Information Quality Act: National Agricultural Statistics Service Implements First Steps, but Documentation of Census of Agriculture Could Be Improved
Published: 2005-09-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Information Quality Act (IQA) required the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidelines for ensuring the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies. As part of our long-term examination of the quality of federal information, under the Comptroller General's authority, we reviewed how the act was implemented by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and assessed the transparency of the documentation supporting its Census of Agriculture. NASS is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: NASS fulfilled its various procedural responsibilities and reporting requirements under the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) guidelines for implementing the act. For example, NASS drafted its own implementation guidance, and developed a mechanism allowing affected parties to request the correction of information they believe is of poor quality. As a result of our review, NASS has also taken steps to better document the criteria it uses to evaluate data users' input on the content of the Census of Agriculture. Building on these efforts, better documentation could improve the transparency of census data products. For example, the nine key products from the 2002 Census we examined lacked, among other things, discussions of any data limitations. This is contrary to NASS's own guidelines for ensuring transparency, which stress the importance of describing the methods, data sources, and other items to help users understand how the information was designed and produced. Although NASS complied with OMB's requirement to establish a mechanism under IQA to address requests to correct information, NASS has not documented its approach for handling correction requests not filed under IQA (NASS handles these correction requests using an existing, informal method). Agency officials told us that data users have been satisfied with the way NASS had responded to these requests. However, because NASS does not document its informal procedures for handling correction requests and lacks a recordkeeping system to log and track them, NASS could not provide us with specific data on the number of such requests it has handled, the nature of those requests, and whether and how they were addressed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The information disseminated by federal agencies is a critical strategic  asset. For example, data collected for statistical purposes provide  indicators of the economic and social well-being of the nation, while health,  safety, environmental, and other scientific data help inform agencies’ rule- making activities. Given the widespread use and impact of federal  information, it is important for it to meet basic quality standards.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act  for Fiscal Year 2001—legislation that has come to be known as the  Information Quality Act (IQA)—required the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) to issue governmentwide guidelines that provide policy and  procedural guidance to federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the  quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by  federal agencies.
OMB’s guidelines, issued in final form in February 2002, directed agencies  covered by the act to issue their own quality guidelines, and noted that,  where appropriate, agencies should support their data with transparent  documentation. OMB’s guidelines also required agencies to, among other  actions, report annually to the Director of OMB on the number and nature  of complaints received regarding compliance with the guidelines, and  establish an administrative mechanism whereby affected parties can  request the correction of information they deem to be of poor quality.
As part of our long-term examination of the collection, dissemination, and  quality of federal information, we are reviewing the governmentwide  implementation of the IQA. As an initial step in our research on the quality  of statistical data, under the Comptroller General’s authority, we conducted  a case study of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and its  Census of Agriculture. NASS is a statistical agency within the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA). We selected the census because it is  one of the largest government surveys with a universe of 2.3 million  respondents and an estimated paperwork burden in excess of 1.3 million  burden hours. The last census took place in 2002 and the next census is  scheduled for 2007.
Specifically, our objectives were to (1) review how NASS met OMB’s  guidelines covering the IQA, and (2) examine the transparency of the  documentation behind the Census of Agriculture’s processes and products,  both for the recently completed work on the 2002 Census and the efforts  underway for the 2007 Census. To achieve both objectives, we reviewed  OMB’s and NASS’s information quality guidelines and other relevant  documents. We also interviewed senior agency officials and other  personnel responsible for implementing the census including the NASS  Administrator, Associate Administrator, and Deputy Administrator for  Programs and Products.
To evaluate the transparency of census products, we reviewed nine census  products--eight reports and the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section  on NASS’s 2002 Census Web site--to determine the extent to which NASS  followed its own documentation guidelines. To obtain an external  perspective of how NASS processes and products address the IQA  guidelines, we interviewed six data users from different types of  agricultural and research organizations. We selected these six because they  use census data on a regular basis and have attended NASS’s outreach  meetings. Additional information on our approach is provided in the  Objectives, Scope, and Methodology section below.
