Findings From The 2003 e-

Practitioner Attitudinal Trackin

Prepared For:

The Internal Revenue Service

and

FCB Advertising/NY

August, 2003

Publication 4351 (6-2004)Catalog Number 38679P
Contents

Contents Background, Objectives & Methodology................................................

Summary And Conclusions From The 2003 Benchmark Wave Of Practitio

Detailed Findings

Profiling The 100+ Volume Practitioner Universe

Practitioner Demographics, Professional Characteristics, and FirmoPractitioner Attitudes Toward & Involvement In e-file...................

100+ Volume Practitioner Attitudes...

Toward Technology, Life & Work...................................................The Attitudinal Segmentation.......................................................

Other Opportunities For Increasing e-file Usage Among 100+ Volume 

Communicating With Practitioners & High-Opportunity Segments......Fit Of H&R & J-H Practitioners Within The Larger Universe..................How Practitioners From The BMF Masterfile Compare To Other Practi

Appendix

Methodological Appendix

Questionnaire Used In The Study (attached electronically)
Background, Objec Background, Objectives 

And Method And Methodolog

y
Research Background

 In 2000, realizing the importance of Practitioners to increasin

initiated research to better understand Practitioners, how they how to reach them with communications.

 The first step in the research (in 2001) examined Practitioners f

the leading trade groups, the Big Two tax prep firms, and the top that study provided some insight, it highlighted knowledge gaps 

through a survey among Practitioners themselves. 

 The Practitioner Attitudinal Tracking Study was designed to fi

benchmark wave in 2002 and then annual tracking thereafter. 

 The 2002 benchmark wave was conducted among Practitioners in 

prepare 5+ returns. However, since then, the IRS decided Practitioners who “prepare 50 or more returns” (with smaller v

considered outside the reach of IRS communications). 

 Note: The 50+ criteria was further narrowed to 100+ following 

integration session, and all data from the 2003 study have 

reported here. While this report focuses on the 100+ Volumprovides a comparison to the 50-99 segment that will be eliminat
Research Background (Cont’d.)

 As a result of the initial change in Return Volume criteria (from 5+ to 50+), 

new benchmark among Practitioners in 2003. In addition to re-benchmarkin

1. Determine whether Practitioners from H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt should be 

in future waves or kept separate as a unique audience.

2. And compare Preparers from the BMF Masterfile with Preparers in the Random S3. And, in this final report, to focus on the 100+ Volume Practitioners but also pr

Volume Preparers.

 Otherwise, the overall purpose of the study this year is the same as that of th

 To fill in knowledge gaps and build a more complete picture of the Practitioner u And to establish baseline levels of understanding of Practitioners for use in tr

communications efforts as the IRS moves toward its 80% e-file goal.
Research Objectives

 This report is organized to address the specific objectives of the study, which 

 To profile the 100+ Return Volume Practitioners (vs. the 50-99 segment) dem

and learn how they operate.

 To learn their usage of and attitudes toward e-file -- specifically, to determ

Practitioners as primarily a method of filing Individual Returns, with low associa

 To segment Practitioners by their attitudes toward and usage of technology.  To determine if there are high-opportunity segments in terms of increasing e-fil To learn more about how to communicate with Practitioners generally and wit

specifically.

 To determine how to treat H&R and J-H Preparers -- study them separately o

samples of Practitioners.

 And, finally, to survey Preparers From The BMF Masterfile and compare them to 
Research Methodology

 The new Benchmark Wave of the study was conducted...

 In March and April 2003, by telephone from RMR’s New Jersey research center. The sample sizes were as follows (after moving any H&R and J-H Preparers occurrin

sample to the special cells for those groups):

 782 Random Sample Practitioners (from the IMF Masterfile) -- 685 being Prac

and 97 with return volume of 50-99.

 367 H&R Block Preparers 205 Jackson-Hewitt Preparers 200 BMF Preparers (from the BMF Masterfile)

 All samples were drawn on a random selection basis from lists provided by the 

samples except the BMF cell screened to exclude smaller-volume Preparers (those 

year) as well as non-professionals (working at VITA sites and other non-profit tax pr

Practitioners simply had to be active tax return preparers.
Executive Summary Executive Summary 

And Conclusions And Conclusions
Summary & Conclusions

1. Res

ult

s of t

he r

e-analysis of 2003 data, fo

c

u

sin

g o

n t

he 100+ V

olu

m

e Pra

ct

univ

erse can be profile

d as follows:

 Demogra

phically, the 100+ Pra

ctitioners are t

y

pically in t

heir early 50’s and 

 Professionally, th

e

y start th

eir tax pre

p c

areers in th

eir e

arly 30’s, aft

er having 

preparation. 57% of t

h

e

m belong to a trade group and 81% atte

n

d profe

seminars. Most (76%) approach tax prep work as an occupation (i.e., not seasoreturns/year. 

 79% of these returns are Individual (46% e-filed) and 21% are Business (2

 Busin

ess-wis

e, about h

alf work in firms, and among these firms...

 Two-thirds say tax pre

p is their primary service. Th

e

y h

a

v

e a 

m

e

dia

n

o

mainly Individual ret

urns) and t

hey hav

e been in business an average of 3

2 

 71% of t

hese firms adv

ertise, mainly through newspapers and dire

ct 

advertising onl

y during t

a

x season and roughly half adv

ertising throughout 
Summary & Conclusions (Cont’d

2. Looking at Practitioner Usage Of & Attitudes Toward e-file and s

Retur

n Volume uni

v

ers

e, we see t

h

a

t:

 Among the 66% who h

ad 

u

sed 

e-file in th

e previous tax year, 

Ret

urns, and about half also 

e-filed Business Returns. 

 58% hav

e never used e-file for Business returns -- mai

nly beca

appr

o

priate or that it is too difficult and time-consuming. 

 Another 26

% have never used e-file for I

ndividual returns -- mainly 

it, it’s too costly, it’s too difficult/time consu

min

g, and the E

RO regist

 When 

w

e asked 

Practitioners to name t

he key ben

efits of 

e-file, t

speed (about h

alf of t

his being speed in ref

u

n

d and half speed 

mention (a

n

d less recognition) of the benefits of accuracy and ease 

Non-Users.
Summary & Conclusions (Cont’d

3. In as

s

e

s

sing opportunities for increasing e-file usage among 10

the Tech s

egme

n

t

ation proved fruitless, with too few difference

segme

nts to indic

ate any opportunity for one s

egme

nt over the 

behavioral s

egments

and identified the following 

2 groups (wi

volume) as having potential.

