Federal Information Collection: A Reexamination of the Portfolio of Major Federal Household Surveys Is Needed
Published: 2006-11-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Federal statistical information is used to make appropriate decisions about budgets, employment, and investments. GAO was asked to (1) describe selected characteristics of federally funded statistical or research surveys, (2) describe agencies' and Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) roles in identifying and preventing unnecessary duplication, (3) examine selected surveys to assess whether unnecessary duplication exists in areas with similar subject matter, and (4) describe selected agencies' efforts to improve the efficiency and relevance of surveys. GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed officials. Using this information and prior GAO work, GAO identified surveys with potential unnecessary duplication.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: At the time of GAO's review, OMB had approved 584 ongoing federal statistical or research surveys, of which 40 percent were administered to individuals and households. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, agencies are to certify to OMB that each information collection does not unnecessarily duplicate existing information, and OMB is responsible for reviewing the content of agencies' submissions. OMB provides guidance that agencies can use to comply with the approval process and avoid unnecessary duplication, which OMB defines as information similar to or corresponding to information that could serve the agency's purpose and is already accessible to the agency. Based on this definition, the seven surveys GAO reviewed could be considered to contain necessary duplication. GAO identified three subject areas, people without health insurance, people with disabilities, and housing, covered in multiple major surveys that could potentially involve unnecessary duplication. Although they have similarities, most of these surveys originated over several decades, and differ in their purposes, methodologies, definitions, and measurement techniques. These differences can produce widely varying estimates on similar subjects. For example, the estimate for people who were uninsured for a full year from one survey is over 50 percent higher than another survey's estimate for the same year. While agencies have undertaken efforts to standardize definitions and explain some of the differences among estimates, these issues continue to present challenges. In some cases, agencies have reexamined their existing surveys to reprioritize, redesign, combine, and eliminate some of them. Agencies have also used administrative data in conjunction with their surveys to enhance the quality of information and limit respondent burden. These actions have been limited in scope, however. In addition, two major changes to the portfolio of major federal household surveys are underway. The American Community Survey is intended to replace the long-form decennial census starting in 2010. This is considered to be the cornerstone of the government's efforts to provide data on population and housing characteristics and will be used to distribute billions of dollars in federal funding. Officials are also redesigning the Survey of Income and Program Participation which is used in estimating future costs of certain government benefit programs. In light of these upcoming changes, OMB recognizes that the federal government can build upon agencies' practices of reexamining individual surveys. To ensure that surveys initiated under conditions, priorities, and approaches that existed decades ago are able to cost-effectively meet current and emerging information needs, there is a need to undertake a comprehensive reexamination of the long standing portfolio of major federal household surveys. The Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP), which is chaired by OMB and made up of the heads of the major statistical agencies, is responsible for coordinating statistical work and has the leadership authority to undertake this effort.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Governments, businesses, and citizens depend on relevant and timely  statistical information from federal statistics to make appropriate  decisions about budgets, employment, investments, and many other  essential topics. Given the importance of federally funded surveys to the  quality of statistical information, and the ever-increasing demand for more  and better information within limited resources, it is essential to maximize  their utility. To this end, officials implementing federally funded surveys  must avoid unnecessary duplication with existing information sources, as  mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA), as amended,  and work to ensure efficiency in areas where subject matter is similar. As  highlighted in our 21st Century Challenges report, the federal government  must address and adapt to a range of major trends and challenges in the  nation and the world—including, among other things, a long-term  structural fiscal imbalance and a transformation to a knowledge-based  economy. Statistical programs are likely to continue to face constrained  resources in the future, and the changing information needs of our society  and economy raise important questions regarding the portfolio of major  federal household surveys—a portfolio that has been developing for more  than six decades in response to conditions and information needs that  have changed over time.
In light of the importance of minimizing unnecessary duplication between  statistical and research surveys, at your request this report (1) identifies  the number and selected characteristics of Office of Management and  Budget (OMB)-approved federally funded statistical or research surveys,  (2) describes agencies’ and OMB’s roles in identifying and preventing  unnecessary duplication, (3) examines selected surveys to assess whether  unnecessary duplication exists in areas with similar subject matter, and  (4) describes selected efforts agencies have used to improve the efficiency  and relevance of surveys. OMB defines the term unnecessary duplication  as information similar to or corresponding to information that could serve  the agency’s purpose and is already accessible to the agency. Therefore, as  agreed, our review focused on several surveys that we identified as having  the potential for being unnecessarily duplicative because they contain  similar information.
To address the first objective to identify the number and characteristics of  OMB-approved federally funded surveys, we reviewed the information  collections that OMB approved under the PRA. We used information from  the database of OMB-approved federally funded information collections.  In 2005 we conducted a reliability assessment of the database of OMB- approved information collections and concluded that the data were  accurate and complete for the purposes of that report. Because this  assessment was recent, we decided that we would not repeat this  assessment. As OMB’s approval can be in effect for a maximum of 3 years,  and may be for a shorter period, our review reflects a snapshot in time of  all those collections that OMB had approved for use as of August 7, 2006.  We focused on two categories of information collections: general purpose  statistics, which are surveys whose results are to be used for statistical  compilations of general public interest, and research surveys.
For the second objective to describe agencies’ and OMB’s roles in  identifying and preventing unnecessary duplication, we reviewed the PRA  requirements for both agencies and OMB. We interviewed clearance  officers from the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Health and  Human Services to learn about their processes for submitting the  information collection packages to OMB. These agencies were the top  three agencies in terms of funding for statistical activities in fiscal year  2006. We also interviewed OMB officials regarding their role in approving  information collections.
For the third objective to examine selected surveys to assess whether  unnecessary duplication exists in areas with similar subject matter, we  reviewed our reports and literature and interviewed agency officials to  identify areas of similar content covered in multiple surveys. We  subsequently identified three subject areas with potentially unnecessary  duplication based on similar content in the surveys: (1) people without  health insurance, (2) those with disabilities, and (3) housing. Once we had  identified these three subject areas, we analyzed information from  literature and interviews we conducted to identify the current federally  funded surveys that were cited as the major surveys on people without  health insurance (Current Population Survey (CPS), National Health  Interview Survey (NHIS), Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), and  Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)) and disability (NHIS,  National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), MEPS,  SIPP, and the American Community Survey (ACS)) as shown in table 1.  For the third area, housing, we relied on our earlier report that identified  the potential unnecessary duplication between the ACS and American  Housing Survey (AHS). One of the surveys we included, the Census  Bureau’s SIPP, will be reengineered. However, the content of the  redesigned SIPP has not been determined, and as a result, it may continue  to include questions on disability and people without health insurance, so  we have included information relative to this long-standing survey in this  report.
