Supporting Statement A - ACF Reviewer Recruitment_0970-0477_4.28

ACF’s Generic Clearance for Reviewer Recruitment Forms

OMB Information Collection Request

0970 - 0477

Supporting Statement

Part A

May 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

1. Justification

1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

This request by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is to revise the generic clearance for Grant Reviewer Recruitment (GRR) forms to expand the focus from just recruiting grant reviewers to recruiting reviewers in general. Currently, the overarching generic covers recruitment forms for grant reviewers, but it would be beneficial to ACF to collect information from other types of potential reviewers, such as those who volunteer to review materials for conferences, reports, or other ACF materials. This revised Generic Clearance for Reviewer Recruitment Forms would allow ACF to collect information about expertise from potential reviewers for a variety of activities.

ACF developed the original GRR because each program office within ACF has a slightly different need for information about grant reviewer applicants. Similarly, ACF may recruit reviewers for a variety of different activities with slightly different needs for information about the reviewers. This revised overarching generic clearance will allow ACF to request slightly different information from potential reviewers, yet the individual forms will serve the same function. The abbreviated clearance process of the generic clearance will allow the program offices to gather a suitable pool of candidates within the varied time periods available for reviewer recruitment.

These forms will be voluntary, low-burden and uncontroversial. Information will be collected electronically unless specified otherwise in an individual generic information collection (GenIC) request.

The following are examples that would necessitate ACF’s use of this generic clearance¹.

1. Grant Reviewer Recruitment: Within ACF, each program office is responsible for reviews of all eligible applications for grants and cooperative agreements submitted in response to a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). These reviews are required to be objective, effective and economical in compliance with statues, regulations and policies. Therefore, it’s incumbent on each program office to assemble a pool of experts knowledgeable in the relevant fields to select the best qualified applications.

The review process is in accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 2.04 "Awarding Grants", the DHHS Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM), Chapter 2.04.104C "Objective Review of Grant Applications”, and the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Sections 799(f) and 806(e).

2. Conference Submission Material Reviewer Recruitment: ACF hosts a variety of conferences² for which potential participants submit materials for presentations, discussions, poster sessions, etc. Submissions must be reviewed for relevance and quality prior to acceptance. Reviewers should have relevant expertise. The collection of resumes or other information to review and confirm expertise in relevant areas will help ensure objective and effective review of conference materials. This will help improve the quality of ACF’s conferences.

3. Document Reviewer Recruitment: ACF produces a variety of documents, including reports, infographics, etc. It could be helpful to recruit a pool of reviewers with relevant expertise to review and provide feedback on such documents. This will help improve the quality of ACF’s dissemination efforts.

2. Purpose and Use of Information Collection

The purpose is to select qualified reviewers for ACF review processes based on professional qualifications using data entered and documents provided by candidates. Example documents include writing samples and curriculum vitae and/or resume.

ACF will use the information collected to recruit well-qualified reviewers with relevant background experience and knowledge.

All ACF grant reviewer recruitment materials will include the following language (offset) which was approved by the DHHS Office of General Counsel.A section of each reviewer recruitment form will contain a menu that includes the OMB categories used to identify race and ethnicity.

Diversity of Membership of Peer Review Panels

The Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is committed to increasing the diversity of the non-federal peer reviewers utilized in the competitive grants review process. The Fiscal Year 2014 Strategic Plan contains the following action item “We will develop strategies to increase the representation of diverse perspectives on the grant review panels, and track our progress in increasing diversity among reviewers”. In order to achieve this goal, we are requesting that you voluntarily indicate your race and/or ethnic heritage on the self-identification section by checking the appropriate box on the reviewer application form. Please note that this section utilizes the standard Federal identification categories. Your assistance is invaluable in enabling the agency to promote broad representation, especially for underserved and underrepresented groups, and track our progress on this important goal.

3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction.

The forms will include options such as, but not limited to, user-entered fields, drop-down menus, check boxes, radio buttons and an upload function to allow uploading of the curriculum vitae or resume. These forms may be posted on individual program offices’ web-pages, programmed into an online survey platform, or emailed in document form. We expect the forms to be distributed to potential reviewers through listservs or other forms of email, conference websites, and/or program office websites. In the future they may be incorporated into the On Line Data Collection (OLDC) system which offers on line access and offers additional conveniences. Individual GenICs will provide information about the mode of data collection.

3. Efforts to Identify Duplication

There is no duplication since ACF has no other vehicle for program offices to collect information from potential reviewers.

