email traffic concerning changes to this collection

From:                                         Crossland, Christine

Sent:                                           Tuesday, November 01, 2011 2:37 PM

To:                                               'Lallemand, Chad A.'

Cc:                                               Newton, Phyllis; Backes, Bethany; Scarborough, Angela; Murray, Lynn (JMD)

Subject:                                     RE: NIJ Response to general questions posed regarding the VAIW pilot study currently under review

Attachments:                          Revised lead letter pilot site3 11012011.docx

 

Importance:                            High

 

Thank you Chad for the phone call clarification… Based on your suggestions below, we have modified the lead letter as requested (attached). In addition, we fully intend to provide the results of the pilot study (all components—pilot sites 1, 2 & 3) in writing to OMB as well as conduct a briefing with OMB before we proceed with a full scale study. We anticipate a briefing in early March 2012 with final evaluation documents mid March 2012.

 

With that, I think we have all the final, approved documents for uploading in ROCIS Angela. Please let us know what else we can assist you with at this time.

 

Thank you everyone.

 

 

Hi Christine,

 

Just two comments on the lead letter: Can you refer to Native American women as American Indian women to be consistent and perhaps consider adding either as a cosignatory or a cc the relevant tribal leader, as the letter indicates that tribal leadership is supporting the study. The latter suggestion is just that, a suggestion.

 

Also, following the pilot, we request to receive a summary of the sampling evaluation, the cog lab findings, and instrument logistics analysis before NIJ publishes the required 60 day notice and request for public comment for the collection – can you please confirm whether that is feasible?

 

Thank you!

Chad

 

 

 

Good afternoon Chad.

Attached you will find the revised statement of work based on the OMB requested changes that are outline by you below. I believe that we have addressed all comment/suggestion in the revised documents. The attached revised statement of work paper does have track changes so you will be able to see where changes were made throughout the document since the last submission. We have revised the informed consent forms for pilot sites 2&3 and revised the lead letter for pilot site #2 (also attached).

 

As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Sincerely.

 

 

Hi Christine,

 

Thank you for the comprehensive responses.  I believe we are very close to the finish line.  We have some clarification comments below.  If you could provide a revised supporting statement with tracked changes on, that would help us move this quickly.

 

Thanks!

Chad

 

·         Abstract: 

o    The rationale for the proposed study indicates existing studies do not allow examination of differences among tribal communities. We are not certain that the current proposal for the pilot or the later full scale study will have sufficient statistical power to permit precision in estimates of comparison between tribal communities, and do not want to set false expectations. Please consider rephrasing or striking that portion of the rationale. 

o   The rationale for the proposed study also discusses AIAN communities, AIAN women and women in Indian Country. From a study design perspective, in this section and throughout, it would be important to be precise as to the target population of your proposed study. We believe that this target population is women who self-report as AIAN who reside on recognized tribal lands in the US. Please confirm and ensure that references to your target population are consistent throughout this package.

o   The rationale references both a pilot study and a project; please clarify. We understand that the current proposal is for a pilot study; the results of the pilot study will be used to inform the design and scope of the main project. Consider rephrasing, “…collection of meaningful, standardized data…” to “…collection of data, analysis results of which can be generalized to AIAN women residing on tribal lands.” 

o   Finally, we recommend rephrasing the last item to say “At the end of this project, NIJ will have considerably more knowledge, tools, experience, and methods to coordinate and field a larger study” (to leave open the  possibility that more advance work may be required in selected areas, such as discerning the availability and accuracy of tribal lists for sampling frames).

·         A.1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary:

o   Regarding first bullet, A.1.b.i.: Our understanding is the intent of launching these two sample designs is to evaluate the scientific robustness, burden to infrastructure, and cost of each, and, where appropriate, consider an approach that may combine elements of both designs for maximum efficiency. Please confirm, adding language to this section to that effect. (We also believe the last sentence of the bullet was incomplete?)

o   Regarding the second bullet, please describe how the assurance of the enrollment list will be assessed. Regarding the third bullet, please rephrase as “…#3 will be limited to…” We are also somewhat concerned that the cognitive testing will include only AIAN women who have reported physical or sexual violence, or stalking. Please confirm that the main study is intended to be administer to AIAN women on tribal lands who have and have not had these experiences. If so, cognitive testing of both groups would be important. If necessary, burden allocations can be increased for the third pilot to support this effort.

o   We also believe that 2 hours for cognitive testing may produce considerable respondent fatigue and affect the quality of responses. Therefore, we recommend that the length of the cognitive testing be reduced to 90 minutes and the incentive amount be reduced to $40, which is the maximum amount OMB approves for a one on one cognitive interviews, absent strong case specific justification.

o   Additionally, rather than asking respondents about their concerns about confidentiality, we recommend exploring which way of describing legal protections afforded to respondents are more reassuring, including references to OJP’s statute, etc. Cognitive testing may also include exploring preferred mode of collection, terminology, and questionnaire flow.

o   Under item ii, please rephrase as, “…maintained by these service providers and sampling properties have been analyzed to inform strategy comparisons. NIJ will not receive identifiable information from cognitive interviews.”

