Supporting Statement A Revised Survey Methodology 12.10.20_cln

Alternative Supporting Statement for Information Collections Designed for

Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes

Building Capacity to Evaluate Child Welfare Community Collaborations to Strengthen and Preserve Families (CWCC) Cross-Site Process Evaluation

OMB Information Collection Request

0970-0541

Supporting Statement

Part A

Approved February 2020

Revisions approved May 2020 (COVID-19 Changes)

Revised December 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: Mary Mueggenborg and Laura Hoard

Part A

Executive Summary

• Type of Request: This Information Collection Request is for a new request. We are requesting three years of approval.

• Description of Request: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) intends to collect data for an evaluation of the initiative, Community Collaborations to Strengthen and Preserve Families (also referred to as Child Welfare Community Collaborations [CWCC]). The cross-site process evaluation is designed to provide insights to ACF regarding how CWCC grantees can most effectively implement primary prevention practices to reduce child abuse and neglect, and the factors that can promote or impede cross-agency collaboration. The data collected in this study are not intended to be generalized to a broader audience. We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.

A1. Necessity for Collection

There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate this collection. ACF is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency.

A2. Purpose

Purpose and Use

This CWCC cross-site process evaluation will document how ACF child welfare community collaboration (CWCC) grantees used grant funds to improve systems to prevent child abuse and neglect. Specifically, the evaluation will document how grantees interpreted the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) and matched allowed activities to local community needs; developed and maintained partnerships; collaboratively structured their continuum of services, service intake, and service delivery; and used data to guide and assess their work. It will also offer insights about the various factors that promote or impede the implementation of child welfare community collaborations, including the role these factors may play in CWCC grantees’ efforts to sustain activities beyond the grant. The evaluation findings might be used to identify promising approaches to collaboration that might be evaluated using more rigorous impact methodologies. This descriptive information will be used by CWCC grantees, ACF, and other communities to identify community-level strategies to prevent child abuse and neglect, as well as to identify challenges that may affect the implementation of these strategies. ACF will use this information to develop guidance for future demonstration grant programs and to provide technical assistance to communities interested in building collaborations to prevent child abuse and neglect.

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

1. What are the promising approaches and challenges in identifying, establishing, and maintaining new and existing partnerships?

2. How are data being linked and used within and across agencies to: (1) identify families in need of child abuse and neglect (CAN) prevention services; (2) identify the specific needs of families; (3) make informed decisions about service provision; (4) inform continuous quality improvement; and (5) track outcomes?

3. How are grant implementation activities structured and operationalized, within and across CWCC grantees?

4. What factors—including state and local policies, geographical location (rural vs. urban), resources, staff and organizational capacity, training, cross-partnership coordination, and existing infrastructure—promote or impede implementation of the child welfare community collaborations, within and across CWCC grantees?

5. To what extent are CWCC grantees planning to sustain activities beyond the current grant, and what factors do they believe will help or hinder these efforts?

Study Design

Process evaluations typically describe the specific services, activities, policies, and procedures that are developed and implemented through an initiative. This type of evaluation also provides insight about the lifecycle of an initiative from conception to sustainability, including deviations from the plan, changes in the stakeholders involved, and perceived successes and failures. A cross-site process evaluation, which can provide insights about implementation successes and challenges as well as lessons learned across multiple CWCC grantee sites, will help ACF to better understand the factors associated with the successful ongoing implementation of community-based strategies and activities aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect. As such, this evaluation design is appropriate for addressing ACF’s information needs.

We will employ a mixed methods design and conduct annual data collection activities through spring of 2024¹. Our team will use data collected from on-site or telephone interviews, collaboration surveys, and document reviews to answer the research questions. We will prepare in-depth case studies of each CWCC grantee and will also conduct a cross-case analysis of the data collected for individual case studies. This will allow us to highlight the unique implementation processes and lessons learned from individual CWCC grantees while also identifying common themes across the CWCC grantees that can be used to inform future child welfare community collaborations.

NOTE: The Children’s Bureau funded two cohorts of CWCC grantees. This study will examine the implementation of each cohorts’ grants separately. One cohort of 4 CWCC grantees was funded in FY2018; a second cohort of 9 CWCC grantees was funded in FY2019.