To learn more about the potentially duplicative content between these  surveys, we reviewed relevant literature and agency documents. We also  interviewed officials from OMB, Census Bureau at the Department of  Commerce (DOC), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at the Department  of Labor (DOL), the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at the Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Division of Housing and  Demographic Analysis at the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD). We also interviewed experts from organizations that  focus on federal statistics, such as the Council of Professional  Associations on Statistics and the Committee on National Statistics,  National Academies of Science.
For the fourth objective, to describe selected agency efforts to improve the  efficiency and relevance of surveys, we analyzed information from agency  and OMB interviews, expert interviews as discussed above, and literature.  We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards from April 2005 through June 2006.  Appendix I provides a more complete description of our scope and  methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The purpose of the PRA is to (1) minimize the federal paperwork burden  for individuals, small businesses, state and local governments, and other  persons; (2) minimize the cost to the federal government of collecting,  maintaining, using, and disseminating information; and (3) maximize the  usefulness of information collected by the federal government. The PRA  also aims to provide for timely and equitable dissemination of federal  information; improve the quality and use of information to increase  government accountability at a minimized cost; and manage information  technology to improve performance and reduce burden, while improving  the responsibility and accountability of OMB and the federal agencies to  Congress and the public.
To achieve these purposes, the PRA prohibits federal agencies from  conducting or sponsoring an information collection unless they have prior  approval from OMB. The PRA requires that information collections be  approved by OMB when facts or opinions are solicited from 10 or more  people. Under the law, OMB is required to determine that an agency  information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the  functions of the agency, including whether the information will have  practical utility.
The PRA requires every agency to establish a process for its chief  information officer (CIO) to review program offices’ proposed information  collections, such as certifying that each proposed collection complies with  the PRA, including ensuring that it is not unnecessarily duplicative. The  agency is to provide two public notice periods—an initial 60-day notice  period and a 30-day notice period after the information collection is  submitted to OMB for approval. Agencies are responsible for consulting  with members of the public and other affected agencies to solicit  comments on, among other things, ways to minimize the burden on  respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques  or other forms of information technology. According to an OMB official,  this could include asking for comments on a proposal to use  administrative data instead of survey data.
Following satisfaction of these requirements, an agency is to submit its  proposed information collection for OMB review, whether for new  information collections or re-approval of existing information collections.  Before an agency submits a proposed information collection for approval,  an agency may invest substantial resources to prepare to conduct an  information collection. An agency may undertake, among other things,  designing the information collection, testing, and consulting with users.  For example, over the last 8 years, BLS has led an interagency effort  designed to develop a measure of the employment rate of adults with  disabilities pursuant to Executive Order 13078 signed by President Clinton  in 1998. This effort has entailed planning, developing, and testing disability  questions to add to the CPS. OMB is responsible for determining whether  each information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the  agency’s functions. According to the Statistical Programs of the United  States Government: Fiscal Year 2006, an estimated $5.4 billion in fiscal  year 2006 was requested for statistical activities.
The PRA also requires the establishment of the Interagency Council on  Statistical Policy (ICSP). According to the Statistical Programs of the  United States Government: Fiscal Year 2006, the ICSP is a vehicle for  coordinating statistical work, particularly when activities and issues cut  across agencies; for exchanging information about agency programs and  activities; and for providing advice and counsel to OMB on statistical  matters.
The PRA also requires OMB to annually report on the paperwork burden  imposed on the public by the federal government and efforts to reduce this  burden, which is reported in Managing Information Collection:  Information Collection Budget of the United States Government. For  example, the 2006 Information Collection Budget reported on agency  initiatives to reduce paperwork, such as HHS’s assessment of its  information collections with a large number of burden hours, which  resulted in reducing the department’s overall burden hours by over            36 million in fiscal year 2005.
OMB produces the annual Statistical Programs of the United States  Government report to fulfill its responsibility under the PRA to prepare an  annual report on statistical program funding. This document outlines the  effects of congressional actions and the funding for statistics proposed in  the President’s current fiscal year budget, and highlights proposed  program changes for federal statistical activities. It also describes a  number of long-range planning initiatives to improve federal statistical  programs, including making better use of existing data collections while  protecting the confidentiality of statistical information.
section_title: More Than 500 Statistical or Research Surveys Have Been Approved
paragraphs: At the time of our review, OMB had approved 584 new and ongoing  statistical and research surveys as recorded in the database of OMB- approved information collections. OMB uses the database for tracking  purposes, as it provides the only centralized information available on the  characteristics of the surveys that OMB has approved. The database  contains information on some, but not all, of the characteristics of the  information collections. The information that agencies provide in the  packages they submit to OMB for approval includes additional data, such  as the estimated cost.
Statistical and research surveys represent about 7 percent of the total  universe of 8,463 OMB-approved information collections, the majority of  which, as shown in figure 1, are for regulatory or compliance and  application for benefits purposes. Although there are certain surveys  funded through grants and contracts that are not approved by OMB under  the PRA, OMB stated that there is no comprehensive list of these surveys.
Forty percent of OMB-approved statistical and research surveys were  administered to individuals and households, as shown in figure 2.
Annual estimated burden hours are defined as the amount of time for the  average respondent to fill out a survey times the number of respondents.  Figure 3 shows the range of burden hours, for general purpose research  and statistics information collections, with about 35 percent of the surveys  each accounting for 1,000 or fewer total burden hours.
According to an OMB official, the electronic system, Regulatory  Information Service Center Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs  Consolidated Information System, has automated the agency submission  and OMB review process. This new system, which was implemented in  July of 2006, is intended to allow OMB and agency officials to search  information collection titles and abstracts for major survey topics and key  words.
Table 2 provides information from agency officials and documents for the  selected surveys that we reviewed in more depth. For these seven surveys,  the sample sizes ranged from 5,000 individuals for the NHANES to 55,000  housing units for the AHS. The NHANES has a much smaller sample size  and greater cost (as compared to the other surveys with similar burden  hours) because it includes both an interview and a physical examination in  a mobile exam center. The physical examination can include body  measurements and tests and procedures, such as a blood sample and  dental screening, to assess various aspects of respondents’ health. Other  differences among the surveys we reviewed included their specific  purposes (e.g., to obtain health information or demographics data); the  time period considered (some of the surveys provide data as of a certain  point in time while others are longitudinal and follow the same  respondents over a period of time); and the frequency with which the  surveys were conducted.
