OMB Part A

Contract Number:
AG-3K06-D-09-0212/GS-10F-0050L

Supporting Justification for OMB

Mathematica Reference Number:
06687.120

Household Food Acquisition and

Submitted to:
USDA Economic Research Service
1800 M Street
Washington, DC 20036
Project Officer: Mark Denbaly
Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research
955 Massachusetts Avenue
Suite 801
Cambridge, MA 02139
Telephone: (617) 491-7900
Facsimile: (617) 491-8044
Project Director: Nancy Cole

Clearance of the National
Purchase Survey
Part A: Justification
December 5 , 2011
Revised March 9, 2012

CONTENTS
A. Justification ............................................................................................. 1
A1.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
A9.
A10.
A11.
A12.
A13.
A14.
A15.
A16.
A17.
A18.

Circumstances Making the Collection of Information
Necessary ..................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Use of the Information .............................................. 3
Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction ................. 14
Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar
Information ................................................................................. 16
Impacts on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities .................... 17
Consequences of Collecting the Information Less
Frequently................................................................................... 17
Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5
CFR 1320.5 ................................................................................. 17
Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice
and Efforts to Consult Outside the Agency .................................. 17
Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents .................... 20
Assurance of Confidentiality Provided To Respondents............... 23
Justification for Sensitive Questions ........................................... 24
Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs ....................... 24
Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to
Respondents or Record Keepers .................................................. 28
Annualized Cost to Federal Government ...................................... 28
Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments ...................... 28
Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project
Schedule ..................................................................................... 28
Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is
Inappropriate .............................................................................. 33
Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act
Submissions................................................................................ 33

Appendix A: Relationship of Collected Data to Study Objectives
Appendix B: Field Test Results
Appendix C: Recommendations of the Technical Work Group
for Adjustments to Field Test Procedures
Appendix D: Advance Postcard
Appendix E: Study Brochure
Appendix F: Household Screener
Appendix G: Consent Form
Appendix H: Initial Household Interview
Appendix I: Calendar Magnet

ii

CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix J: Meals and Snacks Form
Appendix K: Income Worksheet
Appendix L: Image of Handheld Scanner
Appendix M: Primary Respondent Book
Appendix N: Adult Food Book
Appendix O: Youth Food Book
Appendix P: Sample Scripts for Telephone Calls Collecting
Information Recorded in Food Books
Appendix Q: Final Household Interview
Appendix R: Respondent Feedback Form
Appendix S: Refusal Conversion Letter
Appendix T: CIPSEA Pledge on Study Website
Appendix U: Confidentiality Agreement Signed by all
Employees of Mathematica Policy Research
Appendix V: Field Test Nonresponse Bias Analysis

iii

A. Justification
A1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary
The Economic Research Service (ERS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is requesting
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to conduct the National Household Food
Acquisition and Purchase Survey (aka the National Food Study). The mission of ERS is to
provide timely research and analysis to public and private decision makers on topics related to
agriculture, food, the environment, and rural America. To achieve this mission, ERS requires a
variety of data that describe agricultural production, food distribution channels, availability and price
of food at the point of sale, and household demand for food products. There is great need for the
above information as it relates to low-income households. Domestic food assistance programs are
an important and growing part of USDA's budget. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request
contains almost $96 billion in budget authority to fund the nutrition assistance programs. This
represents more than a threefold increase in funding in the last decade and reflects both the robust
ability of the nutrition assistance programs to respond to changing economic and social conditions
as well as the depth and breadth of need that currently exists within the Nation. At some point
during the year, about 1 in 4 Americans participated in at least one of USDA’s 15 domestic food and
nutrition assistance programs.
It is critical for USDA to better understand the food acquisition behaviors of low-income,
program-eligible households in order to effectively serve this segment of the population with
efficient and effective programs. Section 17 [7 U.S.C. 2026] (a)(1) of the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008 provides legislative authority for the planned data collection. This section authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to enter into contracts with private institutions to undertake research that
will help to improve the administration and effectiveness of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) in delivering nutrition-related benefits. Although ERS is the lead agency for
implementing the National Food Study, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of USDA is
providing both staff and financial support. FNS is responsible for administration of SNAP at the
Federal level.
Analysis of how USDA’s policies and programs influence household economic behavior has
been hampered by gaps in existing data. A number of existing databases contain data relevant to the
ERS data needs described above; however, each has important limitations for addressing ERS’ data
and research objectives. For example, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) collects data on individuals’ food consumption, but not household food purchases. The
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) collects aggregate data on food expenditures, but lacks itemlevel quantities for nutritional analysis of food acquisitions. Proprietary food databases provide
detailed information about food purchases and prices, but rely on convenience samples with
insufficient representation of low-income households and no information about participation in and
benefits received from USDA food assistance programs. No current data source provides detailed
household-level information about food acquisitions, including both purchases and foods obtained
at no cost. The absence of adequate data has made it difficult for ERS to provide accurate and
timely economic information on food demand factors, such as income and price elasticities of
demand for food, and nutritional characteristics of household food choices.

1

In addition to the lack of current data, the structure of the U.S. food economy has changed
dramatically in the past decade making older surveys and estimates of food demand increasingly
outdated and irrelevant. In the aggregate, American households acquire their food from a large
variety of sources, including: ―traditional‖ food store outlets like supermarkets and grocery stores;
―big box‖ stores and supercenters; dollar stores; farmers’ markets; and other food store outlets like
convenience stores, bakeries, meat markets, and produce stands. Restaurants and fast food shops
have become increasingly important to food-away-from-home acquisition behaviors. Other food
sources include school meals, institutional cafeterias, vending machines, food pantries, and
―harvesting‖ (e.g., hunting, fishing, and growing your own food). Foods acquired as gifts or at
special events like dinner parties and free meals or snacks eaten at other homes or provided at work
also are relevant.
Nearly all of the above food sources have been available to American households for decades,
but food acquisition behaviors have changed in response to changing markets, household structure,
labor force participation, and other factors. According to the Department of Labor, approximately
21 percent of the household food budget was spent away-from-home in 1960-61. That share had
increased to 40 percent by 2002-03.1 And as food acquisition patterns have changed, America has
come to face an epidemic of overweight and obesity which has led to demand for better data for
understanding the relationship between food acquisition patterns and dietary quality.
Currently, about 30 percent of adult Americans are obese, which is roughly a 100 percent
increase from 25 years ago.2 Recent research has suggested a causal relationship between the food
environment and body size;3 and ERS has become involved in documenting and analyzing food
deserts.4 Food insecurity and food assistance program participation have also been cited as factors in
the growing obesity epidemic. ERS will be in a better position to analyze these relationships and
consider their implications for policy if it has access to current, accurate data on food acquisition,
and the food prices and availability of healthful and less-healthful foods.
The National Food Study is designed to collect household information and food acquisition
data from a nationally representative sample of 5,000 households over a six-month period from
April 2012 to October 2012. The sample for the National Food Study will include four (4)

See U.S. Department of Labor (2006). ―100 Years of Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City,
and Boston.‖ Report 991.
1

See Baum, C. 2007. ―The Effects of Food Stamps on Obesity.‖ Economic Research Service, USDA. Contractor
and Cooperator Report No. 34, September.
2

3 For example, see Rundle A, Neckerman K, Freeman L, Lovasi G, Purciel M, Quinn J, Richards C, Sircar N, Weiss C.
Neighborhood Food Environment and Walkability Predict Obesity in New York City. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2009;
117:442–447.

The 2008 Farm Bill defined a food desert as an ―area in the United States with limited access to affordable and
nutritious food, particularly such an area composed of predominantly lower income neighborhoods and communities‖
(Title VI, Sec. 7527).
4

2

subgroups: households participating in SNAP;5 households not participating in SNAP and with
income below 100 percent of the poverty guidelines; households not participating in SNAP and with
income between 100 and 185 percent of the poverty guidelines; and households with income above
185 percent of the poverty guidelines. In addition to examining food acquisition patterns for the
national sample as a whole, subgroup comparisons of most interest are between SNAP households
and non-participating, low-income households (including those estimated to be eligible for SNAP)
and between lower- and higher-income households. This survey will provide data not currently
available to program officials and researchers, thereby broadening the scope of economic analyses of
food choices made by U.S. households and how those choices influence diet quality and decisions
about participation in food assistance programs.
A2. Purpose and Use of the Information
The National Food Study will collect information about household food acquisitions, including
foods purchased and foods obtained at no cost (e.g., home-grown vegetables). Information also will
be collected about household characteristics, including demographics, income, major categories of
nonfood expenditures, food security, health status (including heights and weights), and dietary
knowledge. This survey will provide ERS with information to support the analysis of a wide variety
of research questions, including the following critical unanswered questions:
1. How do food prices and household income influence Americans’ food choices and the
dietary quality of their purchased and otherwise acquired food? To the extent feasible,
what are the income, own-price, and cross-price elasticities for purchased food items
both at home and away?
2. What is the influence of nutrition knowledge and attitudes on the nutritional quality of
households’ purchased and otherwise acquired food? How does nutrition knowledge and
attitudes vary among population subgroups?
3. What is the nature of food access and retailer choice, both in terms of travel distance or
time and the nature and relative prices of food available? How does food access
influence food purchases and the resulting dietary quality of purchases?
4. How does food assistance program participation influence food purchases and
acquisitions?
5. How and why are food security status and the food purchases of SNAP participants
different from SNAP-eligible nonparticipants? What factors account for those
differences?
6. What food items do SNAP participants buy? What are the characteristics of these foods
with respect to type (e.g., store or national brand), store or coupon discounting, unit size,
cost per unit, and nutritional content? Which groups of SNAP households could
Households are eligible for SNAP if gross household income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines, and income net of deductions is below the federal poverty guidelines (households with an elderly or disabled
member are not required to meet the net income test). Most households must also meet certain resource tests.
5