 Non-Users of e-file

–

who account for 29% of ret

urn volume. I

mind that compared to e-file Users, the

y are...

 Ol

d

er, more Male-sk

ewed, more likely to be I

ndependents or in 

to be involved in AI

C

PA and State trade groups. They also h

av

file benefits of Speed, Accuracy, and Ease Of Use.

 Low-Volume Users of e-file --

T

hey e-file less than 5

0

% of the

19

% of all return vol

ume. In marketi

ng t

o them, keep in mind that 

file Users, t

hey are...

 More Male-skewed, likely to be Independents/in small firms, a

n

They are l

ess likely t

o e-file Individual ret

urns, because t

hey say 

are far less likely to e-file Business returns, because 

appropriateness for Business returns.
Summary & Conclusions (Cont’d

4.

W

e also looke

d for o

pportu

nities for 

c

o

m

municatin

g with the 1

0

0

+

Return V

total audience and th

e N

o

n-Us

er a

nd Low-Vol

u

m

e U

ser o

p

p

ortu

nity se

g

m

e

nts



T

he I

R

S website is critical t

o comm

u

nication wit

h all 

Practitioners, in

segments. It is, by far, the top sourc

e for information about t

a

x preparation in 

 The trade press als

o offers a com

m

u

nication o

pportu

nity, espe

cially amo

and L

ow-V

olume Users. One trade p

u

b st

o

o

d o

ut ab

o

ve the others – the Journa

 Other comm

u

nication

s o

p

p

ortunities i

dentified 

w

ere: 

1) Firm

s with Intr

a

n

ets (especially a

mong Non-Users and Low-V

olum

e Users, 

Intranets); 

2) And

m

eetings/conventions/seminars focused on tax prep work (about 

8

0

% of 
Summary & Conclusions (Cont’d

5. On th

e issu

e of h

ow to tre

at H&R Bl

o

ck a

n

d Jac

k

s

o

n-H

ewitt Practitioners i

n f

u



T

here are major demographic, professional, and e-file related differences betw

other 100+ Volume Pra

ctitioners. And, since Big T

w

o Preparers

c

o

m

prise a lar

least 23%, according to random sampling), addin

g the

m and their different c

har

Preparer rand

o

m samples will impact the composition and learning from t

hose st

6. Com

pari

ng th

e sam

ple of Practition

ers fr

o

m the BMF Masterfile with th

e sam

p

IM

F

Masterfile, w

e found that the BMF

Prepar

ers ar

e

...

 Similar to the 100+ IMF

Preparers demographically, but are more involved in th

b

e: full-time

preparers, in

v

olved in trade 

gro

u

ps, and attending t

a

x meetings/s

likely to work in firms -- firms with greater return volume and more focus on Bus

 While more of the BMF

Preparers say they use e-file, their share of returns that 

the 100+ IMF

Preparers.

 The best methods of c

ommunic

ation with BMF

Preparers are also different -- wit

trade groups, tax pre

p me

etings, e-mail and c

ompany websites.
Summary & Conclusions (Cont’d

7. Finally, while the focus of this and future reports on Practitioners 

u

nivers

e, w

e took one final look at the 50-99s who are b

eing rem

fou

nd that they

...

 Are somewhat less Male-skewed tha

n t

he 100+

a

nd hav

e a dif

pattern (with more of t

he 50-99s coming from Area 2 a

nd fe

w

er com

 Profes

sionally, they ten

d to be more s

easonal than the

100+, are 

are mainly i

ndepen

dents. 

T

hey are also less likely to belong to a 

attend ta

x prep-focused meetings less frequently (incl

uding the Nati

o

 Their firms generat

e fewer returns, are l

ess likely to advertise, but 

firms of the 100+ Practitioners.

 The 50-99s personally prepare far fewer returns t

h

a

n t

he 

100+, 

Individual and Business returns. While their attitudes towar

d e-fil

100+ universe, they do less Fed-State e-filing, as well as far fewer E

 Importantly, t

his segment has a muc

h stronger reliance on t

he 

Practitioners --

w

hich mea

ns that the IRS can continu

e to comm

even tho

ugh fut

ure marketing pro

g

r

ams are focus

ed o

n the 
Detailed F Detailed Findings
Profiling The ling The 

Practition Practitioner Universe er Universe

(With A Focus On Th (With A Focus On Those With ose With 

100+ Ret 100+ Return Volume)
D

e

m

o

gr

ap

h

i

c

s, Profe

s

s

ion

Characteristics, and Firmograp
Demographic Profile Of U.S. Practit

 Demographically, the 100+ Volume Practitioners have an average a

are similar to Taxpayers in geographic dispersion -- with differe

between Practitioners who use e-file and those who do not. 

 By comparison, the 50-99 Volume Practitioners skew somewha

different geographic dispersion pattern. 

100+ 100+ Practitione

Volume Tax- e-file e-file 

Practitioners payers Users Non-Us

BASE: 685 1000 565 120 

% % % % 

Age

Average Age (Mean) 53.1 41.2 52.5 54.5 

Gender

Male 58 49 54 66 Female 42 51 46 34 

AREA

Area #1 -- Northeast 11 11 11 10 Area #2 – Mid-Atlantic 17 17 14 24 Area #3 -- Southeast 12 16 12 13 Area #4 – Great Lakes Region 22 17 24 17 Area #5 – Mid-America 17 16 21 11 

Area #6 – West (Excl. CA10) 11 10 9 15 Area #7 -- California 10 12 10 10 
Professional Characteristics

100+ Volume e

Practitioners U

BASE: 685 

% 

Involvement In Tax Preparation

It’s A Full-Time Occupation 45 It’s One Of My Occupations, And I Do Other Kinds Of Work 31 It’s Something I Only Do During Tax Season 24 

Average # Years Involved In Tax Preparation 20.4 

How Did They Train For Tax Preparation?