In addition, many of these surveys have been in existence for decades. Of  the seven surveys we reviewed, five are defined by the Statistical  Programs of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2006 as major  household surveys (ACS, AHS, CPS, NHIS, and SIPP), and in addition  MEPS’s household sample is a sub-set of NHIS’s sample. The ACS, unlike  the other surveys, is mandatory and will replace the decennial census  long-form. In addition to the surveys that we reviewed, two other surveys,  the Consumer Expenditure Surveys and the National Crime Victimization  Survey, are also defined by the Statistical Programs of the United States  Government of 2006 as major household surveys.
section_title: Agencies and OMB Have Procedures Intended to Identify and Prevent Unnecessary Duplication
paragraphs: Agencies and OMB have procedures intended to identify and prevent  unnecessary duplication in information collections. Agencies are  responsible for certifying that an information collection is not  unnecessarily duplicative of existing information as part of complying with  OMB’s approval process for information collections. OMB has developed  guidance that agencies can use in complying with the approval process.  Once an agency submits a proposed information collection to OMB, OMB  is required to review the agency’s paperwork, which includes the agency’s  formal certification that the proposed information collection is not  unnecessarily duplicative.
subsections: section_title: Agencies are Responsible for Identifying and Preventing Unnecessary Duplication
paragraphs: “For example, unnecessary duplication exists if the need for the proposed collection can be  served by information already collected for another purpose - such as administrative  records, other federal agencies and programs, or other public and private sources. If  specific information is needed for identification, classification, or categorization of  respondents; or analysis in conjunction with other data elements provided by the  respondent, and is not otherwise available in the detail necessary to satisfy the purpose and  need for which the collection is undertaken; and if the information is considered essential  to the purpose and need of the collection, and/or to the collection methodology or analysis  of results, then the information is generally deemed to be necessary, and therefore not  duplicative within the meaning of the PRA and OMB regulation.”
When an agency is ready to submit a proposed information collection to  OMB, the agency’s CIO is responsible for certifying that the information  collection satisfies the PRA standards, including a certification that the  information collection is not unnecessarily duplicative of existing  information sources. We have previously reported that agency CIOs  across the government generally reviewed information collections and  certified that they met the standards in the act. However, our analysis of  12 case studies at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department  of Veterans Affairs, HUD, and DOL, showed that the CIOs certified  collections even though support was often missing or incomplete. For  example, seven of the cases had no information and two included only  partial information on whether the information collection avoided  unnecessary duplication. Further, although the PRA requires that agencies  publish public notices in the Federal Register and otherwise consult with  the public, agencies governmentwide generally limited consultation to the  publication of the notices, which generated little public comment. Without  appropriate support and public consultation, agencies have reduced  assurance that collections satisfy the standards in the act. We  recommended that the Director of OMB alter OMB’s current guidance to  clarify the kinds of support that it asks agency CIOs to provide for  certifications and to direct agencies to consult with potential respondents  beyond the publication of Federal Register notices. OMB has not  implemented these recommendations.
section_title: OMB Is Responsible for Reviewing Agencies’ Efforts to Identify and Prevent Unnecessary Duplication
paragraphs: OMB has three different guidance publications that agencies can consult  in the process of developing information collection submissions,  according to OMB officials. The three guidance publications address  unnecessary duplication to varying degrees. The draft, Implementing  Guidance for OMB Review of Agency Information Collection, provides,  among other things, instructions to agencies about how to identify  unnecessary duplication of proposed information collections with existing  available information sources.
OMB’s Questions and Answers When Designing Surveys for Information  Collections discusses when it is acceptable to duplicate questions used in  other surveys. The publication also encourages agencies to consult with  OMB when they are proposing new surveys, major revisions, or large-scale  experiments or tests, before an information collection is submitted. For  example, when BLS was developing its disability questions for the CPS,  BLS officials stated that they consulted OMB on numerous occasions.  OMB officials also said that when they are involved early in the process, it  is easier to modify an agency’s plan for an information collection.
OMB officials told us that an agency consultation with OMB before an  information collection is developed can provide opportunities to identify  and prevent unnecessary duplication. For example, according to an OMB  official, while OMB was working with the Federal Emergency Management  Agency (FEMA) to meet the need for information on the impact of  Hurricane Katrina, OMB identified a survey partially funded by the  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) that was in the final stages of  design and would be conducted by Harvard University—the Hurricane  Katrina Advisory Group Initiative. OMB learned that this survey, which  was funded through a grant (and was not subject to review and approval  under the PRA), planned to collect data on many of the topics that FEMA  was interested in. OMB facilitated collaboration between FEMA and HHS  and ultimately, FEMA was able to avoid launching a new survey by  enhancing the Harvard study.
OMB’s draft of the Proposed Standards and Guidelines for Statistical  Surveys, which focuses on statistical surveys and their design and  methodology, did not require that agencies assess potential duplication  with other available sources of information as part of survey planning. We  suggested that OMB require that when agencies are initiating new surveys  or major revisions of existing surveys they include in their written plans  the steps they take to ensure that a survey is not unnecessary duplicative  with available information sources. OMB has incorporated this suggestion.
Under the PRA, OMB is responsible for reviewing proposed information  collections to determine whether a proposed information collection meets  the PRA criteria, which include a requirement that it not unnecessarily  duplicate available information. According to an OMB official responsible  for reviewing information collections, OMB’s review process consists of  several steps. She said that once an agency has submitted the proposed  information collection package to OMB, the package is sent to the  appropriate OMB official for review. When there is a need for clarification  or questions exist, this OMB official told us that OMB communicates with  the agency either through telephone conferences or via e-mail. After  approval, OMB is required to assign a number to each approved  information collection, which the agencies are then to include on their  information collection (e.g., survey) forms.
In addition to its responsibilities for reviewing proposed information  collections, OMB also contributes to or leads a wide range of interagency  efforts that address federal statistics. For example, OMB chairs the ICSP.  The ICSP is a vehicle for coordinating statistical work, exchanging  information about agency programs and activities, and providing advice  and counsel to OMB on statistical matters. The council consists of the  heads of the principal statistical agencies, plus the heads of the statistical  units in the Environmental Protection Agency, IRS, National Science  Foundation, and Social Security Administration (SSA). According to an  OMB official, the ICSP can expand its membership for working groups to  address specific topics. For example, the ICSP established an  employment-related health benefits subcommittee and included non-ICSP  agencies, such as HHS’s AHRQ (which co-chaired the subcommittee). The  ICSP member agencies exchange experiences and solutions with respect  to numerous topics of mutual interest and concern. For example, in the  past year, the council discussed topics such as  the revision of core standards for statistical surveys    opportunities for interagency collaboration on information technology  development and investment and  sample redesign for the major household surveys with the advent of the  ACS.
section_title: Duplicative Content in Selected Surveys Exists, but Survey Purposes and Scope Differ
paragraphs: On the basis of OMB’s definition of unnecessary duplication, the surveys  we reviewed could be considered to contain necessary duplication. To  examine selected surveys to assess the extent of unnecessary duplication  in areas with similar subject matter, we looked at surveys that addressed  three areas: (1) people without health insurance (CPS, NHIS, MEPS, and  SIPP), (2) people with disabilities (NHIS, NHANES, MEPS, SIPP, and  ACS), and (3) the housing questions on the AHS and ACS. We found that  the selected surveys had duplicative content and asked similar questions  in some cases. However, the agencies and OMB judged that this was not  unnecessary duplication given the differences among the surveys. In some  instances, the duplication among these surveys yielded richer data,  allowing fuller descriptions of specific topics and providing additional  perspectives on a topic, such as by focusing on the different sources and  effects of disabilities. The seven surveys we reviewed originated at  different times and differ in many aspects, including the samples drawn,  the time periods measured, the types of information collected, and level of  detail requested. These factors can affect costs and burden hours  associated with the surveys. In addition, the differences can create  confusion in some cases because they produce differing estimates and use  different definitions.
