SSA - APS Study Formative GenIC Prog Support

Alternative Supporting Statement Instructions for Information Collections Designed for

Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes

The Adulthood Preparation Subjects (APSs) Study of Dosage and Cultural Relevance

Formative Data Collections for ACF Program Support

0970 - 0531

Supporting Statement

Part A

May 2023

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, DC 20201

Project Officers:

Caryn Blitz

Tia Brown

Part A

Executive Summary

• Type of Request: This Information Collection Request is for a generic information collection under the umbrella generic, Program Support for ACF Research (OMB #0970-0531).

• Description of Request: The Adulthood Preparation Subjects (APSs) Study of Dosage and Cultural Relevance (APS Study) is a formative evaluation to gather information from Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) grantees on the APS topics and content delivered as part of PREP programming. The Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), who administers the PREP, is interested in a deeper understanding of how programs implement APS topics and content and their relevance for youth. In particular, we seek to learn more about the dosage of the APS topics and content delivered to youth, whether the APS content meets youths’ needs, whether the topics and content are culturally relevant to specific groups of youth, and potential improvements to the APSs. The proposed data collection will occur through up to 20 telephone interviews with grantees and providers and one round of site visits to three grantees. The site visits will include interviews with program leaders and managers, interviews with program facilitators, and focus groups with community members (including parents) and youth participants in PREP programming.

Ultimately, the data gathered will inform technical assistance planning and resources for PREP grantees related to the design and delivery of APS topics and content within their programs. The data may also inform future learning agendas and research plans. We do not intend for the data gathered for this study to be generalized to a broader population. We also do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.

• Timing: The goal is to gather information beginning in late June 2023.

A1. Necessity for Collection

Study Background

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), which comprises numerous adolescent pregnancy prevention programs. ACF’s Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) administers the PREP, and ACF’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) collaborates with FYSB to conduct research and evaluation related to PREP. To support PREP programming, ACF funded the PREP Studies of Performance Measures and Adulthood Preparation Subjects (PMAPS) in June 2016 (OMB #0970-0497). PMAPS included activities related to the refinement, support for data collection and submission, analysis, and reporting of the PREP performance measures, as well as the development of conceptual models for PREP’s Adulthood Preparation Subjects (APSs). PREP grantees are required to address at least three of the six APSs: healthy relationships, healthy life skills, adolescent development, parent-child communication, educational and career success, and financial literacy. For each APS, there are a set of topics that grantees address as part of the APS. For instance, for the APS on healthy life skills, grantees may cover topics such as cognitive skills, emotional coping skills, social skills, and physical and sexual health skills. The grantees can select the content (such as materials, activities, or curricula) to address the APS topics. In September 2021, ACF funded PMAPS 2.0 to continue to support PREP performance measures data collection and submission, analysis, and reporting and this study to examine the dosage and cultural relevance of the APSs topics.

This formative data collection aims to gather feedback on the dosage and cultural relevance of the APSs for youth. This information collection is necessary to learn about the program design and implementation experiences of grantees and providers who deliver APS programming to youth through their PREP programs. In particular, ACF seeks a deeper understanding of how grantees and providers implement APS topics and related content; the relevancy of these topics and content for youth, including how the APSs meet the needs of youth and whether they are culturally relevant for different groups of youth; and what potential improvements to the APSs might be considered.

ACF is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency. OPRE contracted with Mathematica to conduct the APS Study.

A2. Purpose

Purpose and Use

The goal of this proposed data collection is to help refine PREP program delivery strategies and assess the appropriateness of the APSs for all PREP grantees. This formative evaluation seeks to improve ACF’s understanding of the dosage and cultural relevance of the APS topics for different groups of youth, such as those serving tribal and American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth, Latino youth, youth living in rural areas, and youth living in child welfare or juvenile justice settings. The study will examine all six APSs, with emphasis on the three most commonly implemented subjects (healthy relationships, healthy life skills, and adolescent development). The information collected through this study will be used to inform future technical assistance offerings to grantees and providers related to APS programming, as well as future ACF learning agendas and research priorities.