·         A.9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents: Incentive amounts require justification specific to target population, mode of collection, and content of information collection. Please provide justification for pilot 2 incentive amounts; please revise incentive amount for pilot 3 as described above.

·         A.10 Assurance of Confidentiality to Participants: Please cite the statute affording confidentiality here. The reference to the Privacy Certificate may not be as well known outside of DOJ, and OMB standards require an agency to cite the statutory authority it has to protect the confidentiality of the information in its ICR.

·         A.12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs: Under a), please rephrase as “…testing will involve no more than 2 hours per respondent (pilot site #3).”

·         A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication, and Project Time Schedule: We are pleased to see that another workshop will be scheduled in 2012 to report on the pilot study findings. Please consider inviting us.

·         B.1. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods: Please rephrase as “…inform future research methods for use in Indian Country.” Please see earlier comment regarding target population references and update accordingly. Under B.1.a, please clarify: will this project compare 2 sampling approaches, or 3 (as stated)? We thought the former. Please rephrase as, “…identified households other than geographic and enumeration information.”  We believe you will need this information to evaluate your success in reaching AIAN persons within the eligible sample area. Under c, we recommend that a nonresponse bias analysis also be performed for pilot 2 to evaluate which women declined to participate.

·         B.3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response: See comment under B.1 regarding number of sampling approaches to be evaluated with this project—are there 2 or 3?

·         Materials

·         We have no comments on the training guide’s table of contents.

·         Regarding the informed consent materials, on the whole we believe they are very good. However, we do note that the informed consent document for the cognitive interview cites CIPSEA protections. We believe this may be a typo, as we do not believe that CIPSEA applies to NIJ. Please update the consent form to cite the appropriate confidentiality statute.

 

 

 

Good afternoon Chad,

I hope this email finds you well.

 

Thank you and the staff at OMB for your input on the packet and possible resolutions to some questions and concerns that were raised regarding our proposed data collection effort. The attached revised statement of work is an attempt to address the three areas that you asked us to change for this pilot study. In addition, we are providing updated attachments where updates or changes were required due to changes in the protocol and study (training manual updates, consent forms, and a copy of the original cognitive report).

 

I hope that the revised statement of work reflects your understanding and the direction NIJ was given regarding the pilot study. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forwarding to hearing from you soon.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

Works fine.  Thanks, Christine.

 

 

We’re meeting with RTI today to go over the tweaks to the statement of work and I hope to have the revised sections to you by Friday. I hope that works for you and folks over at OMB.

 

 

 

Hello Christine,

 

Just wanted to check in on the VAIW project – any updates?

 

Hope all is well,

Chad

 

 

11:45 works for me.

 

 

 

Hi Christine, Sorry for the late notice, but are you available for a quick call tomorrow at 11:45?  Particularly, we wanted to discuss what the ideal target population is for the main study and talk about some ideas for proceeding based on that information.  Thanks. 

 

 

Good afternoon Chad.

I just wanted to follow up with you and ensure that you received the fax I forwarded on 9/2 with the answers to the questions you posed at our in person meeting. I also was wondering if you needed anything else from us at this point in time. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Thank you.

Christine R. Crossland

Office of Research & Evaluation

U.S. Department of Justice (OJP/NIJ)

Tel. 202.616.5166 / FAX 202.354.4080

Blackberry 202.532.3436

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments), covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it.

_____________________________________________
From: Crossland, Christine
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:06 PM
To: 'Lallemand, Chad A.'
Subject: FW: NIJ Response to general questions posed regarding the VAIW pilot study currently under review

 

 

Good afternoon Chad.

I just tried to email you our responses based on the questions posed last week. Apparently the file is too big for your system. Is there a fax number I can send the document?

 

Christine R. Crossland

Office of Research & Evaluation

U.S. Department of Justice (OJP/NIJ)

Tel. 202.616.5166 / FAX 202.354.4080

Blackberry 202.532.3436

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

NOTICE: This E-mail (including attachments), covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, and then delete it.

 

 

 

 

Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.

 

      Subject:    NIJ Response to general questions posed regarding the VAIW pilot study currently under review

      Sent: 9/1/2011 3:03 PM

 

The following recipient(s) cannot be reached:

 

      'Lallemand, Chad A.' on 9/1/2011 3:03 PM

            This message is larger than the current system limit or the recipient's mailbox is full.  Create a shorter message body or remove attachments and try sending it again.

            <OJPWASEXV03.jconojp.doj.gov #5.2.3 smtp;450 5.2.3 Msg Size greater than allowed by Remote Host>