subsections: section_title: Surveys That Measure People without Health Insurance Produce Differing Estimates
paragraphs: Although the CPS, NHIS, MEPS, and SIPP all measure people who do not  have health insurance, the surveys originated at different times and differ  in several ways, including the combinations of information collected that  relate to health insurance, questions used to determine health insurance  status, and time frames. Health insurance status is not the primary  purpose of any of these surveys, but rather one of the subject areas in each  survey. In addition, because each survey has a different purpose, each  survey produces a different combination of information related to people’s  health insurance.
The CPS originated in 1948 and provides data on the population’s  employment status. Estimates from the CPS include employment,  unemployment, earnings, hours of work, and other indicators.  Supplements also provide information on a variety of subjects, including  information about employer-provided benefits like health insurance. CPS  also provides information on health insurance coverage rates for  sociodemographic subgroups of the population. The time frame within  which data is released varies; for example, CPS employment estimates are  released 2-3 weeks after collection while supplement estimates are  released in 2-9 months after collection.
The NHIS originated in 1957 and collects information on reasons for lack  of health insurance, type of coverage, and health care utilization. The  NHIS also collects data on illnesses, injuries, activity limitations, chronic  conditions, health behaviors, and other health topics, which can be linked  to health insurance status. HHS stated that although health insurance data  are covered on other surveys, NHIS’s data on health insurance is key to  conducting analysis of the impact of health insurance coverage on access  to care, which is generally not collected on other surveys.
The MEPS originated in 1977 and provides data on health insurance  dynamics, including changes in coverage and periods without coverage.  The MEPS augments the NHIS by selecting a sample of NHIS respondents  and collecting additional information on the respondents. The MEPS also  links data on health services spending and health insurance status to other  demographic characteristics of survey respondents. The MEPS data can  also be used to analyze the relationship between insurance status and a  variety of individual and household characteristics, including use of and  expenditures for health care services.
The SIPP originated in 1983 in order to provide data on income, labor  force, and government program participation. The information collected in  the SIPP, such as the utilization of health care services, child well-being,  and disability, can be linked to health insurance status. The SIPP also  measures the duration of periods without health insurance.
Because the surveys use different methods to determine health insurance  status, they can elicit different kinds of responses and consequently  differing estimates within the same population. To determine if a person is  uninsured, surveys use one of two methods: they ask respondents directly  if they lack insurance coverage or they classify individuals as uninsured if  they do not affirmatively indicate that they have coverage. The CPS and  the NHIS directly ask respondents whether they lack insurance coverage.  While the difference between these approaches may seem subtle, using a  verification question prompts some people who did not indicate any  insurance coverage to rethink their status and indicate coverage that they  had previously forgotten to mention.
The surveys also differ both in the time period respondents are asked to  recall and in the time periods measured when respondents did not have  health insurance. Hence, the surveys produce estimates that do not rely  upon standardized time or recall periods and as a result are not directly  comparable. The ASEC to the CPS is conducted in February, March, and  April and asks questions about the prior calendar year. An interviewer  asks the respondent to remember back for the previous calendar year  which can be as long as 16 months in the April interview. The other three  surveys, in contrast, asked about coverage at the time of the interview.  Because a respondent’s ability to recall information generally degrades  over time, most survey methodologists believe that the longer the recall  period, the less accurate the answers will be to questions about the past,  such as exactly when health insurance coverage started or stopped, or  when it changed because of job changes. Another difference is the time  period used to frame the question. The CPS asked whether the respondent  was uninsured for an entire year, while NHIS, MEPS, and SIPP asked  whether the individual was ever insured, or was uninsured at the time of  the interview, for the entire last year, and at any time during the year.
Table 3 illustrates the differing estimates obtained using data from the four  selected surveys. While these differences can be explained, the wide  differences in the estimates are of concern and have created some  confusion. For example, the 2004 CPS estimate for people who were  uninsured for a full year is over 50 percent higher than the NHIS estimate  for that year. HHS has sponsored several interagency meetings on health  insurance data, which involved various agencies within HHS and the  Census Bureau. The meetings focused on improving estimates of health  insurance coverage and included, among other things, examining how  income data are used, exploring potential collaboration between HHS and  the Census Bureau on whether the CPS undercounts Medicaid recipients,  examining health insurance coverage rates, and discussing a potential  project to provide administrative data for use in the CPS. As a result, HHS  created a Web site with reports and data on relevant surveys and HHS’s  office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)  produced the report Understanding Estimates of the Uninsured: Putting  the Differences in Context with input from the Census Bureau in an effort  to explain the differing estimates.
section_title: Surveys that Measure Disability Status Differ in Definitions, Purposes, and Methodologies Used
paragraphs: Similarly, although the NHIS, NHANES, MEPS, SIPP, and ACS all estimate  the percentage of the population with disabilities, the surveys define  disability differently and have different purposes and methodologies. In  addition to these five surveys, which measure aspects of disability, BLS is  also currently developing questions to measure the employment levels of  the disabled population. HHS also stated that disability is included on  multiple surveys so that disability status can be analyzed in conjunction  with other information that an agency needs. For example, disability  information is used by health departments to describe the health of the  population, by departments of transportation to assess access to  transportation systems, and departments of education in the education  attainment of people with disabilities. The lack of consistent definitions is  not unique to surveys; there are over 20 different federal agencies that  administer almost 200 different disability programs for purposes of  entitlement to public support programs, medical care, and government  services.
Although each of the surveys asks about people’s impairments or  functionality in order to gauge a respondent’s disability status, there are  some differences in how disability is characterized. For example, the NHIS  asks respondents if they are limited in their ability to perform age- dependent life and other activities. The NHIS also asks about the  respondent needing assistance with performing activities of daily living  and instrumental activities of daily living. The NHANES measures the  prevalence of physical and functional disability for a wide range of  activities in children and adults. Extensive interview information on self- reported physical abilities and limitations is collected to assess the  capacity of the individual to do various activities without the use of aids,  and the level of difficulty in performing the task. The MEPS provides  information on days of work or school missed due to disability. The SIPP  queries whether the respondent has limitations of sensory, physical, or  mental functioning and limitations on activities due to health conditions or  impairments. The ACS asks about vision or hearing impairment, difficulty  with physical and cognitive tasks, and difficulty with self-care and  independent living.
