Supporting Statement A - Revision 043020_clean

Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) Performance Measures and Adulthood Preparation Subjects (PMAPS)

OMB Information Collection Request

0970 - 0497

Supporting Statement

Part A

APRIL 2020

Submitted By:

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation

Administration for Children and Families

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

4^th Floor, Mary E. Switzer Building

330 C Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20201

Project Officers: Caryn Blitz, Tia Brown

Part A

Executive Summary

• Type of Request: This Information Collection Request is to make revisions to the previously approved participant entry and exit surveys, and to continue the ongoing data collection of the performance measures from Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grantees. We are requesting three years of approval of this descriptive study.

• Progress to Date: Since the April 2017 OMB approval, a nonsubstantive change request was approved by OMB in August 2019 that reflects the following survey changes:

  • removed sensitive items (by dropping items about oral sex or anal sex, modifying items asking about “vaginal sex” to ask about “sexual intercourse,” and deleting definitions of sexual behaviors)

  • modified and expanded existing items related to adulthood preparation subjects

  • added items to capture information from youth relevant to the success sequence for poverty prevention.^1,2

Approximately 100 PREP grantees have reported performance measures for approximately 400 subawardee providers and 500 programs each year, and reported serving 218,205 youth participants across the two years.

• Summary of changes requested: ACF is requesting approval for the following revisions to the planned data collection:

1. Two Versions of the Entry and Exit Surveys (Instruments #1 and #2): One for middle school age participants and one for high school and older participants.

• Middle school versions (Instruments #1a and #1b):

  • Removed items on sexual activity and incidence of pregnancy; participants’ perceptions of PREP’s influence on their plans to engage in sexual activity and the importance of various reasons in decisions to not have sexual intercourse.

  • Removed and added response categories for older ages/grades to reflect the other changes to the surveys.

• High school and older versions (Instruments #1b and #2b):

  • Removed response categories for younger ages/grades as appropriate.

• For all versions of the middle school and high school surveys, the sexual orientation item was removed.

1. Edits to the Performance reporting system data form (Instrument #3):

   • Updates were made to reflect changes to the Entry and Exit Surveys.

We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.

• Time Sensitivity: ACF requests approval as soon as possible so that grantees can vet the surveys with schools and other partner organizations in order to start collecting survey data when the school year resumes.

A1. Necessity for Collection

The consequences of adolescent sexual activity remain a critical social and economic issue in the United States, shaping the lives of thousands of teens and their families every year. Despite declining births to teen mothers over the past 25 years, the teen birthrate in the United States remains higher than in other industrialized countries and varies widely across geographic regions and racial/ethnic groups (Martin et al., 2017). Further, adolescents and young adults account for half of all new sexually transmitted infection (STI) cases each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Sexual activity in youth is also related to engaging in other risk behaviors such as alcohol and substance use.

In March 2010, Congress authorized the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). PREP provides grants to states, tribes and tribal communities, and community organizations to support evidence-based programs to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The programs are required to provide education on both abstinence and contraceptive use. The programs also offer information on adulthood preparation subjects such as healthy relationships, adolescent development, financial literacy, parent–child communication, education and employment skills, and healthy life skills. Grantees are encouraged to target their programming to high-risk populations—for example, youth in foster care, homeless youth, youth with HIV/AIDS, pregnant youth who are under 21 years of age, mothers who are under 21 years of age, and youth residing in geographic areas with high teen birth rates.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-352) requires federal agencies to report annually on measures of program performance. It is essential that PREP grantees report the performance data described in this information collection request (ICR) to enable the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to carry out its reporting requirements to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Further, collecting these data will allow grantees and ACF to report to other key stakeholders on PREP program design, implementation, and outcomes.

ACF has contracted with Mathematica to carry out the data collection activities described in this ICR.

A2. Purpose

Purpose and Use

This performance measures effort includes collection and analysis of performance measure data from State PREP (SPREP), Tribal PREP (TPREP), Competitive PREP (CPREP), and Personal Responsibility Education Innovative Strategies (PREIS) grantees. The purpose is to document how PREP-funded programs are operationalized in the field and assess program outcomes. ACF will use the performance measures data to continue to (1) track how grantees are allocating their PREP funds; (2) assess whether PREP objectives are being met (e.g., in terms of the populations served); and (3) help drive PREP programs toward continuous improvement of service delivery. In addition, ACF will use this information to fulfill reporting requirements to Congress and OMB concerning the PREP initiative. ACF will also continue to share grantee and provider level findings with each grantee to inform their own program improvement efforts.

