GGS RAS Final Report

GGS RAS Final Report.pdf

Green Goods and Services Survey

GGS RAS Final Report

OMB: 1220-0183

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Response Analysis Survey for the Green Goods and Services
Survey – Cover Letter Pre-test
Final Report
Report submitted to the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
December 30, 2011
FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

Strategic Research Group, Inc.
995 Goodale Blvd
Columbus, OH 43212
(614) 220-8860
www.strategicresearchgroup.com

Response Analysis Survey for the Green Goods and Services Survey
Table of Contents
TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 4
A. METHODOLOGY AND RESPONSE RATES ............................................................................................ 5
B. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 11
C. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: ORIGINAL COVER LETTER ................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX B: REVISED COVER LETTER.................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX C: RAS INSTRUMENT FOR THE COVER LETTER PRE-TEST .............................................. 25

Tables and Figures
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................................ 4
A. METHODOLOGY AND RESPONSE RATES ............................................................................................ 5
Table A2.1 Final response rate and call dispositions ................................................................................................................. 7
Table A2.2 Response by green status ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Table A2.3 Response by form type ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Table A2.4 Response by sample group ................................................................................................................................... 10

B. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 11
Table B1.1 Means of viewing cover letters ............................................................................................................................... 11
Table B1.2 Rating of understanding of survey purpose ........................................................................................................... 12
Table B1.3 Rating of understanding of type of businesses that should respond ..................................................................... 13
Table B1.4a Whether company is qualified to complete survey .............................................................................................. 14
Table B1.4b Whether company is qualified to complete survey (non-green establishments only) .......................................... 15
Table B1.5 Reason not qualified .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Table B1.6 Cover letter preferred ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Table B1.7 Comments about respondents’ preferred cover letter ........................................................................................... 18
Table B1.8 Likelihood to report online ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Table B1.9 Questions regarding survey or GGS survey .......................................................................................................... 20

C. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: ORIGINAL COVER LETTER ................................................................................................ 23
APPENDIX B: REVISED COVER LETTER.................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX C: RAS INSTRUMENT FOR THE COVER LETTER PRE-TEST .............................................. 25

iii

Executive Summary
This report provides the results of interviews with employers who had not been sampled in the initial GGS RAS effort in
order to pre-test a potential revision to the GGS Survey cover letter. A sample of 500 establishments was selected using a
disproportionate stratified sampling approach using whether or not an establishment was considered green (those
reporting green goods and services on the GGS Survey) and industry/form type received by the establishment as the
stratification criteria. The survey effort yielded a response rate of 71 percent, or 352 respondents.
The two cover letters were very similar with regard to the information provided; however, they differed a bit in terms of
wording and format. The presentation order of the cover letters was randomized for the sample such that a respondent
would read and give feedback on the original cover letter first and the other half would read and give feedback on the
revised letter first, in order to reduce the potential of biased results.
After reviewing each letter, respondents were asked to provide feedback on issues such as their perceived understanding
of what the survey is about, what type of businesses should respond, and whether or not respondents felt their company
was qualified to take the survey. They were also asked which of the two letters they preferred and why.
Overall, the results of this RAS indicate that, of the original and revised letter, respondents preferred the revised letter,
and they tended to feel that it does a better job of explaining the survey and its expectations.
However, sending only the revised letter in its current form would not be ideal as still a fairly large minority of respondents
did not feel that their establishment was qualified to respond to the survey because their establishment did not provide the
appropriate goods and services.
Most mail-out survey efforts use multiple mailings, including multiple cover letters, in order to maximize response rates.
The results of this survey provide compelling support for using multiple cover letters: respondents increased their
understanding of the survey, their understanding the types of businesses the survey applies to, and whether they feel they
are qualified to complete the survey, by seeing the message multiple times and in different formats. Based on the survey
results a scenario where multiple letters are sent, it appears the best option is to send the original letter first, followed by
the revised letter. Although having this message repeated seemed to help respondents realize the survey applied to them
there are still a significant number of establishments who did not feel qualified to complete the survey even after reading
both cover letters.