Learned From Another Tax Professional 29 Took Courses About Tax Preparation 63 Trained As A CPA/Accountant 46 Some Other Type Of Training/Self-Taught 8 

Independent vs. Working In A Firm

Work Alone As An Independent 52 Work With A Firm 36 Both Independent & Work With A Firm 12 

 The 100+ Volume Practitioners tend toward tax prep work as a 

been in tax prep work an average of 20 years, trained mainly via ta

likely to work in a firm as not. Again, there are differences by e-fil

 Meanwhile, the 50-99 Volume Practitioners are more seasonal tha

newer to tax prep work, and tend to be mainly independents.

With anaverageage of53, moststart tax prep work in theirearly30’s.
Professional Life

 Over half of the 100+ Practitioners belong to a professional organi

trade groups being state-level associations and AICPA. Non-User

to be involved in trade groups than Users.

 The 50-99 Volume Practitioners are far less likely to belong to a t

groups and AICPA are the leaders here, too.

100+ Volume e-file 

Practitioners Users 

BASE: 685 565 

% % 

Membership In Trade/Professional Organizations

Total Who Belong To Any Organization 57 51 State Associations Or Groups 22 18 AICPA (Am. Inst. Of Cert’d. Public Accountants) 21 13 NATP (National Association Of Tax Practitioners) 12 13 NAEA (National Association Of Enrolled Agents) 8 9 NSA (National Society Of Accountants) 4 4 APA 1 * American Assn. Of Attorneys-CPAs 1 1 Total Do Not Belong To Any Organization 43 49 

Groups 

With 

1%+

Mentions
Professional Life (Cont’d.)

 81% of 100+ Practitioners attend tax prep-focused professional 

seminars and 68% of that 80% attend such meetings several time

 Similarly, 79% of 50-99 Practitioners attend tax prep meetings, th

the larger volume Preparers.

81%

68%

28%

4% 0%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Attend Tax

Prep-Focused

Prof'l.

Meetings,

Conventions,

Seminars

Several

X/Yr.

Once/Year Once Every

2-3 Yrs

Less Often

n=685

Base = 552 Filed Attend Tax-Focused

Prof’l Meetings, Conventions Seminars

79%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Attend Tax

Prep-Focused

Prof'l.

Meetings,

Conventions,

Seminars

n=97

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 50-99 R
Business Approach

 71% of the 100+ Volume Preparers in firms say their firms advert

lower among e-file Non-Users at 58% (who are more likely to be y

not just during tax season). The primary ad vehicles are Newspape

 By comparison, the 50-99 Practitioners are somewhat less likely to 

do, have a different mix of media vehicles.

100+ Volume e-file 

Practitioners Users 

BASE: Total Work With A Firm 337 285 

% % 

% Who Say Their Firm Advertises 71 77 

When They Advertise

BASE: Firm Ever Advertises (249) (219) 

Throughout The Year 46 41 Only During Certain Months (i.e., tax season) 52 57 Don’t Know 2 2 

Advertising Media UsedBASE: Firm Ever Advertises (249) (219) 

Newspapers 67 70 Direct Mail 59 63 Radio 47 51 Television 41 48 Internet 37 40 Magazines 37 43 Yellow Pages 11 10 
Firmographics -- Size, Focus & Age Of Firms R

 About half of the 100+ Practitioners work in firms, with these fi

preparation. The median number of Preparers per firm is 7.5 – w

doing mainly Individual Returns. Note: Firms with e-file Non-Userprep work, and were smaller firms with more business accounts more accounting firms.

 The 50-99 Volume Practitioners work in firms that are generally 

100+ audience.

100+ Volume e-

Practitioners Us

BASE: Total Work In A Firm 337 2

% % 

% Whose Firm’s Primary Service Focus Is Tax Preparation 67 7

Median # Of Active Tax Preparers In Firm 7.5 10

% Of Preparers In Firm Focused On...

Individual Returns 69 7Business Returns 31 2

Avg. # Years Firm Has Been In Business 32.3 31

Avg. # Years Firm Involved In Tax Prep 32.0 31
Firmographics -- Volume Of Returns From Fir

100+ Volume e-f

Practitioners Use

BASE: Total Work In A Firm 337 28

% % 

# Returns From Firm Last Tax Season

50-99 1 1 100-499 17 1500-999 20 11,000-9,999 32 310,000-99,999 6 7 100,000-999,999 6 7 1 Million Or More 3 4 Don’t Know 16 2

Median # Returns From Firms 2,250 3,9Median # Returns Per Practitioner In Firm (e.g., 2,250/7.5) 300 37

NOTE: Since respondents were surveyed in March-April, prior to the end of tax season, when anumber of returns, they were asked about their 2002 filings for Tax Year 2001.

 The firms of the 100+ Practitioners represented here generated a 

during the 2002 tax season. With 7.5 Practitioners per firm, this mworking in a firm is preparing an average of 300 returns per ye

reporting lower volume than Users).

 The firms of the 50-99 Practitioners generate fewer returns over

Preparer.
Volume & Type Of Returns Prepared By Al

 Looking next at all 100+ Volume Practitioners (those in firms pl

that the median # of returns filed per Preparer in 2002 was 2

Individual Returns (with 46% of them e-filed) and 21% were Bu

22% of them e-filed). 

 Among the 50-99 Practitioners, there are comparatively few

somewhat more Business returns, and less e-filing of both Individu

100+ Volume e

Practitioners U

BASE: 685 5

% 

# Returns Personally Prepared Last Tax Season

100-199 39 200-299 22 300 or More 39 Median # Returns From Each Practitioner 225 2

Share Of Total Returns That Were...

Business Returns 21 Individual Returns 79 

Share Of Ind. Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=684) 46 Share Of Bus. Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=580) 22 
Practitioner Attitudes Tow

and Involvement In e-file
Overall Usage Of e-file

 After weighting of data for e-file usage among the 100+ Volume P

who were e-file Users -- with virtually all of them e-filing Individuhalf of them (or 31% of all 100+ Preparers) had also e-filed Busine

 As we’ve seen in other Practitioner research, usage of e-file 

Individual returns) skews higher among those preparing more re

Practitioners.

 Among the 50-99 Volume Practitioners, far fewer (48%) were e-f

both Business and Individual return.

