[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53908-53909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25806]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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