Data Collection Activity	Instrument(s)	Respondent, Content, Purpose of Collection	Mode and Duration
Build Online Survey Sample	Survey Invitee Template (Instrument 1) (Revised December 2020)	Respondents: CWCC grantee project directors or their designees Content: Names and emails of individuals conducting work on behalf of the grant Purpose: To develop a sample for the online survey (below)	Mode: Fillable Word document Duration: 1 hour
Online Survey	Online Annual Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2) (Revised December 2020)	Respondents: Individuals named by the grant project directors as collected by the survey invitee template above. Content: The Collaboration Assessment Tool (CAT)2 and background items to categorize the respondent’s role on the grant Purpose: To collect quantifiable information on grant collaboration efforts	Mode: Online survey Duration: .5 hours
Site Visit Planning	Site Visit Planning Template (Instrument 3)	Respondents: Grant project directors or their designee Content: Scheduling tool to slot interviewers at specific times and locations Purpose: To schedule interviews	Mode: Document completion; or telephone conversation Duration: 2 hours
Initial Interviews of Project Directors and Leaders	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4a)	Respondents: Grant project directors and leaders from partner organizations Content: Interview questions and probes to capture respondent perceptions of grant planning and execution; added probes about response to COVID-19 pandemic Purpose: To document how leaders conceptualize and guide grant implementation	Mode: In-person interview; or telephone interview Duration: 2 hours
Initial Interviews of Staff	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5a)	Respondents: Grant project staff and staff from partner organizations Content: Interview questions and probes to capture respondent perceptions of grant planning and execution; added probes about response to COVID-19 pandemic Purpose: To document how staff conceptualize and carry out grant implementation	Mode: In-person interview; or telephone interview Duration: 1 hour
Subsequent Interviews of Project Directors and Leaders	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 6)	Respondents: Grant project directors and leaders from partner organizations Content: Interview questions and probes to capture respondent perceptions of grant execution Purpose: To document how leaders continue to guide grant implementation	Mode: In-person interview Duration: 1.5 hours
Subsequent Interviews of Staff	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 7)	Respondents: Grant project staff and staff from partner organizations Content: Interview questions and probes to capture respondent perceptions of grant execution Purpose: To document how staff execute grant implementation	Mode: In-person interview Duration: 1 hour

Other Data Sources and Uses of Information

This information collection will be supplemented by a review of semiannual grantee progress reports and any other documentation produced by grantees. All local evaluation designs will be assessed by the evaluation team to ensure that local evaluations are methodologically rigorous. These other sources will help supplement the findings of the process evaluation and ensure that local evaluation findings can be integrated into our final reports. The cross-site process evaluation team will systematically collect and document relevant information. This is addressed more clearly in A4 below.

A3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden

We will use an online data collection platform to field the annual collaboration survey. This will reduce participant burden because they will not have to submit a paper form via mail. Additionally, the data collection platform automates data quality checks and coding of responses into a dataset ready for quantitative analysis. Finally, we will audio record interviews.

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

Each grantee is conducting their own local process and outcome evaluations. These evaluations have the same timeline for data collection and analysis as this information collection effort. When/if the grantees produce interim evaluation reports, we will summarize information relevant to our research questions from these documents. In addition, the cross-site evaluation team will review and summarize grantee semi-annual progress reports. The study team will pre-fill interview protocols with relevant information captured on the semi-annual progress reports to reduce respondent burden.

A5. Impact on Small Businesses

We do not know if any grantees’ partner organizations are small businesses (partner organizations are typically government agencies and local community-based organizations). If so, we will ensure that site visit interviews occur at a time and place least burdensome and disruptive to their business functioning. In addition, the online collaboration survey can be completed at any time from any computer, tablet, or mobile device with internet access; we do not expect completion of the survey to burden or interfere with the work of small businesses.

A6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

This study collects data from respondents on an annual basis. Our timing is designed to capture grant implementation, including changes over time. A less frequent data collection could mean that respondents forget decisions made or the rationale behind them. Additionally, we expect significant staff turnover across grantees and their partners. A less frequent data collection could prevent us from collecting information from staff that leave the project.

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 October 4, 2019, Volume 84, Number 193, page 53157, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is attached as Appendix A. The project did not receive any comments during the 60-day period.

Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

During June 2019, the project consulted with child welfare experts: Dr. Fred Wulczyn and Dr. Marilyn Zimmerman. They provided feedback on study design, data collection efforts, and draft interview protocol items.

Additionally, in October 2019, the project pilot tested the interview protocols with a total of eight individuals representing two similar child-focused collaboration projects.

A9. Tokens of Appreciation

This information collection will not utilize any tokens of appreciation.

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

Personally Identifiable Information

This study will collect the names and professional contact information for individuals involved in implementing the grants (such as staff members of the lead organization and partner organizations). We will collect that information in order to send individualized links to the online collaboration survey.

Information will not be maintained in a paper or electronic system from which data are actually or directly retrieved by an individuals’ personal identifier.

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.

Data Security and Monitoring

In general, this information collection will not collect sensitive information. 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. The study's data security and monitoring plans are tailored according to the type of information being collected, as follows.

For site visit planning: We will ask project directors to return Instrument 3 to the cross-site process evaluation team via secure FTP. Planning documents will reside on our secure, encrypted server in limited-access project folders.

For the interviews: We will collect consent for interviews orally, via a script at the beginning of Instruments 4-7 (including Instruments 4a and 5a). The interviews will be audio-recorded if participants consent to recording. In addition, study team members will take notes during the interview. Interview notes and recordings may contain the names of professional staff. Therefore, notes will be taken on laptops with full disk encryption. Audio recordings will be transferred from the recording device to the encrypted laptop and deleted from the recording device before leaving the facility where the interview occurs. Telephone interviews will be conducted while COVID-19 pandemic precautions are in effect and/or if other circumstances arise that make in-person visits inadvisable or not possible. They will be conducted using Webex technology to audio-record the conversation if participants consent to recording. After the call, the recording will be downloaded from the Webex server to encrypted project folders and then deleted from Webex’s server. Ultimately, the notes and audio recordings will be transferred to, stored, and analyzed on a secure encrypted server in limited-access project folders to which only members of the study team have access. Audio-recordings of interviews will be transcribed. In the final interview transcripts and notes used to analyze interview data, interviewees’ names will be redacted

To build the online survey sample: In order to administer the Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2), we will create a sample file containing grantee and partner staff members contact information based on the information collected by Instrument 1 (completed by each grantee’s project director). Instrument 1 will be transmitted from the grantees to the study team via a secure FTP built to comply with FISMA-moderate standards. The sample file will be maintained separately from the survey data file and stored on a secure server in limited-access project folders to which only members of the study team have access.

For the online survey: The Collaboration Survey, Instrument 2, also includes a consent statement in the introduction. Participants give consent if they choose to answer any part of the survey. The survey will be programmed and collected in Alchemer (formerly SurveyGizmo). Each participant will receive a unique URL for the survey so they can save and come back to the instrument and the contractor can better track the sample. Data will be aggregated in a de-identified format and will not include any direct identifiers. Data from the survey will be transferred to, stored, and analyzed on a secure server in limited-access project folders to which only members of the study team have access. The transfer of any de-identified survey data or analysis files among the study team or to ACF (should ACF request de-identified copies) will occur via a secure FTP built to comply with FISMA-moderate standards.

As part of the IRB review process, Abt's IRB and Cybersecurity team reviewed and approved the study's data security plan. We attached Abt’s IRB approval as Appendix B.

A11. Sensitive Information ³

We will not collect any sensitive information from interview subjects or collaboration survey respondents.

Abt’s IRB has determined that the study is eligible for “Exempt with limited IRB review.”

A12. Burden

Explanation of Burden Estimates

We calculated the burden estimates by: 1) drawing upon our past experience conducting interviews with similar numbers of questions and surveys with similar number of items; and 2) by pilot testing our interview protocols with 8 individuals. We estimated burden separately for FY18 and FY19 CWCC grantees.

