U.S. General Accounting Office
Survey on Food Security Act Conservation Compliance (GAO-03-492SP)
Q42. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with HELC provisions?

  Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effective (percent) Number of respondents
Alabama 6.0 18.0 48.0 16.0 12.0 50
Arkansas 2.4 43.9 22.0 22.0 9.8 41
California 0.0 21.4 32.1 25.0 21.4 28
Colorado 4.8 31.0 33.3 26.2 4.8 42
Florida 4.5 59.1 22.7 9.1 4.5 22
Georgia 10.3 25.9 34.5 15.5 13.8 58
Iowa 2.5 40.7 25.9 24.7 6.2 81
Idaho 3.6 25.0 39.3 32.1 0.0 28
Illinois 7.9 18.4 36.8 22.4 14.5 76
Indiana 6.5 14.5 35.5 22.6 21.0 62
Kansas 8.5 16.0 33.0 25.5 17.0 94
Kentucky 6.8 31.5 32.9 23.3 5.5 73
Louisiana 17.9 38.5 25.6 12.8 5.1 39
Maryland 0.0 33.3 33.3 25.0 8.3 12
Michigan 6.4 23.4 27.7 21.3 21.3 47
Minnesota 1.5 19.1 32.4 33.8 13.2 68
Missouri 9.3 16.0 41.3 24.0 9.3 75
Mississippi 9.1 39.4 39.4 12.1 0.0 66
Montana 2.3 27.3 31.8 25.0 13.6 44
North Carolina 7.4 29.4 27.9 23.5 11.8 68
North Dakota 8.2 24.5 34.7 26.5 6.1 49
Nebraska 8.2 28.8 28.8 26.0 8.2 73
New Mexico 0.0 21.7 34.8 17.4 26.1 23
New York 0.0 25.6 25.6 30.8 17.9 39
Ohio 1.7 20.0 38.3 25.0 15.0 60
Oklahoma 3.3 16.4 34.4 27.9 18.0 61
Oregon 5.0 30.0 35.0 25.0 5.0 20
Pennsylvania 2.5 17.5 40.0 30.0 10.0 40
South Carolina 0.0 32.1 28.6 17.9 21.4 28
South Dakota 3.7 14.8 40.7 20.4 20.4 54
Tennessee 5.5 32.7 27.3 20.0 14.5 55
Texas 0.7 37.2 26.4 15.5 20.3 148
Utah 0.0 21.4 28.6 21.4 28.6 14
Virginia 5.0 35.0 22.5 27.5 10.0 40
Washington 22.7 13.6 31.8 22.7 9.1 22
Wisconsin 7.7 13.5 28.8 34.6 15.4 52
West Virginia 8.7 13.0 47.8 17.4 13.0 23
States with fewer than 15 respondents 7.8 29.7 20.3 26.6 15.6 64
All States 5.6 26.3 32.1 23.0 13.0 1,939