Part A revised 8-15
Part A revised 8-15.doc
Choice Neighborhoods Evaluation, Phase 1
OMB: 2528-0286
CHOICE
NEIGHBORHOODS DEMONSTRATION STUDIES – TASK ORDER #1
OMB CLEARANCE PACKAGE, Part A
Part A: Justification
A1. Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary 2
A2. How, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used 5
A2.2 Purpose of the Data Collection 5
A2.3 Who Will Use the Information 6
A2.4 Instrument Item-by-Item Justification 6
A4. Efforts to identify duplication 18
A5. Methods to minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities 18
A6. Consequences if data are not collected 18
A8. Federal Register Notice 18
A9. Remuneration to respondents 18
A10. Assurances of confidentiality 19
A11. Questions of a sensitive nature 19
A12. Estimates of the burden of the collection of information 20
A12.1. Estimate of respondent burden hours 20
A12.2. Total annual cost burden to respondents 20
A13. Total annual cost burden to respondent or record keepers 21
A14. Estimate of annual cost to the government 21
A15. Reasons for any program changes or adjustments 21
A16. Plans for tabulation, analysis, and publication 21
A16.3 Plans for publication 21
A17. Approval to not display the OMB expiration date 23
A18. Exception to the certification statement 23
PART A: JUSTIFICATION
This supporting statement provides detailed information on proposed data collection activities associated with the Choice Neighborhood Demonstration Studies administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
A1. Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary
In the words of HUD Secretary Donovan, “Choice Neighborhoods would help to build truly inclusive, sustainable communities, not islands in a sea of need.”1 To accomplish this comprehensive objective, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) builds on lessons learned from HOPE VI on how to transform communities with concentrated, distressed public and assisted housing and extreme poverty into healthy, mixed-income communities with quality affordable housing, high-performing schools, services, transportation, and access to jobs. Pivoting around assisted housing developments and neighborhoods, the program aims to improve the lives of current and new residents.2 Like certain other noteworthy federal housing and community development programs, Choice Neighborhoods targets high-poverty places to assist low-income people. Recognizing the importance of the different starting points and contexts of distressed neighborhoods, CNI also permits broad flexibility and creativity in local approaches to revitalization.
The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative is designed to support the redevelopment of neighborhoods marked by poverty, distressed housing and a paucity of community assets and opportunities into resource- and opportunity-rich neighborhoods that benefit all residents, especially those living in public and assisted housing. To do so, it focuses simultaneously on housing, neighborhoods and people. At its core, the initiative seeks to:
Transform distressed public and assisted housing into energy efficient, mixed-income housing that is physically and financially viable over time.
Transform poor neighborhoods into viable, mixed-income areas with access to well-functioning services, high quality public schools and education programs, public assets, public transportation, and improved access to jobs.
Support positive outcomes related to health, safety, employment, mobility and education for families and their children who live in the target developments and the surrounding neighborhood.
The objectives of this study are to document baseline conditions, describe the revitalization efforts in those neighborhoods, and document the early outcomes of these efforts. Research questions identified by HUD in the RFQ—and the corresponding data collection strategy proposed by The Urban Institute—are provided in Table A1. This supporting statement requests approval for an in-person household survey.
Table A1: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND DATA COLLECTION STRATEGIES
Research Question |
Data collection strategy |
IMPLEMENTATION |
|
|
Document review, interviews |
|
Document review, interviews, monthly calls, follow-up interviews, community meetings, focus groups |
|
Document review, interviews, monthly calls, follow-up interviews; focus groups, community meetings, assessment of secondary data on key performance measures |
HOUSING |
|
|
Document review, baseline resident survey , secondary data (REAC scores), focus groups , block front survey, energy data |
|
Document review and pro forma analysis; interviews |
|
Document review, secondary data (real estate, Census, parcel database), site visits |
Resident survey , block front survey, pedestrian routes survey, focus groups, interviews |
|
|
Resident survey , housing agency data, site visits, interviews, focus groups
|
SUPPORT SYSTEMS |
|
|
Document review, interviews, focus groups |
|
Secondary data (census, housing agency, city data, HMDA), interviews, focus groups |
|
Document review, interviews, focus groups, community meetings, resident survey |
OPPORTUNITY AND LIVABILITY |
|
|
Document review, interviews, secondary data on schools, crime, employment, businesses |
Baseline resident survey , block front survey , pedestrian routes survey , focus groups , interviews, community meetings, continued monitoring of secondary data |
|
A2. How, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used
A2.1 Project Overview
This research employs a multi-method data collection strategy aimed at providing us with all of the information necessary to answer HUD’s research questions about the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative.
