Development of the 2007 Census of Agriculture Mail List

Stan Hoge and Bill Iwig

National Agricultural Statistics Service

Overview

• Background

• List Development Cycle

• 2002 Census Coverage Results

• Census Coverage Goals

• Steps to Meet Established Goals

• List Building Results

• Suggestions for the 2012 CML

Background

• NASS has responsibility for an annual agricultural survey program and the Census of Agriculture every five years.

• The NASS list frame supports both programs requiring:• Adequate production coverage and accurate control data

for the survey programs.

• Adequate farm coverage for the census.

• List development is an on-going process involving adding new records and updating current records.

List Development Cycle

NewList

Sources

NewList

Sources

Annual

Survey

Program

RecordLinkage

Updates andMaintenance

Updated List Frame (active, inactive and potential farm records)

Screen forPotential Farms

CensusMailList

2002 Census Coverage Results

Category TotalPercent from

Coverage Adjustment

All Farms 2,128,982 17.90

Land in Farms (acres) 938,279,056 2.40

Farms by Value of Sales:

Less than $1,000 570,919 32.77

$1,000 to $2,499 255,639 33.92

$2,500 to $4,999 213,326 15.46

$5,000 to $9,999 223,168 11.45

2002 Census Coverage Results

Minority Group No. FarmsPercent from

Coverage Adjustment

Female 237,819 24.18

Hispanic 50,592 43.14

Am. Indian or Alaska Native 15,494 20.19

Asian 6,285 18.60

Black/African Am. 29,090 43.87

Native Hawaiian 983 18.01

More than one race 7,661 22.88

2002 Census Coverage ResultsCoverage Adjustment of Total Number of Farms

Census Coverage Goals

• Increase minority farm coverage from 68% to 73%.

• Maintain coverage of farms with $50,000 or more in agricultural sales at 95%.

• Reach at least 75% coverage of all farms for all States.

• Set a Target CML Size = 3.1 million records.

CML Size vs. Farm Coverage

89.6

88.2

86.3

82.1

4.13.6

3.22.85

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

1987 1992 1997 2002

Far

m C

ove

rag

e (%

) .

0

2

4

6

CM

L S

ize

(Millio

ns)

.

Steps to Meet Established Goals

• Aggressive list-building guided by annual Field Office (FO) list-building plans.

• Outreach to minority and socially disadvantaged farm operators.

• Introduction of the Agricultural Identification Survey (AIS).

• Improvements to record-linkage processing.

• Set State level target CMLs.

Census List Development by Source, 2002 and 2007

Source

New Adds

(Million)Reactivated Criteria

(Million)

1998-2002 2003-2007 1998-2002 2003-2007

FTI/FSA/InfoUSA .526 .678 .268 .370

State Sources .452 1.098 .051 .047

Total .987 1.776 .319 .417

Minority Counts (U.S.)List Control vs. Census Adjusted

Type2002

CensusJanuary

2005June 2007 % Increase

Am Indian 15,494 10,993 44,683 306

Asian 8,375 5,148 8,160 59

Black/African American

29,090 14,770 43,871 197

Female 237,819 163,755 333,435 104

More than one race

7,661 7,394 21,092 185

Native Hawaiian

983 1,481 3,384 129

Hispanic 50,592 21,914 44,518 103

Agriculture Identification Survey Results(Screener for Potential Farms)

Survey Period Total

Mailed

In-Scope

1/

Out of

Scope

Not Returned

Fall 2004 171,717 32,833 18,542 110,990

Spring 2005 102,722 31,112 17,481 34,257

Fall 2005 133,179 47,540 19,044 49,902

Spring 2006 260,663 51,260 32,734 108,053

Fall 2006 1,065,311 472,728 157,990 361,558

Total 1,733,592 635,473 245,791 664,760

1/ Response with data and available for CML

Set State-level CML Targets

• Allocation of U.S. Target CML (3.1 million).• Based on State coverage history, population

distribution and current farm number estimates.• Provided guide to FOs in managing list building.• Expect approximately 3.4 million available

records so plan to trim marginal records for some States.• Potential farm records with probable bad addresses• Records from poor quality list sources• FO Input through CML Target Evaluation and Trim Plans• Records identified by Classification And Regression Trees

Model (CART), based on percent active on survey frame.

Suggestions for the 2012 CML

• Analyze the effectiveness of available list sources.

• Analyze the effectiveness of the AIS and the entire Census list-building process.

• Provide firmer and earlier guidance to the FOs on list-building expectations.

• Increase automation of record linkage as appropriate.

END