1850-0914 OMB Comp Center Eval SS Part A revision_Jan 9

Evaluation of the Comprehensive
Technical Assistance Centers
OMB Clearance Request for Data Collection Instruments
Part A: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

(Revision of the Currently Approved Collection 1850-0914)

October 2016
Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Education
Contract No. ED-IES-13-C-0059
Prepared by:
IMPAQ International

1

INTRODUCTION
This document is a revision of the currently approved collection for the National Evaluation of
the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers. This five-year evaluation has been underway
since September of 2013. The original request was submitted in December of 2013 and
approved in March of 2014 (OMB Control Number 1850-0914). It included six data collection
instruments: 1) Design-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff; 2) Implementation-Focused
Interview Guide for Center Staff; 3) Implementation-Focused Interview Guide for Technical
Assistance (TA) Recipients; 4) Center Staff Survey; 5) TA Recipient Survey; and 6) TA Event
Observation Guide. Of these six approved instruments, instruments 1-3 have been completed
and the related burden hours are deleted in this revision. Instruments 4-6 are still being used to
collect data. In the originally approved submission, it was noted that the Outcomes-Focused
Interview Protocols would be developed and added later. The current request is for the
addition of two new data collection instruments: 1) Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for
Center Staff; and 2) Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients. The current
submission includes the original statement, along with the description of the two new protocols
and an updated total response burden estimate. We are requesting review of the new
protocols and the revised burden estimate.
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) within the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is
conducting this evaluation. In the introduction to the supporting statement, we provide a
description of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers Program, the evaluation
questions, and the study design. The remaining sections of this document respond to specific
instructions of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the preparation of a
supporting statement.

The Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (F.T AA, Section 203)1 authorized the
Comprehensive Center Program, a discretionary grant program establishing technical assistance
centers. The Comprehensive Centers were last awarded in 2012, to “provide technical
assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs) that builds their capacity to support local
educational agencies (LEAs or districts) and schools, especially low-performing districts and
schools; improve educational outcomes for all students; close achievement gaps; and improve
the quality of instruction” (77 FR 33564)2.
In 2012, the Department of Education awarded new five-year grants to 15 Regional Centers and
7 Content Centers under the Comprehensive Centers Program. The Regional Centers each serve
one to seven U.S. states, territories, and possessions. They provide technical assistance that
1

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/legislation.html
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/06/2012-13735/applications-for-new-awards-comprehensivecenters-program#h-4
2

2

builds the capacity of SEAs to implement, support, scale up, and sustain initiatives that help
districts and schools improve student outcomes. The Regional Centers focus their work on
seven federal priority areas:
1. Implementing college- and career-ready standards and aligned, high-quality
assessments for all students;
2. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders;
3. Turning around the lowest-performing schools;
4. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool-age children and their successful
transition to kindergarten;
5. Building rigorous instructional pathways that support the successful transition of all
students from secondary education to college without the need for remediation, and
careers;
6. Identifying and scaling up innovative approaches to teaching and learning that
significantly improve student outcomes; and
7. Using data-based decision-making to improve instructional practices, policies, and
student outcomes.
The Content Centers provide the Regional Centers and SEAs with in-depth content knowledge
and expertise by providing information, publications, tools, and specialized technical assistance.
The 7 Content Centers are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation
Center on Great Teachers and Leaders
Center on School Turnaround
Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes
Center on College and Career Readiness and Success
Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity
Center on Innovations in Learning

The National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Technical Assistance Centers
The National Evaluation is charged with examining and documenting how the Comprehensive
Centers intend to build SEA capacity (referred to as theories of action) and what types of
activities they actually conduct to build capacity.

Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will address research questions in three areas:
Design:
1. How did the Centers define capacity building?

3

2. What theories of action did the Centers use to guide their general capacity-building
work?
3. How did the Centers assess the needs of their constituencies?
Implementation:
4. What strategies did Centers employ to achieve their outcomes?
5. To what extent did Centers implement technical assistance to their constituents as
planned?
6. To what extent and how did Centers collaborate with each other, by, for example,
sharing or building on other Centers’ resources and expertise?
Outcomes:
7. To what extent did Centers achieve their goals and objectives, especially capacitybuilding outcomes?