Staff from the Urban Institute will conduct much and supervise all of the proposed data collection. Multiple field visits to each site will be undertaken by teams consisting of both Urban Institute and MDRC staff. A valuable addition to the site visits will be a part-time, site-based employee of the Urban Institute. The employee will provide ongoing monitoring of local activities, including: attending appropriate local meetings and events; conducting interviews; and holding discussions with important stakeholders in the transformation process on an as-needed basis as important events transpire. Finally, additional field data collection activities, such as a baseline survey of original residents and block front survey, will be conducted by DIR and overseen by the Urban Institute.
Upon completion, the study will make substantial contributions to the understanding of the Choice Neighborhood Demonstration and other place-based initiatives and housing policies. Specifically, it will document, understand, and evaluate:
the characteristics of the transformation plan itself and associated anticipated investments and procedural innovations;
the baseline conditions of the focal development residents, the housing under redevelopment, the surrounding Choice Neighborhood, and its city and regional context;
the process of change for residents and the neighborhood in the early years of the transformation process; and
the progress, obstacles, innovations, and lessons learned from the early years of the transformation process.
A2.2 Purpose of the Data Collection
UI will set the stage for a longitudinal resident tracking survey to examine resident outcomes over time. To monitor outcomes for focal development residents, the research team will conduct a baseline survey that anticipates future tracking of a representative sample of the original focal development housing residents during implementation and revitalization of the site. The survey will establish a baseline to allow prospective future waves of surveys for the tracking of outcomes of interest, including housing location and quality; neighborhood quality; and resident physical and mental health, safety, employment, and education.
To assess the outcomes of focal development residents, we will sample from the public or HUD- assisted housing developments at each site. Our research design calls for the collection of a random sample at the New Orleans, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, and San Francisco sites, and assumes 225, 200, 80, 250, and 150 completed surveys at each site, respectively. In addition, Urban Institute will survey neighborhood residents in the Choice Neighborhoods who do not live in the focal development. The content of the focal development resident and neighborhood resident surveys will be as similar as possible. Our goal is to have a minimum of 200 completed interviews with neighborhood residents at each site, with a larger sample in sites with bigger neighborhoods. In large Choice Neighborhoods like those in Chicago, New Orleans and San Francisco, we will randomly select households for 300 completed surveys, and we will oversample household near the focal development, for an additional 100 completed interviews. In smaller Choice Neighborhoods, like those in Boston and Seattle, there will be no stratification of the sample for the survey of neighborhood residents.
A2.3 Who Will Use the Information
The Urban Institute (UI), its teaming partner (MDRC), its subcontractors (Decision Information Resources (DIR), GeoDa Group, Strategic Economics, Center for Neighborhood Technology, and Case Western Reserve University (CWRU)) and its consultants (Dr. Ingrid Ellen, Dr. Ann Forsyth, Dr. George Galster, and Dr. Deborah McKoy) are responsible for the collection and analysis of this information. UI will report its findings to HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, which, in turn, will report this information to Congress, representatives of the affected communities, and the general public. The information will serve as the foundation for eventual follow up analysis.
A2.4 Instrument Item-by-Item Justification
Table A2shows the topic areas covered by the focal development resident and neighborhood resident surveys and the justification for including questions in each topic area. Each topic area corresponds to a section of the survey instrument, which is included as Appendix A.
Research Questions/Topics
|
Justification |
|
Housing Assistance History |
|
It is important to understand residents’ previous housing assistance status as a mediating factor for other outcomes. Although living in distressed public housing has been shown to have substantial impacts on mental and physical health, educational attainment, and employment; many residents have limited financial and physical ability to move to a new development or neighborhood. These barriers to mobility, coupled with ties to the community, will likely influence how long residents have lived in the development and surrounding neighborhood. Ineffective security or policing, domination by violent criminals and drug dealers, and a culture of fear further heighten risks to residents. In public housing communities where these ills combine, residents often suffer some of poverty’s worst effects, whether drug addiction, death or maiming in drug wars, arrest or incarceration, or severe trauma from the stress of coping with constant violence and disorder. |
Current Housing Assistance Status
|
|
Similar to HOPE VI, Choice Neighborhoods will involve relocating residents of targeted public and assisted housing developments slated for much-needed revitalization and creating opportunities for low-income families to return to redeveloped housing or relocate permanently to other neighborhoods. Transitioning from assisted housing to using a housing choice voucher or being an unassisted renter/owner may pose substantial financial burden on families.
