Supporting Statement for the Annual
Semi-Annual and Final Reporting Requirements for Administration for Community Living Discretionary Grant Programs for FY 2016-2018
A. Justification
1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) requires grantees funded under its discretionary grants programs to report semi-annually on the performance of their projects. This request is for a renewal of the OMB approval of the existing ACL performance reporting requirements.
2. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection
The information submitted by ACL discretionary grantees is used by ACL to: (a) review and monitor the grantee’s progress in achieving project objectives; (b) identify significant findings, products, and practices of the project; and (c) identify areas of performance that may benefit from advice and assistance from ACL and, in rare instances, take corrective action.
3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction
The information must be submitted in electronic form.
4. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information
No other data source collects this or similar information
5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities
The ACL grant programs that use this standard reporting format are state governmental entities, universities, and non-profit organizations. The types of grantees are based on statutory requirements. As such, small businesses are not affected.
6. Consequences of Collecting the Information Less Frequently
If the reports were to be made less frequently than semi-annually, the grantee would be less accountable to ACL for its actions, have less opportunity to receive constructive advice from ACL, and likely would miss opportunities for mid-course corrections. We request that this report be approved for submission semi-annually, not just annually, for several reasons. First, some of the programs authorized by the Older Americans Act, which are the predominant programs that use this format, are statutorily required to report semi-annually. In addition, some ACL Project Officers require that program progress be reported on a semi-annual basis due to the nature of the programs, particularly if they are implementing new service delivery practices in the community. Semi-annual reporting provides a useful tool to address obstacles or other issues in a formal manner as quickly as possible. Also, due to limited funds that prelude ACL Project Officers from conducting site visits, semi-annual reporting from grantees allow Project Officers to monitor their grant programs in a more proactive manner.
7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5
There are no special circumstances related to this information collection.
8. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside the Agency
No substantive comments or recommendations concerning the proposed information collection have been received.
9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents
Not applicable
10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents
Information provided in the Performance (Progress) Report is not confidential; the report is an accounting of project activities supported by public funds.
11. Justification for Sensitive Questions
This request does not involve questions of a sensitive nature.
12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
12A. Estimated Annualized Burden Hours:
Type of Respondent
|
Form Name
|
No. of Respondents |
No. Responses per Respondent |
Average Burden per Response (in hours) |
Total Burden Hours |
ACL Grantee |
N/A |
266 |
2 |
20 |
40 |
Total |
|
|
|
|
10,640
|
The number of respondents reflects the number of grant awards we expect to be issued and monitored using this program progress report format based on FY 2016 forecast data for new grants and our official electronic grant system, Grant Solutions, for non-competing continuations.
The burden estimate is specific to the type of work done by the grantees that use this reporting format. The 20 hour estimate is based on an informal survey of 9 respondents.
12B. Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents Based on Burden Hours:
Type of Respondent
|
Total Burden Hours
|
Hourly Wage Rate
|
Total Respondent Costs
|
ACL Grantee |
10,640 |
$27.88 |
$296,643.20
|
Total |
|
|
$296,643.20 |
The hourly wage rate was calculated using the average salary of individuals with a bachelors in social work (BSW) in the United States. The majority of grantees who submit this information are individuals with BSW degrees.
RESPONDENT BURDEN COST ESTIMATE |
|
$27.88 per hour – 20 hours per report – two reports per year |
|
TOTAL RESPONDENT COST FOR 300 RESPONDENTS |
$334,560 |
13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents and Record Keepers
There are no Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents and Record Keepers
14. Annualized Cost to the Federal Government
The estimated annualized cost to federal government is $96,654
Federal Staff time
a) Program Officer review of reports and follow-up with grantees……………1,800 hours
b) Grants Officer review of reports and follow-up with grantees……………… 600 hours
TOTAL FEDERAL HOURS…………………………………………………2,400 hours
Salaries
a) Program Officer GS13-1, hourly rate of $43.52 which equates to
1800 hours x $43.52 ………………………………………………………………$78,336
b) Grants Officer GS11-1, hourly rate of $30.53 which equates to
600 hours x $30.53…………………………………………………………………$18,318
TOTAL COST TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT......…………………………$96,654
15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments
None
Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule
Project Officer’s use collected information to ensure that grantees are adhering to their project proposal and making expected progress with their project. In the event of project delays, etc, the Project Officer uses the report to learn more about where/how they might be able to support (provide technical assistance to) the grantee. ACL does not create a report with the information. This information collected is strictly used as a project monitoring tool.
Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate
There is no reason display of OMB expiration date would be inappropriate
Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions
There are no exceptions to certification for paperwork reduction act submissions
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| File Title | Supporting Statement for the State Annual |
| Author | Sue Wheaton |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-01-24 |