Because surveys produce different types of information on disability, they  can provide additional perspectives on the sources and effects of  disabilities, but they can also cause confusion because of the differences  in the way disability is being measured. The NHIS contains a broad set of  data on disability-related topics, including the limitation of functional  activities, mental health questions used to measure psychological distress,  limitations in sensory ability, and limitations in work ability. Moreover, the  NHIS provides data, for those persons who indicated a limitation  performing a functional activity, about the source or condition of their  functional limitation. The NHANES links medical examination information  to disability. The MEPS measures how much individuals spend on medical  care for a person with disabilities and can illustrate changes in health  status and health care expenses. The SIPP provides information on the use  of assistive devices, such as wheelchairs and canes. Finally, the ACS  provides information on many social and economic characteristics, such  as school enrollment for people with disabilities as well as the poverty and  employment status of people with different types of disabilities.
However, the estimates of disability in the population that these surveys  produce can vary widely. A Cornell University study compared disability  estimates among the NHIS, SIPP, and ACS. A number of categories of  disability were very similar, such as the nondisabled population, while  others, such as the disabled population or people with sensory disabilities,  had widely varying estimates, as shown in table 4. For example,  according to data presented in a Cornell University study that used survey  questions to define and subsequently compare different disability  measures across surveys, the SIPP 2002 estimate of people with sensory  disabilities for ages 18-24 was more than six times the NHIS estimate for  that year for ages 18-24. In commenting on this report, the DOC and HHS  acknowledged that comparing the NHIS and SIPP with respect to sensory  disabilities is problematic. HHS officials noted that the confusion caused  by these different estimates derives mostly from the lack of a single  definition of disability, which leads to data collections that use different  questions and combinations of information to define disability status.
Because the concept of disability varies, with no clear consensus on  terminology or definition, and there are differing estimates, several federal  and international groups are examining how the associated measures of  disability could be improved. HHS’s Disability Workgroup, which includes  officials from HHS and the Department of Education, examines how  disability is measured and used across surveys. The task of another federal  group, the Subcommittee on Disability Statistics of the Interagency  Committee on Disability Research, is to define and standardize the  disability definition. The Washington Group on Disability Statistics  (WGDS), an international workgroup sponsored by the United Nations in  which OMB and NCHS participate, is working to facilitate the comparison  of data on disability internationally. The WGDS aims to guide the  development of a short set or sets of disability measures that are suitable  for use in censuses, sample-based national surveys, or other statistical  formats, for the primary purpose of informing policy on equalization of  opportunities. The WGDS is also working to develop one or more  extended sets of survey items to measure disability, or guidelines for their  design, to be used as components of population surveys or as supplements  to specialty surveys. HHS added that the interest in standardizing the  measurement of disability status is also driven by the desire to add a  standard question set to a range of studies so that the status of persons  with disabilities can be described across studies.
section_title: The AHS and ACS Ask Some Similar Questions on Housing, but Their Purposes and Scope Differ
paragraphs: In 2002, we reported that the AHS and ACS both covered the subject of  housing. Of the 66 questions on the 2003 ACS, 25 were in the section on  housing characteristics, and all but one of these questions were the same  as or similar to the questions on the AHS. For example, both the AHS and  the ACS ask how many bedrooms a housing unit has. However, the two  surveys differ in purposes and scope.
The purpose of the AHS is to collect detailed housing information on the  size, composition, and state of housing in the United States, and to track  changes in the housing stock over time, according to a HUD official. To  that end, the AHS includes about 1,000 variables, according to a HUD  official, such as the size of housing unit, housing costs, different building  types, plumbing and electrical issues, housing and neighborhood quality,  mortgage financing, and household characteristics. The AHS produces  estimates at the national level, metropolitan level for certain areas, and  homogenous zones of households with fewer than 100,000 households.  The AHS is conducted every 2 years nationally and every 6 years in major  metropolitan areas, except for six areas, which are surveyed every 4 years.
In contrast, the level of housing data in the ACS is much less extensive.  The ACS is designed to replace the decennial Census 2010 long-form and  covers a wide range of subjects, such as income, commute time to work,  and home values. The ACS provides national and county data and, in the  future, will provide data down to the Census tract level, according to a  Census Bureau official. The ACS is designed to provide communities with  information on how they are changing, with housing being one of the main  topic areas along with a broad range of household demographic and  economic characteristics.
The AHS and ACS also have different historical and trend data and data  collection methods. The AHS returns to the same housing units year after  year to gather data; therefore, it produces data on trends that illustrate the  flow of households through the housing stock, according to a HUD official,  while the ACS samples new households every month. Historical data are  also available from the AHS from the 1970s onward, according to a HUD  official.
Analysts can use AHS data to monitor the interaction among housing  needs, demand, and supply, as well as changes in housing conditions and  costs. In addition, analysts can also use AHS data to support the  development of housing policies and the design of housing programs  appropriate for different groups. HUD uses the AHS data, for example, to  analyze changes affecting housing conditions of particular subgroups,  such as the elderly. The AHS also plays an important role in HUD’s  monitoring of the lending activities of the government-sponsored  enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in meeting their numeric goals  for mortgage purchases serving minorities, low-income households, and  underserved areas. AHS’s characteristic of returning to the same housing  units year after year provides the basis for HUD’s Components of  Inventory Change (CINCH) and Rental Dynamics analyses. The CINCH  reports examine changes in housing stock over time by comparing the  status and characteristics of housing units in successive surveys. The  Rental Dynamics program, which is a specialized form of CINCH, looks at  rental housing stock changes, with an emphasis on changes in  affordability. Another use of AHS data has been for calculating certain fair  market rents (FMR), which HUD uses to determine the amount of rental  assistance subsidies for major metropolitan areas between the decennial  censuses. However, HUD plans to begin using ACS data for fiscal year  2006 FMRs. As we previously reported, this could improve the accuracy of  FMRs because the ACS provides more recent data that closely matches the  boundaries of HUD’s FMR areas than the AHS.
In our 2002 report, which was published before the ACS was fully  implemented, we also identified substantial overlap for questions on place  of birth and citizenship, education, labor force characteristics,  transportation to work, income, and, in particular, housing characteristics.  We recommended that the Census Bureau review proposed ACS questions  for possible elimination that were asked on the AHS to more completely  address the possibility of reducing the reporting burden in existing  surveys. The Census Bureau responded that they are always looking for  opportunities to streamline, clarify, and reduce respondent burden, but  that substantial testing would be required before changes can be made in  surveys that provide key national social indicators.
section_title: The Advent of the ACS and the Proposed Reengineering of the SIPP Are Changes to the Portfolio of Major Household Surveys
paragraphs: In addition to efforts underway to try to reconcile inconsistencies among  surveys that address the same subject areas, a number of major changes  have occurred or are planned to occur that will affect the overall portfolio  of major household surveys. As previously discussed, the ACS was fully  implemented in 2005 and provides considerable information that is also  provided in many other major household surveys. The ACS is the  cornerstone of the government’s effort to keep pace with the nation’s  changing population and ever-increasing demands for timely and relevant  data about population and housing characteristics. The new survey will  provide current demographic, socioeconomic, and housing information  about America’s communities every year, information that until now was  only available once a decade. Starting in 2010, the ACS will replace the  long-form census. As with the long-form, information from the ACS will be  used to administer federal and state programs and distribute more than  $200 billion a year. Detailed data from national household surveys can be  combined with data from the ACS to create reliable estimates for small  geographic areas using area estimation models.