Questions will also be asked of residents who do not reside in the focal housing development to understand residents’ current housing assistance and the factors that influenced their housing decision.
|
Housing Quality |
|
Many public housing developments have been poorly constructed, badly managed, and inadequately funded, leading to extensive repair backlogs and putting residents at risk of injury or disease. Measuring changes in housing quality will help researchers understand the effectiveness of the Choice Neighborhood Demonstration. Choice Neighborhood grantees are required to have one-for-one replacement of demolished or otherwise disposed public or assisted housing units and replacement housing that reflects an adequate number of bedrooms to meet the needs of returning tenants; the definition of housing adequacy must be measured both objectively by traditional markers of housing quality as well as objectively by residents’ reports of housing quality. In addition, exposure to deplorable housing conditions such as mold and lead can have extensive impacts on residents’ health and children’s mental development. Investments in the neighborhood may also impact the quality of housing in private market units, which will be important to understanding how the neighborhood evolves with changes in the development. |
Rent and Utility Hardship |
|
During the relocation process, residents may experience rental and utility hardship as they transition from assisted housing to using a voucher or being an unassisted renter or homeowner. This transition may lead to substantial changes in housing expenditures and burden, which could in turn lead to housing or food insecurity, and other financial problems. The response to these signs of hardship will also need to be tracked to see if residents receive housing and financial assistance at times when they most need it. Changes in hardship will also be important to compare between residents who return to the development and those who opt to use vouchers or stay longer in their temporary location. |
Housing Relocation |
|
Many original residents of the focal housing development will be temporarily displaced by redevelopment, making relocating residents a critical component of this neighborhood revitalization effort. Research on HOPE VI has found that few residents who relocated from revitalizing VI sites returned to the new developments. Applying lessons learned from the HOPE VI experience, Choice Neighborhoods requires grantees to provide all displaced residents with mobility counseling, supportive services, and housing search services; and track them throughout the life of the grant or until replacement housing is fully occupied. Plans must ensure that residents are involved in planning the implementation and original residents may return to the revitalized site if they so desire. These questions will be used to examine residents’ relocation patterns and experiences and incorporate a focus on relocation services, challenges with relocation, and residents’ preferences in relocation.
|
Resident Perceptions of the Choice Neighborhood Demonstration |
|
HUD seeks to determine how the Choice Neighborhood intervention affects resident’s attitudes toward the future and their optimism about their families’ opportunities. This series of questions will ask residents to comment on the intent of the program and their involvement with CNI.
|
Neighborhood Cohesion |
|
The Choice Neighborhoods program aims to transform neighborhoods with low levels of attachment and satisfaction among stayers and in-movers – into neighborhoods that offer the services, social networks, and supports that low-income families need to thrive. The extent to which residents feel that the neighborhood is a “community” – i.e., a place where people share the same values and know and trust one another – will play a major role in the success of CNI strategies and should be measured across time to ensure that the initiative is meeting its goals. It will also be important to measure how changes in neighborhood composition affect measures of cohesion. Research suggests that as residents achieve greater security, there is a chance that they will move to more desirable neighborhoods and be replaced by a new cohort of low-income households. In extreme cases, vulnerable residents may be displaced and separated from their formal and informal ties to the community. Residents who remain also risk isolation if the post-development neighborhood changes significantly in terms of socio-demographic composition. As a result, this study intends to monitor changes in the composition of the neighborhood. This measure responds directly to the research question posed in HUD’s RFQ (If the neighborhood becomes more diverse, how these changes influence social cohesion and interaction?). In addition to feeling like they belong and are similar to other residents, individuals must also feel that residents are able (and willing) to monitor, control, defend, and improve their community. This neighborhood level efficacy can affect other aspects of resident well-being, such as feelings of safety, mental health, and even choices about transportation and use of services. This is key to understanding how problems change with the redevelopment. |
Social Networks |
|
The nature and quality of relationships between residents in a neighborhood will help researchers better understand feelings of neighborhood cohesion and also monitor how relationships are strengthened, maintained, or weakened through this initiative. The project seeks to maintain residents’ existing pro-social ties while also facilitating access to new groups of residents. Questions measure various aspects of social networks, including the density of community links and the type of relationships (family, close friend, friend, acquaintance) present in the community. Changes in these relationships over time, particularly if there are periods of physical separation, will inform researchers’ understanding of how the initiative influences residents’ social ties. This measure responds directly to the research question posed in HUD’s RFQ (Do residents in the neighborhood exhibit informal networks and support systems (non-institutional, non-governmental)?). |
Involvement in Community Activities |
|
Questions designed to measure community activism, civic engagement, and volunteerism will also provide researchers with a more nuanced understanding of how residents function within the community and their degree of attachment to the neighborhood. This series of questions also examines resident knowledge of Choice Neighborhoods and the extent to which partners leveraged existing resources and supported resident engagement.
|
Neighborhood Amenities and Physical Environment |
|
Most neighborhoods surrounding public housing developments have deficient public services, few community institutions—such as stores, banks or hospitals—and even fewer employment opportunities. Most adults in these high-risk communities have low levels of education and literacy and high levels of unemployment. As a result, one of the goals of this project is to facilitate access to neighborhood amenities, such as parks or playgrounds, and to essential activities like learning (schools), shopping, and employment. Such additions to the neighborhood, combined with CNI’s infusion of employment and education services into the neighborhood, could increase residents’ employment opportunities and their satisfaction with the neighborhood. Tracking access to and satisfaction with neighborhood amenities over time should tell researchers how successful the CNI has been at targeting these services in the Choice neighborhoods and how those services affect other aspects of resident well-being. These survey questions will be particularly important for understanding residents’ perceptions of how the initiative affected the quality of services and amenities in the neighborhood and their access to those new institutions.