For FY18 CWCC grantees, our burden estimates assume:

• Four (4) CWCC project directors for leadership interviews (Instruments 4/4a, and 6), and completion of survey invitee templates (Instrument 1) and site visit templates (Instrument 3);

• Two (2) partner organization leaders per CWCC grant, for a total of 8 partner leaders per interview round (Instruments 4/4a, and 6);

• Nine (9) in-person-interviewed or five (5) telephone-interviewed staff at each CWCC grant (across lead and partner organizations) would be interviewed, for a total of 36 in-person staff interview respondents or 20 telephone-interviewed respondents (Instruments 5/5a and 7); and

• Sixty-five (65) survey invitees per CWCC grantee, for a total of 260 survey invitees (Instrument 2) across the 4 FY18 CWCC grantees. Survey invitees will include all staff (both leadership and general) at each lead grantee institution and their partner organizations that engage in grant activities. In other words, all individuals interviewed using Instruments 4-7 will also be asked to complete Instrument 2.

For FY19 CWCC grantees, our burden estimates assume:

• Nine (9) CWCC project directors for leadership interviews (Instruments 4/4a and 6), and completion of survey invitee templates (Instrument 1) and site visit templates (Instrument 3);

• Two (2) partner organization leaders per CWCC grant, for a total of 18 partner leaders (Instruments 4/4a and 6);

• Nine (9) in-person-interviewed or five (5) telephone-interviewed staff at each CWCC grant (across lead and partner organizations) would be interviewed, for a total of 81 staff in-person interview respondents or 45 telephone-interviewed respondents (Instruments 5/5a and 7); and

• Sixty-five (65) survey invitees per CWCC grantee, for a total of 585 survey invitees across the 9 FY19 CWCC grantees. Survey invitees will include all staff (both leadership and general) at each lead grantee institution and their partner organizations that engage in grant activities. In other words, all individuals interviewed using Instruments 4-7 will also be asked to complete Instrument 2.

Some CWCC-affiliated individuals will be asked to complete more than one of our instruments, as described in this table. This table is relevant for both FY18 and FY19 grantees.

Instruments completed by respondent type

	Type of Respondent
Instrument	Project Director	Partner Organization Leader	Grant project staff	Partner organization staff
Survey Invitee Template (Instrument 1)	√ (or designee)
Online Annual Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2)	√	√ (all as identified by Instrument 1)	√ (all as identified by Instrument 1)	√ (all as identified by Instrument 1)
Site Visit Planning Template (Instrument 3)	√ (or designee)
Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4a)	√	√ (a subset as selected by project director)
Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5a)			√ (a subset as selected by project director)	√ (a subset as selected by project director)
Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 6)	√	√ (a subset as selected by project director)
Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 7)			√ (a subset as selected by project director)	√ (a subset as selected by project director)

Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents

We estimate the average hourly wage for project directors and leadership the CWCC grantee and partner organizations, $34.46 to be the average hourly wage of “social and community service managers” (11-9151) as determined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. We estimate the average hourly wage for staff at the CWCC grantee and partner organizations, $23.69, to be the average hourly wage of “counselors, social workers, and other community and social service specialists” (21-1000) as determined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics National Occupational and Wage Estimates (U.S. Department of Labor, May 2018; https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#21-0000).

Total Burden by Cohort

Instrument		Annual Number of Respondents	Number of Responses Per Respondent	Average Burden Hours Per Response	Total Burden Hours	Annual Burden Hours	Hourly Wage Rate	Total Annual Respondent Costs
	Cohort 1 Data Collection for FY18 CWCC grantees (n=4)
	Survey Invitee Template (Instrument 1)	4	3	1	12	4	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$137.84
	Annual Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2)	260	3	0.5	390	130	80% at $23.69 (Counselors, Social Workers, etc.), 20% at $34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$3,359.72
	Site Visit Planning Template (Instrument 3)	4	3	2	24	8	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$275.68
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4a)	12	1	2	24	8	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$275.68
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5a)	36	1	1	36	12	$23.69 (Counselors, Social Workers, etc.),	$284.28
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 6)	12	2	1.5	36	12	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$413.52
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 7)	36	2	1	72	24	$23.69 (Counselors, Social Workers, etc.),	$568.56
	Cohort 2 Data Collection for FY19 CWCC grantees (n=9)
	Survey Invitee Template (Instrument 1)	9	3	1	27	9	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$310.14
	Annual Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2)	585	3	0.5	878	293	80% at $23.69 (Counselors, Social Workers, etc.), 20% at $34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$7,572.30
	Site Visit Planning Template (Instrument 3)	9	3	2	54	18	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$620.28
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4a)	27	1	2	54	18	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$620.28
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5a)	81	1	1	81	27	$23.69 (Counselors, Social Workers, etc.),	$639.63
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 6)	27	2	1.5	81	27	$34.46 (Social and Community Service Managers)	$930.42
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 7)	81	2	1	162	54	$23.69(Counselors, Social Workers, etc.,	$1,279.26
	Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:					644	Estimated Total Annual Respondent Costs:	$17,287.59