A. Methodology and Response Rates
1. Overview of Methodology
Following the initial Green Goods and Services (GGS) Response Analysis Survey (RAS), a follow-up survey was
commissioned to pre-test a potential revision to the GGS Survey cover letter. A key purpose of a cover letter is to impart
the importance of participating to potential survey respondents. Thus, a compelling cover letter is likely to result in a
higher rate of response. The methodology utilized for this effort involved selecting a sample of 500 GGS respondents who
had not been sampled in the initial GGS RAS effort and asking these individuals to review the original and revised cover
letters and provide feedback on the letters. The cover letters are provided in Appendices A and B.
The two cover letters were very similar with regard to the information provided; however, they differed a bit in terms of
wording and format. For example:







In the original letter, the statement about how employers need to participate regardless of whether they are
involved in producing green goods and services is bolded.
The revised letter had an indented question and answer (Q&A) section with bolded questions.
The revised letter provided a stronger rationale for why employers should participate.
The revised letter offered an option to visit the GGS website.
The revised letter offered an option to participate via the web.
The original letter concludes with “Thanks for your participation” whereas the revised letter concludes with “Thank
you for your help.”

The sampling scheme for this survey effort involved selecting a disproportionate stratified sample by whether or not an
establishment was considered green (those reporting green goods and services on the GGS Survey) and industry/form
type received by the establishment. The green/non green strata consisted of 30 percent green establishments and 70
percent non-green establishments. This selection criterion was utilized because the initial RAS effort revealed that some
non-green establishments were uncertain their participation was appropriate or necessary; therefore, an important goal of
this effort was to determine how to effectively encourage participation to this group. Additionally, the sampling scheme
involved an oversample of the less prevalent industries (form types C, F, J, and L) in order to ensure each form type was
represented in sufficient numbers should it be desirable to conduct analysis capable of detecting group differences.

For sample cases where the original contact person was no longer available (i.e., the contact was either no longer with
the establishment or had relocated without further contact information), SRG attempted to interview the person currently
at the contact number. There were six establishments where the individual interviewed was a new contact.
The presentation order of the cover letters was randomized for the entire sample such that half of the sample would read
and give feedback on the original cover letter first and the other half would read and give feedback on the revised letter
first. By randomizing the presentation order of the messages, we avoid two key threats that could bias the findings:
primacy and recency.1 Primacy occurs when earlier messages are perceived as more important because they were
presented first. The converse effect, recency, occurs when more recent messages are given greater weight because they
were the last ones presented. Randomizing the presentation order of the cover letters controls for the presence of either
effect in this survey effort.

Hovland, Carl I., Enid H. Campbell, and Timothy C. Brock. (1957). The Effects of ‘Commitment’ on Opinion Change Following Communication. The Order
of Presentation in Persuasion. (eds. Carl I. Hovland et al.), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 23-32.

2. Response Rates
Response rates and final call dispositions for this GGS RAS effort are provided in Table A2.1 below. Cases with invalid
telephone numbers were removed from the calculated response rate. The overall response rate for this effort was 71
percent which met the targeted response rate of 70 percent.

Table A2.1 Final response rate and call dispositions
Overall
%
Response Rate

N
70.7%

Completes

70.4%

352

Partial interview – unwilling to finish

0.2%

Busy or no answer

0.0%

Voicemail

10.6%

Call back

2.8%

Disconnected

0.2%

Fax Machine

0.2%

Refused

15.6%

Total Establishments Contacted

100.0%

500

Tables A2.2 and A2.3 below provide a condensed set of response dispositions for the two stratification variables: whether
the establishment reported green goods and services, and form type. The response categories provided are: completed
cases, cases where contact with someone at the establishment was made but the RAS was never completed, cases
where no contact was made, and refusals. The tables present percentage totals across the disposition categories,
allowing completion rates to be compared by establishment category and form type.
As Table A2.2 shows, green establishments were a bit more likely to complete the survey and non-green establishments
were more likely to refuse to participate. The RAS form captured information regarding green products and services so it
is likely that green establishments were more likely to respond because they felt the form was more appropriate to them.

Table A2.2 Response by green status

Establishment
Green Status

Complete

Contact but no
complete

Never contacted a
person at
establishment

Refusal

Total

Green

73.3%

118

9.3%

5.0%

12.4%

100.0%

161

Non-Green

69.0%

234

9.7%

4.1%

17.1%

100.0%

339

Total

70.4%

352

9.6%

4.4%

15.6%

100.0%

500

Response rates for form types (Table A2.3) ranged from 58 percent (Form N) to 81 percent (Form B). The variation in
response rates is somewhat exaggerated due to the small numbers within each stratum.