Amenities and services must be accompanied by physical indicators of improvement as well. Signs of distress – including graffiti, litter, and housing vacancies – are common in severely distressed public housing and can perpetuate problems in the neighborhood by signaling declining housing values, neighborhood instability, low social cohesion, and the community’s acceptance of socially unacceptable and deviant behaviors. It will be important for this project to monitor changes in residents’ perceptions of physical disorder over time, as improvements will likely correspond to increased feelings of neighborhood cohesion. |
Neighborhood Safety and Victimization |
|
Ineffective security or policing, domination by violent criminals and drug dealers, and a culture of fear heighten risks to public housing residents. These actual threats of victimization, coupled with fear of crime, can dramatically affect residents’ quality of life. In addition to strongly motivating their desire to move, concerns about crime may affect families’ willingness to interact with their community, thereby having indirect effects on employment and other activities. Their sense of safety may also influence their parenting style and how their children engage in the community. Stress and fear may also contribute to anxiety and depression, with consequent impacts on employability and social relationships. This focus on safety and victimization responds directly to a question posed in the RFQ (How does the intervention affect violent crime and property crime in the target neighborhood and surrounding areas?). |
Choice Neighborhood Services |
|
Research suggests that most neighborhoods surrounding public housing developments have deficient public services, few community institutions—such as stores, banks or hospitals—and even fewer employment opportunities. The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative responds directly to this need by placing greater emphasis on identifying special needs of public and assisted housing residents and on providing services and supports to increase families’ well-being, including access to quality health services. It is of particular interest to monitor changes in service saturation, in access to services (including access to public transportation), and resident use of such services over the course of the initiative.
Applying lessons learned from the HOPE VI experience, Choice Neighborhoods require grantees to provide all displaced residents with mobility counseling, supportive services, and housing search services. These survey items will be used to determine residents’ receipt of and satisfaction with the institutional supports provided by the grantees, and determine if there are critical services still absent or inaccessible in the community. |
General Health and Healthcare |
|
The residents of redeveloped housing often begin in poor health and grow more distressed during the redevelopment process. Their mortality rates tend to be high. In order to understand the health experiences – including chronic diseases and physical disability – of residents in the Choice neighborhood before, during, and after redevelopment, it is important to track various measures of health and access to health care. The survey will ask residents to provide a subjective rating of their health and mention specific health conditions common in this population (asthma, hypertension, obesity, etc.). Finally, this section of the survey will ask residents to discuss how they access health care, a measure that will be very important to track as the neighborhood is enriched with health care support services. These questions on the survey that assess residents’ overall health and access to affordable, quality health care will help researchers monitor how the addition of CNI-funded health services contribute to changes in resident health. |
Smoking and Alcohol Use |
|
Morbidity and poor health outcomes among public housing residents may be due in part to high rates of substance use and abuse. Treatment services provided through Choice Neighborhoods will address some of these issues directly, and may also indirectly influence rates of substance abuse through improvements to mental health and resident self-efficacy, and changing social norms regarding alcohol use. Alcohol consumption is more subject to behavioral control than other chronic health conditions and is therefore more likely than many other conditions to change in response to the treatment. This sequence of questions measures the prevalence and intensity of alcoholic drinking and smoking among residents, information that will be important to measure over time. |
Mental Health |
|
Numerous studies have demonstrated higher incidences of depression and anxiety among low-income populations and those living in low-income communities. These mental health issues may be addressed directly through provision of mental health services in the community, as well as indirectly by overall improvements to residents’ well-being that reduce stress, anxiety, and depression. However, the redevelopment process – including any required relocation – may be extremely stressful for residents and could potentially exacerbate existing mental health problems. As a result, it is important for the research team to track how individuals fare during and throughout implementation: relocation; recruiting and preparing residents to return; community building, facilitating social interaction, and managing public space and social control; and financial and social continuity. |
Self-Efficacy |
|
As mentioned earlier, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative seeks to develop communities that offer the services, social networks, amenities, and supports that low-income families need to thrive. Measuring changes in self-efficacy will provide the research team with information on how changes in housing quality / conditions, neighborhood cohesion, access to services, employment opportunities, overall health, and other factors also change how residents view themselves and their ability to take action on issues that are important to them and to their community. |
Household Composition |
|
Monitoring changes in household composition over time is critical for learning about how Choice residents’ spatial needs evolve. Such measures provide a check against information supplied in previous resident need studies and supplement the Housing Authority’s administrative data, which tends to only represent individuals who are living with the resident on the lease. In addition to monitoring changes in household size, changes in demographic composition – including age and race/ethnicity- will provide researchers with important information about how residents’ households change during the redevelopment. |
Education |
|
Changes in the Choice Neighborhood may affect adult educational attainment and enrollment in school or training through improved educational opportunities, and connection to educational services through case management services. Greater educational attainment may in turn lead to increased earnings. HUD has determined that resident education is one outcome that it both wants to track and improve through this Demonstration.
|
Employment and Income |
|
Choice Neighborhood grantees are required to implement programs and activities related to increasing employment and have used Choice funding to increase the job opportunities available to residents. Improved safety and reduced stress in the neighborhoods may also affect resident’s employment and incomes.