Total Burden Per Instrument (Cohorts Combined)

Instrument		Annual Number of Respondents	Number of Responses Per Respondent	Average Burden Hours Per Response	Total Burden Hours	Annual Burden Hours
	Survey Invitee Template (Instrument 1)	13	3	1	39	13
	Annual Collaboration Survey (Instrument 2)	845	3	0.5	1,268	423
	Site Visit Planning Template (Instrument 3)	13	3	2	78	26
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 4a)	39	1	2	78	26
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5); or COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1 (Instrument 5a)	117	1	1	117	39
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 6)	39	2	1.5	117	39
	Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-Up Interviews (Instrument 7)	117	2	1	234	78
	Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:					644

A13. Costs

There are no additional costs to respondents

A14. Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government

Cost Category	Estimated Costs for Three Years of Data Collection
Instrument Development and OMB Clearance	$96,547
Field Work	$1,601,167
Analysis	$688,468
Publications/Dissemination	$13,785
Total costs over the request period	$2,222,841
Annual costs	$740,947

A15. Reasons for changes in burden

This is a new information collection request.

A16. Timeline

This project has a 5-year timeline until final reporting (September 2024). We will request an extension of our three-year OMB approval to cover additional, subsequent data collection.

Our project timeline is as follows, dependent on the timing of OMB approval:

Activity	Time Period
Data collection Wave #1 FY18 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Data collection Wave #1 FY19 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Data collection Wave #2 FY18 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Data collection Wave #2 FY19 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Data collection Wave #3 FY18 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Data collection Wave #3 FY19 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Request an Extension from OMB	Prior to February 2023
Data collection Wave #4 FY18 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Final report for FY18 CWCC Grantees	5 months after completion of analysis
Data collection Wave #4 FY19 CWCC grantees	4 months
Analyze data	3 months
Final report for FY 19 CWCC grantees	5 months after completion of analysis

A17. Exceptions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

Attachments – Added December 2020

Instrument 1: Survey Invitee Template (Revised December 2020)

Instrument 2: Online Annual Collaboration Survey (Revised December 2020)

Appendix D: Email from Project to Survey Invitees including the Survey Link (Revised December 2020)

Appendix D-2: COVID Email from Project to Survey Invitees including the Survey Link (Revised December 2020)

Appendix E: Reminder Email(s) from Project to Survey Invitees to Increase Response Rate (Revised December 2020)

Appendix E-2: Phone and Text Message Reminders from Project to Survey Invitees to Increase Response Rate

Appendix H: Flyer to Promote Collaboration Survey

Previously Approved Attachments

Instrument 1: Survey Invitee Template

Instrument 2: Online Annual Collaboration Survey

Instrument 3: Site Visit Planning Template

Instrument 4: Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1

Instrument 4a: COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Interview #1

Instrument 5: Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1

Instrument 5a: COVID Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Interview #1

Instrument 6: Site Visit Discussion Guide for Project Directors and Leaders from Partner Organizations – Follow-up Interviews

Instrument 7: Site Visit Discussion Guide for Staff from Lead and Partner Organizations – Follow-up Interviews

Appendix A: Federal Register Notice

Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Approval

Appendix C: Email from Project Directors to Survey Invitees Introducing the Data Collection Effort

Appendix C-2: COVID Email from Project Directors to Survey Invitees Introducing the Data Collection Effort

Appendix D: Email from Project to Survey Invitees including the Survey Link

Appendix D-2: COVID Email from Project to Survey Invitees including the Survey Link

Appendix E: Reminder Email(s) from Project Directors to Survey Invitees to Increase Response Rate

Appendix F: Virtual Site Visit Planning Email

Appendix G: COVID Email from Project Directors Inviting Interviewees

1 We will submit a request to extend information collection prior to the expiration date of this initial request.

2 https://www.preventioninstitute.org/publications/collaboration-assessment-tool

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.

12