 24

85. Records unavailable. 24 57 18

79. Operator long vacation. 19 76 14

150. INCOMPLETE. 18 94 13

84. Illness / death. 13 107 10

86. Postponed interview. 12 119 9

80. Operator brief vacation. 6 125 4

8l. Operator business trip. 6 131 4

76. No respondent found. 2 133 2

87. Enumerator workload. 1 134 1

119. Enumerator mistake. 1 135 1

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 2,037; VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 6.6 Percent.

26
A Print of Inaccessible and Incomplete Reasons By version, For The

1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

------------------------------COTTONVERBION--------------------------

CUMULATIVE

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

116. Could not reach. 38 38 28

86. Postponed interview. 23 61 17

150. INCOMPLETE. 23 84 17

84. Illness / death. 21 105 15

85. Records unavailable. 13 118 10

80. Operator brief vacation. 4 122 3

81- Operator business trip. 4 126 3

76. No respondent found. 3 129 2

79. Operator long vacation. 3 132 2

94. Inaccessible, no reason. 2 134 1

78. Address vacant. 1 135 1

119. Enumerator mistake. 1 136 1

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 1,609; VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 8.5 Percent.

---------------------------- PEANUTS VERSION --------------------------

CUMULATIVE

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

116. Could not reach. 29 29 40

150. INCOMPLETE. 15 44 21

84. Illness / death. 8 52 11

85. Records unavailable. 6 58 9

86. Postponed interview. 5 63 7

80. Operator brief vacation. 3 66 4

81- Operator business trip. 2 68 3

94. Inaccessible, no reason. 2 70 3

78. Address vacant. 1 71 1

79. Operator long vacation. 1 72 1

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 928; VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 7.8 Percent.

27
A Print of Inaccessible and Incomplete Reasons By version, For The

1991 Farm Costs and Returns Survey; Data In Frequency of Response Order.

----------------------- FLUE-CURED TOBACCO VERSION ---------------------

CUMULATIVE

REASONS, INACCESSIBLE/INCOMPLETE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT

116. Could not reach. 21 21 49

84. Illness / deat.h. 6 27 14

150. INCOMPLETE. 4 31 9

85. Records unavailable. 3 34 7

86. Postponed interview. 3 37 7

94. Inaccessible, no reason. 3 40 7

81. Operator business trip. 2 42 5

76. No respondent found. 1 43 2

VERSION TOTAL CONTACTS: 611; VERSION INACCESS/INC RATE: 7.0 Percent.

28
Frequency

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

APPENDIX H

The Number of Refusals By Date

Depicts The Data Available For 42 states

On The 1991 FCRS

M IDENTIFIES MONDAYS M

'\ M

'\

'\ M

"

, I""

1\ 1\

1\ 1\

1\ I'.

M

1\ 1\

1\ 1\

1\ 1\

'"

1\ '\

..•. 1\ r\ '\

..•. r\.- 1\ 1\ 1\

'\ ..•.

f\1\1' '\ 1\ ,

M'\ ..•. f\1\ 1\ 1\ '\

,..•. 1\1\ f\ '\ 1\ , ~

1\\' t\, 1\ , 1\ 1\ \

,

1\" ,1\ r\ 1\ 1\1\ "

1\ """""r"'i

'" ,1\ 1\

" '"

1\ ,, ,,1\

'" "

1\ '" ,1\ \.,' '\, ,

'" ,1\

'" ,1\ , \1\

'\" ,1\ ,

'"

'" "

'" ~,\J" \J'

"

"

\., "'

.•. ,\\ , t\ .••

'" "

~

'" •••• "1\

'" ......•.

M I""'< M

,1\\ '\" '\ ,

'\" '\ ,

'\"

"'\

~

".•. .•. .•. "-

'\" \,

"

,"

"- " "- "

'\

~

"-

nnB ~

'\" "t\ '19..,

llll'

33344444444455555555556666666666777777777788888888

38912345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567

Julian Dates

29
Frequency

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

APPENDIX I

The Number of Inaccessibles By Date

Depicts The Data Available For 42 states

On The 1991 FCRS

H IDENTIFIES Hl)]';J)AYS

r

/

/

/

,/

/

/

/

/ V

1/ 1/

1/ 1/

,I V

/ l/

/ 1/

-

,I 1/

,I 1/

7

7

/

/

/

/

/

/

H

/

.--

~

/

/

/

1/

V /

II1/ H

II1/ VII1/ V

M

V

.-

~

1/ V

,/ 1/ V

'7 .- V ,/ V 1/ V / V

v r

~

,/ V

V /

,/ :1 / I

7

1/ .-

V 1/"

II/ 1/

V ,/ ,/ 1/ 7

M V

~

I V .I', V /

.--7 7 ,~ / V -

/ V /', / V V 1/ / 7

MV if' / V /~ V / /

1/ / l/ / /

,I'

-

,I V- I" V

Vl / /

,I

~pjn

,I V V' / fA V .I' .I ,/ V I'

/

,.;1 ~/k liA "

Ir n lP]n

4 4 4 4 4 555 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 666 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

3 568 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 890 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Julian Dates

30
Frequency

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

o

APPENDIX J

The Number of Incompletes By Date

Deplicts The Data Available For 42 states

On The 1991 FCRS

)4

M IDENTIFIES MONDAYS ')4

)4

)4

)4

)4

)4

)4

)4

)4

><

><

)c

><

>< )4

)c ><

)c ><

)c )4

5C )c )4

>< )c )4

>< >< )4

K >< )4

>< )4

)c )( )( )c

>< >< )c

)c >< )c

)c >< )c

>< ~ ~ )4

)c )C )c )c

)c )C )c )c

K )c )C )c K

)4

)C >< )4

)( >< >< )C

>< >< >< >< )c

)( >< >< >< )c

K K

~ >< )4 )4 ) ) ~ )c

)c )c )4 )4 ) )c

>< >< )c )4 )4

)c )c )4 )4 )I )I )I )I

)I ) )I

><

>< )4 )4 )

><

K K )c

~ )I )I )I

) >- :> :> )I )I

) >- :> )j

) )

:> )4 )I )C

:> )j )4 ) )C

)C )j

)

:>

)C :>

444 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 777 7 7 777 8 8 888

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 012 3 4 567 8 9 012 3 4 567 9 0 123 4 6 7 8 9 0 1 3 4 6

Julian Dates

31 *u.s. Government Prlntlng OffIce: 1992 - 341-378,160955