We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from August 2004 through  August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The IQA directed OMB to issue guidelines to federal agencies covered by  the Paperwork Reduction Act designed to ensure the “quality, objectivity,  utility, and integrity” of information disseminated to the public. The IQA  also directed OMB to include in its guidelines requirements for agencies to  (1) develop their own information quality guidelines, (2) establish  administrative mechanisms for affected persons to seek correction of  information that does not comply with OMB’s guidelines, and (3) annually  report to OMB the number and nature of complaints they receive regarding  the accuracy of the information they disseminate.
Prior to the IQA, there were several governmentwide actions aimed at  improving agency data. For example, Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, first  issued in 1952, required statistical agencies to inform users of conceptual  or other limitations of the data, including how the data compare with  similar statistics. In 1996, the Federal Committee on Statistical  Methodology—an OMB-sponsored interagency committee dedicated to  improving the quality of federal statistics—established a subcommittee to  review the measurement and reporting of data quality in federal data  collection programs. The results of the subcommittee’s work were  published in a 2001 report that addressed such issues as what information  on sources of error federal data collection programs should provide, and  how they should provide it. For all federal government information  collections, the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act called  on federal agencies to manage information resources with the goal of  improving “the integrity, quality, and utility of information to all users  within and outside the agency.”
OMB’s IQA guidelines were issued in final form in February 2002. They  required agencies subject to the IQA to take such steps as  issue information quality guidelines designed to ensure the quality,  objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated to the  public;   establish administrative mechanisms for affected persons to seek  correction of information they believe is not in compliance with the  guidelines;   report annually to the Director of OMB on the number and nature of  complaints received regarding compliance with the guidelines and how  the agencies handled those complaints; and   designate an official responsible for ensuring compliance with OMB’s  guidelines.
The OMB guidelines defined quality as an encompassing term comprising   utility, which is the usefulness of the information to its intended users;   integrity, which refers to the security of information and its protection  from unauthorized access or revision; and  objectivity, which addresses both presentation (i.e., whether the  information is being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and  unbiased manner) and substance (i.e., whether the information is  accurate, reliable, and unbiased).
In addition, OMB addresses transparency within the definition of  objectivity and utility. As recognized in OMB’s guidelines, agencies that  disseminate influential scientific, financial, or statistical information must  demonstrate a high degree of transparency about data and methods. These  measures are in place to facilitate the information’s reproducibility by an  outside party or reanalysis of an agency’s results.
The National Research Council of the National Academies considers  transparency a key principle for federal statistical agencies, and stated in a  recent report that transparency, which it defines as “an openness about the  sources and limitations of the data,” is particularly important for instilling  credibility and trust among data users and providers.
As an agency within USDA, NASS is required to comply with the IQA. One  statistical program administered by NASS is the quinquennial Census of  Agriculture. According to NASS, the census provides a detailed picture of  U.S. farms and ranches every 5 years and is the only source of uniform,  comprehensive agricultural data at the county level. The results are  published in 18 reports divided among three categories: Geographic Area  Series, Census Quick Stats, and Specialty Products and Special Studies.  Users of this information include federal agencies (for program and  statistical purposes), farm organizations, businesses, universities, state  departments of agriculture, elected representatives, legislative bodies at all  levels of government, and academia. The next Census of Agriculture is  scheduled for 2007.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to (1) review how NASS met OMB’s guidelines  covering the IQA and (2) examine the transparency of the documentation  behind the Census of Agriculture’s processes and products, including the  recently completed work on the 2002 Census, and the efforts currently  underway for the 2007 Census.
To achieve both of these objectives, we reviewed OMB’s and NASS’s  information quality guidelines, Census of Agriculture reports,  submissions to OMB, and other relevant documents. We also interviewed  NASS officials about how NASS conducted the 2002 Census and how it is  planning for the 2007 Census. The officials included the NASS  Administrator, Associate Administrator, and Deputy Administrator for  Programs and Products.
In addition, to evaluate the transparency of Census of Agriculture products,  we reviewed eight census reports and the Frequently Asked Questions area  of the 2002 Census Web site, to determine the extent to which NASS  followed its own procedures for ensuring the transparency of its  information products. NASS’s IQA guidelines define transparency as, “a  clear description of the methods, data sources, assumptions, outcomes,  and related information that allows a data user to understand how an  information product was designed and produced.”