3

potentially benefit most from additional information about diet, nutrition and health?
Which informational subject areas could provide most benefit?
To answer the research questions listed above, the National Food Study will produce nationally
representative data about household food acquisitions. The collected data will include ―event
information‖ including the date, time, and place where food is obtained; how much is paid, by
whom, and by what method (cash, check, credit, SNAP, coupons, other); and how far from home
food is acquired. The collected data will also include ―item information‖ including the name or
description, quantity, size, and price of foods. This detailed information will be used by ERS to
describe the food and beverage acquisition patterns of the population and important subgroups, and
to answer the research questions listed above.
Appendix A shows the relationship of collected data to each study objective, as well as a
prioritization of the importance to the study of different sets of data elements. To achieve the study
objectives, the National Food Study will collect data from a nationally representative sample of
households selected from an address-based sampling frame, as described in Part B of this
submission. Households will be asked to report all foods acquired, from all sources, over a 7-day
period using food books and a handheld scanner, and by saving receipts. Collected data will be
processed to assemble complete information about the places where foods are acquired, and the
specific items acquired. Food sources (places) will be coded by type. Food access will be measured
by geographic distance from households’ place of residence to food acquisition locations.6 Food
items will be characterized by matching scanned barcodes with food descriptions from a Universal
Product Code (UPC) data dictionary or, when barcodes could not be scanned, by entering
descriptions written in the food books or from saved receipts. Item prices (including coupon and
store savings) will be obtained primarily from saved store receipts, or from imputation or extant
average price data when store receipts are not available. Reported food items will be matched with
nutrient data from government and commercial sources.7
ERS convened a Technical Working Group (TWG) to assist with the design of the National
Food Study. The TWG was initially convened in January 2010 to review procedures for a field test
of the National Food Study that was to be conducted in spring 2011. Many of the TWG
recommendations were incorporated in the design of the field test.8 At the recommendation of the
TWG, ERS also conducted, prior to the field test, cognitive tests of different versions of
instruments for collecting food acquisition data from households. The TWG was convened again in
Driving distance will be calculated for food acquisitions from commercial establishments; this excludes
acquisitions at school, work, and private residences.
6

Food-at-home items will be matched with USDA’s Standard Reference Database (SR21) and the MyPyramid
Equivalents Database, where applicable. Commercial databases containing information from product nutrient facts
panels will also be used as appropriate. Food-away-from-home items will be matched with USDA databases and
available nutrition information for restaurant menu items.
7

The recommendations from the TWG meeting in January 2010, and findings from cognitive tests, were included
as appendices to the Supporting Justification for OMB Clearance of the Field Test for the National Household Food
Acquisition and Purchase Survey (OMB 0536-0066).
8

4

July 2011 to be briefed on field test findings and to comment on proposed revisions for the fullscale data collection. Findings from the field test and TWG recommendations for modifications for
the full-scale survey are included in Appendices B and C of this submission. The field test results are
also discussed later in this section.
Procedures for the National Food Study
The National Food Study will be conducted over a six-month period from April 2012 to
October 2012. Data will be collected from 5,000 households selected across 50 sampled primary
sampling units (PSUs) in 27 States (see Table B.1 for distribution). Within PSUs, 8 Secondary
Sampling Units (SSUs), or 400 SSUs total, will be selected as local survey areas. Within SSUs,
addresses will be selected from an address-based sampling frame obtained from a commercial
vendor. The address frame will be matched with SNAP participants’ addresses obtained from the
state SNAP agencies. After matching these data, addresses will be sampled from two strata:
addresses of SNAP households and addresses with no known SNAP household.9 All sampled
addresses will be randomly grouped into replicate subsamples and assigned to one of three waves.
Addresses will be released to the field in multiple batches from each wave (see section B1).
All sampled addresses will be sent a full-color advance postcard with information about the
survey and the incentive for participation (Appendix D). Field interviewers will visit each sampled
address to determine the presence of an occupied dwelling unit. At occupied units, the field
interviewer will provide the study brochure (Appendix E) to an adult resident and ask him or her to
complete a brief screener (Appendix F) to determine income eligibility for the survey (persons age 18
and older are eligible to complete the screener).10
All survey materials will be available in English, Spanish, Korean, and Vietnamese based on the
population characteristics of sampled SSUs. Interviews will be conducted in these four languages
according to the primary respondent’s preference, with cases transferred to bilingual interviewers as
needed. Households that do not have a member who is fluent in one of the four survey languages
will not be included in the survey.
Household Screener
The screener for the National Food Study includes questions about household size, income,
and SNAP participation. These questions are used to determine household eligibility within the
income subgroups with target numbers of completes for the survey. Household size is defined
according to USDA guidelines as the number of people ―who live together and share food.‖
It appears that the SNAP agencies of several states in the sample will be unable to provide timely lists of SNAP
participant addresses due to budgetary constraints. In those states the National Food Survey will use only one sample
frame—a commercial list of all addresses in the sampled SSUs.
9

As discussed in Part B, the subgroup of non-SNAP households with income below the poverty guidelines is
included in the sample at a rate disproportionate to their representation in the population. The screener is necessary to
locate these households. Other subgroups will be easier to fill and will not be eligible for the survey in all sample
replicates.
10

5

Household income is identified through two questions: (1) respondents identify all types of income
received by the household via reference to a hand card; (2) respondents report the range of their
total household income, from the reported types of income, via reference to ranges on a hand card.11
The income questions on the screener are designed to assist the respondent to think about all
possible sources of household income to avoid systematic underestimation of household income.
The income categories define the income ranges for the three non-SNAP sampling subgroups.
The screener also includes questions to identify the primary meal planner and food shopper in
the household. As eligible households are identified, the field interviewer will ask to speak with the
primary food shopper; ask the food shopper to participate as the primary respondent for their
household; explain what is expected of participants; and explain that participation is voluntary.
To encourage respondent cooperation in completing the screener, a small pre-paid token of
appreciation will be offered (see Section A9). Follow-up letters will be sent to households that are
contacted and refuse to complete the screener. After receiving the letter, these households will be
contacted one more time by a field interviewer (either the original interviewer or one who has
received extra training in refusal conversion) in an effort to complete the screener and determine the
household’s eligibility to participate in the study.
Survey-eligible households that refuse to participate in the study will be asked to respond to a
set of four additional screener questions about household size and food shopping, which will
provide data to help assess nonresponse bias. Field managers will call survey-eligible households that
refuse to participate in the study to attempt refusal conversion.
To control costs and maximize the representativeness of the sample, the National Food Study
will use two-phase sampling at the screening stage. Phase 1 for each batch of sample release will
include all sampled addresses assigned to that batch. Field interviewers will visit sampled addresses
up to eight times on different days of the week and times of day to attempt contact with a
household member.12 After eight unsuccessful attempts at contact, sampled addresses will be retired
from Phase 1. Phase 2 will include a random sample of addresses retired from Phase 1 after
maximum attempts. Cases that are re-released for Phase 2 will be worked up to a maximum of 18
total attempts (8 attempts in Phase 1 and 10 additional attempts in Phase 2). The main purpose of
two-phase sampling is to obtain a representative sample of ―hard to reach‖ cases for which no
contact was made in the first phase. Aside from increased effort to find someone at home, no other
data collection procedures will change in Phase 2 since these households did not experience any
contact in Phase 1. The Phase 2 sample will be selected after every two batches are completed in the
If the screener respondent is unable to report total household income within categorical ranges, the interviewer
asks, ―Was it [FILL] or more last year?‖ with the fills determined by household size. A second follow-up question is
asked depending on the response to the first. (These follow-ups were used in income questions for the National Survey
of Family Growth.)
11

The National Food Study uses in-person screening and recruitment to maximize response. It is expected that the
refusal rate to a proposed one-week study introduced by telephone will be significantly higher than when introduced inperson with study materials ready for demonstration.
12