The information collected is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge on ACF programs. It is not intended to be used as the principal basis for a decision by a federal decision-maker, and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific information.

Research Questions or Tests

A major objective of the performance measures analysis is to construct, for grantees and ACF a picture of PREP implementation in the form of a basic set of statistics across all grantees. The information collected through the performance measures will answer questions for the overall PREP program, such as:

• What programs were implemented, and for how many youth?

• What are the characteristics of the populations served?

• To what extent were members of vulnerable populations served?

• How many youth participated in most program sessions or activities?

• How do participants feel about the programs, and how do they perceive its effect on them?

• How many entities are involved at the sub-awardee level in delivering PREP programs?

• How do grantees allocate their resources?

• For which of the implemented program models are participants completing at least 75 percent of the program sessions?

• What challenges do grantees and their partners see in implementing PREP programs on a large scale?

Study Design

The data that the grantees report to ACF will originate from three levels – the grantee, grantees’ sub-awardee providers, and the youth completing entry and exit surveys (Figure 1). For some performance measures, grantees will provide data about activities or decisions that they undertake directly at the grantee level. For other measures, data will come from the sub-awardee providers to the grantee because sub-awardees oversee the activities to be documented. In addition, some data will come from the youth themselves, who will be asked to complete entry and exit surveys. The efforts expected to be undertaken at each level and the estimated level of burden are further explained in Section A.12.

Figure 1: Levels of PREP Performance Measures Data

The performance measures data is reported by grantees to the PREP PM data warehouse, called the Performance Measures Management System (PMMS).

The purpose of measuring performance is to track inputs, outputs and outcomes over time to provide information on how all PREP grantees and their programs are performing. Through the PM, grantees will be required to submit the following data:

• Participants’ characteristics, behaviors, program experiences, and perceptions of effects –measures based on Instruments 1 and 2.

• Structure, cost, and support for program implementation – measures based on Instruments 3 and 4.

• Attendance, reach, and dosage – measures based on Instruments 3 and 4.

Data Collection Activity	Instrument(s)	Respondent, Content, Purpose of Collection	Mode and Duration
Performance Measures Collection	Instrument 1a/b: Participant Entry Survey	Respondents: Youth participating in PREP programs Content: Demographics, sexual behaviors and behaviors related to adulthood preparation, Purpose: To collect information on participant characteristics and behaviors at program entry	Mode Self-administered PAPI and web (facilitated by program providers) Duration: 9 minutes
	Instrument 2a/b: Participant Exit Survey	Respondents: Youth participating in PREP programs Content: Demographics, program experiences, and perceptions of program effects Purpose: To collect information on youth’s characteristics, and perceptions of the program and its effects on their attitudes and intentions at program exit	Mode: Self-administered PAPI and web (facilitated by program providers) Duration: 8 minutes
	Instrument 3: Grantee Performance Reporting System Data Form	Respondents: State (SPREP), Competitive (CPREP), Tribal (TPREP), and PREIS PREP grantees Content: Information on: program structure, cost, and support for program implementation; attendance, reach, and dosage; and aggregated data based on Instruments 1 and 2 at the grantee, provider, and program levels. Purpose: To provide information on program implementation and delivery and youth participant characteristics and behaviors at program entry, as well as youth characteristics and perceptions of the program and its effects on their attitudes and intentions at program exit.	Mode: Electronically submitted to the PMMS Duration: 14 – 18 hours, depending on grant type
	Instrument 4: Subawardee Performance Reporting System Data Form	Respondents: State (SPREP), Competitive (CPREP) , Tribal (TPREP) and PREIS PREP subawardees Content: Information on: program structure, cost, and support for program implementation; attendance, reach, and dosage; and aggregated data based on Instruments 1 and 2 at the grantee, provider, and program levels. Purpose: To provide information on program implementation and delivery and youth participant characteristics and behaviors at program entry, as well as youth characteristics and perceptions of the program and its effects on their attitudes and intentions at program exit.	Mode: Electronically submitted to the PMMS Duration: 12-14 hours, depending on grant type

Other Data Sources and Uses of Information

There are no other data sources used for the PMAPS performance measures data collection.