NASS’s guidelines state that its survey activities include such activities as  sample design, questionnaire design, pre-testing, analysis of sampling, and  imputation of missing data. However, the guidelines were not clear as to  the specific activities to be documented. Consequently, we reviewed the  practices employed by such statistical agencies as the National Academies  of Sciences, International Monetary Fund, and U.S. Census Bureau, and  developed a set of 20 practices associated with transparent documentation  that encompassed the items NASS laid out in its own guidelines. The  practices include such actions as defining data items, discussing sample  design, and describing how the content of the survey differs from past  iterations (see app. II).
We looked for the presence or absence of these practices in 9 out of the 18  census reports and related forms of data that NASS disseminates, and  verified the results with a second, independent analysis. In instances where  a report did not include a particular documentation practice, we reviewed  whether the report instead informed data users where to obtain this  information. We chose these 9 reports because they all stem from the  original census data collection, represent different product categories, and  were available on the census Web site as of February 1, 2005.
To obtain an external perspective of how NASS processes and products  address the IQA guidelines, we interviewed six data users from different  types of agricultural and research organizations. We selected these data  users from lists of registrants for USDA and NASS outreach meetings  within the past 5 years. We selected these six data users because they use  information from the census on a regular basis. Moreover, these data users  attended the most recent NASS outreach meeting, which specifically  addressed the 2002 and 2007 Censuses. Some data users had also provided  NASS with feedback on the content of the agricultural census. Their views  cannot be projected to the larger population of census data users.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of  Agriculture. On September 8, 2005, we received the NASS Administrator’s  written comments and have reprinted them in appendix I. They are  addressed in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section of this  report.
section_title: NASS Met the Procedural and Reporting Requirements of OMB’s IQA Guidelines
paragraphs: NASS fulfilled the various procedural responsibilities and reporting  requirements under OMB’s guidelines. For example, NASS released its own  IQA guidelines for public comment on March 27, 2002. NASS officials  stated they received no substantive comments on them and OMB approved  the guidelines with only minimal changes. The officials also noted that no  revisions have been made since then. Table 1 shows in greater detail how  NASS addressed OMB’s guidelines.
section_title: Better Documentation Could Improve the Transparency of Data Products and Correction Procedures
paragraphs: NASS’s IQA guidelines define transparency as, “a clear description of the  methods, data sources, assumptions, outcomes, and related information  that allows a data user to understand how an information product was  designed and produced.” NASS’s guidelines also note that “NASS will make  the methods used to produce information as transparent as possible” and  that its “internal guidelines call for clear documentation of data and  methods used in producing estimates and forecasts. . . .”
To assess the extent to which NASS processes help ensure the  transparency of the information it publishes, we examined key publications  from the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Census reports vary in terms of scope  and intended audience (see table 2). On the one hand, the United States  Summary and State Data report contains over 100 data tables, an  introduction, and four appendices. On the other hand, County Profile  reports summarize each county’s agricultural situation on two pages.
Overall, we assessed eight census reports within three product categories,  as well as the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the 2002  Census Web site, to determine the extent to which NASS followed its own  guidelines for ensuring the transparency of its products. As shown in table  2, the transparency of the data documentation in the reports we reviewed  varied between the Geographic Area Series reports—which are the most  comprehensive of NASS’s products and addressed 15 of the 20 data  documentation practices—and the Specialty Products and Special Studies  which, depending on the specific product, addressed no more than 1 of the  practices.
All eight reports and the FAQ Web site lacked a discussion of four  documentation practices, including the following:  1. Questionnaire testing. NASS produced a separate, internal report that  discusses questionnaire testing in detail; however, publicly available  census publications do not address this topic.  2. Limitations of the data. NASS does not discuss data limitations in the  census reports we reviewed.
3.
Impact of imputations, by item. When a statistical agency receives a  report form with missing values, it normally estimates or “imputes”  those values based on comparable data sources such as a similar farm  operation. Although NASS uses a complex editing and imputation  process to estimate missing values, and describes this process in the United States Summary and State Data report appendix, it does not  quantify the impact of imputations by item in reports.  4. Whether any of the collected data have been suppressed for data  quality reasons. Without information on whether any of the data had  been suppressed because the quality was lacking, data users must  assume that reports include all data items collected in the census had  met agency publication standards.
