U.S. General Accounting Office
Survey on Food Security Act Conservation Compliance (GAO-03-492SP)
Q43. How effective are status reviews in monitoring compliance with wetland conservation provisions?

  Extremely effective (percent) Very effective (percent) Moderately effective (percent) Somewhat effective (percent) Slightly or not effe (percent) Number of respondents
Alabama 6.3 16.7 37.5 18.8 20.8 48
Arkansas 0.0 43.9 24.4 14.6 17.1 41
California 3.6 28.6 32.1 17.9 17.9 28
Colorado 3.0 24.2 21.2 33.3 18.2 33
Florida 3.2 45.2 12.9 22.6 16.1 31
Georgia 12.1 25.9 34.5 13.8 13.8 58
Iowa 1.3 20.3 27.8 19.0 31.6 79
Idaho 0.0 33.3 14.8 29.6 22.2 27
Illinois 2.6 18.4 27.6 27.6 23.7 76
Indiana 6.3 14.3 33.3 27.0 19.0 63
Kansas 4.3 18.5 30.4 18.5 28.3 92
Kentucky 6.9 34.5 32.8 17.2 8.6 58
Louisiana 16.3 34.9 23.3 20.9 4.7 43
Maryland 0.0 26.7 26.7 20.0 26.7 15
Michigan 8.3 31.3 20.8 18.8 20.8 48
Minnesota 1.4 13.0 37.7 23.2 24.6 69
Missouri 10.0 21.4 24.3 30.0 14.3 70
Mississippi 7.8 37.5 42.2 12.5 0.0 64
Montana 2.3 16.3 39.5 11.6 30.2 43
North Carolina 4.4 33.8 30.9 14.7 16.2 68
North Dakota 8.3 18.8 31.3 27.1 14.6 48
Nebraska 2.8 20.8 33.3 30.6 12.5 72
New Mexico 0.0 29.4 29.4 11.8 29.4 17
New York 2.6 23.1 28.2 30.8 15.4 39
Ohio 0.0 20.0 27.3 27.3 25.5 55
Oklahoma 1.9 11.1 29.6 35.2 22.2 54
Oregon 0.0 33.3 33.3 19.0 14.3 21
Pennsylvania 0.0 5.4 40.5 29.7 24.3 37
South Carolina 0.0 36.0 36.0 4.0 24.0 25
South Dakota 2.0 19.6 31.4 25.5 21.6 51
Tennessee 3.9 21.6 27.5 23.5 23.5 51
Texas 3.1 36.6 27.5 17.6 15.3 131
Utah 0.0 14.3 28.6 28.6 28.6 14
Virginia 5.0 45.0 22.5 22.5 5.0 40
Washington 13.0 8.7 21.7 21.7 34.8 23
Wisconsin 5.8 7.7 26.9 28.8 30.8 52
West Virginia 9.5 14.3 38.1 23.8 14.3 21
States with fewer than 15 respondents 8.5 18.6 22.0 27.1 23.7 59
All States 4.6 24.1 29.6 22.3 19.4 1,864