Table A2.3 Response by form type
Complete
Form Type

Contact but no
complete

Never contacted a
person at
establishment

Refusal

Total

69.4%

2.8%

5.6%

22.2%

100.0%

80.6%

2.8%

5.6%

11.1%

100.0%

60.0%

8.6%

5.7%

25.7%

100.0%

69.4%

2.8%

5.6%

22.2%

100.0%

66.7%

13.9%

5.6%

13.9%

100.0%

72.2%

13.9%

0.0%

13.9%

100.0%

77.8%

11.1%

2.8%

8.3%

100.0%

63.9%

13.9%

2.8%

19.4%

100.0%

66.7%

5.6%

13.9%

100.0%

77.1%

5.7%

2.9%

14.3%

100.0%

71.4%

8.6%

0.0%

20.0%

100.0%

77.1%

14.3%

0.0%

8.6%

100.0%

75.0%

13.9%

2.8%

8.3%

100.0%

58.3%

16.7%

8.3%

16.7%

100.0%

Total

70.4%

352

9.6%

4.4%

15.6%

100.0%

500

Table A2.4 below provides a condensed set of response dispositions by sample group. The results show that there were
no significant differences between those who read the original letter first and those who read the revised letter first with
regard to call disposition. This indicates that there is no systematic bias between the two groups.

Table A2.4 Response by sample group
Complete
Sample Group

Contact but no
complete

Never contacted a
person at
establishment

Refusal

Total

Read Original
Letter First

71.0%

181

11.0%

3.5%

14.5%

100.0%

255

Read Revised
Letter First

69.8%

171

8.2%

5.3%

16.7%

100.0%

245

Total

70.4%

352

9.6%

4.4%

15.6%

100.0%

500

B. Results
In the final respondent pool, 181 respondents read the original letter first, and 171 respondents read the revised letter first.
The vast majority of respondents were able to view the letters online at SRG’s web address and nearly all of the
respondents who did not view the cover letters online had the letters faxed to them (Table B1.1).

Table B1.1 Means of viewing cover letters
Overall

Read Original Letter First

Read Revised Letter First

Means of viewing cover letters
%

Online

90.9%

320

89.0%

161

93.0%

159

Fax

8.8%

10.5%

7.0%

0.3%

0.6%

0.0%

Total

100.0%

352

100.0%

181

100.0%

171

After reading each of the cover letters, respondents were asked to provide feedback. First, they were asked to rate their
overall understanding of the purpose of the GGS survey based on their review of that cover letter. Table B1.2 presents
these responses.
Overall, the majority of respondents reported a high level of understanding of the purpose of the GGS survey regardless
of whether they read the original letter first or the revised letter first. Also, for both groups, level of understanding
increased after having read the second letter. However, understanding increased a great deal more for the group that
read the original letter first and then the revised letter second than the group that read the revised letter first and the
original letter second.
Additional analyses (not shown) found the same pattern in results regardless of whether of green/non-green status.

Table B1.2 Rating of understanding of survey purpose
Original Cover Letter
How would you rate
your understanding of
what the survey is
about?

Overall

Original Letter First

Revised Cover Letter

Revised Letter First

Overall

Revised Letter First

Original Letter First

5—Understand
completely

52.3%

184

51.9%

52.6%

58.5%

206

51.5%

65.2%

118

30.4%

107

30.9%

29.8%

27.6%

29.2%

26.0%

11.6%

11.0%

12.3%

9.4%

12.9%

6.1%

3.7%

3.9%

3.5%

2.6%

3.5%

1.7%

1—Little or no
understanding

2.0%

2.2%

1.8%

2.0%

2.9%

1.1%

Mean

4.27 (N=352)

4.27 (N=181)

4.28 (N=171)

4.38 (N=352)

4.23 (N=171)

4.52 (N=181)

Respondents were next asked to rate their understanding of what type of businesses should respond to the GGS survey.
Table B1.3 presents these results.
Understanding what type of businesses should respond was lower for whichever letter was read first; however,
understanding was slightly higher when the original letter was read first compared to the revised letter. It appears that,
when viewed first, the revised letter received the lowest rating for understanding which companies should respond to the
survey, but when viewed after the original letter, the revised letter received the highest rating for understanding.
Also of note, overall understanding of what type of businesses should respond to the GGS survey was lower than the
ratings for understanding the purpose of the GGS survey (Table B1.2).

