supporting statement part A July 07

SECTION A: JUSTIFICATION
1.

Necessity of Data Collection and Legislative Authority

Authority for the ECEPD Evaluation is provided in Public Law 107-110, Section
9601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (see Appendix VI).

2.

Purpose of the Information Collected

The Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
program has three primary purposes:
•

Describe and analyze the strategies ECEPD projects are using to deliver
professional development for early childhood educators

•

Synthesize the outcomes of ECEPD projects related to the five achievement
indicators specified for the ECEPD Program

•

Identify promising practices in professional development for early childhood
educators

The audience for this evaluation includes the following:

3.

•

Congress, which monitors progress toward legislated goals for the ECEPD
Program

•

ED staff who analyze program implementation and participant outcomes and
who monitor program progress toward GPRA indicators and ECEPD
achievement indicators

•

ECEPD grantees who may use the data for program improvement and for
developing new professional development initiatives for early childhood
educators

•

Researchers who study professional development for early childhood
educators or kindergarten teachers

•

Policymakers who invest in professional development initiatives for early
childhood educators

•

Practitioners who are interested in strategies to improve the quality of
professional development for early childhood educators

Use of Improved Technology

Electronic mail will be used to facilitate quick and convenient communication
between the research team and interview respondents for scheduling and confirming
interviews. When possible, Project Directors and other project staff completing
information forms for the evaluation will be encouraged to submit materials via
electronic mail.

4.

Efforts to Identify Duplication

The data collected in the evaluation are not available from other sources. Child
Trends will summarize existing data and information about each ECEPD project and will
only ask questions of staff to clarify information that has already been provided or to
gather new information not available in other documents or reports.

5.

Burden on Small Business Organizations
No small businesses will be asked to participate in the data collection.

6.

Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection

The Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development
program will assist ED in reporting on progress toward ECEPD achievement indicators.
Without engaging in this data collection effort, ED would be limited in its ability to
characterize the effectiveness of the program.

7.

Special Circumstances
No special circumstances apply.

8.

Outside Consultants

The interview protocols were developed at Child Trends by a team lead by Dr.
Martha Zaslow. Drs. Kathryn Tout and Tamara Halle of Child Trends acted as Project
Manager and Task Leader, respectively, for this study. Comments, guidance, and
technical assistance were obtained from a variety of sources, including members of the
Technical Working Group and Dr. Jodi Sandfort, Associate Professor at the Hubert H.
Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and a consultant on
this evaluation.
Technical Work Group. In developing the study design for this evaluation, ED
is drawing on the expertise of a TWG that provides a diverse range of experiences and
perspectives. The members of this group include the following:
•

Kimberly Boller (Mathematica Policy Research)

•

Peg Griffin (University of California San Diego)

•

Janice Im (Zero to Three)

•

Craig Ramey (Georgetown University)

•

Sharon Ramey (Georgetown University)

•

Kyle Snow (RTI International)

•

Marsha Sonnenberg (Fort Worth Independent School District)

•

Carol Vukelich (University of Delaware)

This group met formally on June 29, 2006, to provide feedback and guidance on the
study design and data-collection instruments. If necessary, the group will meet again via
teleconference during the data analysis and reporting phase of the study.
Other opportunities for public comment. After a 60-day comment period, a
copy of the publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice soliciting
comments, a summary of the public comments in response to the notice, and a description
of the actions taken in response to the comments will be provided.

9.

Explanation of Providing Payment or Gifts to Respondents
No payment or gift of any kind will be provided to respondents.

10.

Assurance of Confidentiality

In the introductory letter and in initial telephone contacts, respondents will be
advised that their responses will remain anonymous when results are reported. Child
Trends will use the following language: Responses to this data collection will be used
only for analytical purposes. The reports prepared for this study will summarize findings
across the sample and will not associate responses with a specific project or individual.
We will not provide information that identifies you or your project to anyone outside the
study team, except as required by law. Child Trends will limit the use of direct quotes,
but when direct quotes are used in summary documents or the final report, Child Trends
will use either generic titles, such as “one Project Director…,” or pseudonyms.
Respondents will be made aware that disguising the identity of programs completely
when reporting findings may not be possible. The number of projects included in the
study small (N = 18), and many of their project activities are unique. Thus, it may be
possible to make reasonably accurate guesses about which programs are being described
in qualitative description of the projects in the final report.

11.