This proposed information collection meets the following goals of ACF’s generic clearance for program support (OMB #0970-0531):

• Planning for provision of programmatic or evaluation-related T/TA

• Obtaining feedback about processes and/or practices to inform ACF program development or support

• Development of learning agendas and research priorities

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

This study will address four primary research questions.

1. What APS topics and content do grantees deliver to youth, how is it delivered, and how much is delivered (what is the dosage)?

2. Is there alignment between the APS content and dosage and the needs of the populations served?

3. What is the cultural relevance of the APS topics and content delivered by grantees to youth?

   1. Does this differ by racial, ethnic, age, or gender group?

   2. What are youth not getting that parents, caregivers, or community leaders/members think they need?

   3. Are there differences by type of grantee?

4. What successes, challenges, and lessons have been learned about delivering relevant APS topics and content to youth? Are there ways to adapt the existing APSs and their topics to ensure they are culturally relevant for the youth grantees are serving?

Study Design

The proposed formative data collection will occur through 20 telephone interviews with PREP grantees and providers and an in-person site visit to each of three PREP grantees. The site visits will include interviews with program leaders and managers, interviews with program facilitators, focus groups with community members (including parents), and focus groups with youth participating in PREP programming. These various activities are described below. In addition, Table A.1 includes a study design summary, including respondents, content, purpose, mode, and duration of the data collection activities.

For the telephone interviews, the team will identify up to 20 PREP grantees or providers from among the universe of all PREP grantees (including Competitive PREP, State PREP, Tribal PREP, and Personal Responsibility Education Innovative Strategies (PREIS) grantees), and their providers. To understand program experiences selecting or designing and delivering APS content to youth, the study team will focus data collection on a diverse set of grantees and providers who deliver several of the most commonly implemented APSs. Organizations will be selected into the study based in part on PREP performance measures data that grantees are required to complete. Through the PREP performance measures (OMB # 0970-0497; Exp Date 06/30/2023¹) grantees report about the youth populations their providers serve and the settings in which they serve them. Using existing PREP data will enable the study team to identify and recruit a diverse sample of PREP grantees and provider organizations that vary by funding stream, method of addressing APSs, and population of youth served. In addition, ACF program staff will help purposefully select grantees and providers for the interviews, prioritizing those organizations that are implementing innovative APS programming, have adapted APS for cultural relevance, or are serving subgroups of youth that may have particularly useful insights on cultural relevance—for example, those serving tribal and AI/AN youth, Latino youth, youth living in rural areas, and youth living in child welfare or juvenile justice settings.

Once the grantees and providers have been selected, the study team will notify them of the study and invite them to participate in an interview. Pending OMB approval, we will conduct interviews between June and August 2023. (Appendix A includes outreach materials for the telephone interviews, and Instrument 1 includes the telephone interview topic guide.) Respondents involved in the telephone interview data collection will be from a convenience sample; they may not be representative of all PREP grantees and their providers.

For the site visits, Mathematica, OPRE, and FYSB project officers who work with grantees will coordinate to identify three grantees to participate in an in-person site visit lasting two to three days. We will purposively select grantees with experience or insights related to adapting APS materials or implementing innovative APS-related content. With ACF’s input, we will select grantees from two or more of the PREP funding streams (Competitive PREP, State PREP, Tribal PREP, and PREIS grant programs) with at least one Tribal PREP grantee represented. Through the site visits we expect to gain a deeper understanding of the APS topics’ cultural relevancy for youth in tribal and other types of communities.