A3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden

To reduce grantee burden, ACF (1) provides common data element definitions across PREP grantees and program models, (2) collects these data in a uniform manner through the PMMS and (4) provides a Performance Measures Dashboard (Dashboard) that is interoperable with the PMMS to provide near-real-time data reporting for PREP grantees, FYSB project officers, and other ACF staff. Using the PMMS reduces reporting burden and minimizes grantee and sub-awardee costs related to implementing the reporting requirements.

A4. Use of Existing Data: Efforts to reduce duplication, minimize burden, and increase utility and government efficiency

ACF has carefully reviewed the information collection requirements to avoid duplication with existing studies or other ongoing federal teen pregnancy prevention evaluations and believes that this data collection complements, rather than duplicates, the existing literature and the other ongoing federal teen pregnancy prevention evaluations and projects.

Specifically, this effort provides the following unique opportunities:

• Opportunity to learn about using a state formula grant to scale up evidence-based programs. The PREP PM effort will allow us to learn about both the opportunities and the challenges of scaling up evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs through both state formula grants (SPREP) and competitive discretionary grants (TREP, SPREP, and PREIS). It is the only federal evaluation to examine both.

• Opportunity to understand the special components of PREP programs. The PREP PM effort will help us to understand the unique components of the programs funded through PREP, such as the adulthood preparation subjects, which are being incorporated in the teen pregnancy prevention programming funded through PREP. These components are not part of the other teen pregnancy prevention programs.

A5. Impact on Small Businesses

Programs in some sites may be operated by community-based organizations. ACF and its contractor teams have provided and will continue to provide thorough training and technical assistance throughout the entire data collection effort, from the planning period all the way through data analysis. This training and technical assistance should help to minimize the burden on small businesses.

A6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires federal agencies to report annually on measures of program performance. Therefore, it is essential that grantees report the performance data described in this ICR to ACF. Failure to collect performance measures across all grantees will inhibit ACF from carrying out its reporting requirements to Congress and OMB. In addition, at the grantee level, most PREP programs are offered in school during each school semester. Biannual reporting of participant performance measures provides grantees with information about the program performance results from the most recent semester, which can be used to improve their program performance for the next semester.

A7. Now subsumed under 2(b) above and 10 (below)

A8. Consultation

Federal Register Notice and Comments

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), ACF published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intention to request an OMB review of this information collection activity. This notice was published on February 28, 2020, Volume 85, Number 40, page 11995, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is attached as Appendix A. During the notice and comment period, no substantive comments were received.

Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

To develop the original PREP performance measures (OMB Control # 0970-0398), ACF consulted with staff of Mathematica, Child Trends, and RTI International. For the revised measures, ACF also consulted internal staff from FYSB and OPRE and select PREP grantees, as well as FYSB and ACF leadership.

A9. Tokens of Appreciation

No tokens of appreciation are proposed for the PMs information collection.

A10. Privacy: Procedures to protect privacy of information, while maximizing data sharing

Personally Identifiable Information

Grantees submit aggregate data, so no personally identifiable information is collected by ACF and its contractor.

Assurances of Privacy

Information collected will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. Respondents will be informed of all planned uses of data, that their participation is voluntary, and that their information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. As specified in the contract, the Contractor will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information.

Grantees are required to inform participants of the measures that are being taken to protect the privacy of their answers. Data will be reported by grantees only as aggregate counts. There will be no means by which individual respondents can be identified by ACF, Mathematica, or other end-users of the data. Grantees will receive guidance for active or passive consent (see Consent Forms, Appendix B).

Data Security and Monitoring

As specified in the contract, the Contractor shall protect respondent privacy to the extent permitted by law and will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information. The Contractor has developed a Data Safety and Monitoring Plan that assesses all protections of respondents’ information. The Contractor shall ensure that all of its employees, subcontractors (at all tiers), and employees of each subcontractor, who perform work under this contract/subcontract, are trained on data privacy issues and comply with the above requirements. 