Table B1.3 Rating of understanding of type of businesses that should respond
How would you rate
your understanding of
what type of
businesses should
respond to the
survey?

Original Cover Letter
Overall

Original Letter First

Revised Cover Letter

Revised Letter First

Overall

Revised Letter First

Original Letter First

5—Understand
completely

50.6%

178

48.1%

53.2%

52.8%

186

42.7%

62.4%

113

22.2%

21.0%

23.4%

21.0%

22.8%

19.3%

18.5%

20.4%

16.4%

15.9%

19.9%

12.2%

5.4%

6.1%

4.7%

4.8%

8.8%

1.1%

1—Little or no
understanding

3.1%

3.9%

2.3%

5.1%

5.8%

4.4%

Don’t Know

0.3%

0.6%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.6%

Mean

4.12 (N=351)

4.04 (N=180)

4.20 (N=171)

4.12 (N=351)

3.88 (N=171)

4.35 (N=180)

Following the rating of understanding the purpose of the GGS survey and what type of businesses should respond to the
survey, respondents were asked if they thought their company was qualified to complete the survey. These results are
shown in Table B1.4a.
Overall, there was no significant difference between responses to viewing the two cover letters. However, much like the
question rating the understanding of what type of businesses should respond to the survey, the revised letter appeared to
be perceived differently depending on whether it was viewed first or last. Those that viewed the revised letter first were
least likely to say their company was qualified to complete the survey and those that viewed it following the original letter
were most likely to say their company was qualified to complete the survey.

Table B1.4a Whether company is qualified to complete survey
If you received this
cover letter, based on
what it says, do you
think your company is
qualified to complete
the survey?

Original Cover Letter
Overall

Original Letter First

Revised Cover Letter

Revised Letter First

Overall

Revised Letter First

Original Letter First

Yes

72.4%

255

71.3%

129

73.7%

126

73.9%

260

64.9%

111

82.3%

149

27.6%

28.7%

26.3%

26.1%

35.1%

17.7%

Total

100.0%

352

100.0%

181

100.0%

171

100.0%

352

100.0%

171

100.0%

181

Next, the same analysis was conducted but limited to non-green establishments (Table B1.4b). The results generally
follow the same pattern as seen for the entire respondent pool; however, there is a much larger increase in agreement
that their company is qualified to complete the survey for the group that reads the revised letter first and then the revised
letter second than for the group that reads the original letter first and the revised letter second.

Table B1.4b Whether company is qualified to complete survey (non-green establishments only)
If you received this
cover letter, based on
what it says, do you
think your company is
qualified to complete
the survey?

Original Cover Letter
Overall

Original Letter First

Revised Cover Letter

Revised Letter First

Overall

Revised Letter First

Original Letter First

Yes

68.4%

160

66.9%

69.8%

68.4%

160

61.2%

75.4%

31.6%

33.1%

30.2%

31.6%

38.8%

24.6%

Total

100.0%

234

100.0%

118

100.0%

116

100.0%

234

100.0%

116

100.0%

118

If respondents stated that their company was not qualified to complete the survey, they were asked why not. The reasons
for stating the business was not qualified to complete the survey are listed in Table B1.5. Over three-fourths of the
responses given were some variation of a response indicating that the establishment or location does not have green
goods and services. Another roughly seven percent of respondents said they were not clear on the definition of green
goods and services; this likely indicates that the respondent thought involvement in green goods and services was a
factor in qualifying to take the survey.
Respondents coded as not having producing or being involved in green goods or services at their establishment or
location included those who said they did not produce any goods and services or simply stated what their business does,
without explicitly stating that they did not produce green goods or services.

Table B1.5 Reason not qualified
Original Cover Letter
If not qualified: Why?