100+ Volume # Returns Last Year 

Practitioners 100-199 200-299 300+ 

BASE: 685 254 151 280 

% % % % 

Usage Of e-file

Net % Who Used e-file Last Year 66 60 65 73 

Used e-file Last Year For Business Returns 31 26 32 35 

Used e-file Last Year For Individual Returns 65 60 63 72 
Use Of Business e-file And Reasons For 

 Among those who claimed they file Business returns, 58% of the 

65% of the 50-99s) said they have never e-filed a Business return

reasons for not e-filing Business Returns were...

58%

25%

18%

14%

10% 12% 10%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

% Of Last

Year's

Business

Filers Who

Have Never efiled A

Business

Return

Not

Appropriate

For Business

Use

Too Difficult/

Too Time

Consuming

Lack Of

Interest/LackOf Knowledge

Cost Lack Of

Access

Registration/

Application

Process

Base = 317 Filed Business Returns Last Year But Did Not e-file Any Business Returns

Reasons For Never e-filing

A Business Return

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 

Base = 580 FiledBusiness Returns

Last Year

• Asked directly how appropriate e-file is for Business returns

57% of the 50-99s) said very appropriate, with all others havi
Use Of Individual e-file And Reasons Fo

 Among those filing Individual returns, 26% of the 100+ Practitio

99s) said they had never used e-file for Individual returns. WhPractitioners, top reasons for not e-filing Individual returns were...

26% 25%

16% 15% 15%

11% 8% 5%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

% Of Last

Year's

Individual

Filers Who

Have Never

e-filed An

Individual

Return

Clients

Don't

Ask/Want

It

 Too

Costly

Difficult/

Time

Consuming

Not ERO

And Regis.

Too

Difficult

Lack Of

Access

Taking

Wait & See

Approach

Not

Security

Confident

Base = 127 Filed Individual Returns Last Year But Did Not e-file Individual Returns

Reasons For Never e-filing 

An Individual Return

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 

Base = 684 Filed

Individual Returns 

Last Year
Benefits Of e-file

 Asked to name the benefits of e-file, both the 100+ and 50-99 Pr

Speed (in refund and filing), with far less acknowledgement of e

Use, and Paperless benefits – especially among Non-Users.

100+ Volume e-file 

Practitioners Users 

BASE: 685 565 

% % 

Leading Benefits Of e-fileSpeed/Faster 71 77 

Speed In Refund 45 49 Speed In Submission Of Return 41 44 Speed Of Acknowledged Receipt Of Return 20 25 

Accuracy 39 45 

It’s a More Accurate Way To File 25 30 Not As Many Errors 17 18 

Ease Of Use 29 35 

It’s Easier For Me/The Preparer 16 20 It’s Easier For The Client 9 10 

Paperless Filing Using A PIN 15 17 Clients Like It 5 6 
Related Issues: e-file Decision-M

 The person deciding e-file policy varies by firm size among bo

Practitioners. Looking just at the firms of the 100+ Practitioners, w

 At the Preparer level in almost all of the very small firms (those with 1

 At the Preparer or owner/manager level in most of the 5-19 size firms

 But with e-file decision-making moving away from the i

owners/managers and headquarters in most of the larger firms (those 

 Among e-file Non-Users (who are in smaller firms with more accounta

very likely to be the individual Practitioner.

100+ Volume # Preparers In Firm 

Practitioners 1-4 5-19 20+ 

BASE: 685 451 99 113 

% %%% 

You 72 92 42 20 The Firm’s Owner/Manager 16 7 44 29 Mgt. At Firm’s Headquarters 7 * 6 34 Someone Else 2 *19 Don’t Know 2 135 
Authorized e-file Provider Stat

 64% of the 100+ Practitioners claimed to be an Authorized e-fi

among the 50-99 segment). Among the 100+ group, the main re

status were presence of another AeP in their firm, don’t care to gdemand, too much work, and lack of confidence.

64%

22%

14% 12% 12% 11% 9%

6%

34%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

% Who Are

Authorized

e-file

Providers

% Who Are

Not

Someone

Else In Firm

Is An AeP

Just Don't

Care To Get

Involved

With It

Lack Of

Demand

From Clients

Too Much

Work/Takes

Too Much

Time

Lack Of

Confidence

In It/More

Confidence

in Paper

Costs Too

Much

The

Registration

Process

Q 34 -- Base =

Total Sample

(685) Q 37 -- Base = 178 Who Are Not An Authorized e-file Provider

Reasons For Not Seeking AeP Status

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 
Fed-State e-filing And e-filing EITC 

 In states with a state income tax, 65% of the 100+ Practitioners (

Fed-State e-filing. Among those filing Individual returns, 84% file 

returns = 70) – with over half of these e-filing EITC returns. 

 There is far less Fed-State e-filing and e-filing of EITC returns amon

100+ Volu

Practition

Fed-State e-fileBASE: Total Interviews In States w/State Income Tax (567) 

% 

% Who e-file Fed-State Simultaneously 65 

BASE: Total e-file Users In States w/State Income Tax (470) 

% 

% Who e-file Fed-State Simultaneously 92 

EITC e-file

BASE: Total Filed Individual Tax Returns Last Year (684) 

% 

% Filed Returns w/EITC Schedules 84 

NEW BASE: Total Filed EITC Returns (586) 

% 

Avg. # Returns w/EITC Filed Last Year 70 % Who e-filed any EITC Returns 57 
Receipt Of And Feedback On The IRS e-file M

 60-61% of the 100+ and 50-99 Practitioners recalled receiving 

Toolkit. Among the 100+ Practitioners specifically, we see highe

naturally, though still substantial at 43% among Non-Users. OnForm, but about half of them said they had used it. 