6

field. For instance, we will sample for Phase 2 from cases retired from Phase 1 of batch 1 and 2
while Phase 1 of batch 3 is in the field. Phase 2 for batches 1 and 2 will be re-released with Phase 1
of batch 4, and so on.
Consent
For households that agree to participate, the primary respondent (identified as the primary food
shopper) will be asked to sign a consent form (Appendix G) and complete the first interview
(administered via CAPI13), which includes questions about household demographics, food assistance
program participation, and food acquisition patterns (Appendix H). The field interviewer will then
train the respondent to use the survey protocols for tracking food acquisitions during the survey
week, including foods brought home and foods obtained and consumed away from home. This
training is described later in this section.
Children age 11 and above and adults other than the primary respondent will be asked to report
food acquisitions during the week using the Adult and Youth Food Books. These books include a
consent paragraph on the front cover and a request for signature to indicate consent. These books
are provided to the primary respondent, who is asked to invite other household members to
participate and show them how to use the books.14
Survey Forms and Procedures
In addition to the Primary Respondent Book (described below), a primary respondent will be
given two forms to complete during the week: (1) the Meals and Snacks Form (Appendix J) is used
to report the meals and snacks consumed by each household member on each day of the study
week; and (2) the Income Worksheet is used to report income received by each household member
during the past month (Appendix K). The Income Worksheet is designed to improve data quality
and reduce burden on primary respondents by allowing them to seek assistance from other
household members and reference documents, as needed, and to record this information at their
convenience and prior to the second interview when these data will be collected. This worksheet is
modeled on the National School Lunch Program income application.15
The survey protocols include four complementary tools for tracking food acquisitions during
the survey week: (1) a handheld scanner for scanning barcodes on acquired food items (Appendix
L); (2) a Primary Respondent Book (for the primary respondent) with written instructions for
scanning foods brought home, pictures and barcodes to scan variable weight items that might not
have attached barcodes, data collection forms for reporting all places where foods are acquired each
day (daily lists), data collection forms for reporting foods brought home (blue pages), and data
13

CAPI is computer-assisted personal interviewing.

14 IRB review indicated that parental consent forms are not required because children are invited to participate by
their parent or guardian.

Respondents will be reminded to complete the Meals and Snacks Form and the Income Worksheet when they
report food acquisitions by telephone during the week.
15

7

collection forms for reporting foods consumed away from home (red pages) (Appendix M); (3)
Adult Food Book for adults age 19 and older other than the primary respondent, with data
collection forms for reporting all places where foods are acquired each day (daily lists) and foods
consumed away from home (red pages) (Appendix N); and (4) Youth Food Book (age 11-18) with
data collection forms for reporting foods consumed away from home (red pages) (Appendix O).16
Household members will be asked to provide detailed information about food acquisitions
including place where they got food, method of payment, use of discounts, and tip amount. They are
also asked to save receipts and store them in the food books.
Respondents are asked to scan each food-at-home item with a handheld scanner. The scanner
collects barcode information and item quantities for all items with barcodes17 and for variable-weight
items (produce, deli, bulk) that are listed with barcodes in the Primary Respondent Book.18 The
study will link barcodes with item descriptions and package sizes from extant data, thus reducing the
burden on participants of writing this information.19 Respondents will be asked to write FAH item
descriptions and quantities on data collection forms for items with no barcode in the Primary
Respondent Book.
For FAH, the primary source of information on quantities purchased will be the scanned
barcodes, which will be matched to a database of UPCs, item descriptions, and package sizes. If
barcodes are not available, the auxiliary sources of information on quantities are the respondent’s
written list of non-scanned items on the blue pages of the Primary Respondent Book and saved
receipts.
The survey is designed to capture information about culturally diverse foods as well as
commonly purchased FAH items. First, if a barcode is present, it will be scanned and later matched
to an extant database to obtain a full item description. If the item does not appear in the standard
extant databases, further investigations (e.g., web search, store contacts) will be carried out for items
that appear frequently in the data. For variable-weight products that cannot be scanned, the Primary
Respondent Book includes pictures and barcodes for many culturally diverse foods (e.g., soy nuts,
pastrami, bean sprouts, bok choy, cactus leaves, figs, dandelion greens, specialty mushrooms, and
many others). For items not in the book, respondents are asked to list the food items on their blue
pages.

Adults are asked to use their own food book (Primary Food Book or Adult Food Book) to report food
consumed away from home by children under age 11.
16

17

For bar-coded items, quantities are determined by the number of times the same barcode is scanned.

18 For variable-weight items often purchased in multiple quantities, the food book include instructions for
scanning a quantity code. This was tested and found successful during the field test.

The primary sources of extant data on item descriptions are Gladson UPC data and Nielsen Homescan data. The
study is also contacting major retailers to request their databases of UPC codes and corresponding item descriptions.
19

8

The primary source of information on quantities of FAFH is saved receipts. If receipts are not
available when FAFH is reported during phone calls to Mathematica’s Survey Operations Center
(SOC), information on quantities and amount written on the red pages of household members’ food
books will be used.20 During these phone calls, telephone interviewers will also have access to the
menus of national restaurant chains and a sample of establishments in the survey areas. When
respondents report eating at these chain restaurants, interviewers will use the menu information to
obtain more accurate data from the respondent on foods selected and their prices.21 Ex post
matching to nutrient databases and vendor websites will also be used to determine common portion
sizes of many restaurant items. When size or amount cannot otherwise be be determined, it will be
imputed from within-sample or extant data.
The primary source for price information of purchased food items is food receipts.
Respondents are asked to attach receipts for both FAH and FAFH acquisitions to the data
collection forms (blue and red pages, respectively) when receipts are available. Prices for items with
no receipt will be imputed from within-sample price data from the same local store, extant storelevel price data when available, or extant market-level price data. When receipts are not available for
FAFH, or when they do not include all acquired food items, respondents are asked to write food
items, quantities, and prices on data collection forms. Saved receipts therefore reduce burden for
reporting FAFH acquisitions.
Training the Primary Respondent
To train respondents, field interviewers will follow a written script provided to them in
laminated form for use throughout the field period. The script begins with review of the consent
form. Field interviewers pause in their script to play a video (in either English, Spanish, Korean or
Vietnamese) on their laptop for the respondent to view. This video explains the purpose of the
study and teaches respondents how to use the food books and scanner. The video makes frequent
reference to examples of food acquisitions and shows the filled-in data collection forms
corresponding to those examples. At three scheduled points during the presentation, field
interviewers will pause the video so that respondents can ask questions and fill sample pages in the
food books, practicing what they learn from the video. During the pauses, respondents practice the
protocols for reporting FAH by scanning practice food items that the field interviewer provides and
filling a blue page based on a receipt from the field interviewer. Interviewers can also pause the
video at any time if a respondent wants to ask a question. After the video presentation, field
interviewers return to their script to review the week ahead with the respondent, via reference to a
survey calendar magnet (Appendix I), and review the Meals and Snacks Form and Income
Worksheet.

20 Respondents will be asked to report ―size or amount‖ on red pages only if they know it (for example, when it is
written on a package or menu).

The sample of local establishments will be determined early in the survey period after review of where
respondents are going for FAFH.
21

9

The training script and video focus on ensuring that the primary respondent knows how to
properly use the barcode scanner and food books to collect accurate data on all food items acquired
by all household members during the 7-day reporting period. The training and video also stress the
importance of saving food receipts and taping them to the red and blue pages in their food books.
The data elements captured by the barcodes, food books and receipts are the highest priority data
items for the National Food Study, as indicated in Table A2 of Appendix A.
The video presentation was adopted to ensure consistent training of households across
interviewers and over time. Monitoring of field interviewers’ adherence to the household training
protocol will be achieved by three means: (1) randomly selected households will be contacted and
asked about their visits with field interviewers; (2) the scanner data collected from households will
be monitored to identify households that failed to scan the practice items; and (3) food books will be
reviewed to identify households that did not complete practice food book pages.
Prior to use in the field, the video presentation will be subject to cognitive testing with nine or
fewer adults of differing ages, household incomes, and family composition. The purpose of the
cognitive testing is not to test whether the video contains the correct content, but rather to assess
how well that content is presented.22 The cognitive test therefore will mimic field conditions: a
―field interviewer/tester‖ will sit with the respondent to watch the video, hand the respondent the
food reporting books as the video introduces them, and pause and answer questions as needed.
When the video says to pause and practice, the field interviewer/tester will follow the training script
to lead the respondent through the practice pages in the food books. After the video finishes, a
―cognitive test form‖ with two parts will be completed. The tester will fill in the first part of the
form with observations about the practice sections of the training if the respondent had problems.
The second part of the form will include the cognitive debriefing questions and questions assessing
how well the respondent retained information from the video. Particular attention will be paid to
respondents’ understanding of how to provide accurate and complete information on food item
descriptions, quantities, and prices--the highest priority data elements identified in Appendix A.
Respondent Reporting of Food-Away-From-Home (FAFH)
On days two, five, and seven of the survey week, the primary respondent for each household
will be asked to complete a brief telephone interview to report FAFH acquisitions from all food
books used by the household. Telephone interviewers will conduct this interview using a customdesigned data collection website. The website will have embedded internet queries so that
interviewers can confirm the precise locations of places where food was acquired via a Google
search. This system will also be preloaded with name-brand and generic menu items so that
interviewers can probe for exact names of foods or menu items acquired and consumed away from
home (Appendix P). During the telephone calls, respondents are asked to report acquisition
information from receipts and from data collection forms. Interviewers will probe for acquisitions
The content of the training video mirrors the face-to-face training by field interviewers of primary respondents
during the study’s field test and was validated by that test.
22