Focus on Two Federal Priority Areas
To gather data more in-depth information, the evaluation will limit data collection on the
implementation and outcomes questions to two of the seven federal priority areas:
1. Identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining highly effective teachers and leaders;
and
2. Ensuring the school readiness and success of preschool-age children and their successful
transition to kindergarten.
These two priority areas were purposefully selected. First, effective teachers and leaders is a
topic area in which all of the Regional Centers have ongoing projects. In addition, this is a topic
area where most SEAs have significant TA and capacity building needs, as many are choosing
and implementing educator evaluation systems or supporting districts and schools as they hire
and evaluate their professional staff. This priority is also tied to school reform efforts and large
federal funding streams such as the Race to the Top initiative, the School Improvement Grants,
and the Teacher Incentive Fund.
The second priority area, early learning, is another high-profile topic which has recently gained
increased attention. In response to federal initiatives and research findings on the benefits of
high-quality early education, many states have increased their funding for state-supported early
childhood education programs over the last few years. This evaluation is well poised to examine
the role that the Centers play in supporting state efforts in this priority area.
Given the overarching nature of the effective teachers and leaders area, and the recent policy
focus on early learning efforts, we believe that focusing on these two priority areas will give us
a good picture about how Centers generally develop SEA capacity (and in the case of Content
Centers, both SEA and Regional Center capacity) and what difference the Centers’ efforts may
have made. Further, we believe that SEAs’ capacity-building needs and the Centers’ approach
4

to providing TA in these two priority areas may differ across Centers in meaningful ways. These
differences are likely to produce different types of capacity-building outcomes (i.e., the needs
and approach to building capacity to develop effective teachers and leaders may be different
than the needs and approach to building capacity related to early learning initiatives). Thus, by
focusing on these two priority areas, we will gain detailed information on the Centers’ capacitybuilding activities, while still being able to learn about the variety of needs, approaches, and
outcomes.
The selection of two priority areas in no way implies that the Department has a preference for
these areas over others, or that the Centers or SEAs should shift the focus of their efforts to
these areas. Rather, this narrowing of focus allows us to target our resources in such a way that
we are able to learn about capacity-building activities and outcomes in sufficient detail.

Data Sources
Data collection for this study consists of interviews of Center staff and TA recipients, surveys of
Center staff and TA recipients, and observations of TA events. The study instruments include
three previously approved instruments for which all data collection has been completed; three
data collection instruments that will be in use for continuing data collection in 2017; and two
new instruments:
Already approved in the original OMB submission and all data collection completed:




Design-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
Implementation-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
Implementation-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients

Already approved in the original OMB submission and data collection continuing:




Center Staff Survey
TA Recipient Survey
TA Event Observation Guide

New data collection instruments to be reviewed in this submission:


Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
o Purpose: To obtain the Center staff’s perspectives on outcomes of the Centers’
projects in the two key priority areas.
o Sample: The sample includes all 22 Centers, and an estimated 114 interview
participants. We estimate that 16 Centers will have projects in both
teacher/leader effectiveness and early learning. We will conduct two group
interviews at those Centers; one interview focused on each priority area. We
estimate that 6 Centers will have projects in teacher/leader effectiveness, but
5

not early learning. We will conduct one group interview at those Centers. This
totals to an estimate of 38 group interviews. We estimate an average of 3
participants per group interview, for a total of 114 participants. Each group
interview will include staff working in this priority area, including staff who work
on one focal project to be discussed in the interview. The focal project will be
among those that were discussed in 2016 implementation-focused interviews.
The outcomes-focused interviews will follow up on outcomes of these same
projects. Center directors will be asked to identify appropriate staff to
participate in these interviews. Groups may include TA managers, content
specialists, and Center directors.
o Timing: April-May 2017


Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients
o Purpose: To obtain the TA recipients’ perspectives on outcomes of the Centers’
projects in the two key priority areas.
o Sample: The TA recipient sample includes 38 participants. Participants represent
recipients of Center TA (usually staff of state education agencies) who work on
the projects discussed in Center interviews in each of the two priority areas.
Thus, based on the estimate above of 38 group interviews that focus on one
project each, we estimate a total interview sample of 38 participants (22
recipients of teacher effectiveness projects and 16 recipients of early learning
projects). We will ask each Center to identify one individual who is a key
recipient of services provided through the focal project discussed in each of the
outcomes-focused interviews with Center staff.
o Timing: Within two months of Center site visits, approximately May-August,
2017

Evaluation Reports
The evaluation will produce two reports. The first report will be an interim report focusing on
how the Comprehensive Centers designed their work as technical assistance providers. The
report will describe the Centers’ underlying theories of action and definitions of “capacity
building,” and explain how the Centers assessed their constituencies’ needs and developed
work plans to address those needs. This report will be available in early 2017.
A final report will be produced in late 2018. The final report will integrate all study findings.

