CYFAR Supporting Statements Final 2016

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

OMB# 0524-0043

Children, Youth and Families at Risk (CYFAR) Year End Report

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.

Funding for the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk (CYFAR) New Communities Project (NCP) is authorized under section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341 et seq.), as amended, and other relevant authorizing legislation, which provides jurisdictional basis for the establishment and operation of Extension educational work for the benefit of youth and families in communities. Special provisions that are applicable to special projects authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act are found in NIFA General Terms and Conditions – A, dated February 2005. The CYFAR funding program supports community-based programs serving children, youth, and families in at-risk environments. CYFAR funds are intended to support the development of high quality, effective programs based on research and to document the impact of these programs on intended audiences which are children, youth, and families in at-risk environments. These grants are meant to create a catalyst that will foster programs long after the federal investment is gone and build capacity in these at-risk environments to continue education.

The CYFAR Year End Report is collected in order to evaluate the impact of the programs in reaching the intended audiences. This collection aligns directly with mission of the agency which is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the environment, human health and well-being, and communities through national program leadership and federal assistance. This collection allows the agency to perform the proper management of federal assistance it is administering and enables NIFA to provide the national leadership.

The reporting of CYFAR data is consistent with the requirements of Congressional legislation and OMB. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) (Pub. L. 103–62), together with OMB requirements, support the reporting requirements requested in this information collection. One of the five Presidential Management Agenda initiatives, Budget and Performance Integration, builds on GPRA and earlier efforts to identify program goals and performance measures, and link them to the budget process.

2. Indicate how, by whom, how frequently, 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.

Annually, the information from the CYFAR projects is compiled and aggregated by the 50 states and 3 territories and submitted electronically via the web on http://www.cyfernet.org/databases/cyfarreporting/default.asp. 

The purpose of the CYFAR Year End Report is to collect the demographic and impact data from each community site in order to evaluate the impact of the programs on intended audiences.  CYFAR grants represent a federal financial investment and the data collected allows NIFA to gauge the benefits achieved from these investments over the short run which may be a five year life cycle of a grant and over the long run, after the federal investment is no longer in place.

Every year end state CYFAR project report is reviewed and feedback is provided to Project Directors regarding quality of data, effectiveness in achieving CYFAR program objectives, and needed program improvements.   CYFAR projects are not eligible for renewal funding until their year end report is submitted and approved.  

The data is used to prepare a CYFAR Annual Report, http://www.NIFA.usda.gov/nea/family/cyfar/annual_report.html, which is distributed to Extension Administrators in all states and territories for their use in promoting effective practices and programs for at risk audiences.   

CYFAR project data has been aggregated and analyzed to determine the effectiveness of these programs in sustaining community-based programs for at risk audiences beyond the period of Federal funding.  Results of this research studies over many years have determined the factors which are essential in program sustainability, obstacles to sustainability, and also the success of CYFAR in sustaining the community efforts.  For example, in a study, “the majority of programs (68%) remain active six years post CYFAR/USDA funding.” The complete study can be found on http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/family/350-801/350-801.html#TOC.

This data also helps National Program Leaders at NIFA to refine and improve program focus and effectiveness in the delivery of these funds. For example learning about the technology needs of the community projects led to placing computers in the local sites. 

CYFAR data is also used to respond to requests for impact information from Congress, the White House, and other Federal agencies. 

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also, describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

All CYFAR data is collected electronically and uses an on-line reporting system. Review and feedback to the funded universities is made efficient by the electronic reporting and feedback system. All reports are approved at state and federal levels before the data is entered into the database.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use for the purpose described in item 2 above.

Program strategies are determined by individual communities. Each program is unique and demographic and impact data relevant to this program is not collected anywhere else.

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to minimize burden.

CYFAR programs do not impact small businesses.

6. Describe the consequence 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 was not collected, NIFA would not be able to verify if CYFAR programs are reaching at risk, low income audiences specified in the authorizing legislation. NIFA would also not be able to assess the impact of the CYFAR programs or the cost effectiveness of $8,000,000 annual funding to states. The immediate need is to provide a means for satisfying accountability requirements – What is being done with the money provided. The long term objective is to provide a means to enable the evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness of programs receiving federal funds and to fully satisfy requirements of recent performance and accountability legislation; i.e., GPRA, the FAIR Act, and AREERA. The collection occurs annually and would be of little value if collected less frequently.

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; No respondents are required to report more than quarterly.

• requiring respondents to prepare a writ­ten response to a collection of infor­ma­tion in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; No respondents are required to respond in fewer than 30 days.

• requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any docu­ment; Respondents are not required to submit more than an original and two copies.

● requiring respondents to retain re­cords, other than health, medical, governm­ent contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years; No respondents are required to retain records outside of normal business practice for grants.