10

that may not have been recorded in food books and ask respondents to report missing acquisitions
from memory (acquisitions reported from memory are flagged in the database). The data collection
system and interview protocols are designed to categorize each household member on each day in
one of three states: (1) reported food acquisitions; (2) did not have food acquisitions; (3) not
participating/refuses to report.
The telephone calls, especially the first call scheduled on day 2, provide information about
households that may experience difficulty with survey protocols. Telephone interviewers have the
capability, through the web-based data collection system, to notify field interviewers about these
households, and field staff will make additional in-person visits to these households. When
additional in-person visits are needed, field staff will assist respondents in completing data forms.
Respondents will be asked to recall food acquisitions from memory, if needed.
End-of-Week Procedures
After completion of the survey week, a field interviewer will visit the household to review and
collect survey instruments and interview the primary respondent (via CAPI) about consumer
behavior; knowledge and attitudes on diet, health, and nutrition; special dietary needs; food security;
household income and non-food expenditures; and health status, including self-reported height and
weight (Appendix Q). Most questions in the Final Household Interview were taken from the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Questions about income closely
follow the Income Worksheet, with questions asked only as needed while respondents report
information from their worksheets. Questions about certain non-food expenditures are critical for
determining SNAP eligibility and for understanding the resources households have available for
food spending.
After completing the Final Interview and distributing incentives, interviewers will ask
respondents to complete a self-administered Respondent Feedback Form (Appendix R). This paper
questionnaire contains 4 questions: how often respondents completed the Meals and Snacks Form,
whether it was easy to get other household members to participate, whether it was easy to track
foods, and whether they changed food acquisition behavior because of the survey. Information from
the feedback form will be used as covariates when analyzing patterns of food acquisition.
Field staff will transmit the initial and final household interviews, conducted by CAPI, to the
contractor’s office via secure data transfer. Field staff will transfer scanned barcodes from the
handheld scanners to their secure computers via USB cable and then transmit these files to the
contractor’s office. All hard-copy forms, including the household screeners, consent forms, and
food books, will be packaged in transmittal envelopes that contain ID numbers and no respondent
names. Packaged materials will be transmitted to the contractor’s office in Federal Express
envelopes via traceable Federal Express delivery. The respondent will keep his or her Income
Worksheet since this information is recorded in CAPI during the final household interview.
Field Test of the National Food Study
Procedures for the National Food Study were tested in a 400-case field test conducted from
February through May 2011. The field test had three primary objectives: (a) randomly assign
households to two alternate survey protocols for collecting food acquisition data; (b) randomly
11

assign households to one of two base incentive levels ($50 and $100); and (c) obtain estimates of
response rates from a large scale test of survey methods. The goals of the field test were to
determine the most effective survey protocol and incentive level, and determine whether protocols
yield acceptable response rates
The two survey protocols that were randomly assigned to households in the field test were
known as the ―Single Book‖ and ―Multiple Book‖ protocols. These two protocols included the same
elements for collecting data on food acquisitions, but the reporting forms were packaged differently.
The Single Book protocol provided the household with one binder containing all instructions and
data collection forms for reporting food acquisitions for all members of the household. The Multiple
Book protocol provided the household with one binder containing instructions and data collection
forms for reporting FAH and additional books so that each adult (age 19 and above) and youth
(ages 11-18) household member could report his or her own FAFH acquisitions.
The goal of the Field Test was to determine the relative data quality and response rates under
two scenarios: (1) primary respondent is responsible for reporting all food acquisitions for the
household in one book, and (2) multiple household members are individually responsible for
reporting their own food acquisitions in individual books. The field test also proved that households
could follow the survey protocols. Response to the respondent feedback form indicated that 70
percent of respondents found the survey easy or very easy, with another 19 percent reporting it was
neither easy nor difficult. Field interviewers provided anecdotal reports that respondents like the
scanner.
Appropriate sampling weights and statistical methods were used to analyze field test data and
estimate differences between randomly assigned subgroups. Analyses of field test data were
compiled in two memoranda and distributed to the survey’s TWG (Appendix B). TWG
recommendations for methodological improvements for the full-scale survey are summarized in
Appendix C. Field test data will not be disseminated to researchers or the general public because
results from the field test PSUs are not generalizable and the results were obtained primarily for use
in planning the full-scale National Food Study.
Four primary findings were obtained from the field test:23
1. Survey protocol: The two survey protocols offered different advantages. Households
receiving a Single Book reported more FAH acquisitions on average (normalized for
household size) with less missing data; households receiving Multiple Books reported
more FAFH acquisitions.
2. Incentive level: The response rate for the field test was nine percentage points higher
for the high incentive group ($100 base incentive) compared with the low incentive
group ($50 base incentive).
Appendix P contains two memoranda presenting field test findings. These memoranda were provided to the
TWG members in advance of the briefing held in July 2011.
23

12

3. Response rates: Rates of response and rates of cooperation among contacted
households were lower than expected at each stage of household contact. The overall
screener response rate was 58%; the percentage of eligible households agreeing to
participate was 61%; and the overall percentage of sampled households that completed
the survey (screener response multiplied by completion rate) was 32%.
4. Reported household income: On average, household income was underreported on
the screener, compared with income reported in response to detailed questions in the
household interview. Underreporting on the screener led to a misallocation of
households to the income subgroups targeted for survey completes. In addition,
respondents had difficulty responding to questions about detailed household income and
there were high rates of item nonresponse for unearned income and income of
household members other than the primary respondent.
Based on results from the field test, the TWG recommended and the study adopted the
following protocols for the National Food Study:
Development of a modified protocol of the Single and Multiple Book approaches that
combines the strengths of the two protocols in collecting both FAH and FAFH information
during during the field test. Thus, for the full-scale survey, the primary respondent now
receives a Primary Respondent Book—a single book for reporting FAH for the entire
household and FAFH for him- or herself (identical to the old Single Book binder but with
no pages for reporting FAFH of other household members). Other household members
receive separate books for reporting their own FAFH acquisitions (exactly the same books
that were used for the Multiple Book protocol during the field test).
Base incentive of $100
Methods to improve response rates, including: additional field interviewer training on
screening procedures and refusal conversion methods (one day has been added to the
training schedule); implementation of two-phase sampling to maximize screener
response rates (described above); and revised refusal conversion procedures for eligible
households that refuse to participate in the survey (a ―no contact‖ period will be
provided, followed by a refusal conversion letter (Appendix S) and a visit by a field
interviewer).24

The field test did not use a refusal conversion mailing; refusals were revisited by the original field interviewer, or
transferred to a team leader. The ―no contact‖ period provides time to batch mailings to refusals and for the respondent
to reconsider participation before being contacted again. Respondent may sometimes refuse to participate simply
because of bad timing.
24

13

Revised screener to include questions about sources of household income, total
household income, and follow-up categorical questions about household income above
or below cutoffs for categorizing households by strata.25
Income Worksheet for households to complete at their convenience during the data
collection week.26 The primary respondent may then refer to the worksheet when
answering questions about household income during the Final Household Interview.
The worksheet itself will not be collected.
A3. Use of Information Technology and Burden Reduction
In compliance with the E-Government Act, 2002, information technology has been
incorporated into this field test wherever possible to reduce respondent burden. Computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI) and computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) will be used to
conduct all interviews except the household screener.27 Both CAPI and CATI interviewing will
automate skip logic to improve the pace and flow of the interviews.
A handheld barcode scanner will be given to each household for reporting food acquisitions
(Appendix L). The scanner provides a ―point-and-click‖ method for collecting universal product
codes (UPCs) and other barcodes. UPCs can be linked to a UPC dictionary to obtain precise
product names and product sizes of manufactured items; the GS1 Databar barcode precisely
identifies produce items.28,29 The scanning process eliminates measurement error and the timeconsuming process of writing down each food item so that respondents are asked only to write
down items that cannot be scanned. The Primary Respondent Book will contain pictures and
barcodes for variable-weight products including produce, service deli items, and bulk foods. These
variable-weight products often do not have attached barcodes but scanning a barcode from the
Primary Respondent Book reduces respondent burden compared with the alternative of writing
down the names of these items. The use of hand-held scanners to record UPC/barcodes will
provide accurate and complete information about most foods that households acquire for home
preparation and consumption, thereby enabling more accurate matching of food items to nutrient
information.

25 Asking first about sources of income is a technique for reminding respondents to consider all income sources
when estimating total household income.
26 The Income Worksheet is modeled on income forms used when low-income households apply for their
children to participate in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.
27 The screener is a brief interview that will be administered to more nearly 25,000 households to determine their
income eligibility for the survey. The burden associated with the screener is minimized by paper administration.
28 The GS1 Databar barcode is designed to condense information in a barcode suitable for printing on small
packages, such as produce.