During the site visits, we will conduct interviews with program leaders and managers, and facilitators who deliver programming to youth. We will also conduct two 60-minute focus groups at each site, one with community members (including parents and PREP program partners) and a second with youth participants. We will include no more than 10 individuals in each focus group. We will work with the grantee project director to identify the appropriate respondents for each data collection activity. We will also ask the project director to share information about the study with potential community members and youth respondents for the focus group. (Appendix B includes recruitment materials for focus groups, and Instrument 2 is the topic guide for the site visit data collection activities.) As part of the recruitment efforts for youth respondents, we will collect parent or guardian consent for their child to participate and will request parental contact information (phone number and email address) so that we can send reminder emails or texts about the time and date of the youth focus group.

Table A.1. Study design summary

Instrument and data collection activity	Respondent, content, purpose of collection	Mode and duration
Instrument 1: Topic guide for telephone interviews with PREP grantees and providers	Purpose: To gather descriptive information and qualitative feedback on the design, delivery, dosage, and relevance of the APS topics and content for youth, as well as reflections on lessons learned and potential improvements Respondents: Grantee and provider program leaders (such as PREP project director or grant administrator) Content: Program context and youth needs, APS content and method of delivery, dosage of APS topics and content, and relevance of APS topics and content to youth	Mode: Telephone interview Duration: 60 minutes
Instrument 2.a: Topic guide for in-person site visit: Interview with program leaders and managers	Purpose: To gather qualitative feedback on the design, delivery, dosage, and relevance of the APS topics and content for youth, and reflections on lessons learned and potential adaptations and improvements for cultural relevance Respondents: Program leaders and managers (such as PREP project director or grant administrator) Content: APS content and method of delivery, dosage of APS topics and content, relevance of APS topics and content to youth, and adaptations or enhancements made for cultural relevance	Mode: In-person interview Duration: 90 minutes
Instrument 2.b: Topic guide for in-person site visit: Interview with program facilitators	Purpose: To gather qualitative feedback on the design, delivery, dosage, and relevance of the APS topics and content for youth, and reflections on lessons learned and potential adaptations and improvements for cultural relevance Respondents: PREP program facilitators who deliver PREP programming to youth Content: APS content and method of delivery, dosage of APS topics and content, relevance of APS topics and content to youth, and adaptations or enhancements made for cultural relevance	Mode: In-person interview Duration: 60 minutes
Instrument 2.c: Topic guide for in-person site visit: Focus group with community members	Purpose: To gather qualitative feedback on the design, delivery, dosage, and relevance of the APS topics and content for youth, and potential adaptations and improvements for cultural relevance Respondents: Parents of youth who participate in PREP programming, community members who helped develop or adapt APS materials or collaborate with the PREP program in other ways Content: Youth needs, relevance of APS topics and content to youth, dosage guidelines, and adaptations or enhancements for cultural relevance	Mode: In-person focus group Duration: 60 minutes
Instrument 2.d: In-person site visit: Focus group with youth participating in PREP programming	Purpose: To gather youths’ feedback and perceptions of the APS topics and content, the extent of their participation and engagement in the content, and potential adaptations and improvements for cultural relevance Respondents: Youth participating in PREP programming Content: APS content and delivery, participation and engagement in APS content, satisfaction with APS content and relevance to their lives, and how the content could be improved	Mode: In-person focus group Duration: 60 minutes

Other Data Sources and Uses of Information

The study team will draw on information previously collected through PMAPS to inform the selection of grantees and providers for the telephone interviews and site visits. In addition, as part of the in-person site visits, and if feasible, the study team will observe the delivery of at least one APS-related program activity per site.

A3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden

The study team plans to use information technology wherever possible. The study team will collect qualitative information from the telephone interviews via video conference; this will enable us to complete the interviews at a time that is most convenient for the respondent and eliminate any burden they would have for travel time to attend an in-person interview. Parents and guardians can provide consent for their child to participate in the focus groups using an online consent form, which will reduce the burden of distributing and returning paper consent forms. The study team will email each parent or guardian a unique link, and they will follow the link to complete the consent form. The consent form will be securely completed on QuestionPro GovCloud. QuestionPro GovCloud has protections for the security and privacy of all information entered into it. It is hosted in a FedRAMP compliant GovCloud environment. It is also compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Section 508, ISO 27001, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Payment Card Industry’s Data Security Standards (PCI - DSS), and FERPA.

