3-29-18_ROSS SC_ Part A

^{Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission}

Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency – Service Coordinator (ROSS-SC) program

OMB # 2528-XXXX

Part A Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.

In 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed the need for an evaluation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Resident Opportunity and Self-Sufficiency – Service Coordinator (ROSS-SC) program in a published report which identified “significant gaps in the ROSS-SC grant program, specifically the number of families that participate, number and type of self-sufficiency outcomes achieved, the lack of formal reporting guidance, and the lack of a reporting tool that can provide ‘easily or reliably aggregated’ data on the program” (GAO, pg. 17).  In addition, HUD implemented ROSS-SC program changes in FY 2014 in order to improve grantee applications and reporting, as well as the tracking and measurement of participant outcomes. Congress requested an evaluation of the ROSS-SC program in the Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2014 (Public Law 113-76), which appropriated $40,000,000 for the transformation initiative. Of the amount, not less than $15,000,000 is for research, demonstrations and evaluations, which should be sufficient to fund the following activities: understanding rapid re-housing models and outcomes for homeless; a seniors and supportive housing program demonstration; a seniors and services demonstration evaluation; a Section 811 project rental assistance demonstration; a ROSS-SC evaluation; a small area fair market rent study; a Jobs-Plus evaluation; a Moving to Work evaluation; and a Rental Assistance Demonstration evaluation.

HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has contracted with the Urban Institute to conduct an evaluation of the ROSS-SC program. During the Period of Performance, the Urban Institute and its subcontractor EJP Consulting will perform and report on the following tasks:

1. Assess changes in program processes and reporting since changes were made to the program’s logic model in FY 2014,

2. Examine the breadth and depth of ROSS-SC program implementation by current service coordinators across all grantee types, and

3. Analyze current reporting requirements and performance metrics to improve future program outcome evaluations.

As part of the evaluation, HUD requires the Urban Institute to engage in three data collection activities:

1. Collect contact information for current ROSS-SC service coordinators via a brief survey of ROSS-SC grantee contact persons;

2. Collect information on ROSS-SC service coordinators and their roles within grantee organizations through a survey of all service coordinators currently working for the grantee organizations funded under the FY 2014, 2015 and 2016 ROSS-SC NOFAs; and

3. Conduct site visits, including interviews with key staff of the grantee agency, service coordinators, service partners staff and focus groups with program participants during the period of December 2017 – September 2018.

The surveys will yield generalizable data on current service coordinator responsibilities, activities, and characteristics. The site visits will provide insight into how the ROSS-SC program is implemented on the ground in different settings and contexts, and ensure that the lessons are valuable to the wide range of ROSS-SC grantees.

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.

This is a new collection. HUD’s Office of Policy Development & Research, in collaboration with the Office of Public and Indian Housing (which funds the program and the Office of Field Operations, which implements and monitors the program), plans: 1) to use the data collected by the Urban Institute to improve the structure of the ROSS-SC program, 2) to provide guidance to grantees on best and promising practices in effectively implementing the ROSS-SC program, and 3) to better collect and use data to track performance and make adjustments to the program. Full impact of the data collected is dependent on project findings. However, the Urban Institute will provide information about the ROSS-SC program that HUD could use to change the logic model or NOFA requirements, or other programmatic changes. HUD could use the evaluation to inform policy changes in NOFAs, including the eligible use of funds, mandatory data elements that must be measured, mandatory services to be coordinated, and development of reporting tool and evaluation methods for grantees to use. Other programmatic changes could include redefining or strengthening the role of service coordinators.

For the surveys, data will be collected through online collection tools administered by the Urban Institute. The surveys will only be available for completion online. We will use the data from the survey of grantee organizations to compile a list names and email addresses for contacting service coordinators; we will use the data from the survey of service coordinators to analyze their qualifications and experience, populations served, intake and assessment processes, and caseloads.

In order to collect contact information necessary for the outreach to service coordinators, a brief online survey will be sent to contacts at grantee organizations requesting that they provide names, email addresses, and phone numbers, for any active service coordinators hired under the specified ROSS-SC grants. The contact information survey instrument is provided as an attachment in the appendix.