Partly in response to potential reductions in funding for fiscal year 2007,  the Census Bureau is planning to reengineer the SIPP with the intent of  ultimately providing better information at lower cost. SIPP has been used  to estimate future costs of certain government programs. For example,  HUD used SIPP’s longitudinal capacity to follow families over time to  determine that households with high-rent burdens in one year move in and  out of high-rent burden status over subsequent years. Therefore, although  the overall size of the population with worst-case housing needs is fairly  stable, the households comprising this population change with  considerable frequency—an issue that HUD told us is potentially  important in the design of housing assistance programs.
Although the SIPP has had problems with sample attrition and releasing  data in a timely manner, which the reengineering is intended to ameliorate,  there has been disagreement about this proposal among some users of  SIPP data. Census Bureau officials said they are meeting with internal and  external stakeholders and are considering using administrative records.  Census Bureau officials told us that they could develop a greater quality  survey for less money, with a final survey to be implemented in 2009. They  also said that they may consider using the ACS or CPS sampling frame.
section_title: Agencies Have Undertaken Efforts to Improve the Efficiency and Relevance of Surveys
paragraphs: In addition to the seven surveys discussed previously, we also identified  examples of how, over the years, agencies have undertaken efforts to  enhance their surveys’ relevance and efficiency through steps such as  using administrative data in conjunction with survey data, reexamining  and combining or eliminating surveys, and redesigning existing surveys.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Have Used Administrative Data in Conjunction with Surveys
paragraphs: The Census Bureau and BLS have used administrative data collected for  the administration of various government programs in conjunction with  survey data. The Census Bureau and BLS have used the administrative  data to target specific populations to survey and to obtain information  without burdening survey respondents.
The Census Bureau uses administrative data in combination with survey  data to produce its Economic Census business statistics, which, every        5 years, profile the U.S. economy from the national to the local level. The  Economic Census relies on the centralized Business Register, which is  compiled from administrative records from IRS, SSA, and BLS, along with  lists of multi-establishment businesses that the Census Bureau maintains.  The Business Register contains basic economic information for over           8 million employer businesses and over 21 million self-employed  businesses. The Economic Census uses the Business Register as the  sampling frame to identify sets of businesses with specific characteristics,  such as size, location, and industry sector.
BLS also uses a combination of administrative and survey data to produce  its quarterly series of statistics on gross job gains and losses. BLS uses  administrative data provided by state workforce agencies that compile and  forward quarterly state unemployment insurance (UI) records to BLS.  These state agencies also submit employment and wage data to BLS. The  data states provide to BLS include establishments subject to state UI laws  and federal agencies subject to the Unemployment Compensation for  Federal Employees program, covering approximately 98 percent of U.S.  jobs. These administrative data enable BLS to obtain information on many  businesses without having to impose a burden on respondents. BLS  augments the administrative data with two BLS-funded surveys conducted  by the states. The Annual Refiling Survey updates businesses’ industry  codes and contact information, and the Multiple Worksite Report survey  provides information on multiple work sites for a single business, data that  are not provided by the UI records, enabling BLS to report on business  statistics by geographic location. Combining the data from these surveys  with administrative data helps BLS increase accuracy, update information,  and include additional details on establishment openings and closings.
However, because of restrictions on information sharing, BLS is not able  to access most of the information that the Census Bureau uses for its  business statistics because much of this information is commingled with  IRS data. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical  Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note) authorized  identifiable business records to be shared among the Bureau Economic  Analysis (BEA), BLS, and the Census Bureau for statistical purposes.  CIPSEA, however, did not change the provisions of the Internal Revenue  Code that preclude these agencies from sharing tax return information for  statistical purposes. OMB officials stated that there is continued interest in  examining appropriate CIPSEA companion legislation on granting greater  access for the Census Bureau, BLS, and BEA to IRS data.
section_title: Reexamination Has Led to Modification or Elimination of Surveys
paragraphs: Several agencies have reexamined some of their surveys, which has led to  their elimination or modification. The Census Bureau, for example,  reviewed its portfolio of Current Industrial Reports (CIR) program surveys  of manufacturing establishments, which resulted in the elimination and  modification of some surveys. Census Bureau officials said they decided to  undertake this reexamination in response to requests for additional data  that could not be addressed within existing budgets without eliminating  current surveys. They were also concerned that the character of  manufacturing, including many of the industries surveyed by the CIR  program, had changed since the last reexamination of the CIR programs,  which had been over 10 years earlier. Using criteria developed with key  data users, Census Bureau officials developed criteria and used them to  rank 54 CIR program surveys. The criteria included 11 elements, such as  whether the survey results were important to federal agencies or other  users, and the extent to which the subject matter represented a growing  economic activity in the United States. The recommendations the Census  Bureau developed from this review were then published in the Federal  Register and after considering public comments, the Census Bureau  eliminated 11 surveys, including ones on knit fabric production and  industrial gases. The Census Bureau also redesigned 7 surveys, scaling  back the information required to some extent and updating specific  product lists. As a result of this reexamination, the Census Bureau was  able to add a new survey on “analytical and biomedical instrumentation,”  and it is considering whether another new CIR program survey is needed  to keep pace with manufacturing industry developments. Census Bureau  officials told us that they plan on periodically reexamining the CIR surveys  in the future.
HHS has also reexamined surveys to identify improvements, in part by  integrating a Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey which covered  similar content into HHS’s NHANES. For about three decades, HHS and  USDA conducted surveys that each contained questions on food intake  and health status (NHANES and the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by  Individuals, respectively). HHS officials stated that HHS and USDA  officials considered how the two surveys could be merged for several  years before taking action. According to HHS officials, several factors led  to the merger of the two surveys, including USDA funding constraints, the  direct involvement of senior-level leadership on both sides to work  through the issues, and HHS officials’ realization that the merger would  enable them to add an extra day of information gathering to the NHANES.  Integrating the two surveys into the NHANES made it more  comprehensive by adding a follow-up health assessment. According to  HHS officials, adding this component to the original in-person assessment  allows agency officials to better link dietary and nutrition information with  health status.