Although NASS appropriately recognizes the variation in data user needs  by publishing several types of specialized reports, none of the reports we  reviewed direct data users where to find either a complete set of  documentation or additional documentation. For example, given the short  length and summary format of the County Profile reports, it is not  surprising that they lack documentation. However, in order for users to  assess the quality of the data contained in the reports, it is important for  NASS to at least provide links on its Web site or to other publications  where users can access definitions, response rates, and other relevant  information.
subsections: section_title: NASS Should Document Its Procedures for Handling Correction Requests Not Filed under the IQA
paragraphs: NASS has two methods for handling data correction requests, depending  on how they are submitted: a formal approach prescribed by OMB for  correction requests filed under IQA, and an informal approach that NASS  uses to address correction requests that are not filed under IQA. NASS’s  informal correction procedures lack transparency because they are not  documented and individual cases are not tracked. As a result, we could not  determine the nature of these correction requests or whether or how they  were addressed.
Consistent with OMB’s guidelines, NASS detailed its procedures to request  corrections under IQA on its Web site, and posted appropriate Federal  Register notices. For example, NASS’s Web site explains that to seek a  correction under IQA, petitioners must, among other steps: (1) state that  their request for correction is being submitted under IQA, (2) clearly  identify the information they believe to be in error, and (3) describe which  aspects of NASS’s IQA guidelines were not followed or were insufficient.
According to the instructions posted on its Web site, NASS’s IQA  procedures are triggered only when petitioners explicitly state they are  submitting a correction request under IQA. To date, none have done so.  NASS addresses all other correction requests using informal,  undocumented procedures that were in place before IQA was enacted.  NASS officials explained that such requests are forwarded to the agency  official responsible for preparing the report containing the information in  question. That official, in turn, determines if the request can be resolved by  clarifying the data, or whether a correction is needed. If a data item needs  to be corrected, NASS has a set of procedures for documenting errors and  issuing errata reports that are detailed in its Policy and Standards  Memorandum No. 38. The memorandum describes the circumstances  under which errata reports will be printed, and provides a mechanism for  NASS staff to describe the nature of the error, its cause, and the action  taken to resolve it.
According to the Administrator, Associate Administrator, and other senior  NASS officials we interviewed, the requests it has handled from the 2002  Census have so far been resolved to the petitioners’ satisfaction, and none  resulted in any corrections to the data from the 2002 Census. However,  because NASS does not document its informal procedures for handling  inquiries and data correction requests, and lacks a recordkeeping system to  log and track them, NASS could not provide us with firm information on  the number of inquiries it has handled, the nature of those inquiries, and  whether and how they were addressed.
This is not to say that all complaints should follow the same procedures  required by the IQA mechanism. For efficiency’s sake, it is important for  agencies to respond to complaints in accordance with the magnitude of the  problem. However, to provide a more complete picture of the questions  NASS receives about its data and how those questions were handled, it will  be important for NASS to better document its approach for handling  correction requests not filed under IQA, and track their disposition.
section_title: NASS Has Taken Steps to Better Document Its Criteria for Assessing Input on Census Content
paragraphs: The 2002 Census of Agriculture was the first in which NASS developed the  questionnaire (the 1997 Census of Agriculture was moved from the Census  Bureau to NASS after the content had been determined). In doing so, NASS  went to great lengths to obtain input from data users on what questions to  ask, and evaluated their suggestions using a documented set of criteria. In  preparing for the 2007 Census, NASS sought feedback on the questionnaire  content from a broader spectrum of data users, in part because NASS  solicited suggestions via the Internet. However, unlike the 2002 cycle, the  criteria NASS used to assess the feedback were not initially documented,  which is contrary to NASS’s IQA guidelines. However, as a result of our  review, NASS has developed documented criteria similar to that used  during the previous census.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies must obtain OMB’s approval  prior to collecting information from the public. As part of this process,  agencies must certify to OMB that, among other things, the effort is  necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, avoids  unnecessary duplication, and reduces burden on small entities. Agencies  must also provide an estimate of the burden the information collection  would place on respondents.
For the 2002 Census, NASS submitted its request for approval—a form  called “OMB 83-I”—in August 2001, and OMB approved it in October 2001.  NASS estimated that the census would require a cumulative total of more  than 1.3 million hours for respondents to complete and would cost them, in  terms of their time, in excess of $21 million.
OMB’s approval process also requires agencies to solicit input from  external sources. NASS obtained input on the 2002 Agricultural Census  content through a Federal Register notice, meetings with data users, and  by contacting federal and state agencies that use census statistics to  discuss data needs.
