UFEF OMB Package 2 Part B_Extension_1850-0951

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is submitting this package to request an extension to complete the already-approved collection of fiscal data from a nationally representative sample of 400 school districts for the Study of District and School Uses of Federal Education Funds. OMB cleared all data collection activities including the selection and recruitment of the study sample and the data collection instruments in two separate packages, one on 06/24/2020^[1] and the other on 02/04/2021.^[2] The study examines the targeting and resource allocation for major federal education programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the COVID relief fund programs. Due to the complexities of fiscal data (in particular revenue, expenditure, and personnel files), IES requests additional time to complete routine follow-up with sampled districts to ensure their data are accurate, to fill in missing values where possible, and to understand data discrepancies between district-reported data and other sources.

^[1] OMB Control Number 1850-0951 (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201912-1850-004)

^[2] OMB Control Number 1850-0951, revision (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=202008-1850-006)

B. Collections of information employing statistical methods

1. Respondent universe and selection methods

The previously approved OMB submission described the total study sample, which included 400 districts. This extension focuses on the 343 respondents from the district data that require follow-up. These 343 districts were the ones that responded to the initial request for data, and it is expected that roughly 85 percent will respond to the follow-up activities (Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1. Universe of respondents and sample selection

Data collection activity	Original district respondents	Sample selection	Expected response rate
Fiscal and personnel data	343 districts	343 districts	85 percent

District-level sampling criteria

The original, approved Supporting Statement describes the sampling procedure. In brief, the sample was determined by randomly selecting 400 districts, stratifying based on district size (number of students), poverty rate, and receipt of Title III funds.

2. Procedures for the collection of information

State extant data

State-level extant data were collected in 2020. Based on OMB’s prior approval for the study design and the collection of preliminary state-level information (1850-0951), all 50 states and the District of Columbia received a letter by email requesting lists of subgrantees and suballocation amounts for each program, the state chart of accounts, and a crosswalk from F-33 survey revenue and expenditure data reporting codes to the state chart of accounts.

District- and school-level data collection

District-level data were requested in one round for school years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Based on the study design previously approved by OMB, district staff were asked to provide fiscal and personnel data for both the district as a whole and for each individual school in the district. Data were collected in the form of native accounting files, which the study team cleaned and processed, including time-intensive quality checks, comparisons with publicly available federal surveys of school finance data, and the alignment of the local state and district accounting codes with federal codes. The team’s data processing activities revealed a substantial proportion of respondents with data that was discrepant with other sources, missing, or had other issues warranting follow-up.

To better understand issues identified during these data collection activities, the study team must follow up with all 343 districts who responded to the initial request. Discrepancies exist across approximately 25 variables created from the data collected from districts, including revenue measures such as total Title I revenue, expenditure measures such as total expenditures on student support, and personnel measures such as the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers. The study team will conduct typical follow up activities to better understand why the district-reported data is different from other sources of financial data, amend or explain discrepant values in the dataset, and fill in missing values where possible.

3. Methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of nonresponse

To minimize respondent burden and to facilitate collection of valid and reliable data, the study team will present districts with the data they previously provided and identify in detail the data discrepancies the study team seeks to resolve. Districts will have access to this information prior to follow-up with the study team so that they are best prepared to respond efficiently.

4. Tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken to minimize burden and improve utility

The study team will follow up with districts in phases, focusing on the 50 districts with the most discrepant or incomplete data first. Learnings and challenges identified from early follow-up will be used to update outreach procedures.

5. Names and telephone numbers of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of the design and the names of the contractors who will actually collect or analyze the information for the agency

Exhibit 2. Staff responsible for collecting and analyzing study data

Name	Project role	Organization	Phone number
Robert Reichardt	Deputy project director	APA	720-227-0098
Paul Burkander	Co-Project director	SRI	650-859-2077
Yesica Lopez	Co-Project director	SRI	650-859-5278
Amanda Brown	Data collection oversight	APA	720-227-0088
Rebecca Goetz	Data management task lead	SRI	730-247-8602
Justin Silverstein	Design, instrumentation, and analysis contributor	APA	720-227-0075

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Author	Deborah Jonas
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2023-12-13