6

PART 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 hard copy
of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the
collection of information, or you may provide a valid URL link or paste the applicable
section3. Specify the review type of the collection (new, revision, extension,
reinstatement with change, reinstatement without change).
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (Section 204)4 requires that the
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), a component of the
Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), provide for ongoing independent evaluation
of the Comprehensive Centers. The statute establishes the following specific goals for the
evaluation: to analyze the services provided by the Centers; to determine the extent to which
each of the Centers meets the objectives of its respective plan; and to determine whether the
services offered by each Center meet the educational needs of SEAs, local educational agencies
(LEAs), and schools in the region.
In October 2013, IES contracted with IMPAQ International to evaluate the Comprehensive
Technical Assistance Centers. This is a revision to an approved data collection.
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 evaluation will provide the Department of Education and the Comprehensive Center
Program with two reports. The first report, to be produced in early 2017, will focus on the
design of the Centers’ work. The final summative report will synthesize all findings and will be
produced in late 2018. The reports will inform the Department of Education, the
Comprehensive Center program, and the larger field about the design, implementation, and
outcomes of the Centers’ work.
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.
Electronic technology will be used whenever possible to reduce the time burden on
respondents. TA recipient and Center staff surveys will be administered online using an
automated survey administration and data collection system. Online surveys generally take less
3
4

Please limit pasted text to no longer than 3 paragraphs.
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/legislation.html

7

time to complete than paper or telephone surveys. In addition to enabling respondents to
complete the survey at a time of their choosing, this method will allow the project team to
monitor the survey response rate in real time and send customized, timely reminder emails.
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.
This study will yield unique data to evaluate the Comprehensive Centers. The evaluation will
also make use of data and documents already collected, produced, or maintained by the
Centers. Whenever possible, information will be collected and reviewed prior to interviews in
order to avoid unnecessary interview questions. This study involves questions in surveys and
interviews that are distinct from those asked by local evaluators.
5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities, describe
any methods used to minimize burden.
One Center is operated by a small business entity, and several Centers have small business
partners. The evaluation team will minimize burden on these entities by limiting the length of
the interviews, scheduling interviews at the convenience of staff, and using existing data
whenever possible.
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.
Failure to collect the data proposed through this study would breach the legislative mandate in
Title II of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (Section 204) that requires NCEE to
provide for ongoing independent evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers. It would also
prevent ED from gaining an in-depth understanding of what capacity-building strategies the
Centers are using and the outcomes of the Centers’ work. Understanding the strategies that the
Centers implement and the outcomes they achieve will enable federal policy makers and
program managers to monitor the program and provide useful guidance to future Centers.
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;
8







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.

None of the special circumstances listed apply to this data collection.
8. 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 60 day FR notice was published in Volume 81, October 31, 2016, page 75388. To date, no
public comments have been received. The 30 day FR notice will be prepared and published as
required.
The study team consulted with members of its technical working group (TWG) in developing the
data collection instruments and data collection plans.
9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees with meaningful justification.
There are no payments or gifts associated with this study.

9

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. If personally identifiable information
(PII) is being collected, a Privacy Act statement should be included on the instrument.
Please provide a citation for the Systems of Record Notice and the date a Privacy Impact
Assessment was completed as indicated on the IC Data Form. A confidentiality statement
with a legal citation that authorizes the pledge of confidentiality should be provided.5 If
the collection is subject to the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act statement is deemed sufficient
with respect to confidentiality. If there is no expectation of confidentiality, simply state
that the Department makes no pledge about the confidentially of the data.
Every effort is made to ensure that the responses of the TA recipients and Center staff who are
surveyed and interviewed will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law as well as by
the design of the evaluation. Survey data are stored on the evaluation contractor’s server that
is protected by a firewall that monitors and evaluates all attempted connections from the
Internet. Personal information (name, telephone number, and e-mail address) on each survey
response is maintained in a separate data file apart from the survey data so that individuals
outside of the evaluation team cannot link particular responses to individual respondents. Once
the contract is completed, all personal information on each survey respondent will be
destroyed. The entire survey database will be encrypted so that any data stored will be further
protected. Finally, access to any data with identifying information will be limited only to
evaluation team members directly working on the survey. Survey findings will be presented at a
level of aggregation such that it will not be possible to link specific responses to individual
respondents.
Everything that is discussed during interviews will be used only for the purposes of this study.
Information collected for this study comes under the confidentiality and data protection
requirements of the Institute of Education Sciences (The Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002, Title I, Part E, Section 183). Responses to this data collection will be used only for
research purposes. The reports prepared for this study from the survey data will include
information that is summarized and aggregated and should not associate responses with a
specific Center, state, district or individual. Findings from the interview data will also be
reported in summary form and individuals will not be identified by name. However, due to the
uniqueness of each Center and descriptions of particular projects in the reports, some Centers
and/or states may be identifiable to readers. Also, respondents’ roles and the Center they work
with may be identified in the report, which may lead to individuals’ being identified. Other than
this situation that we will make respondents aware of, we will not provide information that
identifies respondents to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law.
5