Overall

Revised Cover Letter

Original Letter First Revised Letter First

Overall

Revised Letter First Original Letter First

The establishment/location
does not produce or is not
involved with green goods and
services

79.4%

80.8%

77.8%

81.5%

83.3%

78.1%

Not clear on the definition of
green goods and services

7.2%

3.8%

11.1%

6.5%

6.7%

6.3%

It is just unclear who needs to
respond

4.1%

3.8%

4.4%

4.3%

5.0%

3.1%

Reason/purpose/use/benefit of
survey is unclear

4.1%

5.8%

2.2%

1.7%

3.1%

Other (establishment is a subcontractor; is small; is a
government agency)

5.2%

5.8%

4.4%

5.4%

3.3%

9.4%

100.0%

Total

After reviewing both cover letters, respondents were asked which letter they preferred. These responses are given in
Table B1.6 below.
The findings indicate that, overall, respondents strongly preferred the revised letter over the original letter. However, it is
also clear that respondents preferred the letter that they viewed second.

Table B1.6 Cover letter preferred
Overall

Read Original Letter First

Read Revised Letter First

Which letter do you prefer?
%

Original

34.4%

121

14.4%

55.6%

Revised

58.5%

206

80.7%

146

35.1%

Neither/Don’t Know

7.1%

5.0%

9.4%

100.0%

352

100.0%

181

100.0%

171

Total

Respondents were then asked to comment on why they preferred their chosen letter (or if they had no preference, why
that was the case). The responses to this question are given in Table B1.7 below. Many respondents had several
comments; therefore, percentages in the tables below will have totals greater than 100 percent. There were 144
respondents who commented about the original letter and 244 who commented on the revised letter.
For this analysis, only overall results are provided. Presenting results by sample group here is not useful, given that each
group is not being asked what they liked about each letter; rather, each group is being asked to comment on their
preferred letter.
Overall, respondents favoring the original letter most liked the letter’s simplicity, while those favoring the revised letter
most liked its formatting, particularly the indented Q&A portion.

Table B1.7 Comments about respondents’ preferred cover letter
Original Letter

Revised Letter

Liked the letter’s simplicity

39.6%

4.9%

Liked the letter’s formatting

23.4%

54.5%

133

Thought the letter was clear

16.7%

9.8%

Thought the letter explained things well

11.1%

16.8%

Did not like the content of the letter

5.6%

1.6%

Liked the content of the letter

4.9%

1.6%

Liked the letter’s detail

2.1%

25.0%

Liked the response options given

1.4%

5.7%

Thought the letter was unclear

0.7%

0.8%

Did not like the letter’s formatting

0.0%

3.7%

Thought the content of both letters was similar

16.7%

9.8%

When asked if they would be likely to report GGS information online should BLS offer on online option, most respondents
said they would be likely to do so (Table B1.8).

Table B1.8 Likelihood to report online
Overall
If you had the option to report this data online, how likely would you have been to use this
option?
%

Very likely

51.4%

181

Likely

30.1%

106

Somewhat unlikely

9.7%

Not at all likely

7.7%

Don’t Know

1.1%

100.0%

352

Total

Lastly, respondents were asked if they had any questions about this survey or the GGS survey (Table B1.9). Less than 10
percent of respondents had any final questions. Among the small number who did, the two most common questions
related to why the establishment received the GGS survey or what the purpose of the GGS survey was and how the
information would be utilized.

Table B1.9 Questions regarding survey or GGS survey
Overall
Do you have any questions about this survey or the BLS Green Goods and Services Survey?
%