• in connection with a statisti­cal sur­vey, that is not de­signed to produce valid and reli­able results that can be general­ized to the uni­verse of study; This information is not generalized to the universe of study.

• requiring the use of a statis­tical data classi­fication that has not been re­vie­wed and approved by OMB; This collection does not utilize statistical data classification.

• 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 which unneces­sarily impedes shar­ing of data with other agencies for com­patible confiden­tial use; No unsupported pledge of confidentiality is used in this collection.

• requiring respondents to submit propri­etary trade secret, 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. Respondent are not required to submit information of a proprietary or confidential nature.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, 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.

NIFA’ notice and request for public comment was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 80, No.141) Thursday, July 23, 2015 on page 43706. One comment was received from the public received during the solicitation period. This commenter called for the complete elimination of this program, but offered no rational explanation or justification for doing so. NIFA does not intend on eliminating this program.

Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting form, and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Notice of the Federal Register Notice was advertised in the NIFA Administrators Newsletter.

Below are the names and contact information for three respondents consulted regarding the burden estimate and other characteristics.

Diana Broshar, [email protected]

Janet Kurzynske, [email protected]

Steve Goggin, [email protected]

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than reenumeration of contractors or grantees.

No payment or gift is provided to the respondents.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

No assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents because no individually identifiable information is collected.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This 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.

No information is of a sensitive nature is collected by NIFA through this collection.

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. 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 13 of OMB Form 83-I.

This burden estimate accounts for what each state and territory submits to NIFA. The estimate includes all collection and data entry activities the state performs to meet the NIFA requirement.

There are currently CYFAR projects in 48 states and 3 territories. Each state is required to submit one year end report each year which includes aggregated demographic and impact data on each of the community projects. CYFAR Project Directors in five states were asked to submit data on the hour burden for both data collection and data entry by level of professional.

Number of Respondents: 51

Frequency of Response: 1/year

Average Hours/Response: 322 hours/response

Total Annual Burden: 16,422

This table contains the individual responses from surveyed respondents.

	FL	IA	KY	NY	OR	Average Burden Hours
CYFAR DATA COLLECTION
University Project Staff	550	10	31	100	4	139
County Extension Project Staff	66	48	8	42	41	41
Community Project Staff	120	96	166		4	77.2
Other					110	22
Total	736	154	205	142	159	279.2
CYFAR DATA ENTRY
University Project Staff	40	4	50	12	18	24.8
County Extension Project Staff	10	1.5	14	16		8.3
Community Project Staff	10		35			9
Other						0
Total	60	5.5	99	28	18	42.1
Grand total						322

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.

The total annual cost for the respondent’s burden hours is estimated to be $10,558. Details on how this value was calculated are in the table below.

CYFAR DATA COLLECTION	Average Burden Hours	Estimated Annual Staff Salary	Estimated Hourly Staff Salary	Annual Cost Burden
University Project Staff	139	$72,100	$37.20	$5,171
County Extension Project Staff	41	$41,200	$21.70	$890
Community Project Staff	77.2	$36,050	$19.57	$1,510
Other	22	$36,050	$19.57	$431
Total Data Collection Costs				$8002
CYFAR DATA ENTRY
University Project Staff	24.8	72,100	$37.20	$923
County Extension Project Staff	8.3	41,200	$21.63	$179
Community Project Staff	9	36,050	$19.57	$176
Other	0	36,050	$19.57	0
Total Data Entry Costs				$1,278
Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents				$10,558

13. Provide estimates 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 estimates 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.

1. Respondents do not incur any start up cost.

2. There are no operational or maintenance costs involved in this collection.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Provide a description of the method used to estimate cost and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

Approximately $5,305 per year is needed to maintain and update the data base and trouble shoot.

The total annual cost to the federal government is estimated to be $7,759. Details on how this value was calculated are in the table below.

Activity	Grade	Hours	Hourly Rate	Cost
Database management - pre-report and reporting stages	GS-12	40	$35.25	$1,401
Report review and approval	GS-12	25	$35.04	$876
Preparing charts/graphs & post-management of database	GS-12	4	$44.25	$177
Annual maintenance and updates to database			$5,305	$5,305
Total Annual Cost			5,419.54$	$7,759

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-1.

No changes have been made to this collection.

16. For collections of information whose results are planned to be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.

Data from all funded CYFAR projects is submitted by respondents, reviewed and approved by NIFA. Data is analyzed and compiled into an annual report which is distributed at the National CYFAR Conference and to every Land Grant University Extension Service. Copies are made available to all states and communities, members of Congress, other Federal agencies. The information is also posted to the NIFA web site on http://www.NIFA.usda.gov/nea/family/cyfar/annual_report.html.

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.

NIFA does plan to display the expiration date for OMB approval.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act."

NIFA is not claiming any exceptions.

8