Likewise, NASS is obtaining input on the content of the 2007 Census  through a variety of channels. According to an agency official, the process  began around June 2004, when NASS began releasing publications from the  2002 Census. NASS sent an evaluation form to its state offices requesting  feedback on the census, including their suggestions for changing the  content. NASS also asked the state offices to identify users from whom it  could obtain additional feedback.
NASS solicited further input by reaching out to data users within USDA and  other federal agencies, querying organizations included in a list of “typical”  data users maintained by NASS’s Marketing and Information Services  Office, and holding periodic regional meetings with data users. NASS also  has a “hot button” on its Web site where visitors are asked what items, if  any, should be added or deleted from the census.
In all, NASS obtained input on the 2007 Census through 10 distinct  conduits. Moreover, compared to the process used to develop the content  of the 2002 Census, its 2007 efforts were open to a wider spectrum of  customers, and involved more direct contact with data users during the  planning phase. Indeed, as shown in table 3, NASS’s outreach via the  Internet, regional meetings, and queries to data users was over and above  the steps it took when developing the 2002 Census. This openness was  reflected in the comments of the six data users we interviewed. Five of the  six users said NASS’s approach to eliciting input was adequate, while three  of the six had requested new content items for the 2007 Census to better  meet the needs of their organizations.
The content evaluation process began in December 2004, and NASS is  currently testing the questionnaire content. Following any refinements,  mail-out of the actual census is scheduled for December 2007.
For both the 2002 and 2007 Census cycles, the solicitation, review, and  ultimate determination of the questionnaire content was led by the Census  Content Team, a group consisting of experienced NASS statisticians  representing different segments of the agency such as livestock, crops, and  marketing. The 2002 Content Team used specific, documented criteria to  inform its decisions. Specifically, suggestions were assessed according to  the following factors, which were also made available to data users:   items directly mandated by Congress or items that had strong   items proposed by other federal agencies where legislation called for  that agency to provide data for Congress;  items needed for evaluation of existing federal programs;  items which, if omitted, would result in additional respondent burden  and cost for a new survey for other agencies or users;  items required for classification of farms by historical groupings;  items needed for improving coverage in the census; and  items that would provide data on current agricultural issues.
However, the criteria the 2007 Team used to assess input on the  questionnaire content were not initially documented. According to agency  officials we interviewed, NASS largely relied on professional judgment to  evaluate the feedback it received, considering such factors as the need to  keep the data comparable to past censuses and not increase the length of  the questionnaire.
Although a certain amount of professional judgment will invariably be used  in making determinations on questionnaire content, the absence of  documented assessment criteria is inconsistent with NASS’s guidelines.  Indeed, these guidelines note that transparent documentation “allows a  data user to understand how an information product was designed and  produced.” Moreover, without documented criteria, it is not clear whether  members of the Content Team are considering the same set of factors, or  even if they are weighing those factors in the same manner.
According to NASS, the shift in approach stemmed from staff turnover and  reassignments of members of the 2002 Team and, as a result, the 2007 Team  was not aware of the criteria used in 2002. Our review made the 2007 Team  aware of the earlier set of criteria, and the Team has since developed  similar documentation. NASS noted that all future content teams will use  and update these criteria when developing the content of subsequent  censuses.
It will be important for NASS to continue with this approach because it is  more consistent with its own IQA guidelines, and will also help NASS to do  the following:  Ensure the utility and relevance of information. A key principle for federal  statistical agencies is to provide information relevant to issues of public  policy. However, the nation’s information needs are constantly evolving,  and it is important for statistical agencies to adapt accordingly. This is  particularly true with agriculture, where a variety of factors such as  changing technology and agricultural trends can affect what information  should be collected. Rigorous content selection criteria could help NASS  methodically evaluate the needs of different users, establish priorities, and  keep the census synchronized with changing public policy requirements.
Maximize cost-effectiveness and reduce public burden. As with all federal  surveys, there are financial and nonfinancial costs to conducting the  Census of Agriculture. These costs include the direct expenditures related  to planning, implementing, and analyzing the census, as well as  disseminating the information. There is also a cost to respondents in terms  of the time they take to complete the questionnaire. Additionally, there are  opportunity costs in that for every question that is included in the census,  another question might need to be excluded so as not to increase the length  of the census. Rigorous, consistently applied criteria can help promote  cost-effectiveness because they can ensure that only those questions that  meet a particular, previously identified need are included in the census.  Applying such criteria also help inform decisions on the appropriate role of  the federal government in collecting the data, and whether a particular  question might be more appropriately addressed by a different survey,  government organization, or the by the private sector.