90.6%

318

Not sure survey applies/why they received it

2.3%

What is the purpose/utility of the GGS survey

1.4%

Needed government involvement clarified

1.1%

Questioned who is gathering data/where will info be available

1.1%

Comment that survey is wasteful/not sure of surveys use

0.9%

Wanted general information about the survey

0.6%

Comments about where or how survey should be administered

0.6%

Commented could not recall doing the survey

0.6%

Survey needs more info on what to report on or better understanding of business

0.6%

Cover letter is poorly worded and vague

0.3%

100.0%

352

Total

C. Conclusion
Overall, the results of this RAS indicate that, of the original and revised letter, respondents preferred the revised letter,
and they tended to feel that it does a better job of explaining the survey and its expectations. At the point in the interview
when respondents are asked about their preference and why, they have had a chance to read and review both cover
letters and have had time to reflect and compare the merits and drawbacks of both letters. Whereas, for the questions
about their level of understanding and their qualification to complete the survey, half of the respondents in each case were
answering based upon the first cover letter they read, without the frame of reference of having seen the second letter yet.
Therefore, since respondents indicated a definite preference for the revised letter, this should be taken into consideration.
Although sending only the revised letter in its current form would not be ideal, if only one letter was being sent, the revised
letter would be the better choice.
Most mail-out survey efforts, however, use multiple mailings, including multiple cover letters, in order to maximize
response rates. The results of this survey provide compelling support for using multiple cover letters: respondents
increased their understanding of the survey, their understanding the types of businesses the survey applies to, and
whether they feel they are qualified to complete the survey, by seeing the message multiple times and in different formats.
For all of those questions, understanding improved after having read both letters, regardless of which came first. With
regard to letter order, for most of the questions, the greatest improvement was shown when the respondent read the
original letter first and the revised letter second. Thus, in a scenario where multiple letters are sent, it appears the best
option is to send the original letter first, followed by the revised letter.
Despite the benefits of multiple cover letters, however, the results of this survey effort revealed an important obstacle in
achieving a high response to the GGS survey: there is a large minority of respondents—from both green and non-green
establishments—who did not think that their company is qualified to participate in the survey. A significant number of
respondents indicated that they believe the survey does not apply to them, just based on reading the cover letters. Given
the results above, the original cover letter appears to do a better job of conveying this message, but it still is not conveying
the message to all respondents.
Furthermore, with regards to respondents believing they were qualified to complete the survey, non-green establishments
tended to increase their perception of qualification more when they read the original letter second, and perceptions shifted
less when they read the original letter first. However, their initial feeling of qualification was higher when they read the
original letter first. These two results, when examined together, tell us that the original letter did a better job of making
those establishments aware that they should complete the survey; this may be a result of the original letter having a

statement in bold print indicating that all establishments should complete the survey, regardless of whether they have
green goods and services. Consequently, having this message repeated seemed to help respondents realize the survey
applied to them—but again, not enough, as there are still a significant number of establishments who did not feel qualified
to complete the survey even after reading both cover letters.

Appendix A: Original Cover Letter

U.S. Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics
2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 4840
Washington, DC 20212

Dear Employer:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor needs your help. We need to hear from
businesses like yours as we measure employment involved in the production of green goods and services.
We need to hear from every company, even if your company is not involved in producing green goods or
services, to get an accurate picture of the economy.
Green goods and services are defined as those that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.
Examples are listed on the following pages.
We are requesting that you participate by responding to the attached survey. Please complete and return
the survey within 30 days of receipt.
Your business may have more than one location, and each location may be involved in a different activity.
Please respond for the activities performed at the individual worksite identified in Question 1 of the survey.
If you have any questions, please contact our helpdesk by calling toll free at 1-866-840-3801 (TTY at 1-866841-3259) or by emailing [email protected].
Thank you for your participation.
Sincerely yours,

Patricia M. Getz
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Industry Employment Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics

Confidentiality Statement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, its employees, agents, and partner statistical agencies, will use the information you provide for
statistical purposes only and will hold the information in confidence to the full extent permitted by law. In accordance with the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (Title 5 of Public Law 107-347) and other applicable Federal laws, your responses will not be disclosed in
identifiable form without your informed consent. This report is authorized by law 29 U.S.C.2. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. Your voluntary cooperation
is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely. We estimate that completing this form will take an average of 15 minutes. This
estimate takes into account time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the information. If you have any comments regarding this survey, including suggestions for reducing the burden, send them to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Office of Industry Employment Statistics, Paperwork Reduction Project, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4840, Washington, DC 20212. The OMB
control number for this voluntary survey is 1220-0183 and expires on April 30, 2014. Without a currently valid number BLS would not be able to conduct this
survey.

Appendix B: Revised Cover Letter

U.S. Department of Labor

Bureau of Labor Statistics
2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Room 4840
Washington, DC 20212

Dear Employer:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor needs your help measuring the number
of jobs involved in the production of green goods and services. By completing a brief survey, you will help us
determine the number, growth, and distribution of green jobs by industry, occupation, and geography in the
United States.
What if your company does not produce green goods or services? We still need to hear from you
to publish an accurate picture of the economy.
What are green goods and services? They are goods and services that benefit the environment or
conserve natural resources. Examples are listed on the following pages.
What if your business has more than one location? Your business may have more than one
location, and each location may be involved in a different activity. Please respond for the individual
worksite identified in Question 1 of the survey.
What if you want to report using the internet? Please go to the web address www.idcf.bls.gov
and use report number 123456789012 to access the data collection form.
Please help us better understand our current economy by completing and returning the attached survey
within 30 days.
If you have any questions, please contact our helpdesk by calling toll free at: 1-866-840-3801 (TTY at 1-866841-3259), send an email to: [email protected], or visit our website (http://www.bls.gov/green/).
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely yours,