The survey of service coordinators will ask them to report details of their current work in a number of areas, including:

• Service coordinator qualifications and experience

• Whether the ROSS-SC grant funds all of their activities, or they have responsibilities outside the ROSS-SC grant

• Average caseloads

• The frequency of contacts with residents served

• The types of functions and activities performed by the service coordinator

• Specific populations targeted for service coordination

• Service needs among the residents

• Resources available to the service coordinator

• The nature of partnerships and other relationships with service providers

• Basic demographic characteristics of the service coordinators: age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education level

The full service coordinator survey is attached in the appendix.

For the site visits, the individual sites visited by the Urban Institute will not be singled out by HUD/PD&R when gleaning policy lessons and recommendations from the data for information shared with the HUD ROSS-SC program office. Sites will not be penalized for any information collected during the Urban site visits that indicate poor performance or rewarded for information indicating high performance

Each site will be visited only once, and all interview or focus group participants will be asked to participate in only one interview or focus group. Two research team members will conduct each site visit - including a senior and junior researcher. During the site visits, researchers will collect data through interviews with ROSS-SC service coordinators, key staff of the grantee agency, service partners, and HUD regional and in-field staff. All will be asked similar questions and the interview will take no more than 1.5-2 hours. Interview protocol for staff and partners are attached in the appendix. Interview questions will focus on understanding the activities, partnerships, and outcomes of the ROSS-SC program from multiple stakeholder perspectives. The focus groups with residents will cover an array of questions related to the assets and challenges of families living in their public housing development, how the ROSS-SC program coordinators support residents’ needs, and what could be done to improve the ROSS-SC program. The full focus group protocol is attached in the appendix. Research staff will record notes from the interviews using laptops and will audio record the interviews to serve as a back up to the computer notes and to record any exact quotes (which will not be attributed to any specific individuals).

In addition to the interviews, research team members will conduct one focus group with ROSS-SC program participants at each site. The purpose of these focus groups is to provide first-hand information on the experience of utilizing ROSS-SC services from the perspective of participants, while minimizing the time burdens on individual respondents, researchers, and site staff. A specific protocol for the focus groups is attached.

A standard template will be used to create a site visit report for each of the site visits, combining observations, interviews, and focus group data. These reports will be reviewed by host organizations and HUD for accuracy and relevance. The individual reports will not be included in the final report (or otherwise made public), but serve to inform the generalized observations. These site visit reports will pull together pertinent data collected across all three categories of research questions: 1) program structure and processes, 2) service coordinator characteristics and functions, and 3) outcome evaluation. Site visit reports will focus on the key points of interest for that site that might serve to inform other similar sites or sites facing similar challenges and contexts. We will provide draft memos to site visit participants for their review and comment. These key findings will also be highlighted in a summary memo to HUD that provides an overview of the key best practices and lessons learned, and points of consistency across all sites. However, we will not attribute these findings or best practices to a particular site in the final report, we will only mention the site selection characteristics, i.e. “a non-profit grantee working in a small city”.

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.

The surveys will both be administered online using Qualtrics survey software. The contact information survey will be administered online, and invitations to participate sent via email to listed grantee contact person. Once the contact information is obtained, service coordinators will be contacted by email and invited to take the second survey. An online survey was determined to be the most cost-effective method of collecting responses from the full population of grantees and the full cohort of service coordinators. The surveys are designed to be completed online using a variety of platforms; a PDF version will be available for download for informational purposes only.

The site visit component of the ROSS-SC evaluation does not use any automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. The intent of these site visits is to collect information that is not otherwise available in existing forms, reports, or survey data. Qualitative data collected through human interaction is necessary to document the variations between ROSS-SC grantees and to receive feedback on information that is otherwise available through electronic formats but requires further analysis or input in order to interpret accurately and with additional nuance.

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.

As this is the first evaluation of the ROSS-SC program, the information collected in this effort has not previously been collected, nor is it available in any written or electronic source. While the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires grantees to track and report annually on a set of program outputs, there has been no systematic collection and analysis of data on how the program is implemented by grantees to understand how to improve the effectiveness of the program in meeting its goals. All survey, interview and focus group protocols are designed to focus exclusively on collecting information unavailable through existing reports or administrative data.