As specified in the evaluator’s contract, the Contractor shall use Federal Information Processing Standard compliant encryption (Security Requirements for Cryptographic Module, as amended) to protect all instances of sensitive information during storage and transmission. The Contractor shall securely generate and manage encryption keys to prevent unauthorized decryption of information, in accordance with the Federal Processing Standard.  The Contractor shall: ensure that this standard is incorporated into the Contractor’s property management/control system; establish a procedure to account for all laptop computers, desktop computers, and other mobile devices and portable media that store or process sensitive information. Any data stored electronically will be secured in accordance with the most current National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements and other applicable Federal and Departmental regulations. In addition, the Contractor has submitted an approved plan for minimizing to the extent possible the inclusion of sensitive information on paper records and for the protection of any paper records, field notes, or other documents that contain sensitive information that ensures secure storage and limits on access.  

Participant-level data. Participant-level data required for PM reporting is collected by grantees and their subawardee providers. Grantees then enter this information in aggregated form into the PMMS. Grantees and sub-awardee providers are responsible for ensuring privacy of participant-level data and securing institutional review board (IRB) approvals to collect these items, as necessary.

Grantee, provider, and program-level data. Grantees and subawardee providers enter all data into the PMMS. The PMMS is designed to ensure the security of data that are maintained in there. Electronic data from the PMAPS projects is stored in a location within the Mathematica network that provides the appropriate level of security based on the sensitivity or identifiability of the data. Further, all data reported by grantees and providers related to program participants is aggregated; no personal identifiers or data on individual participants will be submitted to ACF. Data generated by the PMMS will be in aggregate form only.

Mathematica houses a Performance Dashboard to provide authorized stakeholders with self-service access to various views of performance indicators that support the management and improvement of PREP programs. As needed, Mathematica will enforce security roles to prohibit grantees from accessing others’ data.

The Dashboard is interoperable with the PMMS. It has a near-real-time interface with the PMMS so it can display the status of data submissions and help monitor agencies’ compliance with reporting requirements.

A11. Sensitive Information ³

A key objective of PREP programs is to prevent teen pregnancy through a decrease in sexual activity and/or an increase in contraceptive use. We understand that issues pertaining to the sexual behavior of and contraceptive use among youth and young adults can be very sensitive in nature; however, the questions for the programs’ PM are necessary to understanding program functioning.

Table A11.1 provides a list of sensitive questions that will be asked on the participant entry and exit surveys and the justification for their inclusion. To address concerns about questions on sexual behavior of younger adolescents at program entry before they have been introduced to program content, information on sexual activity, contraceptive use, incidence of pregnancy, and incidence of STIs will not be collected from middle school participants. Middle school participants will only be asked questions about intentions and reducing intentions to engage in sexual activity and whether they considered their PREP program to be effective in achieving these goals. In addition, grantees will inform program participants that their participation is voluntary and they may refuse to answer any or all of the questions in the entry and exit surveys. All grantees will have the opportunity to obtain waivers from the program office to opt out of asking sensitive questions, if necessary .

Table A11.1. Summary of Sensitive Questions to Be Included on the Participant Entry and Exit Surveys, and Their Justification

Topic	Justification
Participant Entry Survey (Instrument #1)
Sexual activity, contraceptive use, incidence of pregnancy, and incidence of STIs )	Level of sexual activity, contraceptive use, and incidence of pregnancy and STIs are all central to the PREP evaluation. Collecting this information will allow us to document the characteristics of the population served by PREP and the degree to which they engage in risky behavior.
Participant Exit Survey (Instrument #2)
Participants’ perceptions of PREP’s effects on their sexual activity and contraceptive use	Reducing intentions to engage in sexual activity, risky adolescent sexual behavior and increasing contraceptive use for those who are sexually active are among the central goals of PREP-funded programs. Examining whether participating youth consider PREP programs to be effective in achieving these goals is an important element of gauging the success of these programs.

A12. Burden

Explanation of Burden Estimates

Table A12.1 provides the estimated annual burden calculations for the performance measures reporting.

1. Annual Performance Measures Burden for Youth Participants

The estimated number of participants completing the entry and exit surveys is based on data collected by PREP grantees in 2018-2019. The amount of time it will take for youth to complete the entry and exit surveys is estimated based on previous experience administering similar surveys to youth participants. The cost to respondents is estimated by assuming that 7.8 percent of the youth served by grantees will be age 18 or older, and then assigning a value to their time of $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum wage. The estimate of the proportion of youth served by PREP programs that will be 18 or older is based on previous performance measures data collection.