Researchers want to understand several aspects of residents’ employment, including the location of their jobs and residents’ access to adequate transportation.
|
Public Assistance |
|
As outcomes, these questions measure current receipt of cash assistance through SSI, TANF, and Food stamps. Choice Neighborhoods could have a substantial impact on public assistance receipt in several ways. Employment services and new businesses moving into the neighborhood could increase employment and earnings, and decrease dependence on SSI and other benefits. Choice case managers may also help families experiencing hardship connect to necessary public assistance.
|
Hardship |
|
See justification for Rent and Utility Hardship. |
Children’s Education |
|
HUD has required that grantees link their transformation plans to local education efforts. Grantees plan to improve the pre-school programs and elementary and high schools in the Choice Neighborhoods. These efforts aim to enroll students in the improving neighborhood schools and increase parental involvement in school, which could have a substantial impact on children’s academic achievement. The survey items determine the youth’s educational attainment to date, whether he/she is currently enrolled in school, school satisfaction, and parental involvement in school. Combined with administrative data on youths’ schools, the questions permit analysis of the affect the intervention had on educational opportunities for youth in the neighborhood. |
Child Activities |
|
Choice Neighborhood grantees have all employed youth activities into their demonstration plans by linking students to new and existing community programs. These items provide a baseline to understand the impact of the demonstration on youth enrollment in activities. These questions also give insight into youth supervision, which could be a mediating factor in community safety. |
Child Behavior |
|
This sequence measures behavioral problems as a mediating factor. It is expected that as educational opportunities improve and crime decreases in the Choice Neighborhood, youth will show a reduced incidence of behavior problems.
|
Children’s Health |
|
See justification for adult health. |
A3. Use of automated electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques to reduce burden
The survey consists of approximately 300 (multiple choice and yes/no) questions and respondents will be routed to questions based on their responses to previous questions. The survey should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. The Urban Institute has subcontracted with Decision Information and Resources Inc. (DIR) to conduct the survey. DIR will have responsibility for all field data collection and, to ensure consistent and high-quality data, will collect as much of the data as possible through telephone interviewers working from their centralized, monitored telephone interviewing facility. The interview approach is a call-out/call-in survey method whereby staff from DIR’s Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) center call residents to complete a CATI-based interview conducted by DIR staff or, if needed, on-site recruiters (called “field locators”) make direct contact with residents to facilitate their participation in a CATI-based interview. This method allows DIR to hire field staff who are most comfortable and effective working in low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods and convincing sample members to participate in surveys. These are not necessarily the same individuals who are most effective in conducting complex structured interviews. Therefore, DIR finds the approach of using those staff to facilitate respondents calling DIR’s CATI center to be most effective. DIR has used this approach successfully for surveys in housing developments in New York, Los Angeles, Dayton, Baltimore, and other cities.
All calls for field-initiated interviews will be made into the toll-free phone number in DIR’s CATI center. Landlines are the first choice for conducting all interviews that will be completed by telephone. If no landline is available, then the field locator is prepared with a DIR-provided cell phone for the respondent to use to call into the CATI center. Field locators are trained to first determine whether the potential respondent has an available landline before attempting to initiate a call from the DIR cell phone.
A4. Efforts to identify duplication
During the process of designing the survey instrument, the research team carefully reviewed the data that will be collected through the resident focus groups and administrative data and ensured that the survey did not duplicate any of these data. HUD, the Urban Institute, and its subcontractors are not aware of any other national studies of Choice Neighborhoods; this research is funded by the first Task Order issued by HUD for evaluation of the implementation of the program, whose first grants were made only in late 2011. An extensive review of the literature by UI revealed no other studies collecting the same information evaluating the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative on a national scale, so the survey will produce the first quantitative data on communities implementing Choice across the country.
A5. Methods to minimize the burden on small businesses or other small entities
There are no small businesses that will be asked to participate in the household survey.
A6. Consequences if data are not collected
This will be the first comprehensive study of The Choice Neighborhood Initiative. The survey is the only part of this study that would collect representative data from focal development and neighborhood households residing in the Choice Neighborhoods. This information is critical in understanding residents’ characteristics and provides a baseline for long-term evaluation. Failure to collect survey data will result in insufficient information about the outcomes of the Choice Neighborhood Initiative.
A7. Special circumstances
The proposed data collection activities are consistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 (Controlling Paperwork Burden on the Public—General Information Collection Guidelines). There are no special circumstances that require deviation from these guidelines.