Another mechanism HHS has established is a Data Council, which, in  addition to other activities, assesses proposed information collections. The  Data Council oversees the entire department’s data collections to ensure  that the department relies, where possible, on existing core statistical  systems for new data collections rather than on the creation of new  systems. The Data Council implements this strategy through  communicating and sharing plans, conducting annual reviews of proposed  data collections, and reviewing major survey modifications and any new  survey proposals. According to HHS officials, in several instances,  proposals for new surveys and statistical systems have been redirected  and coordinated with current systems. For example, HHS officials stated  that when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)  proposed a new survey on youth tobacco use, the Data Council directed it  to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s  National Survey of Drug Use and Health. The Data Council stated that by  adding questions on brand names, CDC was able to avoid creating a new  survey to measure youths’ tobacco use.
OMB recognizes that the federal government should build upon agencies’  practice of reexamining individual surveys to conduct a comprehensive  reexamination of the portfolio of major federal household surveys, in light  of the advent of the ACS. OMB officials acknowledged that this effort  would be difficult and complex and would take time. According to OMB,  integrating or redesigning the portfolio of major household surveys could  be enhanced if, in the future, there is some flexibility to modify the ACS  design and methods. For example, an OMB official stated that using  supplements or flexible modules periodically within the ACS might enable  agencies to integrate or modify portions of other major household surveys.  OMB officials indicated that such an effort would likely not happen until  after the 2010 decennial census, a critical stage for ACS when ACS data  can be compared to 2010 Census data. OMB officials said and their long- range plans have already indicated their expectation that there will be  improved integration of the portfolio of related major household surveys  with the advent of the ACS. For example, the Statistical Programs of the  United States Government: Fiscal Year 2006 describes plans for  redesigning the samples for demographic surveys, scheduled for initial  implementation after 2010, when the ACS may become the primary data  source.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In light of continuing budgetary constraints, as well as major changes  planned and underway within the U.S. statistical system, the portfolio of  major federal household surveys could benefit from a holistic  reexamination. Many of the surveys have been in place for several  decades, and their content and design may not have kept pace with  changing information needs. The duplication in content in some surveys,  while considered necessary, may be a reflection of incremental attempts  over time to address information gaps as needs changed. OMB and the  statistical agencies have attempted to address some of the more  troublesome aspects of this duplication by providing explanations of the  differences in health insurance estimates and with efforts to develop more  consistent definitions of disability. These efforts, however, while helpful,  address symptoms of the duplication without tackling the larger issues of  need and purpose. In many cases, the government is still trying to do  business in ways that are based on conditions, priorities, and approaches  that existed decades ago and are not well suited to addressing today’s  challenges. Thus, while the duplicative content of the surveys can be  explained, there may be opportunities to modify long-standing household  surveys, both to take advantage of changes in the statistical system, as  well as to meet new information needs in the face of ever-growing  constraints on budgetary resources.
Some agencies have begun to take steps to reevaluate their surveys in  response to budget constraints and changing information needs. Agencies  have reexamined their surveys and used administrative data in  conjunction with survey data to enhance their data collection efforts.  These actions, however, focused on individual agency and user  perspectives. By building upon these approaches and taking a more  comprehensive focus, a governmentwide reexamination could help reduce  costs in an environment of constrained resources and help prioritize  information needs in light of current and emerging demands.
Given the upcoming changes in the statistical system, OMB should lead the  development of a new vision of how the major federal household surveys  can best fit together. OMB officials told us they are beginning to think  about a broader effort to better integrate the portfolio of major household  surveys once the ACS has been successfully implemented. Providing  greater coherence among the surveys, particularly in definitions and time  frames, could help reduce costs to the federal government and associated  burden hours. The Interagency Council on Statistical Policy (ICSP) could  be used to bring together relevant federal agencies, including those that  are not currently part of the ICSP. The ICSP has the leadership authority,  and in light of the comprehensive scope of a reexamination initiative,  could draw on leaders from the agencies that collect or are major users of  federal household survey data. While OMB officials have stated that the  ACS may not have demonstrated its success until after 2010, the  complexity and time needed to reexamine the portfolio of major federal  household surveys means that it is important to start planning for that  reexamination.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To deal with the longer term considerations crucial in making federally  funded surveys more effective and efficient, GAO recommends that the  Director of OMB work with the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy  to plan for a comprehensive reexamination to identify opportunities for  redesigning or reprioritizing the portfolio of major federal household  surveys.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB  and the Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, HUD, and Labor or their  designees. We obtained oral and technical comments on a draft of this  report from the Chief Statistician of the United States and her staff at  OMB, as well as written comments from the Acting Deputy Under  Secretary for Economic Affairs at Commerce; the Assistant Secretary for  Legislation at HHS; and the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development  and Research at HUD; and technical comments from the Acting  Commissioner of BLS at Labor, which we incorporated in the report as  appropriate. In commenting on a draft of the report, OMB officials stated  that the draft report presented an interesting study that addresses an issue  worth looking at. OMB officials generally agreed with our  recommendation, although they expressed concerns about the range of  participants that might be involved in such a reexamination. We revised  the recommendation to provide clarification that OMB should work with  the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy rather than with all relevant  stakeholders and decision makers. OMB officials also expressed concerns  about moving from examining selected surveys in three subject areas to  the conclusion that the entire portfolio of household surveys should be  reexamined. In response we clarified that we were recommending a  comprehensive reexamination of the seven surveys that comprise the  portfolio of major federal household surveys, most of which were included  in our review. OMB officials also provided clarification on how we  characterized their statements on reexamining the portfolio of major  household surveys, which we incorporated into the report.
Each of the four departments provided technical clarifications that we  incorporated into the report, as appropriate. In addition, HHS and HUD  officials offered written comments on our findings and recommendation,  which are reprinted in appendix II. HHS stated that a reexamination was  not warranted without evidence of unnecessary duplication and also  highlighted a number of examples of agency efforts to try to clarify varying  estimates. However we did not rely on evidence of duplication, but rather  based our recommendation on other factors, including a need to provide  greater coherence among the surveys and to take advantage of changes in  the statistical system to reprioritize information needs and possibly help  reduce costs to the federal government and associated burden hours.  Further, in light of the major upcoming changes involving the ACS and  SIPP, and in conjunction with constrained resources and changing  information needs, we believe that the major household surveys should be  considered from a broader perspective, not simply in terms of unnecessary  duplication.
HHS also provided a number of general comments. We incorporated  additional information to reflect HHS’s comments on the different uses of  disability information, a standard set of disability questions, NHIS’s  coverage of access to care, and the fact that MEP’s sample is a subset of  the NHIS sample. HHS’s comments on differences in estimates and the  lack of a single definition of disability were already addressed in the  report. HHS also stated that NCHS works through various mechanisms to  ensure that surveys are efficient. We support efforts to enhance efficiency  and believe that our recommendation builds upon such efforts.
