NSFG 2009 ATTACH F1-5-Consultation

NSFG 2009-2012 Attachment F: Consultation OMB No. 0920-0314

ATTACHMENT F1- F5: Consultation Outside the Agency

Attachment F1:

A Summary of Options for the design of Cycle 7 of the

National Survey of Family Growth: March 8, 2004

by

Bill Mosher, Bob Groves, & the NSFG teams at NCHS & the U of Michigan

ABSTRACT

This memo describes our goals for Cycle 7 of the NSFG, and how Cycle 7 was planned. We then describe how the current set of 3 designs was chosen for evaluation:

(1) a “12-month” design, in which interviewing is done in 12 months;

(2) a 4-year design, in which interviewing is done continuously. A Cycle is 4 years

of interviews; and

(3) a “3-year” design, in which interviewing is done in 36 months.

Our goals for these designs included the following:

• The budget for Cycle 7 should be $16.0 million, slightly lower than the actual cost of Cycle 6 (which was $17 million).

• The sample size for Cycle 7 should be about 19,000 interviews, the original goal in Cycle 6.

• We should provide more frequent data (than every 6-7 years).

• We should use what we have learned from Cycle 6 to make Cycle 7 more efficient, and prevent cost increases.

The total contract budget for Cycle 7 is $16 million over 5-6 Fiscal Years, compared with $17 million over 6 fiscal years for Cycle 6---so we are assuming roughly constant funding support for the survey. We describe the sample designs and cost assumptions for each design, and the sample size yield for each design. The comparisons show that –because of the need to spend about $9 million on fieldwork in one year---the 12-month design cannot be done until 2008, and produces only about 12,100 interviews. The Continuous and 36-month designs produce substantially more completed interviews for the same budget, and one of those designs should be chosen for Cycle 7. Either of those designs could lead to permanent continuous interviewing for the NSFG. In either of those designs, interviewing would begin in June, 2006.

Each full design (e.g. 4 years of continuous interviewing, or 3 years of the 3-year design) produces roughly equal standard errors for comparable statistics. Statistics based on sub-samples—e.g., 2 years of interviewing in the 4-year design---will be based on smaller sample sizes, and so will have larger standard errors. The Cycle 6 phase of the contract ends in September of 2004, however, so we need to choose a design, discuss it with the NSFG’s 9 co-funding agencies, write it into the Cycle 6 contract, and get the contract paperwork signed by Sept 30, 2004.

(END OF ABSTRACT.)

­

Background

In late 2000, the NSFG staff and representatives of the NSFG’s funding agencies began a process to assess how the NSFG was meeting our needs. We met through mid-2001, and concluded that, when we have the data, the NSFG meets our needs very well, but that the intervals between cycles of the NSFG are too long, and the cost per interview is too high. We agreed that we would address these concerns in planning Cycle 7.

In 2002 and early 2003, Cycle 6 of the NSFG was conducted. The procedures appear to have worked well, and a good response rate (79%) was achieved, but the costs per case were higher than expected, and thus the resulting sample size was less than expected.

The staff of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), along with the NSFG’s Project Director, Robert Groves, met with the NSFG’s funding agency representatives in April of 2003, and summarized our then-current plans for continuous interviewing in Cycle 7. After a thorough discussion, we agreed that we would work with ISR to obtain the most rigorous cost estimates possible for the Cycle 6 Design and for Continuous Interviewing. However, during that meeting and afterward, some funders continued to express concern about whether continuous interviewing would deliver enough cases in sub-groups, and whether point estimates would be reliable enough to detect differences and trends before 4 or 5 years of data had accumulated. Those concerns led us to specify and explore the 3-year design described below.

To achieve the goals listed on page 1, we wrote into the Cycle 6 contract a formal requirement for our contractor, the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at the University of Michigan, to prepare formal cost proposals for Cycle 7 and to discuss the details of those estimates with us. This has resulted in a cooperative effort by the NSFG staff and by Dr. Groves and his project team to design Cycle 7 interactively. We think this process is likely to result in a more accurate cost estimate and statement of work than in a typical contract negotiation.

For each design we discussed, we have paid attention to:

• the details of how each design would be staffed and fielded;

• potential problems involved in launching each design; and

• the potential advantages and disadvantages of each design.

The Designs

After much discussion, we asked ISR to specify and prepare cost estimates for the following 3 designs:

1. “The Cycle 6 design.”---Also known as a 12-month design or a traditional design, this is essentially a replication of the Cycle 6 design, with a few changes to make it more cost-efficient. Specifically, this design conducts the main study interviewing in 12 months in 120 Primary Sampling Units (PSU’s).

2. “Continuous Interviewing.”---A design in which the interviewing is conducted continuously, in 33 Primary Sampling Units (PSU’s, or major areas) each year, with some large PSU’s (New York, LA, Chicago, etc) always remaining in the sample.

Some reports and a public use data file could be produced after the first 2 years, and then after the first 3 years of interviewing, with the final data set containing 4 years of interviewing from 108 PSU’s. This design takes 3-4 years to accumulate enough cases for reliable analyses in some sub-groups (such as black or Hispanic teenagers). Concerns about this long field period led to the 36-month design, which accumulates cases faster, but spends money faster.

3. “36-month” or “3-year Design.”---A design in which the interviewing is conducted over a 36-month period, in about 40 PSU’s for the first 18 months, and 40 more PSU’s for the last 18 months. A public use data file and some reports would be produced from the data set after the first 18 months of interviewing.

Budget

The contract budget for Cycle 6 was about $17.25 million, spread over the fiscal years 1999-2004 (a 6-year period). The proposed 6-year budget for Cycle 7 is $16 million, including $15 million to implement the design and $1 million in transition costs.

These costs can be paid during the Fiscal years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and 2009 (a 5 or 6-year period).

When Does Interviewing Start?

Design 1, the Cycle 6 design, spends over $9 million in one year, the year the interviewing is conducted. For all 3 designs considered in this memo, we are assuming that the NSFG’s funders will not dramatically increase their contributions, so we have to wait several years until we have accumulated the funds to spend about $3 million to get ready for fieldwork and then spend $9 million in one year. This means that we cannot do the interviewing for this design until 2008.

Designs 2 and 3 spend less per year and spread the costs more evenly over the years. As a result, we can begin interviewing under both of these designs in June of 2006. Details on the schedules are shown later in this memorandum.

The Comparisons

After considerable discussion with ISR, and some refinement of preliminary designs, we decided that we would compare the sample sizes that each design would produce after spending $16 million ($15 million plus $1 million for transition costs—or $1.25 million less than Cycle 6).

Recall that in Cycle 5, an average of 9 hours of interviewer labor was required to obtain a completed interview. In Cycle 6, this critical number increased to 11 hours, producing higher costs and smaller sample sizes than anticipated. In an abundance of caution, we have increased the estimate to 13.0 hours of interviewer labor per case. Of course, if we are able to obtain interviews for an average of 11 or 12 hours per case, we will get larger numbers of interviews. The total sample sizes, and the projected delivery dates for the data files, are:

Interviews

DESIGN 13 hrs/case 12 hrs/case Data File Released by NCHS

12-month n=12,100 N.A. May, 2010

36-month n=19,000 20,500 June, 2008; Nov, 2009

Continuous n=17,400 18,900 Dec 2008; Dec 2009, Dec 2010

The design effects for the 36-month and continuous designs are larger than those for the “Cycle 6 design” (i.e., the “12-month design.”), so that the standard errors of comparable statistics from the full samples of all 3 designs are roughly equal, despite their different sample sizes.

Of course, if one uses a sub-sample—e.g., 2 years of interviewing in the 4-year design---the standard errors of those statistics will be larger because they will be based on smaller sample sizes. At the funders’ meeting, we will show some quantitative examples of the design effects and their effects on some key analyses.

Next Steps: A Timeline to Get Ready for Cycle 7

April, 2004 Submit Contract Mod requesting activation of Phase 2 (Cycle 7)

Sept 30, 2004 Cycle 6 Phase of Contract ends

(The Contract Mod must be approved and signed.)

Oct 1, 2004 Cycle 7 Phase of Contract Begins

Oct 04-March 05 NCHS releases Cycle 6 Data File and Initial Reports;

ISR and NCHS finish ACASI file, Contextual File, etc.

Under either Continuous Interviewing or the 36-month interviewing designs, the schedule for Cycle 7 looks about like this:

July, 2005 Questionnaires are final, and are given to the programmers.

July, 2005 NCHS and ISR begin CAPI programming and testing.

Oct, 2005 Submit IRB Protocol & OMB Clearance Package for Cycle 7

May-June, 2006 PRETEST INTERVIEWING (300 interviews)

July 2006- MAIN STUDY INTERVIEWING BEGINS

June 2009: 36-month interviewing ends.

June 2010: “Continuous” interviewing for Cycle 7 ends.

Note that, although interviewing begins in mid-2006, we need to discuss questionnaire changes in the first few months of 2005, and then revise the CAPI specifications before they are programmed. We would like to start Cycle 6 earlier, but it does not appear to be possible. Again, it is important to us to set a schedule and a budget for Cycle 7 and stick to both.

The questionnaires must be final before programming begins in order to control the costs of programming and testing.

The schedule for the replication of Cycle 6 is:

12-Month Interviewing:

Feb 1, 2006 NCHS and funders agree on English CAPI-lite

Feb 1, 2006 NCHS and ISR begin revising CAPI specifications

June 1, 2006 Send CAPI-Lite & other materials for Spanish Translation

June 1, 2006 NCHS and ISR begin CAPI programming and testing

March 1, 2007 NCHS submits Pretest IRB protocol & OMB Package

Sept 1, 2007 Receive IRB and OMB clearance

Oct 1-Dec 20, 2007 PRETEST

Feb 2008-Feb 2009 MAIN STUDY INTERVIEWING

May, 2010 Public Use File released

Attachment F2:

2006 Research Conference on the National Survey of Family Growth

Agenda

Thursday and Friday, October 19-20, 2006

NCHS Auditorium, Hyattsville, MD

Presenting authors are listed in italics; see list of papers for full authorship of papers.

Day 1: Thursday, October 19, 2006

Chairperson: Jeff Evans, National Institute for Child Health and Human Development

8:00 Registration starts

8:45 Opening Remarks:

Jo Jones, National Survey of Family Growth, NCHS

Jennifer Madans, Associate Director for Science, NCHS

Charlie Rothwell, Director, Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS

9:00-11:25 Session 1: Reproductive Health and Medical Services

9:00-9:20 Using the NSFG to examine the scope and source of contraceptive and preventive reproductive health services obtained by U.S. women, 1995-2002—Jennifer Frost (Guttmacher Institute)

9:20-9:40 Patterns of Men’s Use of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services—Debra Kalmuss (Columbia University)

9:40-10:00 Correlates of Men’s Utilization of Reproductive Health Services and Contraception—Marina Chabot (University of California, San Francisco)

10:00-10:10 Break

10:10-10:30 Women and HIV: The Relationship Between Risk, Race and HIV Testing—Lindsay Howden (Texas A&M University)

10:30-10:50 When Do Health Insurance Mandates Matter? The Case of Infertility Treatment—Lucie Schmidt (Williams College)

10:50-11:10 Discussant: Jacqueline Darroch, Consultant

11:10-11:25 Open discussion

11:25-12:40 Lunch

12:40-2:35 Session 2: Fertility and Unions

12:40-1:00 Racial Differences and Similarities Among Childless, Only-Child, and Multiple Children American Women, 1988-2002—Jennifer Lundquist (University of Massachusetts, Amherst)

1:00-1:20 Family, Individual and Relationship Factors Associated with a First Nonmarital Birth: Analyses by Gender and Race/Ethnicity—Jennifer Manlove (Child Trends)

1:20-1:40 Cohabitation and Children's Living Arrangements: New Estimates from the United States—Sheela Kennedy (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

1:40-2:00 Cohabitors in the New Millennium: Intersections of Race, Gender and Perceived Chances of Marriage—Telisha Martin (University of Florida)

2:00-2:20 Discussant: Wendy Manning, Bowling Green State University

2:20-2:35 Open discussion

2:35-2:50 Break

2:50-4:45 Session 3: Fatherhood

2:50-3:10 Early entry to fatherhood estimated from men’s and women’s survey reports in combination—Michael Rendall (RAND Corporation)

3:10-3:30 Factors Associated with Multiple-Partner Fertility among Fathers—Cassandra Logan (Child Trends)

3:30-3:50 Competing Obligations, Child Support, and Men’s Visitation with Nonresidential Children—Karen Benjamin Guzzo (Lehigh University)

3:50-4:10 Antecedents and Correlates of Father Involvement—Kendall Swenson and Linda Mellgren (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation)

4:10-4:30 Discussant: Natasha Cabrera, University of Maryland

4:30-4:45 Open discussion

5:00 Adjourn

Day 2: Friday, October 20, 2006

Chairperson: Kristin Moore, Child Trends, Inc.

9:00-10:55 Session 4: Teens/Young adults

9:00-9:20 Trends in premarital sex in the United States, 1954-2003—Larry Finer (Guttmacher Institute)

9:20-9:40 Understanding Teenage Fertility Decline—Jacob Klerman (RAND Corp)

9:40-10:00 Recent Declines in Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: More Abstinence or Better Contraceptive Use?—John Santelli (Columbia Univ.)

10:00-10:20 Do Adolescents and Young Adults Who Delay First Intercourse Until Older Ages Use More Effective Contraception? Results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth—Lauren Ralph (University of California, San Francisco)

10:20-10:40 Discussant: Barbara Sugland, Center for Applied Research and Technical Assistance

10:40-10:55 Open discussion

10:55-11:10 Break

11:10-11:45 Special presentation: An Update on Continuous Interviewing in the NSFG— Bob Groves & Nicole Kirgis (Institute for Social Research, Univ of Michigan)

11:45-1:00 Lunch

1:00- Session 5: Methodological Issues

1:00-1:20 Latent Class Analysis of Response Inconsistency across Modes in NSFG Cycle 6—Ting Yan (University of Michigan)

1:20-1:40 Reporting of Induced and Spontaneous Abortion in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth—Rachel Jones (Guttmacher Institute)

1:40-2:00 Does it Matter How You Ask?: Question Wording and Males’ Reporting of Contraceptive Use at Last Sex—Lynette Hoelter (University of Michigan)

2:00-2:20 Discussant: Clyde Tucker, Bureau of Labor Statistics

2:20-2:35 Open discussion

2:35-3:30 Wrap-Up Session: NSFG Co-funders’ remarks & Open Discussion

3:30 Final remarks and Adjourn

ATTACHMENT F3:

Summary of the 2007 Meeting of the NSFG Collaborating Agencies

Held at the National Center for Health Statistics, October 24, 2007

Attendees:

NCHS: The NSFG staff (Joyce Abma, Anjani Chandra, Paula Goodwin,

Jo Jones, Gladys Martinez, and Bill Mosher), Stephanie Ventura, and Charles Rothwell

NSFG Contractor: Robert Groves, William Axinn, and Nicole Kirgis,

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

NICHD/NIH: Christine Bachrach and Rosalind B. King

OPA: Eugenia Eckard

OASPE: Linda Mellgren

Children’s Bureau: Penelope Maza

Present by phone:

CDC/DRH: Alison Spitz

CDC/DHAP: Amy Lansky

CDC/DSTDP: Nicole Liddon, Jami Leichliter

Agenda:

1. Introductions, overview, and NSFG Web site upgrades

2. Groves, Axinn, and Kirgis on fieldwork under continuous interviewing:

Production, response rates, and how fieldwork is monitored and managed.

3. Recodes & data Processing: A Progress report, and the schedule and steps

From a completed interview to producing the public use data file.

4. Schedule and steps for Year 3 changes (if any) to the questionnaires

5. Reaching NSFG Data Users: Research Conference, User workshops, etc.

6. Options for Keeping You Informed

Open Discussion included the following principal topics:

• Discussion of the impact of natural and man-made disasters (floods, hurricanes, etc) on continuous interviewing, and how they would be managed.

• Lessons from the first 15 months of continuous interviewing.

• Trade-offs involved in doing more vs. less data editing and imputation, and the idea of having a workshop with other survey directors on the procedures that they use in this area.

(The workshop occurred in the Spring of 2008).

• Reconvening the advisory workshop that we used to have once a year.

• (Once the contractor’s representatives left): discussion of the schedule for Cycle 8, and how to keep interviewing continuous (in the field every month, year after year).

ATTACHMENT F4—

AGENDA for the 2008 Research Conference on the

National Survey of Family Growth

October 16-17, 2008, NCHS Auditorium, Hyattsville, MD

Note: Presenting authors are listed in italics; see list of papers for full authorship of papers.

Day 1: Thursday, October 16, 2008

Chairperson: Kelleen Kaye, National Campaign

8:00 Registration and check-in

8:45 Opening Remarks:

Stephanie Ventura, Reproductive Statistics Branch, NCHS

Jennifer Madans, Associate Director for Science, NCHS

Charlie Rothwell, Director, Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS

9:00-10:55 Session 1: Contraception and Fertility

Contraceptive nonuse among U.S. women at risk for unplanned pregnancy: A secondary analysis of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth—Justine Wu (UMDNJ-RWJ Medical School)

Changes in the Measurement of Unwanted Fertility in the 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth -- Sarah Hayford (Arizona State University)

Do Health Insurance and Rural Residence pattern the Likelihood of Tubal Sterilization among American Women?—Loretta Bass (University of Oklahoma)

Time trends and class differences in childless partnering—Caroline Sten (University of Pennsylvania)

Discussant: Larry Finer, Guttmacher Institute

Open discussion

10:55-11:20 NSFG team presents on Cycle 6 to 7 instrument revisions

11:20-12:45 LUNCH

12:45-2:40 Session 2: Cohabitation and Non-marital Fertility

Cohabitation, Age at Union Formation, and Divorce—Arielle Kuperberg (University of Pennsylvania)

Union transitions among women with cohabiting births—Jennifer Manlove (Child Trends)

On the Way to the Wedding? The Resolution of First Premarital Conceptions among White and Black Women, 1965-2002—Pamela Smock (University of Michigan)

The Reproductive Context of Cohabitation in the United States: Historical Change and Variation in Contraceptive Use—Megan Sweeney (UCLA)

Discussant: Tim Heaton, Brigham Young University

Open discussion

2:40-2:55 BREAK

2:55-4:50 Session 3: Men and Fatherhood

Fatherhood Desires and Sexual Orientation: A National Portrait of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Childless Men in the United States—William Jeffries (University of Florida)

Dads Who Do Diapers: Factors that Impact Care of Young Children by Fathers—Akiko Yoshida (University of Oklahoma)

Self-assessment of fatherhood: Who are good fathers?—Megumi Omori (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)

Discussant: Elizabeth Peters, Cornell University

Open discussion

4:50-5:00 Closing remarks for the day and Adjourn

Day 2: Friday, October 17, 2008

Chairperson: Phil Morgan, Duke University

9:00-9:35 Special presentation: An Update on Continuous Interviewing in the NSFG— Bob Groves and Nicole Kirgis (Institute for Social Research,

University of Michigan)

9:35-11:30 Session 4: Teens and Reproductive Health Services

U.S. Women's Reliance on Publicly Funded Family Planning Clinics as Their Place of Regular Medical Care—Jennifer Frost (Guttmacher Institute)

Trends and determinants of reproductive health service use among young women in the United States—Julia Potter

Community-Level Influences on Young Men's Sexual and Reproductive Health Behaviors: 1988 to 2002—Laura Lindberg (Guttmacher Institute)

Environmental uncertainty and reproductive patterns in contemporary US populations—Anne Grossestreuer

Discussant: Susan Newcomer, NICHD

Open discussion

11:30-1:00 LUNCH

1:00-2:55 Session 5: Marriage and Cohabitation

With This Ring, I Thee Cohabit: Commitment-Based Predictors of Cohabitors' Pre-Cohabitation Engagement—Kristina Dzara (Southern Illinois University - Carbondale)

Serial Cohabitation and the Path to Marriage—Jessica Cohen (Bowling Green State University)

Broken Boundaries or Broken Marriages? Racial Intermarriage and Divorce in the United States—Vincent Fu (University of Utah)

With (or Without) this Ring: Race, Ethnic, and Nativity Differentials in the Demographic Significance of Cohabitation in Women's Lives -- Kate Choi (UCLA)

Discussant: R. Kelly Raley, University of Texas

Open discussion

2:55-3:20 Wrap-Up/Reflection Session: Questions & Answers; Open Discussion

3:20-3:30 Final remarks and Adjourn

Attachment F5-

Agenda for the Informal NSFG Workshop,

Nov 19-20, 2008, at NCHS, Hyattsville, Maryland

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008

9:00-9:10 am: Check-in, logistics

9:10-9:30 am: Introductions, Interest in the NSFG

9:30-10:10: Where we are: Brief overview of why the NSFG went to continuous interviewing, how it’s going, and the schedule for the next few years

10:10-10:25: BREAK

10:25-11:15: How continuous interviewing works, and how it’s managed: Bob Groves

11:15-11:30: Issues for the meeting: Overview and Discussion

(This includes whatever the advisors need or want to know before we begin discussing the rest of the agenda.)

11:30-12:45: LUNCH

12:45-4:00 (break at about 2:30) What changes to make in the NSFG questionnaires, when, and how. For example, we think improvements could be made in the following question series. NSFG staff will introduce the series and then open for discussion.

• Intendedness of births (male & female) (30 min.)

• Reproductive health services (male & female) (25 min)

• Sex education (male & female) (25 min.)

• Father involvement, paternity establishment, child support (30 min)

• Attitudes (male & female) (25 min)

• Any other topics you wish to raise & general discussion. (45 min)

4:00-4:15 Wrap-up, preview of issues for tomorrow

4:15-5:00 Around the Table: Panelists each get up to 5 minutes to make comments on any topic.

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2008

8:45-11:00 Methodology and sample design options to consider for Cycle 8

We will ask the Contracting Officer to allow us to include a small number of options (no more than 5, less is better). Each requires additional funding; most require additional staff; each involves a risk to the budget and the schedule for continuous interviewing. We would like your thoughts on which of these, if any, are worth considering for the next contract, which we think may cover fieldwork in 2011-2018.

• An increase in sample size and in the age range (15-49 or 15-54 instead of 15-44)

• A sample of incarcerated men

• A sample of men living on military bases in the U.S.

• Collection of a biomarker appropriate for the NSFG

• A 120-day follow-up to collect daily or weekly data on sexual activity, the consistency of contraceptive use, & pregnancy

• A cost-reduction option, to conduct the survey with a 25% lower budget for 2 years (if there is a budget crisis, can we keep going? What are our options?).

• Interviewing more than one person per household

11:00-11:30: The best ways to disseminate the results of the survey:

Types of reports, research conferences, web site options, user workshops, etc.

11:30-12:30: LUNCH

12:30-1:30: Around the Table, followed by general discussion.

Panelists each get up to 5 minutes to make recommendations and other comments.

1:30-2:00: The future of the workshop: When & how often we should meet

2:00 ADJOURN

PARTICIPANTS

The 6 members of the NSFG informal advisory group are:

• Laura Lindberg, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Guttmacher Institute

• S. Philip Morgan, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, Duke University

• Elizabeth Peters, Ph.D, Economist in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management, Cornell University

• John Santelli, MD, MPH, Chair, Dept of Population and Family Health, Columbia University School of Public Health

• Elizabeth Thomson, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin and Department of Sociology, Stockholm University

• (Debra Kalmuss, Columbia University School of Public Health, was invited, but unable to attend due to a family emergency.)

NSFG Team at NCHS:

• Bill Mosher, Ph.D, Team Leader

• Joyce Abma, Ph.D.

• Anjani Chandra, Ph.D.

• Casey Copen, Ph.D.

• Paula Goodwin, Ph.D.

• Jo Jones, Ph.D.

• Gladys Martinez, Ph.D.

NSFG Team at ISR:

• Robert Groves, Ph.D., NSFG Project Director, and Director of the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan (Nov 19 only)

Charles Rothwell, MBA, Director, Division of Vital Statistics, NCHS

Stephanie Ventura, MA, Chief of the Reproductive Statistics Branch, DVS, NCHS

Representatives of Cosponsoring Agencies:

• Melanie Brown, Eugenia Eckard, & David Johnson, Office of Population Affairs (OPA)

• Elizabeth DiNenno, Ph.D.,CDC/NCHHSTP/Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention

• Rosalind King, Ph.D.,Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD

• Penelope Maza, Ph.D., Children’s Bureau of the Admin. for Children & Families

• Nicole Liddon, CDC/NCHHSTP/Division of STD Prevention

• Sharon Newberg-Rinn, Children’s Bureau of ACF

• Susan Newcomer, Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD

• Annette Rogers, Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation (ASPE)

15