A8. Federal Register Notice
In accordance with 5 CFR 1308.8 (d) a Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2012 (pages 2743 - 2744) announcing HUD’s intention to request OMB review of this data collection effort and soliciting public comments. No comments have been received as of the date of this submission. The Federal Register Notice is available here: http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-1006.
A9. Remuneration to respondents
The survey interview will be about 45 minutes in length and will be administered in the field through call-outs from the centralized CATI center to residents or resident call-ins from the field to the CATI center. Each respondent will receive a $50 incentive for completing the survey. Respondents who complete an interview will be given their incentive at the completion of the interview. These incentives have been shown to substantially enhance cooperation with the data-collection effort and to ensure a high response rate—which is necessary to ensure unbiased estimates of key study measures (see Willard Rodgers, 2002, "Size of Incentive Effects in a Longitudinal Study."). Low response rates increase the danger of differential response rates between the different sites, potentially leading to biased estimates. Incentives are particularly relevant in this study for two additional reasons. First, the households being surveyed did not choose to have their neighborhood transformed through the Choice Neighborhoods program, and they may not support the plan. They also did not agree to be in this study as a condition of receiving HUD assistance—indeed, many of these households aren't receiving HUD assistance at all. These households may not be inclined to participate in the study without an adequate incentive, which could bias results by omitting households that do not support the Choice Neighborhoods program. Second, and most importantly, this is the first round of a survey that is planned as a longitudinal panel. It is important to establish positive goodwill and develop in the respondents a sense that they are part of the study. These positive feelings will help HUD and the Urban Institute maintain contact with them over the course of the next 5-8 years, and encourage them to participate in follow up surveys.
A10. Assurances of confidentiality
As previously indicated, the survey data collection will be conducted by Decision Information Resources, Inc. under subcontract to the Urban Institute. The Urban Institute maintains an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to ensure that research practices and procedures effectively protect the rights and welfare of human subjects, consistent with the requirements set forth in Title 45, Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46). The Urban Institute’s policy is that all research involving human subjects, not just research sponsored by federal government agencies that have adopted the Common Rule under 45 CFR 46, must adhere to the following principles, among others:
Risks to human subjects from research must be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, and must be minimized to the extent possible;
Human subjects must be fully and accurately informed of the nature of the research in which they will be involved, whether their participation is mandatory or voluntary, any consequences of non-participation, any risks associated with their participation, and how the research will be used;
Adequate provision must be made to protect the privacy of human subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data that are collected, where promised and as appropriate.
In accordance with these policies, we will maintain the following procedures. First, before they agree to participate, all research subjects will be given a clear overview of the study and its goals, the data security plan, the staff confidentiality agreement, and our methods for safeguarding anonymity in our reports and publications. In addition, we will stress the voluntary nature of their participation and make clear to all parties that there are no negative consequences for their person or agency should they choose to not participate.
Second, we will take care to safeguard the information gathered from participants in this research effort. The data gathered from the survey will be analyzed and discussed exclusively in aggregate; no published reports using the survey data will single out any particular resident. Within the Urban Institute, MDRC, its subcontractor organizations, and consultants, information identifying particular respondents will only be shared with staff who have signed Data Confidentiality Pledges and who need the information for research purposes. All such staff, as well as consultants to the Urban Institute for the evaluation, will sign this pledge. Hard-copy materials containing respondent identifying information will be locked up when not in use, and electronic materials with identifying information will be stored on a secure server in password-protected and/or encrypted files, where appropriate.
A11. Questions of a sensitive nature
Survey respondents will not be asked about sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. They will, however, be asked questions about their personal circumstances, such as family composition, household income, and their own and their children’s physical and mental health. These questions have been asked in national surveys (e.g., National Health Interview Survey, National Housing Survey) which serve as critical validations and benchmarks for this data collection. As noted above, all respondents will be informed that participation is voluntary and that they can decline to answer any question without consequence, and that their identity will be kept confidential, with answers only reported in the aggregate.
A12. Estimates of the burden of the collection of information
A12.1. Estimate of respondent burden hours
Survey respondents will total 905 focal development residents and 1,700 neighborhood residents . The average estimated response time for the CATI survey is 45 minutes. This will result in an estimated response burden of 1,953.75 hours (see Table A3).
The questionnaire pulls from a number of well-tested and previously-used instruments. Therefore, the pretests of this instrument are expected to focus on ensuring that the question flow and skip patterns work well and that the time required to complete the instrument is accurately estimated. Based on these considerations, each instrument will be administered to nine or fewer individuals and therefore will not require prior OMB approval.