HUD officials were very supportive of our recommendation, stating that  such a reexamination is especially important as the ACS approaches full- scale data availability. In response to HUD’s comments suggesting adding  more information on SIPP and AHS, we expanded the report’s discussion  of the longitudinal dimension of SIPP and AHS.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  the report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from  the date of the report. We will then send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees and to the Director of OMB, and the  Secretaries of Commerce, HHS, HUD, and Labor, as well as to other  appropriate officials in these agencies. We will also make copies available  to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO Web site at http:/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@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 II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To answer our first objective of identifying the number and characteristics  of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved federally funded  statistical and research surveys, we obtained the database of information  collections that had been approved by OMB as of August 7, 2006. The  information in the database is obtained from Form 83-I which is part of an  agency’s submission for OMB approval of an information collection. As the  approval is in effect for up to 3 years, this database reflects all those  collections with OMB approval for their use as of that date, and is thus a  snapshot in time.
Although OMB Form 83-I requires agencies to identify various types of  information about an information collection, including whether the  information collection will involve statistical methods, the form does not  require agencies to identify which information collections involve surveys  consequently the database of OMB-approved information collections does  not identify which information collections are surveys. Furthermore, the  definition of information collections contained in the Paperwork  Reduction Act (PRA) of 1980 is written in general terms and contains very  few limits in scope or coverage. On the form, agencies can select from  seven categories when designating the purpose of an information  collection, which are (1) application for benefits, (2) program evaluation,  (3) general purpose statistics, (4) audit, (5) program planning or  management, (6) research, and (7) regulatory or compliance. When  completing the form, agencies are asked to mark all categories that apply,  denoting the primary purpose with a “P” and all others that apply with an  “X.” Since OMB does not further define these categories, the agency  submitting the request determines which categories best describe the  purpose(s) of the proposed collection. The choices made may reflect  differing understandings of these purposes from agency to agency or  among individuals in the same agency.
The list of surveys contained in this report was derived from the database  of OMB-approved information collections and therefore contains all  information collections that an agency designated as either “general  purpose statistics” or “research” in the primary purpose category that we  used as a proxy for the universe of surveys. The directions to agencies  completing the forms call for agencies to mark “general purpose statistics”  when the data are collected chiefly for use by the public or for general  government use without primary reference to the policy or program  operations of the agency collecting the data. Agencies are directed to mark  “research” when the purpose is to further the course of research, rather  than for a specific program purpose. We did not determine how accurately  or reliably agencies designated the purpose(s) of their information  collections. It is also possible that the database may contain other  federally funded surveys that the agency did not identify under the primary  purpose we used to “identify” surveys, and these would not be included in  our list of surveys.
We have taken several steps to ensure that the database of OMB-approved  information collections correctly recorded agency-submitted data and  contained records of all Forms 83-I submitted to OMB. Our report, entitled  Paperwork Reduction Act: New Approach May Be Needed to Reduce  Burden on Public, GAO-05-424 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005),  examined the reliability of the database of OMB-approved information  collections and concluded that the data were accurate and complete for  the purposes of that report. Because this assessment was recent, we  decided that we would not repeat this assessment. We did, however,  compare a sample of the surveys from the Inventory of Approved  Information Collection on OMB’s Web site to our copy of the database of  OMB-approved collections. We found that all of the surveys in the  Inventory of Approved Information Collection were contained in the  database.
Not all information collections require OMB approval under the PRA.  OMB’s draft Implementing Guidance for OMB Review of Agency  Information Collection explains that in general, collections of information  conducted by recipients of federal grants do not require OMB approval  unless the collection meets one or both of the following two conditions:  (1) the grant recipient is collecting information at the specific request of  the sponsoring agency or (2) the terms and conditions of the grant require  that the sponsoring agency specifically approve the information collection  or collection procedures. As also stated in the OMB draft, information  collections that are federally funded by contracts do not require OMB  approval unless the information collection meets one or both of the  following two conditions: (1) if the agency reviews and comments upon  the text of the privately developed survey to the extent that it exercises  control over and tacitly approves it or (2) if there is the appearance of  sponsorship, for example, public endorsement by an agency, the use of an  agency seal in the survey, or statements in the instructions of the survey  indicating that the survey is being conducted to meet the needs of a  federal agency. Although there are additional surveys funded through  grants and contracts that are not approved by OMB under the PRA, OMB  stated that there is no comprehensive list. In addition, the draft guidance  states that the PRA does not apply to current employees of the federal  government, military personnel, military reservists, and members of the  National Guard with respect to all inquiries within the scope of their  employment and for purposes of obtaining information about their duty  status.
For the second objective describing current agency and OMB roles in  identifying and preventing unnecessary duplication, we took several  different steps. We reviewed the PRA requirements for agencies and OMB.  We also interviewed agency clearance officers at the Departments of  Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Labor about their processes  for submitting information collection packages to OMB. These agencies  are the top three agencies in terms of funding for statistical activities in  fiscal year 2006. We also interviewed OMB officials about their role in  approving proposed information collections.
For the third objective, through reviewing our reports and literature and  by interviewing agency officials, we identified surveys with duplicative  content. We identified duplication by looking for areas of potential  duplication when several surveys contained questions on the same  subject. This duplication was strictly based on similar content in the  surveys on the same subject, specifically people without health insurance  and those with disabilities. We also looked at the duplication in the subject  area of housing between the American Community Survey and American  Housing Survey, which had been identified by our previous work. We also  looked at environmental surveys, but determined that there was not  duplicative content with our major surveys. Once we had identified the  three subject areas, we used literature and interviews to identify the  current federally funded surveys that were cited as the major surveys in  each theme. We did not focus on any particular type of survey, but rather  chose the surveys that were cited as the major surveys in each theme. To  learn more about the duplicative content between surveys related to these  three themes, we reviewed relevant literature and agency documents. We  also interviewed officials from OMB, and the Departments of Commerce,  Labor, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development.  In addition, we interviewed experts from organizations that focus on  federal statistics, such as at the Council of Professional Associations on  Statistics and the Committee on National Statistics, National Academies of  Science.
Although we have included the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and  Program Participants as part of our assessment of potential duplication,  the fiscal year 2007 President’s budget proposed to cut Census Bureau  funding by $9.2 million, to which the Census Bureau responded by stating  that it would reengineer the SIPP. Therefore, the fate of the SIPP is  uncertain, and reengineering has not been completed.
For the fourth objective, we also interviewed OMB officials, agency  officials, and organizations that focus on federal statistics. Through the  combination of agency and OMB interviews, expert interviews, and  research, we identified selected agency efforts to improve the efficiency  and relevance of surveys.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health & Human Services
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Susan Ragland, Assistant Director; Maya Chakko; Kisha Clark; Ellen  Grady; Elizabeth M. Hosler; Andrea Levine; Jean McSween; Elizabeth  Powell; and Greg Wilmoth.