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

Our collection of information will affect small public housing authorities, tribal entities, resident councils and non-profits. We will seek to minimize burden on these entities by providing clear and concise information on the purpose of our data collection via email. For the surveys, we will minimize burden by conducting all the data collection online via Qualtrics in surveys designed to take less than 15 minutes (contact information) or 30 minutes (service coordinator) to complete. For the site visits, the Urban team will minimize burden by conducting all scheduling and coordination of logistics requiring minimal assistance from the sites. We will only request two things from each ROSS-SC grantee: (1) Provide us with contact information for the staff and partners that we will contact for interviews and (2) Distribute our recruitment flyer for focus groups to active program participants. We will ask for no more than 2 hours of any individual’s time in an interview or focus group.

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 the burden.

As outlined in response to Question 1, the Government Accountability Office has identified “significant gaps in our knowledge of the ROSS-SC grant program, specifically the number of families that participate, number and type of self-sufficiency outcomes achieved, the lack of formal reporting guidance, and the lack of a reporting tool that can provide ‘easily or reliably aggregated’ data on the program.” As such, this evaluation is in response to a specifically identified need in the agency. We expect that the results of this evaluation will be used to inform the future of the ROSS-SC program, including potentially updating specific program requirements, resources, and structure to increase efficiency and provide quality services as a component of HUD’s mission to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. Specifically, the evaluation may inform policy decisions in developing NOFAs, including the eligible use of funds, mandatory data elements and services, and development of reporting tools or other evaluation methods for grantee use. Additionally, the evaluation may inform changes to the definition of the service coordinator role.

Both the surveys and the site visits are one-time events, designed to provide information on the activities of service coordinators hired under the ROSS-SC program and the perspectives of program participants, administrators, and partners. There is no other comprehensive source for this information. This evaluation is also necessary for HUD to meet its Congressional requirement to evaluate the ROSS-SC program, as stated within the Conference Report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2014 (Public Law 113-76).

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:

The proposed data collection activities are consistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320 (Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). There are no special circumstances that require deviation from these guidelines.

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records, for more than three years;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection 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;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection 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; or

• Under this ICR, HUD will not conduct any data collection 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.

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.

• 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 format (if any) and 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 preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

The language of the 60-day notice is included in this package and was published on May 16, 2017 on pages 22559-22560. The notice period has ended and no comments were received.

The contact information survey will be tested with several ROSS-SC grantees to ensure clarity of instructions and data elements to be reported. The survey of service coordinators will be tested with several current ROSS-SC service coordinators prior to OMB approval in order to obtain feedback on its clarity of instructions and data elements to be reported. An abbreviated version of the site visit protocol was piloted at two site reconnaissance visits. We received no questions or concerns regarding the availability of data, the clarity of instructions, or the data elements being recorded and reported.

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

No incentives, or other payments or gifts, will be offered to survey participants.

Focus group participants will each receive a $25 incentive for their participation. This relatively modest incentive provides a necessary incentive to ensure participation by a range of individuals. The modest incentive will help offset any potential financial barriers to participation, including transportation to the site (in the event participants come from multiple public housing communities served by the grantee) and childcare expenses. In similar Urban Institute research projects recruiting participants from Public Housing developments, Public Housing Authorities and our Internal Review Board have deemed $25 as offsetting of the burden of the cost of participation without coercing participation. A sample of Urban Institute projects on related topics that have used $25 as the adult incentive for focus groups include:

• Housing Opportunity and Services Together (HOST) – Series of focus groups in 6 cities, all with adults living in public housing

• Promoting Adolescent Sexual health and Safety (PASS) – 2 focus groups with adults in public housing received $25, youth received $20

• DC Promise Neighborhood Initiative (DCPNI) – Set of 6 focus groups with adults in public housing

• New Communities Initiative Evaluation (NCI) – Set of 4 focus groups with adults living in public housing

It is our goal to recruit all ROSS-SC program participants equally – including those who find the program more or less useful, who have been engaged for more or less time, and who are potentially located in various developments, as the ROSS-SC program may serve several. We will provide an incentive to help ensure equal motivation for participants. However, the focus group is voluntary so it is still a possibility that residents who are highly engaged in services and/or reside closest to the location of the focus group will be overrepresented in the focus group.