100+ Volume e-file 

Practitioners Users N

Receipt Of Marketing ToolkitBASE: Total Interviews 685 565 

% % 

% Ever Received Marketing Toolkit 60 68 

Components Of Toolkit Considered Helpful

BASE: Total Ever Received Marketing Toolkit (438) (386) 

% % 

Refund Cycle Chart 43 53 Window/Door Decals 33 41 Posters 30 37 Q&A Brochures 23 27 Order Form For Add’l. Posters/Decals/etc. 14 18 

Use Of Order Form To Order More Materials

BASE: Total Recalled Order Form As Helpful (72) (71) 

% % 

% Used Order Form To Order More Materials 52 54 % Who Did Not Use Order Form 47 45 
Awareness, Attendance & Feedback On Nation

100+ Volume e-file 

Practitioners Users 

Awareness Of Nationwide Tax ForumsBASE: Total Interviews 685 565 

% % 

% Aware Of Forums 78 77 % Not Aware Of Forums 22 23 

Attendance At Forums

BASE: Total Aware Of Forums (532) (437) 

% % 

Ever Attended 44 42 Never 56 58 

Rating Level Of Info/Instruction At Forums

BASE: Total Attend Forums (229) (184) 

% % 

Far Too Advanced 1 1 Somewhat Too Advanced 6 5 Just The Right Level 62 63 Somewhat Too Elementary 21 24 Far Too Elementary 6 5 

 78% of the 100+ Practitioners were aware of the Nationwide Tax 

those aware had ever attended a Forum. Those who had attended 

of content “about right”.

 Among the 50-99 Practitioners, 74% were aware of the Forums, th

attended a Forum.
Reaction To Free Software & Free e-file 

 Not surprisingly with an audience of Preparers, the 2 Preparer-frie

e-file For Preparers and Free Software For Preparers) generated 

Payer-oriented concepts. This was true of both the 100+ and 50

50-99s tended to have higher interest in all concepts than the 100+ 

100+ Vol 50-99 Vol

BASE: 685 97

% %

Free SW For Preparers

Total Like It A Lot/Little 71 84Like It A Lot 46 71Like It A Little 24 12Total Dislike It 26 11Dislike It A Little 11 6Dislike It A Lot 15 5

Free SW For Bus/Indiv. Payers

Total Like It A Lot/Little 44 56Like It A Lot 24 35Like It A Little 20 21Total Dislike It 55 43Dislike It A Little 16 20Dislike It A Lot 39 23

(~1-4% DK Responses Not Shown)

BASE: 

Free e-file For Preparers

Total Like It A Lot/LitLike It A Lot Like It A Little Total Dislike It Dislike It A Little Dislike It A Lot 

Free e-file For Bus/Indiv

Total Like It A Lot/LitLike It A Lot Like It A Little Total Dislike It Dislike It A Little Dislike It A Lot 

(~2% DK Responses Not Show
Practitioner Attitudes Towa

and Usage Of Technology
Attitudes Toward Technology

 We measured the 100+ Practitioners’ attitudes toward techno

statements about technology and found that e-file Users are more 

Users, and that Practitioners as

a group

(both the 1

0

0+ and 50-

techaccepting than Taxpayers.

100+ e-file

e-file 50-99

Practs User Non-User Practs

BASE: 685 565 120 97

%%%

%

Think technology can be trusted 76 81 66 86Wish all govt. forms filed by computer 68 81 41 78One of the first to try ne

w technology 63 65 58 50

If could, I'd do all financial dealings by computer

49 50 46 42

Easiest way to bank is by personal computer 51 54 45 55Need lots of phone technology (pager, cell, etc.) 43 45 41 43Rather e-mail friends/family than talk on phone 29 32 25 32AV

G. AGREE. w/ACCEPT

O

R

S S

TATEME

N

T

S 54 58 46 55

AVG. A

MONG TOTAL TAX

P

AYERS (2003) 42

Q 2 --% Agree Completely or

Agree Somewhat With Each Statement

Statements I

n

dicatin

g Tec

h Acceptors

(% Agr

ee With Eac

h

State

m

e

nt)

BASE: Can’t keep up with all the new tKids handle ne

w technology; ad

Computers worry me -- so much We control computers, someday Never put financial information AV

G. AGREE. w/FOLLO

WER 

AVG. A

MONG TOTAL TAX

P

AY

Statements I

n

di

(% Agr

ee Wi
Usage Of Specific Technologies For Business/P

 The 100+ Practitioners (as well as the 50-99s) have high use of PC

technologies -- with e-file Users generally more likely to use eUsers. Practitioner tech usage is also generally ahead of that of Ta

100+ Volume e-file e-file 

Practitioners User Non-User 

BASE: 685 565 120 

% % % 

Use of a PC for Work 95 95 95 Use of the Internet to Search for Information 93 95 89 Use of Government Websites 88 91 81 Use of a Cell Phone 79 81 75 Use of e-mail for Personal Correspondence 80 86 70 Use of e-mail for Business Correspondence 80 81 78 Use of the Internet to Order Products/Services 78 80 75 Use of a PC for Entertainment 62 64 58 Use of Broadband, DSL, or Cable Modems 57 58 55 Use of a PC for Doing Personal Banking 48 52 42 Use of a PDA, like a Palm Pilot 21 21 21 Use of a Beeper/Pager 12 13 11 % Use Each Technology Regularly
The Practitioner Segmentatio

 In re-benchmarking the Practitioner Study, we repeated the pro

analyzed 100+ and 50-99 Practitioner attitudes toward technol

technologies using a multivariate statistical technique known as C

 This new analysis yielded the same 3 segments of Practitioner

benchmark study -- Tech Leaders, Tech Followers, and Tech Laggbeing (on balance) more tech forward than the 50-99s.

Unclassified

1%

Group 3 -- 

Tech Laggards

26%

Group 2 -- 

Tech Followers

30%

Group 1 --

Tech Leaders

43% Group 1 -- Tech Leaders

Group 2 -- TechFollowersGroup 3 -- TechLaggardsUnclassified

Un

Group 3 --

Tech Laggards

31%

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 
So Who Are The Practitioners In These Segments? (

Full-Time Occupation: 47%Seasonal: 26%Independent : 53%Work In Firm: 47%

(Median # Preparers =11)

Full-Time Occupation: 47%Seasonal: 20%Independent: 47%Work In Firm: 53%

(Median # Preparers =7)

Business Characteristics

Somewhat older segment (avg

53), also skewed Male.

The youngest segment (avg 51) 

and skewed Male.

Demographics

Personally, less open to chang

and new experiences thanLeaders. Professionally, more involved in work than both

other groups.

Personally, more comfortable with 

change and new experiences. 

Professionally, more optimistic and 

driven.

Personal and ProfessionalMindsetTech Usage Highest avg. tech usage -- 76%. Avg tech usage 63% 

Most trust technology, but 

they are not early triers ofit and they find it hard to kee

up with new tech developments. So, they take wait & see approach, followinbehind the first group. 

