A Review of DOT Compliance with GASB 34 Requirements (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

13 CHAPTER 2 PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN A draft of the longer survey to be administered to the entire pool of DOTs was assembled after the completion of the phone interviews. After independent review by members of the research team, each question and its multiple choice answers were critiqued by the group as a whole. After sev- eral review sessions, a draft of approximately 60 questions was completed and ready for pretest. QUESTIONNAIRE PRETEST In June of 2002, the research team conducted a questionnaire pretest with the Louisiana and Texas DOTs. During the pretest, the research team evaluated the questions to assess the respon- dents’ comprehension, points of confusion or ambiguity, reac- tions to questions, time to recover information from memory, response formation, and other variables that would affect the quality of responses and overall success of the survey. Based on the pretest, the following questions were added to the survey: • Number 11(b), Valuation of Transferred Assets, • Number 12(b), Hours of Staff Time Required to Imple- ment GASB 34, and • Number 52, Overall Usefulness of GASB 34 Reporting. After pretest amendments were made, the presentation strat- egy of the survey was completed. The questionnaire was designed as a self-administered instrument. Two questionnaire versions were developed: the first version was a web-based version; the second was a print version for mailing. To mini- mize response differences that might result from these two methods of administration, the questions in the web and mail versions were the same. For the web-based instrument, inter- active elements were added to enhance the ease of completion. WEB-SURVEY PROGRAMMING Survey programmers customized a web instrument that was simple and easy to complete. The web questionnaire was introduced with a welcome screen and a message that empha- sized the ease of responding and instructed respondents on the action needed to proceed to the next page. Each subse- quent question was presented in a format identical to the print version of the questionnaire. Special response or skip instruc- tions were part of the relevant questions. A progress bar on the screen showed participants how close they were to com- pleting the questionnaire. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION In September 2002, the research team distributed a letter to the Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of the 50 state DOTs plus the District of Columbia DOT and Puerto Rico DOT, describing the GASB 34 survey, and asking each CEO to designate a contact individual for this project. The DOTs’ responses to this request guided subsequent interactions with the individual departments. In October 2002, the research team submitted the revised draft survey instrument to NCHRP Panel 19-04 for review. The research team subsequently received comments from the panel and, in November 2002, provided an adapted survey that addressed the reviewers’ concerns. Most of the panel’s comments involved changes in wording and phrasing that made questions and multiple choice answers more concise. Approximately 15 answer choices were added to various ques- tions, two questions found redundant were removed from the survey, and six questions were added to the survey. The six new questions focused on the following topics: • The use of condition assessment information by states using depreciation, • The states’ view of the overall usefulness of information generated by the reporting requirements of GASB 34, • The ability of the states’ accounting system to identify costs at the asset class level desired, and • How useful lives of infrastructure assets were determined. After reviewing the updated version, NCHRP authorized the survey to be administered to the DOTs. The survey was administered to the 52 DOTs in early December 2002. The printed surveys were mailed to the con- tacts identified by the CEOs with cover letters explaining who the research team represented and the goal of the survey. Additionally the letter explained how the respondent could

respond to the survey privately via the internet and advised each that a copy of the DOT’s fiscal year 2002 financial state- ments would be requested after the survey was completed. The research team was able to monitor the progress of those DOTs that were completing the survey on line. A first round of follow-up calls was made to the DOTs that had not started the survey. A second round of calls was made in mid- January. The research team allowed DOTs approximately 10 weeks to complete the survey. Because a 100% response rate was the team’s goal, frequent calls were made in February to DOTs that had not yet completed their surveys. Finally, the team adopted a final deadline date of February 21, 2003. At that point only two DOTs, New York and Rhode Island, had not completed the survey. 14 New York’s situation was that its fiscal year ends March 31st. The initial phase of the GASB 34 reporting require- ments was effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2001. Hence, the effective date for New York lags the other states by 6 to 9 months. Unlike the other DOTs, New York had not yet completed its first set of financial statements under GASB 34 guidelines at the time of the survey and thus found it difficult to respond to many of the survey questions. In addition, relatively late in the process the New York DOT decided to switch from the depreciation approach to the mod- ified approach, further complicating efforts to complete the survey in a timely manner. Detailed findings are presented in Appendix D to this report, which is available in NCHRP Web Document 63.