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

Grantees will be invited to respond to the grantee survey via an email explaining the purpose of the service coordinator survey and reporting procedures for service coordinator survey data.

Before beginning the service coordinator survey, respondents will be provided an explanation of the purpose of the evaluation and how their responses will be used. Participants in the survey will be promised that their individual responses will be confidential, to the extent permitted by law, and will be reported only in the aggregate, and they will be asked to affirm their consent per Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines for human subject research.

The survey research instruments will be reviewed and approved by the Urban Institute’s Institutional Review Board prior to initiating any research, which operates according to the Common Rule on the Protection of Human Subjects found in Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 46 (45 CFR 46).

Focus group participants and those participating in administrative interviews will be asked to provide their informed consent per IRB guidelines for human subject research, with appropriate privacy guaranteed to the extent permitted by law. We cannot guarantee complete confidentiality in the focus groups, given the chance that other focus group participants may share information mentioned during the discussion. However, we will ask all focus group participants to keep shared information private. We will also inform participants that Urban itself will keep information shared private, and only report information summarized in aggregate and/or with the specific details masked/changed to protect their identity, and that information shared will not affect their access to future ROSS-SC services and/or funding.

Urban’s research plans for the site visits will be subject to federal human subject review standards to protect the confidentiality of all research subjects, including all persons interviewed. The site visit research protocols will be reviewed and approved by the Urban Institute’s Institutional Review Board prior to initiating any research. The focus group protocol will receive a higher level of scrutiny through a Full Review by the Board due to the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals within the focus groups to ensure their rights as human subjects are protected. All raw and summarized data will be securely stored according to HUD protocol, including proper password-protection and encryption as required for files containing personally identifiable information.

Authority to offer confidentiality, to the extent permitted by law, is made on the basis of:

1. Section 3(b) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3532, authorizes the Secretary to “conduct continuing comprehensive studies, and make available findings, with respect to the problems of housing and urban development.”

2. Section 7(r)(1) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 3535, provides that appropriated funds “shall be available to the Secretary for evaluating and monitoring of all such programs . . . and collecting and maintaining data for such purposes.” Subsection (r)(4)(a) of the act further provides that the Secretary “may provide for evaluation and monitoring under this subsection and collecting and maintaining data for such purposes directly or by grants, contracts, or interagency agreements.”

3. Section 502(g) of title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, as amended, 12 USC 1701z-2 (g), authorizes the Secretary “to request and receive such information or data as he deems appropriate from private individuals and organizations, and from public agencies.” It further provides that “[a]ny such information or data shall be used only for the purposes for which it is supplied, and no publication shall be made by the Secretary whereby the information or data furnished by any particular person or establishment can be identified, except with the consent of such person or establishment.

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. 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 people from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent. Finally, OMB has standards for asking questions about race or ethnicity. If you ask such questions, you must comply with those standards.

No questions of a sensitive nature will be included in the survey. Questions on race and ethnicity will conform to OMB standards.

The site visit component of this evaluation will not include any questions of a sensitive nature.

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The statement should:

• the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden estimates. Consultation with a sample of potential respondents (fewer than 10) is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include burden hours for customary and usual business practices. Note: If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens.

The request for service coordinator contact information will be made of all 330 grantees receiving ROSS-SC grants in FY2014, FY2015 and FY2016. We anticipate a 100 percent response rate. The survey will be administered to an estimated 1,200 service coordinators, the full universe of service coordinators funded under the three grant years. The expected response rate is 70 percent. Both surveys will be administered in 2018 (one time only). Estimate of the burden is based on a maximum of 30 minutes to complete. In sum, the estimated total burden hours for both surveys combined is 502.5 hours.

Respondent category	Number of respondents	Number of responses required	Burden per survey	Total burden hours
Grantee contact	330.00	330.00	15 minutes	82.50
Service coordinator	1,200.00	840.00	30 minutes	420.00
Total	1,530.00	1,170.00		502.50

Both surveys will be pilot tested with several grantees and no more than nine service coordinators to improve the survey instrument. We will ask respondents to record their start and stop time to gauge the appropriateness of our burden estimates.