Participant entry survey. PREP grantees are expected to serve approximately 336,498 participants over the three year OMB clearance period. Once we apply a 95 percent response rate to the participants, we anticipate a total of 319,673 respondents over three years (336,498 x 0.95 = 319,673). Based on previous experience with similar instruments, the participant entry survey is estimated to take 9 minutes (0.15 hour) to complete. The total burden over three years is estimated to be 47,951 hours (319,673 x .15) and the annual burden for this data collection is estimated to be 15,984 hours (47,951/3). The annual cost to respondents for youth 18 or older is estimated to be 15,984 *.078*$7.25 = $9,039.

Participant exit survey. Based on numbers from the 2018-2019 PREP PM data collection, it is estimated that approximately 291,624 participants will complete the participant exit survey over three years. Based on previous experience with similar surveys, the exit survey is estimated to take youth 8 minutes (0.13333 hours) to complete. The total burden over three years is estimated to be 38,882 hours (291,624 x .13333) and the annual burden for this data collection is estimated to be 12,961 hours (38,882/3). The annual cost to respondents for youth age 18 and older is estimated to be 12,961 hours *.078 *$7.25 = $7,329.

2. Annual Performance Measures Burden for Grantees and Sub-Awardees

The 98 grantees⁴ will report performance measures data into the PMMS. They will gather this information with the assistance of their sub-awardee providers (estimated to be 416 across all grantees).⁵ The grantee and sub-awardee data collection efforts described below are record-keeping tasks.

Total Annual Burden and Cost for Grantees

Twice per year, all 98 grantees⁶ will be required to submit required performance measures into the PMMS.⁷ Time for a designated PREP grantee administrator to aggregate the data across each of the grantee’s sub-awardee providers and submit all of the required data into the PMMS is included in the burden estimates along with time to collect information at the grantee-level that pertain to grantee structure, cost, and support for program implementation. The Performance Reporting System Data Entry Form includes all of these required data elements that the grantee will collect, aggregate, and submit into the PMMS (see Instrument 3). Time for these activities is estimated to be 36 hours per year per SPREP and TPREP grantee and 28 hours per year per CPREP and PREIS grantee. The total annual burden for these activities is estimated to be 3,224 hours ((60 grantees x 36 hours) + (38 grantees x 28 hours)). The annual cost to record-keepers for this activity is estimated to be $79,163 ((2,160 hours x $24.98) + (1,064 hours x $23.69)). The hourly wage rates represent the mean hourly wage rate for all occupations ($24.98) and the mean hourly wage rate for community and social service occupations ($23.69) (National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, May 2018).

Total Annual Burden and Cost for Sub-Awardees

The 416 estimated sub-awardees will conduct multiple performance measures activities each year (see Instrument 4). They will aggregate data from participant entry and exit surveys and on attendance and program session hours, report to the grantee on implementation challenges and needs for technical assistance, and report to the grantee on sub-awardee structure, cost, and support for program implementation. The total estimated annual time per sub-awardee is 28 hours for state and tribal and 24 hours for CPREP and PREIS. The total estimated annual burden for this activity is 11,412 hours across all sub-awardees ((357 subawardees x 28 hours) + (59 subawardees x 24 hours)). The cost to record-keepers for this activity is estimated to be $270,350 (11,412 hours x $23.69).

A total annual burden of 43,581 hours (and cost of $365,881) is requested in this ICR. This includes time and cost for performance measures data collection associated with participants, grantees, and sub-awardees.

Estimated Annualized Burden and Cost to Respondents

Instrument	No. of Respondents (total over request period)	No. of Responses per Respondent (total over request period)	Avg. Burden per Response (in hours)	Total Burden (in hours)	Annual Burden (in hours)	Average Hourly Wage Rate	Total Annual Respondent Cost
Participant Entry Survey (all versions)	319,673	1	0.15	47,951	15,984	$7.25	$9,039
Participant Exit Survey (all versions)	291,624	1	0.13333	38,882	12,961	$7.25	$7,329
Performance reporting system data form - State grantees	51	6	18	5,508	1,836	$24.98	$45,863
Performance reporting system data form - TPREP grantees	9	6	18	972	324	$24.98	$8,094
Performance reporting system data form - CPREP grantees	25	6	14	2,100	700	$23.69	$16,583
Performance reporting system data form - PREIS grantees	13	6	14	1,092	364	$23.69	$8,623
Performance reporting system data form – State subawardees	329	6	14	27,636	9,212	$23.69	$218,232
Performance reporting system data form – TPREP subawardees	28	6	14	2,352	784	$23.69	$18,573
Performance reporting system data form – CPREP subawardees	37	6	12	2,664	888	$23.69	$21,037
Performance reporting system data form – PREIS subawardees	22	6	12	1,584	528	$23.69	$12,508
Total				130,741	43,581		$365,881

A13. Costs

There are no additional costs to respondents.

A14. Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government

The estimated cost for, collection, monitoring, and analysis of the PREP performance measures is $1,453,430 over the three years for requested clearance. The annual cost to the federal government is estimated to be $484,477.

Table 2. Total Estimated Costs by Category for PM Data Collection

Cost Category	Estimated Costs
Dashboard Monitoring	$427,083
Training and Technical Assistance to grantees (on PM)	$163,050
PMMS Monitoring	$343,667
PMMS Training	$114,944
Analysis and Reporting	$339,417
Dissemination	$65,269
Total costs over the request period	$1,453,430
Annual costs	$484,477

A15. Reasons for changes in burden

This data collection is a continuation of a currently approved data collection. Changes to the burden reflect estimated numbers of additional cohorts to be served by PREP grantees.

A16. Timeline

Displays of performance measures data are available to ACF and grantees through the PREP Performance Measures Dashboard soon after each round of submission. In addition, the Contractor analyzes the data and reports on them to ACF. End-of-cohort reports and briefs on the performance data will be made available on ACF’s website.

Performance measures are expected to be continuously collected and analyzed. This request is for a three year period.

All PREP grantees will collect data on characteristics of the individual youth served, youths’ perceptions of program effectiveness and program experiences, and data on participants’ enrollment, attendance, and delivered program hours; and how grant funds are being used, the program models selected, and the ways in which grantees and sub-awardees support program implementation. Grantees will submit performance measures data twice a year: each winter and summer.

The analytical results based on grantees’ reported performance measures data will be compiled for ACF into full written reports once each year, with data profiles more immediately available to ACF and grantees (within one to two months) through the Performance Measures Dashboard. End-of cohort reports (across all grantees for a grant period) will be available to the public.

A17. Exceptions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

Attachments

Instrument 1: Participant Entry Survey

1a: Participant Entry Survey (middle school-aged youth)

1b: Participant Entry Survey (high school-aged and older youth)

Instrument 2: Participant Exit Survey

2a: Participant Exit Survey (middle school-aged youth)

2b: Participant Exit Survey (high school-aged and older youth)

Instrument 3: Performance Reporting Data Entry Form – Grantees

Instrument 4: Sub-awardee Data Collection and Reporting Form – subawardee program providers

Appendix A: 60-day FRN

Appendix B: Consent forms

1 The success sequence was first discussed by Haskins and Sawhill in Creating an Opportunity Society (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 2009. https://www.brookings.edu/book/creating-an-opportunity-society/), which identified a correlation between having income above the poverty level and three “norms:” (1) completing high school, (2) working full time, and (3) waiting until age 21 and marrying before having children.

2 The proposed items related to adulthood preparation subjects and the success sequence are also included in the performance measures for the Sexual Risk Avoidance Education Performance Analysis Study (30 day FRN posted on 05/23/19).

3 Examples of sensitive topics include (but not limited to): social security number; sex behavior and attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close relationships, e.g., family, pupil-teacher, employee-supervisor; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to respondents; religion and indicators of religion; community activities which indicate political affiliation and attitudes; legally recognized privileged and analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians and ministers; records describing how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; receipt of economic assistance from the government (e.g., unemployment or WIC or SNAP); immigration/citizenship status.

4 The estimated 98 grantees include 51 states and territories, 9 grants to tribes and tribal communities, 25 grants under Competitive PREP, and 13 PREIS grantees. Our estimates are based upon the number of grantees observed through the 2018-2019 PMAPS performance measures data collection and the estimated growth in grantees annually.

5 Our estimates are based upon the number of providers observed through the 2018-2019 PMAPS performance measures data collection and the growth in providers annually.

6 As mentioned previously, the 98 grantees include 51 states and territories, 9 grants to tribes and tribal communities, 25 grants under Competitive PREP, and 13 PREIS grantees.

7 Measures of structure, cost, and support for program implementation will be submitted once per year, and all other measures will be submitted twice per year.

15