Like the Tech Leaders we found

among Taxpayers, this group embraces technology. They

trust it and are the early triers of it, and are thoroughly comfortablewith the use of computers for financial purposes.

Tech Attitudes

Tech Leaders Tech Followers 
Summarizing Differences Among The 

 The preceding summaries were based on detailed analysis a

measures. But, there is a quick and simple way to see how differeis to look at their average ratings of “tech acceptor” and “tech 

their average levels of usage of different technologies. 

 Among both the 100+ and 50-99 Practitioners, this analysis unde

attitudinal segments are and the fact that, the more tech-forwaruse technology.

67%

22%

76%

53%

63%

52%

36%

55% 53%

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Avg. Tech Leader Ratings Avg. Tech Follower

Ratings

Avg. Use Of Technologies

Tech Leaders Tech Followers Tech Laggards

100+ Return Volume Practitioners 

66%

56% 

4

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Avg. Tech Le

Ratings

Te
Are There Opportunities For e-file Among The 

 Having seen in Taxpayer Attitudinal a clear correlation of tec

acceptance/use of e-file, and having noted earlier that, among 10were more tech-forward than Non-Users, we looked for opportunitone or more of the Tech segments among the 100+ Practitioners.

 To do this, we examined each segment’s share of...universe, past-y

and Individual and Business e-filing. However, we found NO sign

levels of e-file usage by segment -- i.e., no segment has a sha

disproportionately lower than its share of universe, which tells us 

market to the tech attitudes of any single segment, but to all of the

Each Each Each 

Segment’s Segment’s Segment’s 

Share Of The Share Of All Share Of All S

Practitioner Past-Year Past-Year 

Universe1 Returns e-file Returns In

100% 100% 100% 

100+ Practitioners

Tech Leaders 42 44 42 Tech Followers 30 30 30 Tech Laggards 27 26 28 
Analysis Of Other Opportun

For Increasing e-file Usage Am

100+ Volume Practitioner
Opportunities For Increasing Usage: Non-

 We turned next to analysis of opportunities among behavioral se

Practitioners. An obvious group with high potential are the Non-U

for 29% of the return volume reported in the study. In thinking a

group, keep in mind how they differ from Users. They...

 Compared to Users, they skew older (avg. age = 55 vs. 53 for Users) an 57% of them are Independents (and if they work in firms, the firm

approach tax prep work more as an occupation, and are likely to have h

a CPA/accountant and not just training in tax prep work (as are the involved in tax prep work longer (24 years) than the typical e-file User likely to be involved in AICPA and State trade groups (70% vs. 51% am

 They prepare fewer returns than Users (median 150 vs. 250 among Us

to be doing Business returns (27% of their returns are Business returns 

 They don’t e-file Business returns mainly because they see e-file as 

returns (only 31% say it’s “very” appropriate vs. 67% among Users) -- as Users in the security of e-file and want to avoid the registratio

Individual returns mainly because clients don’t ask for it, it costs too m

consuming. Overall, they have far weaker belief than Users in e-file’s 

Use benefits.
Opportunities For Increasing Usage: Low-Vo

 Another possible opportunity is to increase e-file usage among Lo

these are 100+ Practitioners who use e-file, but for less than 5

average for all Practitioners using e-file is 69%). They accounvolume reported in the study and profiling data show that they dif

User (50%+ e-filers) in that they...

 Skew more Male (65% vs. 50% for High-Volume Users). They have been in tax prep work longer (24 years vs. 17), and mor

(58% vs. 46%).

 Among those who work in firms, the firms tend to be smaller, younge

generating fewer returns than the firms of the High-Volume Users.

 However, on an individual basis (not by firm), the Low-Volume Users 

High-Volume Users (250 median), though their share of Business and 

filed is far lower. They are notably less likely to consider e-file approp

far less likely to recognize “accuracy” and “ease of use” as benefits of e

they are more likely to claim that they are Authorized e-file Providers.
Communicating With Practition

The High Opportunity Segm
Practitioner Sources Of Information Ab

 Exploring possible avenues of communication with the 100+ Volum

them where they would go for information about e-file and fou

single source is “the IRS’s website”. All other mentions (e.g., “a b

were far lower. The importance of the IRS website as a source wahigh-opportunity segments: e-file Non-Users and Low-Volume Use

 Note: the 50-99 Volume Practitioners had similar information sourc

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Us

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

If Needed e-file Info, Where Would They Go?

To irs.gov/Digital Daily/The IRS Website 65 62 6To A Book 10 10 1Software Provider 8 8 1To Trade Publications/Magazines 888To Another Tax Preparer/Co-Worker 523To Firm’s Website 351
Practitioners’ Sources Of Information About 

 When seeking information about tax preparation in general, the 1

that they would go primarily to the IRS website, followed by “a 

publications or magazines”.

 There was similar tax prep information sourcing among the 5

greater reliance on the IRS website.

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Use

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

If Needed Tax Prep Info,Where Would They Go?

To irs.gov/Digital Daily/The IRS Website 44 45 4To A Book 20 17 2To Trade Publications/Magazines 16 16 1Software Provider 7 4 10 To Another Tax Preparer/Co-Worker 7 5 8 IRS Publications 463Tax Service 413To Trade Organization’s Website 555To My Firm’s Website 351
Practitioners And irs.gov

 In total and among each key segment, about 90% or more o

claimed to have visited the IRS website, with the average number 

site being about 8 (higher among the Low-Volume e-file Users). V

high in meeting their information needs, with about 55-60% or moor “very good”.

 The greater reliance and use of the IRS website among the 50-99s 

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Use

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

% Who Have Ever Visited irs.gov/Digital Daily 90 91 9NEW BASE: Ever Visited irs.gov/Digital Daily (621) (373) (13Frequency of Visiting irs.gov/Digital Daily

Average # Times Per Month 8.1 8.2 8.

Rating irs.gov In Meeting Information Needs

Excellent 20 19 24 Very Good 41 45 44 Good 29 30 2Fair 768Poor 111
Practitioners’ Suggestions For Improv

 35% of the 100+ Volume (and 47% of the 50-99 Volume) v

suggestions for improving it, with top mentions related to a nee

(mainly easier links or easier navigation), a need for different 

perhaps related to that, a need for better site organization/bett

these are top-line suggestions; website diagnostics are best addstudy.)