Scanned barcodes that are not UPCs or GS1 Databar, such as store-specific codes on deli items and packaged
store bakery items, will be discarded and information about the product will be obtained from the receipt.
29

14

Information technology also will be employed for the telephone interviews conducted on days
two, five, and seven. During these interviews, respondents will report information about FAFH
acquisitions from the household’s food books. Interviewers will conduct this interview using a
custom-designed data collection website with access to the Google Maps search engine for obtaining
and confirming the precise location of food acquisitions (address of store or restaurant).
Interviewers will enter foods reported by respondents by choosing from a list of menu items
preloaded in the data system for the top 30 full-service restaurants, top 30 fast-food restaurants,
school menu items (reported to the School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Study-III), and
generic meal items compiled from NHANES. This ―pick-list‖ approach will reduce interviewer
recording time and the length of these interviews, and improve the precision of collected data.30
The sampling and screening for this survey will be managed with a custom-built sample
management website. Sample will be released and managed through this website, where field
interviewers will log in and view their cases, report contacts with sample addresses, manage
appointments for initial and final household visits, and transfer cases to other interviewers as
needed. The retirement of cases from Phase 1 and re-release of cases for Phase 2 will also be
managed through this system. Field managers will review case productivity and case outcomes
through this system, and review all refusals to determine whether refusals are held for conversion or
retired.
In addition to use of technology, respondents are encouraged to save receipts for all food
acquisitions. Reporting burden for FAFH is reduced when respondents save receipts, as the data
collection form instructs respondents to write food items and prices that do not appear on the
receipt. Receipts for FAFH will be used by respondents as recall aides during telephone interviews
on days two, five, and seven. Receipts for FAH (groceries) will be used to extract prices, thereby
eliminating the burden on households for reporting item prices.
Information for the National Food Study will be gathered from existing data sources when
feasible. The sampling frame of addresses within survey areas will be constructed from a
commercially available address-based sample, matched with SNAP administrative data (where
available) to facilitate sampling of SNAP and non-SNAP households and reduce the number of
households screened for the survey. To assess quality of collected data, scanned barcodes collected
from households will be matched with two types of data sources. First, barcodes will be matched
with existing databases that link UPC codes with item descriptions. A database from Gladson
Interactive was used for the field test to obtain product names, package sizes, and nutrient
information. This database will be supplemented with additional UPC ―data dictionaries‖ from
retailers and trade organizations, to the extent possible. Second, although the survey’s primary
30 Text messaging was considered as an alternative to telephone reporting of food-away-from-home on days two,
five, and seven. Text messaging may be less burdensome and less intrusive, thus encouraging response (with albeit less
data quality), especially among teenagers within sampled households. Texting has been successfully used as a means of
contacting respondents (with outgoing texts to respondents), but there are no known studies of its use as a reporting
tool (with incoming texts from respondents). In addition, this alternate response mode would introduce bias in response
rates because those with cell phones, texting capabilities, and familiarity with texting would be more likely to respond
than those without the capabilities. Thus, this additional use of technology was rejected.

15

source for price data is store receipts, for households shopping at stores that participate in the The
Nielsen Company’s Scantrack survey, barcodes will be matched with Nielsen price files to obtain the
price in effect during the data collection week at the store where food was obtained. The Nielsen
price data should be a very good backup source of price information when receipts are not available
or readable, but—unlike receipts--they do not reflect price discounts associated with manufacturer
or store coupons or use of store loyalty cards.
A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information
There is no similar data collection available. Current government and private data collections do
not provide data for analyzing all food acquisitions by households from all sources. Every effort has
been made to avoid duplication. ERS has reviewed existing federal government data collections. A
number of databases exist which contain data relevant to the research objectives of the National
Food Study. Each database, however, has important limitations. ERS does not expect the proposed
new survey to address all limitations of existing data collection vehicles, but will make a substantive
contribution to analyses supporting program management and policy development.
ERS reviewed the following databases and noted the limitations for addressing ERS’ research
objectives:
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). The Diary Survey captures information about food
expenditures but does not capture quantities of food obtained, which are needed to estimate price
elasticities. In addition, food item detail is limited to about 100 food categories and subcategories,
which is not sufficient for analyses of food quality or nutrient content.
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The main objective of the SIPP is to collect
information on: income by source; employment; program participation and eligibility; and general
demographic characteristics. The major limitation of SIPP is that it collects no information on food
purchases.
Proprietary Food Purchase Data. Some private companies develop consumer-based surveys of food
purchases from large panels of households. The primary limitation is that they rely on convenience
samples, reducing the generalizability of their results.
National Food Stamp Program Survey (NFSPS). The NFSPS was conducted in 1996 and collected
information on client satisfaction with services provided by food stamp offices and agencies, the
monetary and non-monetary costs of participating in the Food Stamp Program (FSP), food
shopping behaviors, items related to food security, and nutrient availability for a nationally
representative sample of Food Stamp Program participants and potential participants. The major
limitations are that the NFSPS was conducted 15 years ago and focused primarily on Food Stamp
Program participants.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). NHANES is an ongoing survey
conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The survey assesses the health and
nutritional status of the population and monitors changes over time. NHANES’ primary focus is
individual food intake. NHANES does not provide information about household food purchases,
16

but household-level data are critical to assessing the impact of SNAP benefits which are distributed
to households.
NPD Consumer Reports on Eating Share Trends (CREST). This proprietary database, collected and
maintained by NPD Group, Inc., tracks purchases in the commercial restaurant industry as well as
ready-to-eat foods and beverages purchased from other retail establishments such as convenience
and food stores. The CREST data have the strength of providing detailed information about FAFH,
which is often overlooked in other data collections. However, these data comprise a convenience
sample of panelists and lack information about prices and quantities of food purchased for
preparation and consumption at home; household food security status; and individuals’ participation
status in SNAP or other food assistance programs.
A5. Impacts on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities
Information being requested or required in this field test has been held to the minimum
required for the intended use. No small businesses will be involved in this survey.
A6. Consequences of Collecting the Information Less Frequently
The National Food Study is a one-time data collection and is needed to achieve ERS’s mission
to provide research on food demand and economic behavior of participants in USDA food
programs.
A7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5
There are no special circumstances. The collection of information is conducted in a manner
consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.
A8. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside
the Agency
The Economic Research Service (ERS) published a notice in the Federal Register on October 5
2011, Vol. 76, No. 193, pages 61664-61666 seeking public comment on the National Food Study.
No public comments were received during the 60-day comment period. ERS also consulted with
non-Agency experts who provided input on the research design, data needs, survey content, and
survey protocol. Individuals who contributed to these consultations include employees of the
contractor.
Mathematica Policy Research:
Nancy Cole
Project Director
Mathematica Policy Research
955 Massachusetts Ave, Suite 801
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 674-8353
ncole@mathematica-mpr.com

John Hall
Senior Statistician
Mathematica Policy Research
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543
(609) 275-2357
jhall@mathematica-mpr.com

17

Barbara Devaney
Mathematica Policy Research
Vice President and Director of Human
Services Research
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543
(609) 275-2389
bdevaney@mathematica-mpr.com

Diane Herz
Vice President & Director, Washington DC
Survey Research
Mathematica Policy Research
600 Maryland Avenue, Suite 550
Washington, DC 20024-2512
(202) 250-3529
dherz@mathematica-mpr.com

In July 2011, a technical working group of academic and government experts was convened to
review the results of the field test of the National Food Study and provide recommendations for the
full-scale survey. Individuals attending the meeting include the following:
Academic Experts
Steven Heeringa
Senior Research Scientist
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan
(734) 647-4621
sheering@umich.edu

Helen Jensen
Professor, Department of Economics
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development
Iowa State University
(515) 294-6253
hhjensen@iastate.edu

Suzanne Murphy
Professor
Cancer Research Center of Hawaii
(808) 564-5861
Suzanne@crch.hawaii.edu

Sarah Nusser
Professor and Director
Center for Survey Statistics & Methodology
Iowa State University
(515) 294-9773
nusser@iastate.edu

Parke Wilde
Associate Professor
Friedman School of Nutrition Science
and Policy
Tufts University
(617) 636-3495
parke.wilde@tufts.edu

18

Representatives of Government Agencies
Kelly Kinnison
Social Science Research Analyst
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA
(703) 305-2124
Kelly.Kinnison@fns.usda.gov

John Eltinge
Assoc. Commissioner for Survey Methods Research
Bureau of Labor Statistics
(202) 691-7404
Eltinge.John@bls.gov

Anita Singh
Chief, Family Programs Evaluation
Branch
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA
(703) 305-2152
Anita.Singh@fns.usda.gov

Lindsay Drunasky
Statistical Methods Branch, USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service
(202) 720-8951

Margo Schwab
Office of Management and Budget
(202) 395-5647
Margo_Schwab@omb.eop.gov

Brian Harris-Kojetin
Office of Management and Budget
(202) 395-7314
Brian_A._Harris-Kojetin@omb.eop.gov

Carol House
Senior Program Officer
Committee on National Statistics
National Academy of Sciences
(202) 334-1573
chouse@nas.edu
The complete OMB clearance package was reviewed by staff of the USDA National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and their comments were addressed and incorporated in this
document.
Materials about the field test were reviewed and approved by the Public/Private Ventures
Institutional Review Board (IRB).31 Materials for the full-scale National Food Study were provided
to the IRB in October 2011. The IRB contact person is
Margo Campbell
(215) 557-4446
mcampbell@ppv.org

P/PV is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. Mathematica Policy Research regularly uses
this external IRB, and one Mathematica staff member sits on the P/PV IRB.
31