Patricia M. Getz
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Industry Employment Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics
Confidentiality Statement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, its employees, agents, and partner statistical agencies, will use the information you provide for
statistical purposes only and will hold the information in confidence to the full extent permitted by law. In accordance with the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (Title 5 of Public Law 107-347) and other applicable Federal laws, your responses will not be disclosed in
identifiable form without your informed consent. This report is authorized by law 29 U.S.C.2. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. Your voluntary cooperation
is needed to make the results of this survey comprehensive, accurate, and timely. We estimate that completing this form will take an average of 15 minutes. This
estimate takes into account time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the information. If you have any comments regarding this survey, including suggestions for reducing the burden, send them to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Office of Industry Employment Statistics, Paperwork Reduction Project, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Room 4840, Washington, DC 20212. The OMB
control number for this voluntary survey is 1220-0183 and expires on April 30, 2014. Without a currently valid number BLS would not be able to conduct this
survey.

Appendix C: RAS Instrument for the Cover Letter Pre-test

Introduction
Intro1. Hello, may I speak with (INSERT CONTACT NAME)?
My name is ______________. I am calling on behalf of the Bureau of
Labor Statistics in reference to the Bureau's Green Goods and Services
survey you completed.
First, we want to thank you for taking the time to complete the survey
form. We are calling you now to obtain feedback on revisions to the cover
letter that came with the survey form, and if you have any suggestions for
improving it. Your opinions are very important to us, so if you can spare a
few minutes, we’d like to hear your reactions.
Section 1. Set up
Q1. Before we begin, let me assure you that this call is strictly for informational
purposes to help us evaluate the Green Goods and Services survey forms and your
participation is completely voluntary and you can decline to answer any question at
any time. This call is being recorded for quality assurance purposes. Depending
on the number of comments, the questions usually take about 10 minutes.
READ ONLY IF ASKED: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, its employees and
agents, will use the information you provide for statistical purposes only and will
hold the information in confidence to the full extent permitted by law. In
accordance with the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency
Act of 2002 and other applicable federal laws, your responses will not be disclosed
in identifiable form without your informed consent.
Q2: We would like to get your feedback on two different versions of the cover
letter. Do you have access to the internet?
 YES
 NO (goto S1 Q4)
Q3: Great! Just go to www.websrg.com/ggs.
WHEN THEY ARE READY TO CONTINUE: Our records indicate that you filled
out form [FORM NAME]. Please find and click on the tab that says form [FORM
NAME] and let me know when you are ready to continue. (goto S1 Q6)

Q4: Can I fax you copies of the cover letter instead?
 YES (FAX THE COVER LETTERS) (goto S1 Q6)
 NO (goto S3 Q5)
Q5: Can I e-mail you copies of the cover letter?
 YES (FAX THE COVER LETTERS) (goto S1 Q6)
 NO (goto S1 Q7)
Q6: DOES THE RESPONDENT HAVE A COPY OF THE COVER LETTERS IN
FRONT OF THEM?
 YES (goto S3 PURPLE OR ORANGE)
 NO (goto S1 Q7)
Q7: I'd like to set up a time to call you back when you are able to have access to
the cover letters. When is a good time to call you to complete this short survey?
SET UP TIME IF R IS WILLING AND RECORD CALL INFO.
Section 2. Rating the two cover letters - Purple first
Q1: Now I am going to ask you a few questions about the two versions of the cover
letter accompanying the Green Goods and Services Survey. Let's start with the
Purple form. Please click on the form and read the cover letter of the Purple form.
Just let me know when you have finishing reading the cover letter.
WAIT UNTIL RESPONDENT IS READY On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is little or
no understanding and 5 is understand completely, how would you rate your
understanding of what the survey is about?





5 COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING
4
3
2

 1 LITTLE OR NO UNDERSTANDING
 DON’T KNOW
 RF

Q2: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is little or no understanding and 5 is understand
completely, how would you rate your understanding of what type of businesses
should respond to the survey?