High-Volume Low-Vo

100+ Volume e-file e-fi

Practitioners Users Use

BASE: Total Ever Visited irs.gov 621 373 13

%%%

Total With Suggestions For Improving irs.gov 35 32 34 Easier/Faster Linkage & Downloads (Net) 15 14 13 

Make It Easier To Find Specific Things 332Make It Easier To Link To Forms 444Make It Easier To Link/Faster To Get Information 332Make It More User Friendly 1 2 4 

Improve Type Of Info That’s Available (Net) 11 9 15 

Have A Section For Answering Questions 335Need To Be Able To Get IRS Codes 211Want More Information On Publications 221

Website Organization (Net) 8 10 8 

Improve The Site’s Search Engine 444
How IRS Can Communicate Emergency 

 Next, when asked how the IRS could communicate emergency inf

tax law, regulations, etc., both the 100+ and 50-99 Practitioners f

and “direct mail”, followed by “the IRS website” and then “fax”. 

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Use

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

Methods Of IRS Emergency Communication

e-mail 57 58 6Direct Mail 42 34 4irs.gov/Digital Daily/The IRS Website 33 35 3Fax 21 18 2Trade Organization’s Website 18 16 1Firm’s Intranet/Electronic Bulletin Board 14 18 1Firm’s Website 13 17 8 Advertising 12 10 9 Telephone 9 9 8 
The Leading Trade/Professional Pub

 To further explore possible methods of communication with 100+ 

which trade or professional publications they subscribe to or rethat the high-opportunity segments, in particular, have exposu

publications, with the top mention being the Journal Of Accountan

 The 50-99 Volume Practitioners have lower use of trade public

Journal of Accountancy.

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Us

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

Total Read/Subscribe To Trade/Prof’l. Pubs. 60 47 7Leading Trade/Professional Publications

Journal Of Accountancy 18 9 2The Kiplinger Letter 9 8 1Tax Advisor 426CCH/Commerce Clearing House 426Accounting Today 324NATP 332Practical Accounting 323
The Leading NON-Trade/NON-Professiona

 In terms of the general or non-trade publications they subscribe to 

mentions among the 100+ Volume Practitioners were The Wall 

newspapers”. All other mentions were less than 10%. (The 50

non-trade/non-professional publication usage.)

High-Volume Low-

100+ Volume e-file e

Practitioners Users U

BASE: 682 412 1

%%

Read/Subscribe To Non-Trade/Non-Prof’l. Pubs. 66 62 6Leading NON-Trade/NON-Prof’l. Publications

Wall Street Journal 10 8 Local Newspaper 10 9 Newsweek 8 7 Money 66Time Magazine 77Reader’s Digest 65Forbes 43Business Week 42None/Can’t Think Of Any 33 41 
Practitioner Access To Internet/Intranets/Co

 About 90% or more of all key segments in the 100+ Volume audi

to the Internet. In addition, among those who work in firms, 57% company Intranet (with the two high-opp segments having v

company net). 56% say they go to their firm’s website (though uamong the two high-opp segments).

 There was similar use of electronic networks among the 50-99 Volu

High-Volume Low-V

100+ Volume e-file e-f

Practitioners Users Us

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

% With Access To The Internet 91 88 9NEW BASE: Works In A Firm (337) (220) (6% Of Firms Having An Intranet 57 56 5

Avg. # Times Per Month Access Firm’s Intranet 35.4 28.9 44

% Of Firms Having A Website 56 64 4

Avg. # Times Per Month Access Firm’s Website 9.8 10.4 4
Other Avenues For Communication With K

 Finally, in looking for other possible avenues for reaching the 1

(especially those in the two key targets), we reviewed data omeetings and Tax Forums and found that the tax prep-focused mseminars offer a particular opportunity for reaching the Low-VoluNon-Users.

 The only difference among the 50-99s came in lower mentions of at

High-Volume Low-Vo

100+ Volume e-file e-fi

Practitioners Users Use

BASE: 685 412 14

%%%

% Attend Meetings, Conventions, SeminarsFocused On Tax Preparation 81 78 89 

% Aware Of Nationwide Tax Forums 78 74 85 Attendance At Forums

BASE: Total Aware Of Forums (532) (306) (123

%%%

Ever Attended 44 43 43 
Fit Of H&R Block And J Fit Of H&R Block And J

-H Pract

H Pract

With The 100+ Volume Univ

With The 100+ Volume Univ
Fit Of H&R And J-H Preparers With The Ra

 On the issue of whether H&R Block and Jackson-Hewitt Prepare

the Random Sample of Practitioners in the future or kept as sepathere ARE dramatic differences between the Big Two Preparers Practitioners.

 First, we found sharp differences in demographics and professiona

Random 

Practit

BASE: 68

%

Gender Male 58 

Female 42 

Involvement In Tax Prep Full-Time/One of My Occupations 76 

It’s Something I Do During Tax Season 24 

Average # Years Involved In Tax Preparation 20Total Who Belong To Any Trade/Professional Organizations 57 

Mean % of Returns That Were Individual Returns 79 
Differences In Types Of Firm

 Naturally the firmographics were different, with H&R and J-H m

firms represented by the 100+ Practitioners. They were also m

returns, and were more likely to advertise.

Random S

Of Practit

BASE: Total Who Work With A Firm 337 

%

% Who Say Their Firm Advertises 71 

Median # of Preparers In Firm 7.5 

% Of Preparers In Firm Focused On...

Individual Returns 69 Business Returns 31 

NEW BASE: Total Respondents (685Who In Firm Decides Whether Practitioners e-file Or Not

You 72 The Firm’s Owner/Manager 16 Management At Firm’s Headquarters 7 
Differences In Usage Of/Attitudes Tow

 H&R and J-H Preparers also differ sharply from other 100+ Volum

of e-file (virtually all e-filed last year), and in their level of us

constituting about 90% or more of their individual returns). Since also more likely to recognize e-file’s benefits – especially the Spe

Use benefits.