Sensitive Questions

None of the questions in the Project Directors Interview or In-Depth Interviews
cover topics commonly considered private or sensitive( for example, religious beliefs or
sexual practices).

12.

Estimates of Hour Burden

Exhibit III shows the time burden estimates by type of data collection instrument.

Exhibit III: Burden Estimates
ECEPD Evaluation Instruments
Data Collection Instrument
Burden for Project
Directors
Project Director Interview
Project Characteristics Form
Evaluation Description Form
Materials Request
Total for Project Directors
Burden for In-Depth
Respondents
In-Depth Project Team
Interview
In-Depth Evaluation Team
Interview

Number of respondents
18
(Project Directors in all 18
sites)
(Project Directors in all 18
sites)
(Project Director in all 18
sites)
(Project Director in 9 sites)
18
45
27
(3 respondents in each of 9
sites)
18
(2 respondents in each of 9
sites)
45

Hour burden
27 (estimate 1.5 hour per
report to complete)
4.5 (estimate 0.25 hours per
Project Characteristics
Form)
4.5 (estimate 0.25 hours per
Evaluation Description
Form)
9 (estimate 1 hour per
Materials Request)
45
40.5 (estimate 1.5 hour to
complete)
18 (estimate 1 hour to
complete)

Total for In-Depth
58.5
Respondents*
Grand Total
63
103.5
*Note that there is no overlap between the Project Directors and In-Depth respondents

We estimate that the average hour burden per interview will be about one hour per
interview respondent over the duration of the study. Project Directors will spend, on
average, 2.5 hours. Other project participants (3 per site) will spend one hour per
interview.

Exhibit IV: Cost Burden
ECEPD Evaluation Instruments
Interview
Burden for
Project Directors
Project Directors
Interview

Number of
respondents
18
(18)

Project
Characteristics
Form
Evaluation
Description Form

(18)

Materials Request

(9)

Total for Project
Directors

18

Burden for InDepth
Respondents
In-Depth Project
Team Interview
(9 projects, 3
respondents)

45

(18)

Hour burden
27 (estimate 1.5
hour per
interview to
complete)
4.5 (estimate
0.25 hours per
Form)
4.5 (estimate
0.25 hours per
Form)
9 (estimate 1
hour per
Materials
Request)
36

Hourly
Rate

Monetary
burden

$60

$1,620

$60

$270

$60

$270

$60

$540

$60

$2,700

(27)

40.5 (estimate
1.5 hour to
complete)

$50

$2,025

(18)

18 (estimate 1
hour to
complete)

$50

$900

Total for InDepth
Respondents*

45

58.5

$50

$2,925

GRAND TOTAL

63

94.5

$55

$5,625

In-Depth
Evaluation Team
Interview
(9 projects, 2
respondents)

*Note that there is no overlap between the Project Directors and In-Depth respondents

Exhibit IV shows the annual cost to respondents for the hour burden. We
anticipate that the average cost burden per interview respondent will range from a high of
$120 for 2 hours of a Project Director’s time to $75 for 1.5 hours of a Project Team
member’s time, to $50 for an hour of an Evaluation Team member’s time. Each
respondent will be asked to complete only one interview.

13.

Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents
There are no start-up costs for this collection.

14.

Estimate of Annual Cost Burden to the Federal Government

The total cost for this study to the federal government is expected to be over two
years which includes the contract amount of the evaluation, less costs for components of
the evaluation not related to this data collection and analysis (literature review, TWG
meeting), or approximately $225,000 annually. The cost includes the following:

15.

•

Project management and meetings with the ED COR

•

Development of study design

•

Development of a notification letter and brochure for distribution to Project
Directors prior to the administration of the interview

•

Development of interview protocols

•

Pilot-testing data collection instruments

•

Structured review of ECEPD grantee applications, performance reports, and
evaluation reports

•

Development of data bases to manage and facilitate data analysis

•

Entry of new and extant data

•

Data cleaning and coding

•

Data analyses

•

Development of preliminary and final reports on the findings of the study.

Program Changes or Adjustments
This is a new collection.

16.

Publication Plan for Results

Results from this study will be produced in one publication that is planned for the
Evaluation of the Early Childhood Educator Professional Development program. The
Final Report will include a summary of findings from both phases of data collection.
Deliverable
Final Report

17.

Due Date
January, 2008

Display of Expiration Date for OMB Approval
The expiration date for OMB approval will be displayed.

18.

Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
No exceptions are requested.