Maintain credibility. Content selection criteria provide a basis for  consistent decision making on what to include in the census and what gets  left off. This is especially important for maintaining NASS’s credibility  given the input it receives from various sources. Without documented  criteria, NASS’s actions could be perceived as arbitrary or  disproportionately swayed by one particular interest or another; thus,  NASS’s decisions would be more defensible.
Further, documented criteria will guard against the loss of institutional  memory to the extent there is further turnover in Content Team  membership.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: NASS satisfied the procedural responsibilities and reporting requirements  under OMB’s IQA guidelines. Moreover, to the extent that NASS continues  to use the documented criteria it developed to inform future decisions on  the content of the Census of Agriculture, it could help establish a closer  alignment between the questions included in the census and evolving  agricultural policy requirements, resulting in a more cost-effective data  collection program.
Building on these efforts, the transparency of census data products could  be improved with more robust documentation. NASS’s procedures for  addressing correction requests not filed under IQA could be more  transparent as well. More than just a paperwork issue, greater transparency  will help enhance NASS’s accountability to public data users and increase  the credibility of census information.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help enhance the transparency of the Census of Agriculture’s processes  and products, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct NASS  to take the following two steps: 1. Ensure that census products fully address NASS’s own guidelines for  data documentation or at least contain links to such information. The  list of 20 documentation practices that we developed, while not  necessarily exhaustive, represents sound actions used by other  statistical agencies and could form a starting point for NASS. 2. Document and post on NASS’s Web site its procedures for handling  data correction requests not filed under IQA, and track the disposition  of those requests.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The NASS Administrator provided written comments on a draft of this  report on September 8, 2005, which are reprinted in appendix I. NASS  noted that our “report and recommendations are insightful and will be used  to further strengthen the transparency of NASS methods and procedures.”
In particular, NASS concurred with our finding that the methods and  procedures in its specialized reports should be better documented and,  consistent with our recommendation, stated that these products “will now  provide links to this information.” NASS’s efforts, if fully implemented,  should make it easier for data users to understand how these products  were designed and produced, and NASS should be commended for its  actions to continually improve its products and better meet the needs of its  customers.
While NASS’s more comprehensive products were better documented, our  analysis found that they could also benefit from more robust  documentation. Thus, in keeping with our recommendation, it will be  important for NASS to ensure that all of its census products—its larger  reports and more focused studies--fully address NASS’s own guidelines for  data documentation.
In commenting on our recommendation for NASS to document and post on  its Web site its procedures for handling data correction requests not filed  under IQA, NASS concurred with our view that this information would  provide it with a better sense of the questions it receives about its data, but  added that “a detailed recordkeeping system to log and track every inquiry”  would not be the best use of its resources. Instead, NASS plans to “compile  a listing of the more common issues” and make them available on its Web  site in the form of frequently asked questions. NASS believes this approach  would be useful for future planning, as well as provide answers to  questions most likely to arise among other data users.
As noted in our report, our recommendation stemmed from our finding that  NASS could not provide us with information on the number of inquiries not  filed under IQA, the characteristics of those inquiries, and how they were  addressed. Although the details remain to be seen, NASS’s proposed  approach could provide this information and, consistent with the intended  outcome our recommendation, address the need for greater transparency.  NASS’s efforts will be further strengthened if, consistent with our  recommendation, it posts on its Web site its procedures for handling  correction requests not filed under IQA.
We will send copies of this report to other interested congressional parties,  the Secretary of Agriculture, and the NASS Administrator. Copies will be  made available to others on request. This report will also be available at no  charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-6806 or williamso@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: How Census of Agriculture Reports Address Various Documentation Elements
paragraphs: State and  County  Reports  (Alabama)
State and  County  Reports  (Alabama)
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Robert Goldenkoff, Assistant  Director; David Bobruff; Jennifer Cook; Richard Donaldson; Andrea  Levine; Robert Parker; John Smale; and Michael Volpe made key  contributions to this report.