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

None of the instruments ask for information that can be reliably obtained through other sources.

A5. Impact on Small Businesses

The grantees and providers participating in the study will be small, nonprofit organizations or state or tribal agencies. The study team will request information required only for the intended use. The burden for respondents will be minimized by restricting the interview and focus group length to the required minimum, conducting interviews and focus groups at times convenient for the respondents, and not requiring additional record-keeping on the part of the grantees.

A6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

This is a one-time data collection.

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 two notices in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intention to request an OMB review of the overarching generic clearance for formative data collections for ACF program support (OMB #0970-0531). This first notice was published on January 28, 2022, Volume 87, Number 19, page 4603, and it provided a 60-day period for public comment. The second notice was published on July 13, 2022, Volume 87, Number 133, page 41723, and it provided a 30-day period for public comment. ACF did not receive any substantive comments.

Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

No outside experts will be consulted for the APS Study.

A9. Tokens of Appreciation

To recruit for and conduct the in-person focus groups with community members and youth, the study team will collaborate with three PREP programs to identify willing participants. To obtain a representative set of individuals for the focus groups and help ensure a high participation rate, we propose to provide tokens of appreciation in the form of $40 gift cards to individuals who participate in the focus groups. This token of appreciation is intended to encourage participation in the focus groups and demonstrate respect to the individuals and communities participating in the study.

First, a token of appreciation is intended to encourage in-person attendance and active participation in the discussion, both by recognizing the value of participants’ time and helping offset the cost of attending the focus group (for example, related to child care and transportation). A token can also help encourage participation from respondents with a range of background characteristics, thus reducing potential inequities. Since many PREP programs serve populations experiencing disadvantage and economic hardship, the focus group participants are likely to have low incomes. Without offsetting the direct costs of participating in the focus groups, such as arranging child care and transportation, only individuals able to overcome financial barriers may be able to participate. We do not want to discourage potential respondents from attending the focus group because of cost.

Second, to demonstrate a respect for cultural protocols, a token of appreciation is important, especially in tribal community(ies) that may participate in a site visit. Tokens of appreciation generally reinforce the notion that the knowledge being shared by local participants is valued, respected, and honored. In particular, and since we propose conducting a site visit in at least one tribal community, our team’s experiences within tribal communities suggest that the use of tokens of appreciation for participation in research is expected by both research participants and tribal leaders. This is especially true for studies conducted by researchers external to the community. For example, best practice guidelines developed by AI/AN communities confirm our experience, explicitly stating that incentivizing respondents for their time is an essential element of reciprocity between the researcher and AI/AN knowledge holders (Mihesuah 1993; Sobeck et al., 2003; Davis & Reid, 1999).² Moreover, Tribal research review entities such as Tribal IRBs and Tribal Councils have codified these community norms and best practices by requiring compensation for research participants as a condition of study approval (Doughty, 2017).³

Overall, studies continue to find that tokens of appreciation increase participation and response rates and reduce nonresponse bias (ASA/AAPOR, 2017; Brick and Tourangeau, 2017).^4,5 The proposed amount of $40 is consistent with other research completed by ACF that aim to engage vulnerable populations in an effort to help promote participation in data collection. For example, as part of the Multi-Site Implementation Evaluation of Tribal Home Visiting (MUSE) (OMB #0970-0521), participants were offered $40 for one-hour cognitive interviews, in recognition of the time commitment and because respondents were asked for their impressions rather than only factual information. Similarly, we recommend offering $40 for the one-hour focus group discussions in the proposed APS Study for community members and youth in both tribal and non-tribal communities that participate.