Requests for this information are in accordance with the following ED and OMB policies: Privacy Act of 1974,
OMB Circular A-108 – Privacy Act Implementation – Guidelines and Responsibilities, OMB Circular A-130 Appendix I
– Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals, OMB M-03-22 – OMB Guidance for
Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002, OMB M-06-15 – Safeguarding Personally
Identifiable Information, OM:6-104 – Privacy Act of 1974 (Collection, Use and Protection of Personally Identifiable
Information)

10

Interview notes or recordings will not be shared with ED staff or anyone else outside the study
team. Paper copies of interview notes will be secured in a locked file cabinet. Electronic copies
of notes will be stored in a SQL Server database located in the contractor’s access-controlled
server room.
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 data of a sensitive, personal, or private nature being collected in the surveys or
interviews.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.
The burden table below, in Exhibit 1, presents the revised burden estimate for this study; and
the revised estimate of costs for this burden are presented in Exhibit 2. The originally approved
burden estimate for this study included the following instruments for which all data collection
has now been completed:




Design-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
Implementation-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
Implementation-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients

These instruments have been removed from the revised burden table (Exhibit 1). The revised
table includes the two new instruments, and the three already approved, continuing
instruments:






Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff
Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients
Center Staff Survey
TA Recipient Survey
TA Event Observation Guide

The original OMB-approved burden estimate for this study was for 764 annual responses and
332 annual burden hours, for each of three years of data collection. The revised estimate of
responses in Exhibit 1 is for 649 annual responses, or a reduction of 115 responses annually.
The revised hours burden in Exhibit 1 is for 236 annual burden hours, for a reduction of 96
annual burden hours.
11

The originally approved total estimated monetary cost of the burden was $44,075 and the
annualized cost was $14,688. The revised total estimate, as shown in Exhibit 2, is $31,815, and
the revised annualized cost estimate is $10,605. This represents a reduction in the total
monetary cost burden of $12,260 and a reduction in the annualized cost burden of $4,083, with
an annualized cost reduction for Center staff of $1,395 and for TA recipients of $2,688.
Estimated response rates for the new instruments are based on averages of response rates
achieved so far for Center and TA recipient interviews. We achieved a 100 percent response
rate for the Center staff interviews and an average 85 percent response rate for the TA
recipient interviews.
The Center staff survey requires approximately 20 minutes to complete, including the time for
reading our introductory letter and directions. The TA recipient survey requires about 15
minutes to complete. We estimate that TA observations will require 10 minutes of Center staff
time to coordinate with evaluators. For the new Outcomes-Focused Interview Guides that will
be administered in 2017, we estimate 90 minutes for administration of the Center staff
interview and 60 minutes for the TA recipient interview. Estimates are based on past
experience and on pretests of each new protocol with one Center staff and one TA recipient.
Center staff respondents are private sector employees in nonprofit or for-profit companies, or
in universities. TA recipient respondents are employees of a state department of education or
other state agency that addresses educational issues.
Exhibit 1. Estimate of Revised Response Burden by Instrument

Data Collection
Activity
Outcomes-Focused
Interview Guide for
Center Staff
Outcomes-Focused
Interview Guide for
TA Recipients
Center Staff Survey
TA Recipient
Survey
TA Event
Observation Guide

Hourly
Rate

Estimated
Monetary
Cost of
Burden

Sample
Size

Response
Rate

Total
Respondents

Time
(hours)

114

100%

114

1.5

1

114

171

$45

$7,695

38

85%

32

1

1

32

32

$45

$1,440

264

90%

238

0.33

3

714

235

$45

$10,575

440

80%

352

0.25

3

1056

264

$45

$11,880

10

100%

10

0.17

3

30

5

$45

$225

1946

707

$31,815

649

236

$10,605

866

Totals

Number of
Responses

Total
Hour
Burden

Number of
Administrations

746

Annual Totals

Notes:
Shaded rows indicate continuing activities that were previously approved.