19

A9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents
The National Food Study will offer households an incentive to complete the screener and
participate in the study. It is essential to include an incentive in order to maximize the response rate.
Incentives are particularly important for maximizing response with hard-to-reach populations and
for gaining cooperation for a demanding data collection. In a seminal meta-analysis, Singer, et al.
(1999) found that incentives in face-to-face and telephone surveys were effective at increasing
response rates, with a one dollar increase in incentive resulting in approximately a one-third of a
percentage point increase in response rate, on average. They found some evidence that incentives
were useful in boosting response rates among underrepresented demographic groups, such as low
income and non-white (Singer, et al., 1999). This is a significant consideration for this study because
70 percent of the targeted survey completes (3,500 of 5,000) will be with SNAP and non-SNAP lowincome households.
The incentives planned for this study are designed to maximize response to the initial screener
and encourage participation in the week-long survey. The planned incentives are consistent with
those offered on other national surveys. The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) conducts
an interview about marriage and divorce, having and raising children, health and health care. It lasts
about 60-80 minutes and respondents receive $40 as a token of appreciation.32 The School Nutrition
Dietary Assessment (SNDA) IV offered a $50 incentive to professional school food managers who
were asked to compile data from existing records about school menus, including aggregate volumes
of food items offered and served.33 The National Food Study includes burden for two interviews
(consistent with the burden of the NSFG) and reporting of all household food acquisitions over a
one-week period (consistent with the week long data collection of SNDA-IV).
The National Food Study will offer a prepaid $5.00 token of appreciation to all households that
are contacted for screening. This incentive will be offered in cash when field interviewers introduce
themselves and invite respondents to complete the screener. The incentive is provided
unconditionally. Instead of converting refusals, it seeks to prevent them at the first point of contact.
Prepaid unconditional incentives have been tested and found effective in improving response to
other government surveys. For instance, the 1996 SIPP compared a $10 and $20 prepaid
unconditional incentive provided as a voucher to be mailed back to Census in order to receive a
check (only the $20 incentive was effective). The 1999 Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD) provided
an unconditional incentive in the form of a $40 debit card. The 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey

Groves RM, Mosher WD, Lepkowski J, Kirgis NG. Planning and development of the continuous National
Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 1(48). 2009. (See page 42 of 73 in the
PDF).
32

School food service managers were asked to collect information on foods offered and served during a randomly
selected ―target‖ week for reimbursable meals (―meals offered and served‖) including menus, recipes, ingredients,
production, and reimbursable servings. Training and extensive technical assistance was available by telephone.
33

20

tested prepaid unconditional incentives of $20 and $40, provided as debit cards (both were effective
in improving response).34
The National Food Study will provide the $5 prepaid incentive for screening in the form of
cash. A cash incentive will be used because of the small value of the incentive for screening. Other
researchers suggest that small debit card incentives behave differently than small cash incentives
because debit cards involve costs associated with reading instructions, remembering the PIN, and
making a trip to an ATM machine, which may not be worth the small value of the gift (McGrath,
2006).
As described earlier, based on results from the field test, the TWG recommended and the study
adopted the high incentive protocols for the National Food Study. Under this protocol, participating
households will receive a multi-part incentive designed to encourage initial agreement to participate
in the week-long survey, and motivate households to stay engaged and complete the data collection
week. This multi-part incentive includes a base incentive for primary respondents, a telephone bonus
to encourage primary respondents to initiate telephone calls for food reporting, and incentives for
additional household members (age 11 and older) who track their food acquisitions. The full
incentive consists of three components:
1. Base incentive – $100 check
2. Telephone bonus – $10 gift card per call (up to three)
3. Additional household members– $10 gift card for ages 11-14; $20 gift card for ages 15
and older
Wal-Mart or Target gift cards will be provided to respondents according to the store closest to
the SSU where they reside.
A base incentive of $100 will be provided to primary respondents. The primary respondent is
asked to complete two interviews (averaging 30 and 40 minutes respectively), receive training on
reporting food acquisitions (one hour), and track food acquisitions in the Primary Respondent Book
for one week. The primary respondent also may receive up to three $10 telephone bonuses for
initiating telephone calls to report food acquisitions on days two, five, and seven of the data
collection week (averaging 15 minutes each). This bonus is designed to increase data quality by
providing respondents with an incentive to initiate telephone calls at times that are convenient for
them; respondents interviewed at their convenience are less likely to provide incomplete reporting.
These incentives also reduce overall data collection costs for the survey: interviews initiated by
incoming calls from respondents are completed at significantly lower cost than outgoing calls with
multiple callbacks to obtain these responses. Single-person households will receive a maximum of
$130 for participation.

McGrath, David. ―An Incentives Experiment in the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Quarterly Survey,‖ December
2006. (www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/st060030.pdf)
34

21

Multiple-person households will be asked to track food acquisitions in multiple food books.
Adult Food Books will be provided for adults (age 19 and older) other than the primary respondent;
Youth Food Books will be provided to youth age 11-18. Household members other than the
primary respondent who complete food books will receive an incentive of $10 (age 11-14) and $20
(ages 15 and older). Findings from the cognitive tests indicated that teenagers, in particular, might be
reluctant to participate without a targeted incentive.
During administration of the screener, field interviewers will identify the primary food shopper
or meal planner in each household. To the extent possible, information about study eligibility and
incentives will be communicated to the primary food shopper/meal planner at the time of screening.
If unavailable at screening, the primary food shopper/meal planner will be contacted at a later date.
The primary food shopper/meal planner will also be informed of the mode and timing of payment.
The mix of check and gift cards serves two purposes: (a) households receive the largest part of the
incentive as a check, which is the more liquid and fungible form of payment and provides the
greatest flexibility for low-income households; (b) gift cards can be distributed among responding
family members, eliminating respondent burden for distributing funds from a check for the total
amount.
Households will receive all incentives at the end of the data collection week when the field
interviewer visits the household to complete the final household interview and retrieve study
materials. The $100 base incentive will always be distributed by check at the end of the week. Gift
cards will be distributed at the end of the week if the household completed telephone calls to
indicate eligibility for the incentives. Eligibility for the telephone bonus is determined by logged calls
from the household; eligibility for additional household member incentives is determined by
household member participation (completion of food books). Operationally, eligibility for additional
household members is determined by acquisition information logged for other household members
during telephone calls (regardless of whether the call was initiated by the household).35 The consent
form contains information about the incentive amounts and timing of payment, and a copy of this
form will be left with the household.
The three components of the incentive combine to provide a tiered incentive structure
reflecting the additional burden of participation for larger households. As shown in Table A.1, 98.8
percent of low-income households have six or fewer members; there will be no cap on the incentive
for the remaining households with more than six members.

35

Field interviewers will not have discretion with regard to incentive payments. Field interviewers must get approval
from their manager before distributing gift cards for any Books completed but not reported by telephone.

22

Table A.1. Incentive Levels for the National Food Study

Type of Household

Percent of
Population

Average
Household
Size

Average Number of Additional HH
Members Eligible For Incentive
Age
<11

Youth,
11-14

Teens,
15-18

Adults

Average
Incentive

Single Adult Households
1
One person household

43.5

1.0

0

0

0

0

$130

2
3

No youth or teens
Youth only

18.0
7.0

2.8
3.3

1.8
1.1

0
1.2

0
0

0
0

$130
$142

4
5

Teens only
Youth and teens

5.3
3.4

2.8
4.3

0.6
0.8

0
1.3

1.2
1.2

0
0

$153
$166

14.6

3.3

1.3

0

0

1.1

$151

Multiple Adult Households
6
Adults, no youth or teens
7
9

Adults and youth
Adults and teens

3.2
2.7

4.8
4.3

1.5
0.8

1.3
0

0
1.3

1.1
1.2

$162
$181

8

Adults, youth, and teens

2.1

5.8

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.2

$197

Average
Note:

$139

The average incentive by type of household assumes eligibility for three telephone bonuses.

The distribution of types of households is based on the distribution of the SNAP caseload in 2008
(Source: USDA, FNS. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year
2008.
a