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

Personally Identifiable Information (PII)

This request comprises the collection of information about organizations, not individuals. Although we will collect information from individuals, personally identifiable information will not be collected during the telephone interviews, site visit interviews with program leaders and managers, site visit interviews with program facilitators, and site visit focus groups with community members. For the site visit focus groups with youth, we will need to collect a consent form from parents and guardians. The consent form will request the name and contact information (email address and phone number) for the parent or guardian. An email address and phone number are needed to send reminder emails and texts to parents of focus group participants, with information on the time and location of the focus group. However, this contact information will be stored separately from the focus group data on a secure drive. Youth will provide their name when they complete the assent form, and this information will also be stored separately from the focus group data on a secure drive. PII will not be collected during the focus groups with youth. At the beginning of the focus groups, participants will be instructed to only use their first names.

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 and that their information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. If we learn that a child has been hurt, is in danger, or plans to seriously hurt themselves or someone else, then, by law, we must make a report to the appropriate legal authorities. The study team will inform participants of this legal requirement. The study team will also notify respondents that although participation in study activities is a condition of their grant, they may choose not to respond to specific questions.

Recruitment and data collection procedures will incorporate measures for protecting the confidentiality and privacy of participants as well as processes for obtaining informed consent. Before each data collection activity, the study team will explain the procedures to protect the privacy of each respondent (Instruments 1 and 2 provide more information on the what the study team will share with respondents). These procedures will include requiring that focus group participants use only their first names during discussions. In addition, when reporting the results, researchers will not identify participants by their names. Appendices C and D provide the parent and guardian consent and youth assent forms for the youth focus groups, respectively, which contain assurances of privacy.

Data Security and Monitoring

The contractor has developed a Data Safety and Monitoring Plan that assesses all protections of respondents’ information. The contractor will ensure that all of its employees who perform work under this contract are trained in data privacy issues and comply with the above requirements. All study team staff involved in the project will receive training in (1) limitations of disclosure; (2) safeguarding the physical work environment; and (3) storing, transmitting, and destroying data securely. All Mathematica staff sign the Mathematica Confidentiality Agreement and complete online security awareness training when they are hired, and then they receive annual refresher trainings thereafter.

Data collected will be saved on a secure drive only accessible to Mathematica study team members. Any PII used to contact respondents will be stored in secure files, separate from other data.

A11. Sensitive Information ⁶

There are no sensitive questions in this data collection.

A12. Burden

Explanation of Burden Estimates

In Table A.2, we summarize the estimated reporting burden and costs for each data collection activity. All data collection activities will take 75 minutes to complete (15 minutes for scheduling and consent processes, along with 60 minutes to cover the interview or focus group questions), with the exception of site visit interviews with program leaders and managers, which will take 105 minutes (15 minutes for scheduling and consent processes, along with 90 minutes to cover the interview questions). The study team expects the total annual burden to be 134.5 hours for all the activities in this information collection request. To calculate the total annual burden, we estimate that 20 grantees (each with one respondent—either their program director, grant administrator, or another staff member whom the grantee or provider feels could best answer the questions) will complete the telephone interviews, nine program leaders or managers (three staff per site visit) will complete the site visit interviews, 15 program facilitators (five staff per site visit) will complete the site visit interviews, 30 community members (10 per site visit) will complete the site visit focus groups, and 30 youth (10 per site visit) will complete the site visit focus groups. Across all data collection activities, we expect to have 104 respondents. Each data collection activity will occur once.

Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents

The study team expects the total annual cost to be $3,706 for all activities in the current information collection request. The Occupational Employment Statistics (2022) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have been used to estimate the average hourly wage for the participants of this study and derive total annual costs. For each of the data collection activities listed in Table A.2, the study team calculated the total annual cost by multiplying the annual burden hours by the average hourly wage.