3. Involvement of Small Entities

Individuals who apply to serve as ACF reviewers may be affiliated with small entities. However, the information requested is the minimum needed to identify well-qualified applicants and the burden on applicants will not be significant.

3. Consequences If Information Collected Less Frequently

Individuals will have to submit an application only one time to be included in a program’s reviewer database, unless they wish to update information previously submitted. Without these application forms, ACF will not be able to identify and select well-qualified reviewers in a consistent, standardized manner as needed.

3. Consistency With the Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2)

This request is fully consistent with 5CFR 1320.5(d)(2)

3. Consultation Outside the Agency

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 August 28, 2019, Volume 84, Number 167, page 45156, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. During the notice and comment period, no comments were received.

Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

ACF has consulted with representatives from several other Operating Divisions in HHS to determine the best practices for soliciting new reviewers.

3. Payment to Respondents

There will be no payment to respondents for submitting an application. Applicants chosen as ACF reviewers will receive standard compensation for their service in that capacity. Conference reviewers are generally volunteers.

3. Assurance of Confidentiality

Information submitted in these reviewer applications will be kept private.

3. Questions of a Sensitive Nature

There are no questions of a sensitive nature.

3. Estimates of Annualized Hour and Cost Burden

Total burden, including previously approved collections that are ongoing in addition to requested burden over the next three years is 2,603 hours (1,103 + 1,500 = 2,603 hours).

Previously Approved and Ongoing

The following generic information collections were previously approved under 0970-0477 and are still in use.

Form	Number of Respondents	Responses per respondent	Hours per response	Total burden hours
OCS Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form	100	1	.16	17
Eligibility Information From Applicants: Reviewer Information Form for General Reviewer and for Specific Reviewer	95	1	.17	16
ORR Grant Reviewers Electronic Recruitment Form	250	1	.16	42
FYSB Discretionary Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form	400	1	.15	60
OCSE Reviewer Recruitment Letter and Discretionary Grant Reviewer Recruitment Questionnaire	50	1	.08	4
ANA Panel Reviewer Profile Questionnaire	300	1	.31	94
Office of Head Start Reviewer Recruitment	550	1	1.5	825
Office of Child Care Reviewer Availability Request for the American Indian or Native Hawaiian Child Care Grants Review	30	1	.16	5
Grant Reviewer Recruitment for the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) Discretionary Grant Programs	250	1	.167	42
Total Ongoing Burden				1103

Requested Burden for New Generic Information Collections

Form	Number of Respondents	Responses per respondent	Hours per response	Total burden hours	Average Hourly Wage	Total Annual Cost
Reviewer Recruitment Form	3000	1	.5	1500	$58.36	$87,540

The estimate is based on the average time that most individuals will need to complete the application will be between 5 to 90 minutes, the majority of the collections taking less than 30 minutes. These estimates are based on ACF program office experiences collecting grant reviewer information during the first three years of approval of the GRR overarching generic.

The basis for the hourly wage is determined by the average salary of individuals in locales around the country who would have the type of qualifications needed to serve as reviewers for activities such as grant or conference material reviews. Therefore, an estimated hourly wage of $29.18 per hour is used, based on May 2018 BLS data for the following occupation labor categories: Social Science (19-0000; $36.62), Community and Social Service (21-0000; $23.69), and Education and Training (25-0000; $27.22). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. To account for fringe benefits and overhead, the wage rate is multiplied by two, which is $58.36.

3. Estimates of Annualized Cost Burden to Respondents

There are no capital or startup costs and no operation and maintenance of services of services costs to respondents associated with this information collection.

3. Estimates of Annualized Cost to the Government

The estimated hourly cost to the government for staff to review and process these applications is approximately $50.00. The estimated time to review these applications averages about the same amount of time to review a typical standard resume, which would vary between 15 minutes to an hour. Assuming a 38 minute review average for 1,000 applications, the total annual cost to the government will be approximately $31,665.

3. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

This is a request to revise the generic clearance for grant reviewer recruitment to include other similar reviewer recruitment activities. The types of collections, the planned uses of data, and overall burden requested over the next three years has remained the same. The estimated time per response remains the same. Additionally, previously approved collections that are ongoing are included in this request and account for 1,061 hours.

3. Plans for Tabulations, Publications, and Project Time Schedule

There are no plans for tabulations or publications.

3. Reasons Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate

The expiration date will be displayed.

3. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

There are no exceptions to the certification.

1 This list is not all encompassing; it is only meant to provide relevant examples.

2 All ACF conferences are reviewed and approved by ACF leadership prior to scheduling. ACF follows HHS policies (HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending) with few exceptions.

1