National Employers Survey II; Notice and Request for Comments

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of the Census

National Employers Survey II; Notice and Request for Comments

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public

and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on

proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the

[[Page 53909]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A).

DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before December 18,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Gerald Tache, Departmental

Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, room 5327, 14th and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should

be directed to Steven Rudolph, Economic Planning and Coordination

Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC 20233, (301) 457-2586

voice and (301) 457-4433 fax.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Abstract

In the Fall of 1994, the Census Bureau conducted the National

Employers Survey for the National Center on the Employment Quality of

the Workforce (EQW), a non-profit research group. This survey collected

data for a regression-based econometric study on employment, hiring,

training, investment, and productivity, as they relate to each other.

We surveyed a representative panel of just over 3,000 domestic business

establishments with 20 or more employees. This was the first attempt to

measure the factors. The EQW began issuing findings from the study in

February 1995 and the results generated great interest from all levels.

Their first large-scale technical reports are now being issued.

Major findings included information on what attributes firms looked

for when hiring new employees. They found that attitude and

communications skills were highly valued by employers while grades and

teachers' recommendations were not. Their analysis indicates that

investment in human capital (training) had at least as big, and in many

groups including services, or bigger return than investment in physical

capital. These findings provide a baseline for employers, public and

private, for formulating and gauging human resources decisions and

policies in a manner that will provide the most effective return on

productivity in the workplace.

As this was the first attempt to gather this type of data,

responses in four areas were weak. This proposed follow up will address

this problem by changing the intent of the original questions. In

addition, as the original study was looking at relationships between,

for example, training and productivity, it would be very useful to have

data for consecutive years. This proposed survey will ask for a small

amount of data for the following year.

The follow-up questions fall into four categories:

Updating last year's data (questions 1-6 are examples) these are

designed to test the stability of the survey's initial findings that

linked productivity to education. This is the central theme of the

survey and the results' usefulness will be greatly increased with an

additional data period.

Providing more precise definitions of the target population (who

would be candidates for training) (question 8 is an example) the

original question (number 14 in the initial survey) did not provide

as clear an understanding of skills required by the categories of

employees. We believe this version should improve the findings.

Providing greater detail where important policy considerations

are at stake (questions 17 and 18 are examples) after reviewing

results from the original questions, we felt that the attributes

that employers valued during hiring could have been clarified and

better specified.

Testing the initial results in areas that seem anomalous to

prevailing wisdom (questions 19-23 are examples) in the initial

findings the utilization rate for tuition remissions was relatively

low. These questions should be better tailored to the information

the respondents are likely to have at hand.

By surveying the original panel respondents, we need only ask the

additional questions (which should take an average of 10 to 12

minutes).

In addition to the Department of Education, which had a basic

interest in the project from its inception, other governmental agencies

have shown a strong interest. This includes the GAO and the Department

of Labor.

II. Method of Collection

We will conduct the survey with Computer Assisted Telephone

Interviewing (CATI) as with the initial NES. Since the respondents are

familiar with the survey, they would not require additional preparation

and instruction. As with the initial survey, the EQW is analyzing

relationships rather than tabulating totals. For this reason we will

accept and encourage the use of reasonable estimates. This allows the

sponsor to use the initial data more effectively as the new data will

augment and add valuable information to the original data set. We will

provide all respondents (or a panel member who does not or cannot

respond to the interview) who indicate they want one, with a copy of

the latest findings of the surveys.

III. Data

OMB Number: 0607-0787 (for original National Employers Survey).

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Estimated Time Per Respondent: 12 minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 600 hours.

Estimated Total Cost: $125,000.

IV. Request for Comments

Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of

the agency, including whether the information shall have practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden

(including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;

(c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the

collection of information on the respondents, including through the use

of automated collection techniques or other forms of information

technology.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized

and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information

collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

Dated: October 12, 1995.

Gerald Tache,

Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and

Organization.

[FR Doc. 95-25806 Filed 10-17-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-07-P