HHMI - Revised OMB Supporting Statement Part A

Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative Grantee Implementation Study

Supporting Statement for OMB Clearance Request

part a

justification

A1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

In 2002, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) launched the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) to help couples who choose marriage for themselves develop the skills and knowledge to form and sustain healthy marriages. Through funded research and technical assistance over six years, ACF has learned about the challenges encountered in providing community-based healthy marriage programming. However, comparatively little is known about how such programs effectively reach and serve Hispanic families. Specifically, ACF is interested in how healthy marriage grantees are developing, adapting and implementing culturally relevant and appropriate healthy marriage programs for Hispanic populations. In recognition of some of the challenges, in 2004, ACF began the Hispanic Healthy Marriage Initiative (HHMI) to, among other things, increase awareness in the Hispanic community of the HMI, work with the Hispanic community and its leadership to design an HHMI strategy, and identify the unique cultural, linguistic, demographic, and other factors that need to be considered in the design and delivery of healthy marriage services to Hispanic families.

In 2007, ACF and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded the HHMI Grantee Implementation Study to provide documentation and lessons about diverse programmatic approaches to improve Hispanic family well-being through healthy marriage education programs. This submission seeks clearance for information collection protocols that will be used to obtain information about the ways in which healthy marriage grantees are developing, adapting, and implementing culturally relevant and appropriate healthy marriage programs for Hispanic populations.

For example, there are concepts in existing marriage curricula that may need to be nuanced for Hispanic families, such as the emphasis on the couple relationship when many Latino cultures value family and their parenting roles over marital happiness and their roles as spouses. Successful recruitment into programs may depend on whether it is a couples-only or family-centered program, whether outreach efforts use interpersonal approaches and the degree to which the agency offering healthy marriage services is known and respected in the Hispanic community.

Legal or Administrative Requirements that Necessitate the Collection

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

This information collection protocols will be used to collect information from key respondents to document the diverse programmatic approaches being implemented by a sample of nine federally funded healthy marriage grantees serving Hispanic families. The information will be used to identify the lessons learned in implementing these approaches and to generate hypotheses about which approaches and practices appear to be promising and inform future research directions.

The following overarching research questions will be addressed by the study:

• What do the selected programs look like: how do they operate, whom do they serve, and what do they seek to accomplish?

• What constitutes “success” in program implementation and in achieving program goals?

• How well are the selected programs meeting their implementation goals?

• What features—programmatic and contextual—appear to be related to successful program implementation?

By addressing these questions, the HHMI Grantee Implementation Study is expected to provide information that federal policymakers, grantees, and others interested in providing healthy marriage education services can use to tailor programs to better meet the needs of Hispanic individuals, couples and families.

A2. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection

This information collection request includes discussion guides or protocols that will be used in the following:

• On-site interviews with program staff and other stakeholders. This includes agency executive directors, HHMI program directors, HHMI class facilitators, other program staff (recruitment, intake and case management), site-specific HHMI program evaluators, staff from service delivery partners, and community leaders.

• On-site focus groups with program participants.

This submission seeks clearance for the staff and key stakeholder discussion guides and the focus group guide. Two rounds of site visits will be conducted to the nine grantees in the study using the same discussion guides.

The information collected will be used to understand how healthy marriage grantees are developing, adapting and implementing culturally relevant and appropriate healthy marriage programs for Hispanic populations.

A3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction

The information will be collected through semi-structured discussions that are not conducive to information technology, such as computerized interviewing. In order to improve the quality of the information collected, the contractor will not only take notes but will audio-tape the discussions with program staff and other stakeholders. The contractor also will audio-tape and transcribe the focus group discussions.

A4. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information

The information collection will not duplicate information that is already available. The contractor will review and extract needed information from existing materials such as grant applications, semi-annual grantee progress reports to ACF, marketing materials and program curricula.

Detailed information about how programs were structured and, if applicable, adapted, to meet the needs of a Hispanic target population is not currently available. Similarly, information on the experiences and opinions of participants, as will be collected through focus groups, does not currently exist.

A5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities

Not applicable. No small businesses are expected to be involved.

A6. Consequences of Collecting Information Less Frequently

Two rounds of information collection are planned to adequately document the evolving nature of this new field of work. Grantees are expected to make adjustments and further adaptations to their programs based on their operational experience and the feedback and input they receive from participants and partners. One round of information collection would not allow for changes and adaptations over time to be observed and recorded.

A7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5

There are no special circumstances for the proposed data collection.

A8. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside the Agency

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 (60 FR44978, 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 June 25, 2008, in Volume 73, Number 123, page 36088 and provided a sixty-day period for public comment.

ACF received no comments or requests for the guides.

A9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents

To help offset the burden for selected program participants who agree to participate in a focus group, one gift card of a nominal amount ($20) will be offered to each participant.

A10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents

Every effort will be made to maintain the privacy of respondents, using several procedural and control measures to protect the data from unauthorized use. No personal identifying information is proposed to be collected. All respondents included in the study will be informed that the information they provide will be used only for the purpose of this research. Individuals will not be cited as sources of information in prepared reports. In addition, consent forms are attached for focus group participants and for program staff.

A11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

There are no personally sensitive questions in this data collection.

A12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs

Instrument	Number of Respondents	Number of Responses per Respondent	Average Burden Hours per Response	Average Cost per Burden Hour	Total Burden Hours	Total Annual Cost
Discussion Guide for Executive Directors	9	1	1	$65.75	9	$592
Discussion Guide for Program Directors	9	1	2	$27.38	18	$493
Discussion Guide for Facilitators	27	1	2	$16.36	54	$883
Discussion Guide for Other Program/Data Staff	45	1	1.8	$14.38	81	$1,165
Discussion Guide for Program Evaluators	18	1	2	$27.66	36	$996
Discussion Guide for Staff from Service Delivery Partners	18	1	2	$27.38	36	$986
Discussion Guide for Community Leaders	18	1	2	$20.71	36	$746
Discussion Guide for Focus Groups with Participants	180	1	1	$10.06	180	$1,811
Annual Estimate	324				450	$7,672

Note: ACF is including in this submission two instruments that will be administered to less than 10 respondents and thus are exempt from the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, in order to provide a more thorough picture of the total information collection burden associated with this effort, we have included these instruments in our submission.

A13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents and Record Keepers

Not applicable. The information collection activities do not place any capital cost or cost of maintaining capital requirements on respondents.

A14. Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

The total annual cost to the government is $341,399. The breakdown is as follows: instrument development and clearance ($26,469); field research/data collection ($156,210); data analysis ($80,684); and dissemination of findings through reports, briefs and presentations ($78,036).

A15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

This submission to OMB is a new request for approval.

A16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule

A16.1 Analysis Plan

At least one staff member will be designated to take notes during each site visit discussion. Staff will also audio-tape the discussion. The site visit interview guides, for which clearance is being sought, are organized around a logic model framework. Following each site visit, staff will develop a site-specific logic model that summarizes the key information on program assumptions, context, inputs, and interventions. The model will document outputs and immediate outcomes. A logic model will be drafted following the first site visit and updated after the second. The nine logic models will be used to compare and contrast grantee service delivery models and practices. The logic models will also be used to document how the programs and their underlying assumptions have evolved over the course of the evaluation.

For the focus groups, the discussion guide seeks to elicit participants’ experiences in the program. Staff will audio-tape and take notes during the focus groups and summarize the conversation around key themes that emerge. Focus group data will be analyzed separately by sites and subsequently in total. Analyses will follow an immersion-crystallization approach that consists of systematic iterative processes of interpretation involving repeated delving into the data to develop insights and establish patterns and connections. A summary report will be created for each focus group.

A16.2 Time Schedule and Publications

Site visits will occur over two years. The first round of visits will occur in Summer 2009. The second round will occur in Summer/Fall 2010. Findings from this effort will contribute to a number of project deliverables including interim and final project reports.

• Interim report: The contractor will submit an interim report in April 2010

• Final report: The contractor will submit a final report in August 2012

A17. Reason Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate

All instruments for the HHMI Grantee Implementation Study will display the expiration date for OMB approval.

A18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.