Site Visits:

A total of seven site visits will be conducted post-OMB approval, within the 2018 calendar year. Each of the site visits will consist of up to 8 interviews, and one focus group with up to 15 individuals. We expect the interviews to take up to two hours to complete, and each focus group to take approximately 90 minutes with an additional 30 minutes estimated for participant travel to and from the focus group location. As such, the maximum amount of time requested from any individual respondent would be two hours. The following table shows the aggregate hours by site visit and activity:

Activity	Number of sites	Number of respondents per site	Average hour burden	Total person-hours
Interviews	7.00	8.00	2.00	112.00
Focus Groups	7.00	15.00	2.00	210.00
Total:	7.00	23.00	2.00	322.00

The total estimated burden hours for the surveys (502.50 hours) and site visits (322.00 hours) is 1,244.50 hours.

Based on the below assumptions and tables, we calculate the total burden hours for this study to be 1,244.50 hours and the total cost to be $33,614.46, as broken down in detail by respondent type, burden, and wages below.

Whereas many ROSS-SC grantee contact persons in HUD’s database are a Chief Executive of the grantee, we estimated their cost per response to the survey using the most recent (May 2016) Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics median hourly wage for the labor category Chief Executives (11-1011): $87.12.

Whereas ROSS-SC service coordinators and other grantee staff and service partners have a range of experience and skills, we averaged the median hourly wage for two labor categories: the Social and Community Service Manager (11-9151) median hourly wage of $31.10 and the Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other (21-1099) category with a rate of $20.73. This produces an average of both median hourly wage rates equal to $25.92 for ROSS-SC service coordinators to complete the survey.

Respondent	Occupation	SOC Code	Median Hourly Wage Rate	Average (Median) Hourly Wage Rate
Grantee Contact Person	Chief Executive	11-1011	$87.12	$87.12
ROSS-SC Service Coordinator & Partners	Social and Community Services Manager	11-9151	$31.10	$25.92
	Community and Social Service Specialist, All Other	21-1099	$20.73

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics (May 2016), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm

For the site visits, we used the same hourly costs as used for the ROSS-SC service coordinators calculated above and applied them to site visit staff and partners. Hourly costs for public housing resident focus group participants were estimated using FY 2016 HUD 30% Income Limit for All Areas calculations from the Office of Policy Development and Research through HUD’s website located at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il/il16/index.html. This identifies income limits by county for extremely low income households earning at or below 30% of their county median income. These limits are adjusted by household sizes of up to eight household members. We averaged the county median values to produce a national average median income by household size for extremely low income households. Based on the ROSS-SC program emphasis on increasing family self-sufficiency, and independent living and aging in place for the elderly and disabled, we estimate that:

• 20 percent of potential respondents will live alone (21 respondents) with an average median income of $13,537.

• 10 percent will reside in a 2-person household (11 respondents) with an average median income of $15,464.

• 30 percent will reside in a 3-person household (31 respondents) with an average median income of $17,396.

• 30 percent will reside in a 4-person household (31 respondents) with an average median income of $19,305.

• 10 percent will reside in a 5-person household (11 respondents) with an average median income of $20,872.

To produce a basic hourly rate, we divide the average median annual income amount by 2080 work hours per year, equaling 40 hours per week for each of the 52 weeks out of the year.

All assumptions are reflected in the table below.

Information Collection	Number of Respondents	Frequency of Response	Burden Hour per Response	Annual Burden Hours	Hourly Cost per Response	Total Cost
Grantee Contact Person Survey	330.00	1.00	0.25	82.50	$87.12	$7,187.40
Service Coordinators Survey	840.001	1.00	0.50	420.00	$25.92	$10,886.40
ROSS Site Visit - Staff and Partners	56.00	1.00	2.00	112.00	$25.92	$2,903.04
HUD Residents living alone	21.00	1.00	2.00	42.00	$6.51	273.42
HUD Residents in 2-person household	11.00	1.00	2.00	22.00	$7.43	163.46
HUD Residents in 3-person household	31.00	1.00	2.00	62.00	$8.36	518.32
HUD Residents in 4-person household	31.00	1.00	2.00	62.00	$9.28	575.36
HUD Residents in 5-person household	11.00	1.00	2.00	22.00	$10.03	220.66
TOTAL	1,331.00			824.50		22,728.06

¹The full population is estimated at 1200 service coordinators. The number of respondents is based on anticipated response rate of 70%.

13. Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or record-keepers resulting from the collection of information. Do NOT include the labor cost (wage equivalent) of the burden-hours described in item 12 above. The information required here corresponds to that in item 14 on the 83-I (cost to the public).

There are no additional total annual cost burden to respondents or record-keepers beyond the labor cost of burden-hours described in item 12 above.

14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal Government.

Subtasks 6.2, Survey of ROSS-SC Service Coordinators and 6.4, Site Visits
Labor
IDIQ Labor Category	Estimated task Hours	Hourly Rate		Total Cost
Senior Principal Associate/Scientist	36.00	$274.58		$9,884.88
Senior Associate/Project Manager	213.00	$219.67		$46,789.71
Senior Associate	252.00	$219.67		$55,356.84
Senior Analyst	359.00	$110.85		$39,795.15
Research Associate/Analyst	270.00	$58.52		$15,800.40
Administrative Staff	19.00	$112.81		$2,143.39
Other Direct Costs
Travel				$18,414.00
Computer Network Services				$4,303.50
Books/Periodicals/Library Services				$15.75
Reproduction @ $.095/page				$77.25
Telephone Expenses				$84.75
Postage/Delivery				$54.00
Incentives for Focus Group Participants				$2,284.00
Supplies and Miscellaneous				$30.75
Subcontract Administration				$944.00
Total Expenses			$195,978.37

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden worksheet.

This is a new program.

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.

Surveys:

Urban will conduct the grantee online survey between December 7, 2017 and March 7, 2018, or as soon as OMB approval is received. Grantee responses to this survey will generate the list of respondents who will be invited to participate in the service coordinator survey. Urban will conduct the service coordinator online survey between weeks March 12, 2018 and September 14, 2018.

During the survey fielding period, Urban will provide HUD with biweekly reports of survey progress, to include response rates tabulated by completion status. Urban will begin submitting biweekly reports the week of March 21, 2018, and will continue to do so through the week of September 14, 2018. Urban will have cleaned all survey data by the week of May 21, 2018, and will report final metrics and frequencies by the week of June 24, 2018.

Results from the service coordinator survey will be presented in the final report due in March 2019, which will be submitted at the end of the 3-year project period as descriptive statistics and correlations. Crosstabs of survey responses by grantee characteristics such as grantee type, size and geographic location will also be produced.

Site Visits:

Urban’s final report will be submitted at the end of the 3-year project period in March 2019. A standard template will be used to create a site visit report for each of the visits, combining observations, interviews, and focus group data. These site visit reports will pull together pertinent data collected across all three categories of research questions: 1) program structure and processes, 2) service coordinator characteristics and functions, and 3) outcome evaluation. Case studies will focus on the key points of interest for that site that might serve to inform other similar sites or sites facing similar challenges and contexts. These key findings will also be highlighted in a summary memo that provides an overview of the key best practices and lessons learned, and points of consistency across all seven sites. We will provide draft memos to site visit participants for their review and comment.

An external Technical Reviewer will review all drafts and reports of the full evaluation report—including the products of the surveys and site visits—prior to submission to HUD to ensure that the work described reflects the research methods and processes employed, and accurately presents all findings. While Urban is allowed to reach independent conclusions based on the evidence evaluated for this research, we acknowledge that HUD may disagree with particular conclusions, and may require a statement inserted to indicate their disagreement. We also acknowledge that any publication of the final report by Urban is embargoed for three months after formal submission of the final report, and must include an attribution to HUD PD&R as funder.

Following a final substantive round of HUD review, the final report will be produced electronically and in printed copy. Urban will work with HUD to ensure formatting is in compliance with the agency’s standard publications and submit an edited final product. Upon HUD’s acceptance of the final report, the Principal Investigator, the Project Director and other key team members will conduct a meeting at HUD headquarters to brief HUD staff and other federal officials about the evaluation implementation and findings from the research, and to receive final feedback from HUD and others in attendance.

17. If you are seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date for OMB approval will be displayed on any forms completed as part of the data collection.

18. Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

1