A10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided To Respondents
Data for the National Food Study will be collected under the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA). Study participants will receive
assurances of confidentiality in the study brochure (Appendix E) and consent form (Appendix G).
The consent form includes the shorter version of the CIPSEA pledge (Appendix G), and the long
version of the CIPSEA pledge is included in the study’s informational website at
www.usdafoodstudy.org (Appendix T). Throughout the survey period, participants will be informed
that their participation is voluntary and that they have the option to refuse to answer any questions.
They also will be told that neither their decision to participate in the survey (or not) nor their
responses to any questions will be identifiable, nor will their responses or participation affect their
eligibility in any government programs.
All respondents’ information collected during the study will be kept private and not disclosed to
anyone other than the analysts conducting this research. The contractor will not disclose any
information that permits identification of respondents, except as otherwise required by law.
Personally identifying information (names of household members and telephone numbers) will
be collected by the contractor’s field staff upon screening eligible households for the survey.
Identifying information, including addresses, will be maintained on separate forms and files that are
linked only by a sample case identification number. After a sample case is completed in the field,
23

access to the file linking sample identification numbers with respondent contact information is
limited to a small number of staff that has a need to know this information. All hard-copy field
materials will be transmitted to Mathematica Policy Research’s Survey Operations Center via
traceable Federal Express delivery. All members of the study team having access to the data are
trained on the importance and procedures of confidentiality and data security. Additionally, all
permanent and temporary employees of Mathematica who work on the study will sign the
confidentiality agreement required by CIPSEA (Appendix U), taking an oath to protect the
confidentiality of the data with disclosure subject to a jail term or substantial fine.
After survey materials are returned from the field, hard-copy documents will be stored in
secured file cabinets and rooms; electronic data will be maintained on secured, password-protected
computer servers. Discarded materials containing confidential information will be shredded. Both
sources of data will be accessible only by approved contractor staff; such accessibility is limited to
those who have direct responsibility for providing and maintaining sample locating information.
Survey data will be processed and stored on the contractor’s password-protected local area
network (LAN). The contractor, Mathematica, protects its LAN with several security mechanisms
available through the network operating system. Access to private information stored on LAN
directories is restricted to authorized project staff by means of IDs and passwords. In addition,
network servers containing private information are kept in a locked area.
A11. Justification for Sensitive Questions
The National Food Study information collection includes questions that some respondents
might find sensitive. All respondents will be informed that they can decline to answer any question
they do not wish to answer and there are no negative consequences for not participating. Sensitive
questions include household income, citizenship status, food security, and self-reported body weight.
Information about these potentially sensitive topics is important to statistical uses under the study.
Household income information is needed to determine eligibility for the study; income and
citizenship status data are needed to determine SNAP eligibility among nonparticipants. Food
security and body weight are important indicators of household members’ health and well-being.
The National Food Study will enable ERS to examine the relationship of these indicators with food
access and food acquisition patterns.
A12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
A total of 43,903.60 burden hours are estimated for this study. Table A.2 reports the expected
number of respondents, frequency of response, hours per response, and the total burden hours for
the data collected. Estimates of the percentages of respondents who will agree to complete the
forms are based on the field test, other national field study cooperation rates, and the estimated
impact of revised procedures.36 Burden estimates for completed interviews were informed by
36 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007-2008 interview response rate for all ages
was 78.4 percent; National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2009 total household response rate was 82.2 percent; the
National Survey of Family Growth, which used an address-base sample and two-phase sampling that has been adopted

24

experience during the field test for all instruments except the Income Worksheet, which is new.
Burden estimates for attempted interviews reflect an estimate of the amount of time spent
encouraging non-respondents to participate.
The Federal Register Notice for this data collection included a burden estimate of 37,562.55
hours. Estimated burden has gone up by 17 percent since publication of the Notice due to three
factors: (1) the addition of one new instrument, the Income Worksheet; (2) accounting for the
burden of the Household Training for Reporting Food Acquisitions; and (3) accounting for the
burden of Review of Food Books during the Final Household Visit. These latter two factors do not
represent actual increases in burden; instead they correct inadvertent omissions from the Notice. In
addition, the burden for the Initial Interview was increased by 5 minutes (questions about disabilities
and the ability to track foods without assistance were added to ensure the respondent’s ability to
complete all aspects of the survey), and the burden for the Final Interview was reduced by 5 minutes
(a number of questions about non-food expenditures were eliminated).37
For the households expected to complete the National Food Study, the average total reporting
burden is 5.28 hours. The comparable estimate for the field test was 5.05 hours. Estimated burden
increased by a net 14-15 minutes primarily due to: (1) a 6-minute increase in the burden of
completing food books because field test households had higher-than-expected numbers of FAH
acquisitions; (2) a 10-minute increase due to the addition of the Income Worksheet; and (3) a small
decrease in estimated time to complete the household interviews.
Actual burden during the Field Test was measured for the household interviews and the three
phone reports of FAFH, and a proxy measure was used for time spent scanning purchased groceries
and filling out food books for FAH. Actual and estimated burden for these components were
within a few minutes of one another. Thus, the expected burden for households completing the
National Food Study is about 15 minutes higher than actually experienced during the Field Test.
Compared to the data collection planned when the Federal Register Notice was published, the
following changes have been made to either improve data quality, reduce respondent burden, or
both. These changes were informed by the prioritization of data elements described in Appendix A.
Questions on physical and other disabilities were added to the Initial Household Interview
to ensure that the National Food Study would not ask a person to perform data gathering
activities beyond his or her abilities.

(continued)
for this study, attained an 80 percent screener response rate. We estimate an 80 percent screening response rate. This
improvement over the field test will be derived from implementing a new screening management system, providing a $5
pre-paid incentive at screening, and implementing two-phase sampling at screening.
Data on non-food expenditures is of lower priority to the study than data on food expenditures (Table A2 of
Appendix A), so these questions were dropped to reduce overall burden.
37

25

The Income Worksheet was added to reduce levels of item non-response and to allow the
primary respondent to gather the needed information from other household members at
the most convenient time.
The number of questions about non-food expenditures in the Final Household Interview
was reduced by dropping questions about: vehicle loans and lease payments; auto insurance
costs; cost of fuel for cars and trucks; costs for parking and tolls; and costs for cable,
internet, and phone service.
Questions about the following items were dropped from the Final Household Interview:
time spent putting together ingredients for a meal; any household members told by a doctor
or other health professional that their blood pressure or cholesterol level was too high; and
any household members told that they had diabetes.

26

Table A.2. Reporting Burden for National Food Study

Instrument

Estimated
Average
Number of
Hours per
Response

Estimated Total
Annual Hours
of Response
Burden

Estimated
Number of
Respondents

Responses
Annually per
Respondent

19,740
4,935

1.00
1.00

19,740
4,935

0.17
0.08

3,290.00
411.25

5,795
1,932

1.00
1.00

5,795
1,932

0.50
0.08

2,897.25
160.96

Total Annual
Reponses

Household Screener
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Initial Household Interview
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

Household Training for Reporting Food Acquisitions
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,795
1,932

1.00
1.00

5,795
1,932

0.58
0.05

3,380.13
96.58

5,099
695

1.00
1.00

5,099
695

0.17
0.05

849.86
34.77

5,099
695

1.00
1.00

5,099
695

0.50
0.05

2,549.58
34.77

0.17
0.05

2,549.58
34.77

Income Worksheet
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Final Household Interview
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

Reporting Food Obtained for Home Preparation or Consumption
Completed reports
Attempted reports

5,099
695

3.00
1.00

15,297
695

12,225
1,667

7.00
3.00

85,573
5,001

0.25
0.08

21,393.27
416.75

3.00
1.00

15,297
695

0.25
0.08

3,824.37
57.95

Food Books
Completed reports
Attempted reports

Telephone Reporting of Food Away from Home
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,099
695

Review of Food Books During the Final Household Visit
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,099
695

1.00
1.00

5,099
695

0.17
0.02

849.83
57.92

4,925
869

7.00
1.00

34,477
869

0.02
0.02

574.62
14.49

4,925
869

1.00
1.00

4,925
869

0.08
0.02

410.44
14.49

24,675

8.96

221,211

0.21

43,903.60

Meals and Snacks Form
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Respondent Feedback Form
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Total Responding Burden

27

Table A.3 shows estimated annualized hourly costs to respondents during the study.
Respondents will include households in three survey strata: (1) households participating in SNAP
(N=1500), and (2) very low and low-income non-SNAP households with incomes below 185
percent of the federal poverty guidelines (N=2000), and (3) non-SNAP households with incomes
above 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines (N=1500). Estimated annualized cost to
respondents in the first two strata are based on the federal minimum wage rate ($7.25), which
provides earnings equivalent to 128 percent of the poverty guidelines for a full-time worker.38
Estimated annualized costs to respondents in the third strata are based on average earnings of
earners in households with incomes above 185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines in 2010
($14.61).39 The weighted average of these two estimates ($10.48) is used in Table A.3.
A13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers
There are no capital/start-up or ongoing operation/maintenance costs associated with this
information collection.
A14. Annualized Cost to Federal Government
The total estimated cost of the data collection is $9,594,322 over a 28-month period, for an
annualized cost of $4,111,852. This includes the costs associated with the contractor conducting the
project and the salary of the assigned ERS project director. This cost includes all tasks for the
National Food Study following completion of the field test in July 2011, including design, sample
selection, recruitment, information collection, analysis, and report writing.
USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service is supporting this effort by contributing 15.7 percent of
the overall cost and by providing staff expertise.
A15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments
This is a new collection of information resulting in a program change of 43,903.60 burden
hours.
A16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Schedule
The contractor will process the collected data and match the data to extant data sources. The
contractor will summarize the quality of collected data in four technical memoranda provided to
ERS/FNS. The final compiled data will be provided in two sets of data files and documentation.

