RKS Findings

Attachment E - RKS Findings.pptx

Generic Clearance for Census Bureau Field Tests and Evaluations

RKS Findings

OMB: 0607-0971

Document [pptx]
Download: pptx | pdf

Odyssey Respondent Research
Record Keeping Study

Odyssey Program Seminar

February 26, 2020

Diane Willimack

Erica Marquette

Demi Hanna

ESMD

<number>

<number>

 

Outline

  • Current Collection Strategy 

  • Research Goals and Methods 

  • Respondent Profile 

  • Preliminary Findings and Conclusions 

  • Next Step Recommendations 

<number>

 

CURRENT Collection Strategy: Industry-based

<number>

<number>

<number>

 

Research Goals

  • DEFINITION: How do companies define data items based upon their charts of accounts and financial reporting requirements? Can we determine a harmonized definition that aligns with company records? 

  • UNIT: What data are available at what level?  (e.g. establishment, company, industry, state) 

  • TIMING: When are the data available? Are different data items available at different times? If so, what and when?  

  • BURDEN: How readily available is the information we are asking? Are some items easier? Harder? Why? 

<number>

 

Research Methods

  • Created interview guide with exploratory questions, for example:  

    • Definitions: In what industry do you classify your business? 

    • Unit: At what level is the data available? 

    • Timing & Burden: How much time does it take and how many people or data sources are involved? 

    • Burden: How much manipulation of data in business records is involved in order to provide data that meets Census Bureau requirements 

  • Interviewed 28 “medium size” companies August 5 –  November 14, 2019, in 4 cities in the Northeast and Southern regions 

<number>

 

Respondent Profile

  • All companies were sampled in at least two in-scope surveys 

  • Nearly all interviewed companies were in at least 2 sectors 

  • 13 companies had over 50 establishments 

  • 17 companies operated in more than 5 states 

  • 4 public for-profit companies, 6 not for-profit companies 

  • Over 70 different 6-digit NAICS 

<number>

 

Preliminary Findings: Definition

  • All companies followed a general chart of accounts, the difference was in the detail  

  • At least 7 companies may have been misclassified or may not have understood our distinction among classifications 

    • Different questionnaires = different industries (4- or 6-digit NAICS) 

<number>

 

Preliminary Findings: Unit

  • Companies do not use the term “establishment”         

    • Region, Office, Location 

    • Cost center, Department, Business segment 

  • Establishment” level data: 

    • For some companies, revenue was not easily attributed to individual locations 

    • If location is meaningful to management decisions, records were kept to support that 

    • Some companies track information by “establishment” for budget purposes 

  • For almost all of the companies, their product details did not align with our categories  

<number>

Management decisions were not the only reason things were kept by location

<number>

<number>

 

Preliminary Findings: Timing

  • 17 of the companies had fiscal years that were approximately calendar year 

  • Almost all companies said June was a good time for survey response 

  • 50/50 split among respondents between reporting survey data all at once and staggering it 

  • Want some type of “reporting calendar” so they know what is coming and when and what is the due date 

<number>

 

Preliminary Findings: Burden

  • Nearly all companies said they had to ask internal colleagues for information to complete the surveys 

  • Census surveys do not match up to internal reporting 

    • Management reports 

    • Financial reports 

    • Regulatory reports 

  • Respondents do not like to make decisions on how to manipulate their data to match our requests 

<number>

 

Conclusions

  • Sources of burden: 

    • Identifying the portion of their company to report for (on different forms) 

    • Interpreting the meaning of our questions 

    • Allocating their data to what (they think) we’re asking for 

  • From the respondents’ perspective, NAICS classifications tends to be artificial 

    • They don’t recognize our distinctions across forms 

    • Confused when we only ask for data about a piece of their company 

  • Our lack of a holistic view of their company in data collection causes respondents confusion in responding to our surveys, which impacts: 

    • oData quality 

    • oReporting burden 

<number>

 

Next Step Recommendations

  • Create proof of concept instrument that: 

    • Starts with consolidated figures (e.g., “top level numbers”) 

    • Asks for breakdown of data by: 

      • Location? 

      • Business segment?  

      • Cost center? 

    • Follows major categories of an Income Statement or Balance Sheet 

  • Conduct cognitive testing of multiple alternatives 

    • Which data are readily available at what level? 

    • How to help respondents “map” their data to our requests? 

      • Nature and degree of discrepancies 

<number>

 

CURRENT Collection Strategy: Industry-based

<number>

<number>

<number>

 

Proof of Concept PROPOSED Collection Strategy: Topic/Account-based

<number>

<number>

<number>

 

Proof of Concept PROPOSED Collection Strategy: Topic/Account-based

<number>

<number>

<number>

 

Thank you!

Diane K. Willimack

[email protected]

x3-3538

Erica Marquette

[email protected]

x3-7603

Demi Hanna

[email protected]

x3-3351

Kristin Stettler

[email protected]

x3-7596

Melissa Cidade

[email protected]

x3-8325

<number>

 
File Typeapplication/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
File Modified0000-00-00
File Created0000-00-00

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy