SUPPORTING STATEMENT
FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION
A. Justification
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information.
The collection of data is necessary to support the process of procuring and updating the personal information of individuals who review proposals submitted for grant funding. Field experts are used to evaluate the proposals and data collection supports the Peer Review System (PRS) database used by OSERS program staff to identify potential reviewers.
OSERS Peer Reviewer Data Form is used to support the peer review process panel assignments and to update individual peer reviewer personal information in the (PRS) database. This information is requested when an individual is asked to serve as a peer reviewer and/or updated biannually by persons who previously served as peer reviewers. The information is used by OSERS staff and the peer review contractor to identify potential reviewers who would be appropriate to review specific types of grant applications for funding; provide background information on each potential reviewer; and provide information on any reasonable accommodations that might be required by the individual.
The changes to the data form include adding two check boxes that will allow first-time respondents and repeat reviewers to complete the entire form or simply update contact information. This alleviates the need for a separate form, currently in use, to update reviewer contact information. Also, to promote electronic submission, all the fields were made “fillable” through the use of text or check boxes.
There are legal requirements that necessitate this collection. For reviewers used to evaluate applications submitted under Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, the law indicates that "peer review panels" shall include, "to the extent practicable, parents of children with disabilities, individuals with disabilities, and persons from diverse backgrounds" (20 USC 1400 §682 (a)(1)(A) and (C)(2)(A)(ii)). Since all field experts captured in the PRS are shared by program staff, all potential reviewers are asked to complete the data form.
2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection.
The information is used by OSERS staff and the peer review contractor to:
Identify potential reviewers who would be appropriate to review specific types of grant applications for funding;
Provide background information on each potential reviewer; and
Provide information on any reasonable accommodations that might be required by the individual.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration given to using technology to reduce burden.
The peer reviewers currently receive the form from logistics contractors in a packet of competition materials mailed to them prior to serving on a peer review panel or electronically in association with a biannual update request. Based on changes to the data form, respondents will be able to receive, complete and submit the form electronically.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.
OSERS is making a concerted effort to restrict duplicate requests for the information on this form at various stages of the review process by encouraging the logistics contractors to pre-populate the contact information on subsequent forms requiring reviewers signatures or feedback. The current OMB approved form replaced four forms previously in use to collect data on potential peer reviewers. The new form will discontinue the use of one additional form that is currently used by reviewers to update their contact information.
The new form will discontinue the use of one additional form that is used to update reviewer contact information with the addition of the two following checkbox statements:
_First Submission
_Update to Previous Submission
(Complete section 1 plus any section needing updates)
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 8b of IC Data Part 2), describe any methods used to minimize burden.
This collection of information does not involve small business or entities.
6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.
If this information is not collected, there will not be a systematic process for recruiting well-qualified reviewers, identifying them for specific panel reviews and updating their contact information. At any time, approximately 30% of the reviewer files contain data that are out-of-date, such as old addresses, employers and phone numbers. Without a mechanism to populate the PRS database with reviewer’s data, individual staff members would be asked to provide suggestions. This is both ineffective and inefficient.
The initial extensive data collection was done in October - December 1997. Our experience is that essential contact information needs to be updated at least every two years to capture reviewers that were not used in recent competitions. Our existing database is to be updated biennially. As soon as this data collection is approved, the plan is to begin the process of asking respondents to update their data.
7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:
requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;
requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;
requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;
requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;
in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study;
requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;
that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or that unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or
requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
There are no circumstances which would cause information collection to be conducted in any of the manners stipulated.
If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden.
Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.
Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years – even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.
The collection published both 30/60-day Federal Register notices for public comments. This collection will be conducted in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5.
Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees.
We pay each reviewer honorarium and cover any travel cost required.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
Respondents will receive a written statement that will accompany the data form.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.
There are no questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should :
Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices.
If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in item 16 of IC Data Part 1.
Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14.
The burden to the respondents annually would be approximately 470 hours. This estimate is based on each of 1,875 respondents (75% of the 2500 names in the database) annually spending 15 minutes to complete the form.
The changes to the data form include adding two check boxes that will allow first-time respondents and repeat reviewers to complete the entire form or simply update contact information. This alleviates the need for a separate form, currently in use, to update reviewer contact information. Also, to promote electronic submission and efficiency, all the fields were made “fillable” through the use of text or check boxes.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)
The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and acquiring and maintaining record storage facilities.
If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.
Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup Cost :
Total Annual Costs (O&M) :
____________________
Total Annualized Costs Requested :
None
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.
The annualized cost to the Federal government is through payments to the peer review support contractor for the following data collection activities.
Labor
Review Assistant (Logistics) 110hrs@$18.50 $2,035.00
Review Manager (Logistics) 60hrs@$21.63 $1,297.80
Review Assistant (PRS/TRIM) 40hrs@$18.50 $740.00
Programmer Analyst (PRS/TRIM) 15hrs@$122.02 $1,830.30
Program Manager (PRS/TRIM) 5hrs@$$138.14 $690.70
Total Direct Labor $6,593.50
Fringe $799.87
Overhead $733.22
G&A and fixed fee $1,252.77
Subtotal $9,379.36
Other Direct Costs
Materials $3,600.00
G&A and fixed fee $576.00
Subtotal $4,176.00
Grand Total $13,555.36
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments to #16f of the IC Data Part 1 Form.
The form has been changed to reflect an adjustment opposed to a program change. The number of annual responses decreased because the form had not been distributed to the entire peer reviewer pool since 2007. It was only being provided to alternates and reviewers chosen to review for an actual completion.
16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
The results of this data collection will not be published.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
The expiration date for OMB approval of the data collection is displayed and can continue to be displayed on the form.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of Paperwork Reduction Act.
There are no exceptions noted in the certification statement.
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | SUPPORTING STATEMENT |
| Author | Kenneth Smith |
| Last Modified By | Authorised User |
| File Modified | 2011-06-27 |
| File Created | 2011-06-27 |