Table A.2. Total burden requested under this information collection

Data collection activity		No. of participants (total over request period)	No. of responses per participant (total over request period)		Avg. burden per response (hours)		Total/annual burden (hours)		Avg. hourly wage rate			Total annual participant cost
Telephone interviews with PREP grantees and providers	20			1		1.25		25		$45.467	$1,136.50
Site visits: Interviews with program leaders and managers	9			1		1.75		15.75		$45.464	$716.00
Site visit: Interviews with program facilitators	15			1		1.25		18.75		$24.828	$465.38
Site visit: Focus groups with community members	30			1		1.25		37.5		$29.769	$1,116.00
Site visit: Focus groups with youth participants in PREP programming	30			1		1.25		37.5		$7.2510	$271.88
Estimated total annual burden								134.5			$3,705.76

A13. Costs

There are no additional costs to respondents.

A14. Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government

The estimated total cost to the federal government for the APS Study is $155,000 (Table A.3). This includes the costs for collection and processing the data, conducting analysis, and reporting.

Table A.3. Estimated total cost by category

Cost category		Estimated costs
Telephone interview data collection	$ 30,000
Site visit data collection	$ 60,000
Analysis and reporting	$ 65,000
Total/annual costs over the request period	$ 155,000

A15. Reasons for changes in burden

This is for an individual information collection under the umbrella formative generic clearance for ACF program support (#0970-0531).

A16. Timeline

Table A.4 contains the timeline for data collection, analysis, and reporting activities for the APS Study. The study team aims to collect data in late spring 2023 through fall 2023, followed by analysis in fall 2023 and reporting in late fall and winter 2023.

Table A.4. Schedule for data collection and reporting

Activity	Timing a
Telephone interviews	Late spring and summer 2023
Site visits	Late summer and fall 2023
Data analysis	Fall 2023
Reporting (internal)	Late fall and winter 2023

^a After obtaining OMB approval.

A17. Exceptions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

Attachments

Appendices

Appendix A: Telephone Interview Outreach Materials

Appendix B: Recruitment Materials for Site Visit Focus Groups with Community Members and Youth

Appendix C: Parent and Guardian Consent Form for Youth Focus Groups

Appendix D: Youth Assent Form for Youth Focus Groups

Instruments

Instrument 1. Telephone Interview Topic Guide for PREP Grantees and Providers

Instrument 2. Site Visit Topic Guide for PREP Grantees

1 An extension request is currently in process for these measures with the 60-day comment period currently underway (88 FR 17576)

2 Mihesuah, D.A. (1993). “Suggested guidelines for institutions with scholars who conduct research on American Indians.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 17, 131-139.

Sobeck, J.A., E.E. Chapleski, & C. Fisher. (2003). “Conducting research with American Indians.” Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 12(1), 69-84.

Davis, S.M., & R. Reid. (1999). “Practicing participatory research in American Indian communities.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 69(4), 755S-759S.

3 Doughty, M. (2017). “Compensation for Study of Participation in Tribal Communities: A Research Note.” Indigenous Policy Journal, 28(1).

4 American Statistical Association (ASA) and American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). “Joint American Statistical Association/AAPOR Statement on Use of Incentives in Survey Participation.” 2016. Available at https://www.aapor.org/Publications-Media/Public-Statements/AAPOR-Statement-on-Use-of-Incentives-in-Survey-Par.aspx. Accessed August 17, 2017.

5 Brick, J.M. and R. Tourangeau. “Responsive Survey Designs for Reducing Nonresponse Bias.” Journal of Official Statistics, vol. 33, no. 3, 2017, pp. 735-752.

6 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.

7 The average hourly wage for grantee program leaders or managers who complete the telephone or site visit interviews is the mean hourly wage for social scientists and related workers (Occupational Code 19-3099). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193099.htm.

8 The average hourly wage for facilitators is the mean hourly wage for community and social service specialists (Occupational Code 21-1099). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211099.htm.

9 The average hourly wage for community members who complete focus groups is the “All Occupations” wage for the May 2021 Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000.

10 The average hourly wage for youth is the federal minimum wage in the United States. https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage.

10