Random S

Of Practit

BASE: 685 

%

Net % Who Used e-file Last Year 66 

Share Of Individual Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=777/367/205) 46 Share Of Business Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=652/277/139) 22 % Who Have Ever e-filed Business Returns Before 42 

% Feel e-file Is Very Appropriate For Use With Business Returns 55 

% Who Have Ever e-filed Individual Returns Before 74 Leading Benefits Of e-file

Speed/Faster 71 Accuracy 39 Ease Of Use 29 Paperless Filing Using A PIN 15 
Differences In Communications O

 Finally, there are differences in communications options among th

for H&R Block Preparers, who the survey shows are less likeMarketing Toolkit, less aware of and less likely to attend IRS Tax Fto visit the IRS website. However, both H&R and J-H do offer bethan do other 100+ Practitioners through the intranet and website 

Random S

Of Practit

BASE: 685 

%

% Ever Received e-file Marketing Toolkit 60 

% Aware Of Nationwide Tax Forums 78 If Aware Of Forums, % Ever Attended One (n=532, 219 & 138) 44 If Needed e-file Info, Where Would They Go? To irs.gov/IRS Website 65 

To A Book 10 

% Who Ever Visited irs.gov 90 

BASE: Total Ever Visited irs.gov (621

% Who Rate irs.gov Excellent/Very Good/Good In Meeting Info Needs 90 

% Of Firms Having An Intranet 57 % Of Firms Having A Website 56 
How Practitioners In Th

How Practitioners In Th

BMF Masterfile Masterfile Compare Compare

To The 100+ Group In To The 100+ Group In 

The IMF The IMF Masterfile Masterfile
Demographic & Professional Diffe

 In a separate objective, the IRS wanted to survey a sample of Prac

Masterfile but not in the IMF Masterfile, and to compare them to 

Random Sample of the Practitioner Study (all from the IMF Mast

from the 100+ Volume audience only). Results show that BMF P

IMF Practitioners are similar demographically, but very different pr

100+ P

From IM

BASE: Average Age 

Gender Male 

Female 

Involvement In Tax Prep Full-Time/One of My Occupations 

It’s Something I Only Do During Tax Season 

Average # Years Involved In Tax Preparation 

Independent vs. In A Firm Work Alone As An Independent 

Work With Firm/Both Independent & With A Firm 

Total Who Belong To Any Trade/Professional Organizations 

Total Who Attend Meetings/Seminars Focused On Tax Preparation 
Differences In Types Of Firm

 Comparing the BMF and 100+ IMF Preparers who work in firms, w

work in somewhat smaller firms (who are less likely to advertise), more returns (and more returns per Preparer); and in firms whergreater focus on Business returns (though both groups say theiIndividual returns). 

100+ P

From IM

BASE: Total Who Work With A Firm % Who Say Their Firm Advertises 

Median # of Preparers In Firm 

% Of Preparers In Firm Focused On...

Individual Returns Business Returns 

Median # Returns From Firms 2Median # Returns From (Median Of) 7.5/7.0 Practitioners Per Firm 
Differences In Usage Of/Attitudes Tow

 While in net, more of the BMF Practitioners said they used e-file 

returns that are e-filed and proportion who are Authorized e-file Pof the 100+ IMF Preparers. They also have similar perceptions of one exception -- the BMF Preparers are far more likely to mentioPIN” as a benefit than are the IMF Preparers.

100+ 

From I

BASE: Share Of Individual Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=684/156) 

Share Of Business Returns That Were e-filed (mean %, n=580/156) 

Net % Who Used e-file Last Year 

Total Who Feel e-file Is Very Appropriate For Use With Business Returns Leading Benefits Of e-file

Speed/Faster Accuracy Ease Of Use Paperless Filing Using A PIN 

% Who Claim To Be Authorized e-file Providers 
Communications Options: BMF vs. IMF 

 Finally, in terms of potential methods of communication with the 

that they are equally as likely as the 100+ IMF Practitioners to at

Tax Forums, are more interested in emergency communication via in a firm) to have access to a company website.

50

Fro

BASE: Among Those Aware Of Forums, % Ever Attended A Tax Forum (n=532 & 140) 

If Needed e-file Info, Where Would They Go? To irs.gov/Digital Daily/The IRS Website 

To A Book 

Methods Of IRS Emergency Communication e-mail 

Direct Mail irs.gov/Digital Daily/The IRS Website Fax 

% Who Ever Visited irs.gov/Digital Daily 

BASE: Total Ever Visited irs.gov/Digital Daily % Who Rate irs.gov Excellent/Very Good/Good In Meeting Info Needs BASE: Total Work In A Firm % Of Firms Having An Intranet 

% Of Firms Having A Website 
Appendix Appendix
Appendix Notes

Following are specific sections appended to th

Methodological Appendix

Questionnaire Used In Study 

(electronically attached)
Methodological Appendix
Methodological Appendix

 Thi

s new B

enchmark Wave of the Pra

ctiti

o

ner study 

w

a

s conducted 

n

ational i

nterviewi

n

g facility in

W

ayne, NJ. Intervi

ewing was conducted 

March to early-May, 2003. Interviewi

n

g covered a lon

ger perio

d this 

arising from the presence of H&R Block a

nd Jackson-Hewitt Preparers in th

 After cleanin

g out the H&R and J-H Preparers from the initial lists a

nd 

Sample consisted of a nationally representative s

ample of 782 U.S. Pra

ETA’s I

M

F Masterfile of Tax Preparers (

wit

h lower-volume Practitioners [

<

with non-professio

nals working at 

VITA sites and oth

er non-profit tax 

focusing the study a

nd report on the 100+ Practiti

o

ners, th

e final sample 

685. The fin

al sam

ple sizes for the special cells were as follows: H&

Jackson-Hewitt Preparers

= 20

5; and BMF-O

nly Preparers

= 200.

 To qualify, Practitioners had to be personally involved in the preparation 

previous tax season, that is, during the 2002 tax s

eason in whi

ch t

ax ret

ur

 Int

erviews were con

ducted during dayti

m

e hours (9--

5 p.m. i

n e

ach time 

averaging about 25 minutes per respond

ent. To 

assure that the survey 

target audience, a high rate of response was achieved –

64.7

%. To i

nc

given the l

onger tha

n usual l

ength of i

ntervi

ew), respondents were give

their time a

nd participation.
Questionnaire Used In Stu

Questionnaire is a Word.doc, attached electr