SNAP quality control data for 2008 (the most recent year available) indicates that 29 percent of SNAP
households had earned income. Those with earned income had average monthly earnings equivalent to full-time work
for one person at just slightly above the minimum wage in effect that year.
38

Average earnings is based on the distribution of households by income level in 2010, and the average number of
earners per household, from the Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/hhinc/new01_001.htm).
39

28

Table A.3. Annualized Cost to Respondents for the National Food Study

Instrument

Estimated
Number of
Respondents

Estimated
Average
Number of
Hours per
Response

Estimated
Total Annual
Hours of
Response
Burden

Estimated
Hourly
Wage Rate

Estimated
Respondent
Cost

Household Screener
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

19,740
4,935

0.17
0.08

3,290.00
411.25

10.48
10.48

34,479.20
4,309.90

5,795
1,932

0.50
0.08

2,897.25
160.96

10.48
10.48

30,363.18
1,686.84

Initial Household Interview
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

Household Training for Reporting Food Acquisitions
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,795
1,932

0.58
0.05

3,380.13
96.58

10.48
10.48

35,423.71
1,012.11

5,099
695

0.17
0.05

849.86
34.77

10.48
10.48

8,906.53
364.36

5,099
695

0.50
0.05

2,549.58
34.77

10.48
10.48

26,719.60
364.36

Income Worksheet
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Final Household Interview
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

Reporting Food Obtained for Home Preparation or Consumption
Completed reports
Attempted reports

5,099
695

0.17
0.05

2,549.58
34.77

10.48
10.48

26,719.60
364.36

12,225
1,667

0.25
0.08

21,393.27
416.75

10.48
10.48

224,201.48
4,367.56

3,824.37
57.95

10.48
10.48

40,079.40
607.26

Food Books
Completed reports
Attempted reports

Telephone Reporting of Food Away from Home
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,099
695

0.25
0.08

Review of Food Books During the Final Household Visit
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews

5,099
695

0.17
0.02

849.83
57.92

10.48
10.48

8,906.25
606.97

4,925
869

0.02
0.02

574.62
14.49

10.48
10.48

6,022.03
151.82

4,925
869

0.08
0.02

410.44
14.49

10.48
10.48

4,301.45
151.82

24,675

0.20

43,903.60

Meals and Snacks Form
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Respondent Feedback Form
Completed interviews
Attempted interviews
Total Burden and Cost

29

460,109.78

Data Processing
The collected data will be processed into analytic files according to the following steps:
1. Data Entry. Data entry is needed for survey data collected on paper. Data will be
entered from the household screener and ―blue pages‖ (food book data collection forms
for FAH). Price data will be entered from respondents’ saved receipts for FAH.
2. Match Files. Data will be matched with three extant data sources: UPC databases will
be matched with scanned barcodes to obtain product names and packages sizes; Nielsen
store-specific price files will be matched with scanned barcodes to obtain prices for FAH
purchases without a saved receipt (matched by store, UPC, and date), where available;
and SNAP records of electronic benefit redemptions will be matched with FAH
acquisitions of SNAP households to validate and supplement acquisitions reported to
the survey (matched by SNAP caseid).
3. Nutrient coding. The food items reported by respondents will be assigned food item
codes unique to this study. Unique food items will be matched with nutrient databases to
obtain corresponding standard food codes and nutrient information. Multiple data
sources will be used to assign nutrients to acquired foods. Primary sources include the
USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (for foods acquired for home
preparation and consumption); Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies
(FNDDS) and MyPyramid Equivalents Database (MPED) (for foods acquired in their
―as consumed‖ form). Product information (product description, nutrient facts, and
ingredients) from a commercial UPC database will be used to help match items to the
most appropriate USDA food item (for example, to distinguish ―regular‖ from ―reduced
fat‖ products). Commercially available data on restaurant foods will also be used to
supplement the standard reference databases where needed.
4. Prepare Analytic Files. Each survey data file will be checked for missing or
inconsistent data and outliers, and then cleaned and recoded as necessary. For the CAPI
surveys, data cleaning will be minimal because of established response options and
controlled skip patterns. Two methods will be used to check prices entered from receipts
for outliers that are potential data entry errors: the sum of prices on transaction will be
compared to the transaction total, and individual prices will be compared with average
prices for the same items in the Nielsen database.
5. Prepare Sampling Weights. The survey data will be weighted using sampling weights
as described in Part B. Weights will be adjusted for nonresponse to the survey. A pseudo
PSU identifier will be included in public-use files so that researchers may control for the
sample design, and replicate weights also will be provided.
6. Prepare documentation. Documentation of the public-use and restricted-use data files
(described below) will include a codebook and users’ guide. The users’ guide will explain
the structure of the data files, the relationship between data files, correct procedures for
merging data files, and correct use of sampling weights.

30

Technical Memoranda
Four memoranda will be prepared to summarize the quality of collected data and to document
data processing at critical steps, as described below.
1. Memorandum Assessing Data Quality – This memo will provide an overview of the
characteristics of the collected data. It will also provide an assessment of the representativeness,
completeness, and quality of the raw and processed data. The following topics will be included
and tabulations will be similar to those provided to the TWG following the field test (Appendix
B):
Sample characteristics
Means, ranges, and distributions of key output variables by population group
Prevalence of item non-response on each instrument
Assessment of the consistency of response across instruments and data collection modes
(e.g., scanned data, receipts, and data collection forms; income reported on Screener
versus Final Interview), with special attention paid to the highest priority data elements
identified in Appendix A
Distribution of FAH acquisitions by type (store type and nonpurchase types) and item
nonresponse to questions about FAH acquisitions
Distribution of FAFH acquisitions by type (type of eating place and nonpurchase types)
and item nonresponse to questions about FAFH acquisitions
Sampling weights and distribution of sampling weights
Assessment of non-response bias
Household response rates and the AAPOR components of the response rate. If the
response rate is less than 80 percent, the memorandum will include an analysis of nonresponse bias.
2. Memorandum on Prices for Individual FAFH Items – This memo will provide a detailed
assessment of the prevalence of missing item prices and total meal cost for FAFH; and the
prevalence of non-missing prices, by type of FAFH place. It will include the data sources for
extant prices and our algorithm for determining the number of extant price observations needed
for price imputation.
3. Memorandum on Price Estimation – This memo will include a description of methods used
for imputing item values for food obtained at no cost (for example, foods obtained from friends,
relatives, or food banks).
4. Memorandum on Matching Nutrient Data to the Study Database – This memo will
provide a description of foods that could not be matched to the USDA nutrient databases, or
were matched but varied substantially in calorie or nutrient. The memo will also include a
description of how ―nonmatches‖ were resolved using extant data or imputation.
31

ERS will use the information provided in these memoranda to assess the relative confidence in
the different types of data provided in the public-use files, and to provide guidance to data users
on the appropriate use of the data.
Final Data Files
Two sets of data files will be provided to ERS: (1) public-use files that include no personal
identifying information, and (2) restricted-use files that contain household geographic latitude and
longitude coordinates (for analyses of food access). Both files will include constructed variables
(e.g., total household income) and ―raw‖ data items obtained directly from data collection
instruments. These files will also contain sampling weights, pseudo PSUs, and replicate weights.
The public-use data file will not include any information that is confidential or contains
personal identifying information. Household member names, phone numbers, and addresses will not
be included in either the public-use or restricted-use file. The public-use file will not include
geocodes (latitude and longitude), nor any information that could identify the PSU or SSU from
which the household was sampled. (State identifiers will be included.) Prior to release of the public
use files, ERS will conduct a thorough disclosure review to ensure that any combination of data
values on a single record could not be used to identify the respondent household. This review will
likely lead to decisions to either: (a) eliminate some variables from the public use files; or (b) collapse
values into fewer categories (e.g., age).
Access to restricted use files will be subject to specific access criteria and associated procedures.
ERS has over 25 years experience handling confidential data. ERS offices are located at 355 E Street
SW, Washington DC 20024-3221 which is a GSA level 4 secured building. Armed guards are in the
lobby and garage securing the building. Employees can only access the floors on which their
agencies are located. Access is controlled by HSPD-12 ID cards. Visitors are screened and
temporary visitors passes are issued once the purpose of a visit is confirmed; visitors must be
accompanied by an ERS employee at all times. Most projects that can access confidential data are
located in secure data labs. The data labs are locked with access granted to authorized individuals via
their HSPD-12 ID cards and only on need-to-know basis. Data are analyzed on standalone PC’s
with no LAN access and can be used only within the lab. PC’s run the Windows XP or 7 operating
system with Symantec Endpoint protection version 11.0 or higher installed. Virus definitions and
operating system patches are updated monthly.
Project Schedule
The planned schedule for the full-scale National Food Study, assuming receipt of OMB
clearance by March 15, 2012, is as follows:

32

Activity

Schedule

Select PSUs for the National Food Study

September 2010

Select SSUs for the National Food Study

December 2011

Train Data Collectors for National Food Study

April 2012

Conduct Data Collection

April 16, 2012 through
October 27, 2012a

Submit Summary Memo Assessing Data Quality

March 2013

Submit Summary Memo for Prices for Individual FAFH Items

April 2013

Submit Summary Memo on Price Estimation

April 2013

Submit Summary Memo Matching Nutrient Data to the NHFPAS Database

May 2013

Submit Final Data Files and Documentation

May 2013

Data collection will begin on April 16 for half of the PSUs and April 30 for the other half; thus running
through October 27 for half of the PSUs. This staggered start, two weeks apart, accommodates two
separate trainings for field interviewers and maintains a schedule of sample release every two weeks, with
all PSUs on the same schedule after the first two weeks.
a

A17. Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate
The agency plans to display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection
on all instruments.
A18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

33