Table A3: Survey Respondent Burden Estimates
|
Focal development households |
Neighborhood households |
Total households |
Hours per response |
Total hours |
New Orleans ………………. Chicago………………………… Boston………………………….. Seattle………………………… San Francisco………...…... Total …………………………… |
225 200 80 250 150 905 |
400 400 300 200 400 1,700 |
625 600 380 450 550 2,605 |
.75 .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 |
468.75 450 285 551.25 412.5 1,953.75 |
A12.2. Total annual cost burden to respondents
In order to calculate the total annual cost burden to respondents, the Urban Institute used Occupational Employment Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics to identify the median hourly wages (as classified by Standard Occupational Classification, SOC, codes) for potentially relevant occupations for focal development and neighborhood resident heads of household. See Table A4 for more detail.
Table A4: Estimated Median Wages of Choice Neighborhoods Survey Respondents
Occupation |
SOC Code |
Median Hourly Wage Rate |
Laborer |
53-7062 |
$11.28 |
Office Clerk |
43-9061 |
$12.79 |
Source: Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2010, accessed online January 10, 2012 at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm |
||
We use the average for these two occupations, or $12.04 per hour, to estimate the costs for household survey participants. Based on this assumption, the estimate of total respondent costs is: 1,953.75 x $12.04 = $23,523.15.
A13. Total annual cost burden to respondent or record keepers
There are no capital/start-up or ongoing operation/maintenance costs associated with this data collection.
A14. Estimate of annual cost to the government
The total cost to the government for this study, including but not limited to the data collection activities described in this submission, is $4,372,191 over a 3 year period. Included are costs associated with background research, evaluation design, development of data collection instruments, data collection activities, analysis, and reporting.
A15. Reasons for any program changes or adjustments
This submission is a new request for approval; there is no change in burden.
A16. Plans for tabulation, analysis, and publication
A16.1 Plans for tabulation
The resident survey will begin immediately following OMB approval. During the 12-week data collection period, DIR will provide UI with progress reports about interim response rates of respondents. At the end of the survey period, DIR will provide the Urban Institute with an electronic analysis file of all survey responses.
A16.2 Plans for analysis
The work under this task order related to this approval package has three major purposes. First, we will gather baseline information about the characteristics of the residents of the focal development and neighborhood residents across a range of domains (e.g. basic demographics, social support, employment, education, child well-being, health). The goal of collecting this information is so that later research will be able to assess changes in the social and economic well-being of residents of the Choice focal development and neighborhood. Second, we will collect data from both residents of the focal development and neighborhood residents about housing quality and baseline neighborhood conditions, including perceptions of safety, collective efficacy, and services and amenities. Finally, because Choice involves relocation and redevelopment, we will gather baseline information from the residents of the focal development about interest in returning to the site and satisfaction with relocation services. We will use this information in our final report to paint a comprehensive picture of the Choice communities at baseline, as well as to lay the groundwork for future comparisons.
This survey will be administered to residents of the Choice Neighborhood focal developments and of the surrounding neighborhood. These households lived in the Choice Neighborhood as of 2011, but previous research shows that low-income households move frequently, and it is likely that many households in the survey panel will leave the Choice Neighborhood. HUD intends to track all survey respondents in order to conduct a follow up survey at some point after the Choice Neighborhoods program has been fully implemented (likely to be around 2017 or 2018). Households that leave the Choice Neighborhood will be surveyed so that we might understand why they left, and what their experience is in their new homes and neighborhoods. HUD may lose touch with some of these households, or be unable to convince them to continue to participate in the study. Households that leave HUD assistance, move frequently, distrust the government, or splinter into multiple households (e.g., children growing up and leaving home, or a couple splitting up) are all more susceptible to attrition than those who do not. HUD is aware of these challenges and will implement an appropriate tracking strategy. Just as some households in the survey panel will move out of the neighborhood, some households not in the survey panel will move in to the neighborhood. HUD and the Urban Institute have not determined at this point whether or how to incorporate these households into the survey.
The survey is focused on households that are expected to be affected by the Choice Neighborhoods program: the residents of the focal development and surrounding neighborhood. There are no households being surveyed solely to be used as a counterfactual. As a result, the survey (the baseline survey proposed in this information collection request, and the follow up survey that is contemplated for 2017-2018) will be of limited use for determining the "impact" of Choice Neighborhoods. There may be some opportunities for comparison within the survey sample (if certain elements of the program affect some households but not others). But the primary goal of the survey is simply to document over time the characteristics of the households HUD expects to be affected by the program. If residents of the Choice Neighborhood experience improved housing conditions, safety, or health, HUD wants to know. Of course, there is also the possibility that households will be negatively affected, perhaps by gentrification or simply the disruption of relocation. Even without the ability to definitively attribute any changes to the Choice Neighborhoods program, documenting such changes is valuable.