12

Estimated sample size of 114 for the Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for Center Staff assumes 3 teacher/leader
effectiveness staff participating from all 22 Centers and 3 early learning staff participating from 16 Centers.
Estimated sample size for the Outcomes-Focused Interview Guide for TA Recipients assumes 1 teacher/leader
effectiveness TA recipient per 22 Centers and 1 early learning TA recipient per 16 Centers.

Exhibit 2. Revised Estimate of Annualized Costs by Respondent Type (Per Year for 3 Years)
Respondent Type

Total Cost

Annualized Cost

Center Staff

$18,495

$6,165

TA Recipient

$13,320

$4,440

Total

$31,815

$10,605

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.)
There are no direct costs to respondents other than that of their time of participation. There
will be no start-up or ongoing financial costs incurred by respondents. There are no record
keepers.
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 estimated cost for this study, including development of a detailed study design and data
collection instruments, management of a Technical Working Group, preparation of a
justification package, data collection, data analysis, and report preparation, is $7,861,244 for
the five years, or an average of $1,572,244 per year. The estimated cost includes staff and
consultant time, travel, and operational expenses.

13

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments. Generally, adjustments in
burden result from re-estimating burden and/or from economic phenomenon outside of
an agency’s control (e.g., correcting a burden estimate or an organic increase in the size of
the reporting universe). Program changes result from a deliberate action that materially
changes a collection of information and generally are result of new statute or an agency
action (e.g., changing a form, revising regulations, redefining the respondent universe,
etc.). Burden changes should be disaggregated by type of change (i.e., adjustment,
program change due to new statute, and/or program change due to agency discretion),
type of collection (new, revision, extension, reinstatement with change, reinstatement
without change) and include totals for changes in burden hours, responses and costs (if
applicable).
This request is for a revision to previously approved submission; we are requesting review of
two new interview protocols. The original, approved submission noted that the outcomes‐
focused interview protocols would be developed later and were not included in the original
package. The revised burden estimate and cost estimate is provided in Exhibits 1 and 2. Three
of the originally approved instruments have been completed and the associated burden has
been removed from this submission. As a result, there is an overall reduction in responses and
burden, even though two new protocols have been added to the collection.

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.
16.1

Tabulation

The timeline for project data collection and reporting is in Exhibit 3. Data collection began in
April of 2015 and will conclude in 2017. No complex analytical techniques will be used.
Methods of analysis will include calculation of frequencies, descriptive statistics, and content
analysis of qualitative data.

14

Exhibit 3: Timeline of Data Collection and Reporting
Year 1

Year 2
Year 3
2013
2014
2015
2016
Tasks and Activities
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Surveys (TA recipient and CC staff)
Administer TA recipient and
CC staff surveys
Center design-focused interviews
Conduct on-site group
interviews of CC staff
Center implementation-focused interviews
Conduct on-site group
interviews of CC staff
TA recipient implementation -focused interviews
Conduct telephone
interviews with TA recipients
Center outcomes-focused interviews
Conduct on-site group
interviews of CC staff
TA recipient outcomes-focused interviews
Conduct telephone
interviews with TA recipients
TA Event Observations
Conduct observations of
profiled projects
Interim report
Report on Center designs/
theories of action
Final report
Final report summarizing all
findings
Aug

15

Year 4
Q1

2017
Q2 Q3

Year 5
2018
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3

16.2

Publication

The evaluation will produce two reports (see Exhibit 3 for timeline). The first report will be an
interim report focusing on the program design questions – how the Centers designed their
work as technical assistance providers. The report will describe the Centers’ underlying theories
of action and definitions of capacity building, and explain how the Centers assessed their
constituents’ needs and developed work plans to address those needs. This report will be
available in early 2017.
A final summative report, synthesizing all findings but with greatest focus on the
implementation and outcomes of the Centers’ technical assistance in two priority areas, will be
produced in late 2018. The report will include descriptions of the strategies used to build SEA
capacity, common challenges faced and ways the Centers sought to address them, the extent to
which Centers achieved their goals and objectives, factors that may have contributed to success
(or failure) in achieving expected outcomes, and the extent to which Centers’ outcomes aligned
with and supported their theories of action. This report will also include 6-10 profiles of multiyear projects, which will be selected and documented to provide detailed examples of Centers’
capacity building process and outcomes.
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 OMB approval number and expiration date will be displayed or cited on all information
collection instruments.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in the Certification of
Paperwork Reduction Act.
There are no exceptions taken to item 19 of OMB Form 83-1.

16