To more rigorously demonstrate the impact of Choice Neighborhoods, HUD will go beyond the survey effort being proposed in this information collection request. The Urban Institute's current work also includes interviews with key informants from the Choice agencies collected during the team’s site visits; focus groups with residents of the focal development, neighborhood residents, and service providers; housing agency data; and other secondary data. This analysis will be used to thoroughly describe the components of the program in each site, to understand how local officials identified the neighborhood to target through Choice, and and to identify neighborhoods that might serve as suitable comparisons for the Choice Neighborhood. In follow up research, HUD will analyze changing conditions in the Choice Neighborhoods compared to their comparison neighborhoods. HUD will also look into the possibility of developing a household level comparison group, using administrative data. Privacy laws and technical challenges of administrative data make this task difficult, but if those challenges can be surmounted, such administrative data might support a more rigorous quasi-experimental research design to determine program impacts.
A16.3 Plans for publication
Data from the baseline survey will be analyzed, integrated, and summarized in a final report. The final report will document site activity and data collected throughout the study period including site progress toward goals. The final report will include an executive summary of no more than 10 pages that presents the principal findings and recommendations.
A16.4 Time Schedule
Data collection for the resident survey is expected to begin in November 2012 (or as soon as possible after the OMB approves the proposed data collection) and continue through February 2013; data will be analyzed from March to June 2013. Table A5 shows the project timeline in detail.
Table A5: Project Tasks and Deliverables
Task |
Start Date |
|
End Date |
|||||
1. |
Orientation Meeting |
9/28/2011 |
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|||
2. |
Management & Work Plan |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Draft Management & Work Plan |
|
||||||
|
Final Management & Work Plan |
10/11/2011 |
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|||
|
Monthly Progress Reports |
|
||||||
3. |
Program Briefing |
11/7/2011 |
|
11/7/2011 |
|
|||
4. |
Research Design & Data Collection Plan |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Draft Research Design & Draft Data Collection Plan |
10/11/2011 |
|
1/13/2012 |
|
|||
|
Draft OMB Package |
10/11/2011 |
|
1/13/2012 |
|
|||
|
Final Research Design & Final Data Collection Plan |
1/13/2012 |
|
3/2/2012 |
|
|||
|
Final OMB Package |
1/13/2012 |
|
3/2/2012 |
|
|||
|
OMB Approval |
|
|
8/31/2012 |
|
|||
5. |
Data Collection |
2/24/2012 |
|
2/21/2014 |
|
|||
|
Site Visit #1 (Boston, Chicago, New Orleans) |
3/12/2012 |
|
3/23/2012 |
|
|||
|
Site Visit #1 (San Francisco, Seattle) |
7/9/2012 |
|
8/31/2012 |
|
|||
|
Secondary Data Collection |
2/24/2012 |
|
2/21/2014 |
|
|||
|
Baseline Resident Survey |
11/21/2012 |
|
2/15/2013 |
|
|||
|
Site Visit #2 |
2/25/2013 |
|
3/15/2013 |
|
|||
|
Follow-Up Data |
12/20/2013 |
|
2/21/2014 |
|
|||
|
Draft follow-up data instruments* |
4/12/2013 |
|
5/10/2013 |
|
|||
|
Draft OMB Package* |
4/12/2013 |
|
5/10/2013 |
|
|||
|
Final follow-up data instruments* |
5/10/2013 |
|
5/31/2013 |
|
|||
|
Final OMB Package* |
5/10/2013 |
|
5/31/2013 |
|
|||
|
OMB Approval |
|
|
12/4/2013 |
|
|||
|
Site Visit #3 |
1/27/2014 |
|
2/21/2014 |
|
|||
6. |
Analysis |
3/26/2012 |
|
6/6/2014 |
|
|||
7. |
Briefing |
3/10/2014 |
|
3/28/2014 |
|
|||
8. |
Baseline Report |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Draft Baseline Report |
7/2/2012 |
|
12/14/2012 |
|
|||
|
Final Baseline Report |
12/14//2012 |
|
2/8/2013 |
|
|||
9. |
Final Report |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
First Draft Final Report |
2/10/2014 |
|
5/9/2014 |
|
|||
|
Second Draft Final Report |
5/9/2014 |
|
6/20/2014 |
|
|||
|
Final Report |
6/20/2014 |
|
8/1/2014 |
|
|||
10. |
Data |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Draft Data & Documentation |
3/24/2014 |
|
6/20/2014 |
|
|||
|
Final Data & Documentation |
6/16/2014 |
|
8/1/2014 |
|
|||
11. |
Post-Report Briefings - Possible Dates |
9/15/2014 |
|
9/26/2014 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
A17. Approval to not display the OMB expiration date
Not Applicable. DIR will display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection on all instruments and correspondence with prospective respondents.
A18. Exception to the certification statement
This submission, describing data collection, requests no exceptions to the Certificate for Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.9)
1 Evidence Matters, published by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, Winter 2011.
2 Choice Neighborhoods Initiative Act of 2010, 1–14.
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | Table of Contents |
| Author | npindus |
| Last Modified By | H21286 |
| File Modified | 2012-08-15 |
| File Created | 2012-08-15 |
© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy