ArtsHERE Supporting Statement A

The National Endowment for the Arts
ArtsHERE Grant Program Forms
OMB Information Collection Request, New Collection
Justification – Part A Supporting Statement
Last updated: May 22, 2024

1

Contents
Overview of Information Collection.......................................................................................................... 3
A1.

Necessity for Collection ................................................................................................................ 4

A2.

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 4

A3.

Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden .................................................................... 12

A5.

Impact on Small Businesses ........................................................................................................ 12

A6.

Consequences of Less Frequent Collection ................................................................................ 12

A7.

Now subsumed under 2(b) above and 10 (below) ..................................................................... 12

A8.

Consultation ................................................................................................................................ 13

A9.

Tokens of Appreciation ............................................................................................................... 14

A10.

Privacy: Procedures to protect privacy of information, while maximizing data sharing ........... 14

A11.

Sensitive Information .................................................................................................................. 16

A12.

Burden ......................................................................................................................................... 16

A13.

Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 18

A14.

Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government ........................................................... 18

A15.

Reasons for changes in burden ................................................................................................... 19

A16.

Timeline....................................................................................................................................... 19

A17.

Exceptions ................................................................................................................................... 20

Table of Attachments .............................................................................................................................. 20

2

Overview of Information Collection
•

Type of Request:
This Information Collection Request is for a new request. We are requesting 3 years of approval.

•

Description of Request:
This request is for information collection related to a developmental, descriptive study of the
national ArtsHERE pilot initiative, which is a new subgrant program investing in a range of
projects to strengthen the capacity of organizations that are already engaging with underserved
groups/communities to boost arts participation, learn from their experiences in undertaking this
work, and connect these organizations to each other and to other relevant entities through
technical assistance and peer-learning opportunities. ArtsHERE will offer non-matching project
subgrants (referred to as grants) from $65,000 to $130,000 to approximately 95 eligible
organizations nationwide. Grantees will participate in peer-learning communities, technical
assistance, and evaluation. The National Endowment for the Arts will implement its monitoring,
evaluation, and learning plan to guide efforts to monitor progress, make midcourse corrections
if necessary, and evaluate outcomes of ArtsHERE. Information collection will include 7
instruments (web surveys and forms) to collect information regarding ArtsHERE stakeholder
experiences, outcomes, and lessons learned.
The data collected in this study is not intended to be representative of or generalized to a
broader population. We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for
public policy decisions.

3

A1.

Necessity for Collection

This a request for clearance for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) to conduct data collection
with application review panelists, planning partners (i.e., Regional Arts Organizations and NEA staff), and
grant recipients of the ArtsHERE pilot initiative to identify and monitor indicators of progress toward
ArtsHERE goals and objectives (https://usregionalarts.org/artshere/). The data to be collected are not
available elsewhere unless collected through this information collection. The primary data collection
activities are planned for May 2024 through September 2026.
There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate or authorize this information
collection.
A2.

Purpose

Purpose and Use
Program Background. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), in partnership with South Arts and in
collaboration with the five other U.S. Regional Arts Organizations (RAOs), has launched a new pilot
subgrant program, ArtsHERE, to support organizations that have demonstrated a commitment to equity
within their practices and programming and have undertaken consistent engagement with underserved
groups/communities. “Underserved group/community” refers to those whose opportunities to
experience the arts have been limited by factors such as geography, race/ethnicity, economics and/or
disability, in alignment with the Arts Endowment’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan.1
ArtsHERE subgrants, which will be referred to as “grants” throughout this document, are for specific
projects that will strengthen the organization’s capacity to sustain meaningful community engagement
and increase arts participation for underserved groups/communities. The Cooperator will award
approximately 95 eligible organizations across the country grants ranging from $65,000 to $130,000
each. The period of grant performance is from October 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026. In addition, the
Cooperator has engaged Mid-America Arts Alliance (M-AAA), also an RAO, as the technical assistance
provider who will design and facilitate peer-learning and technical assistance opportunities designed to
share knowledge and build networks for grantees.
Purpose of Evaluation. As a pilot program, ArtsHERE will be documented and evaluated by the National
Endowment for the Arts to better understand the project activities supported through this program and
how grantees approached the work, as described in more detail below. The evaluation will result in a
summary of lessons learned and may inform the future of the ArtsHERE program. Beyond learning how
it might improve its own activities and funding practices and activities, the data will be used to help
generate insights to strengthen the arts and culture sector and to inform future practice and national
strategy for public funding for the arts.
To identify and monitor indicators of progress toward ArtsHERE goals and objectives, the NEA has
developed a monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) plan, available in Attachment E. The purposes of
each component of the MEL plan are as follows:

1

The National Endowment for the Arts Strategic Plan for FY 2022-2026 is available at
https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-2026-Strategic-Plan-Feb2022.pdf.

4

•

The purpose for the monitoring plan is to document and monitor processes and activities
contributing to progress toward intended goals and objectives at the NEA, Cooperator, RAO, and
organizational services provider levels.

•

The purpose for the evaluation plan is to describe implementation of and participation in
ArtsHERE and explore feedback for NEA, RAOs, and participating grantee organizations that
generate lessons learned for public arts funders and to inform national strategy.

•

The purpose of the learning plan is to generate questions that can be used to assess the
assumptions of the theory of change and logic model, and to identify any knowledge gaps.
Paired with monitoring and evaluation data, the learning plan will support documentation of
ArtsHERE implementation and effectiveness.

Motivating the MEL plan is an interest in collecting data to learn from this initiative how the NEA might
support similar field-building initiatives in other areas of its portfolio. Beyond learning how it might
improve its own activities and funding practices and activities, the data will help generate insights to
strengthen the arts and culture sector and to inform future practice and national strategy for public
funding for the arts. The data will also provide a better understanding of ArtsHERE’s role in supporting
the development of grantees’ local and national connections and organizational capacities.
This request describes the larger developmental, descriptive study of ArtsHERE for context, but this
OMB request is for approval of the following seven data collection instruments (see Study Design for
additional information, and Exhibit 2. Information collections for frequency and respondents):
1) Review Panelist Survey
2) Grantee Baseline Survey
3) Annual Progress Report
4) Grantee Learning Opportunities Quarterly Survey
5) Learning Opportunities Tracker
6) Learning Logs
7) Final Descriptive Report
Exhibit 1 (ArtsHERE Logic Model) shows the outcomes expected, and the resources (inputs), program
activities, and products (outputs) that lead to those outcomes.

5

Exhibit 1. ArtsHERE Logic Model

The information collected through this clearance is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge on
NEA programs. It is not intended to be used as the principal basis for a decision by a federal decisionmaker, and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific
information.
Research Questions or Tests
This information collection will explore 21 broad research questions across eight domains of interest:
Domain 1: Organizational characteristics of applicants and grantees
•
•

1.1 What was the process for determining which organizations receive ArtsHERE funding?
1.2 What are the characteristics, at time of application, of organizations that apply for and those
that receive ArtsHERE funding? How do they compare by key descriptive characteristics (e.g.,
high-poverty census tracts, majority race/ethnicity of census tracts, rurality, communities
engaged, arts versus non-art organizations)?

Domain 2: Description of communities engaged by grantees
•

2.1 What are the characteristics of communities engaged by grantees by key descriptive
characteristics (e.g., high-poverty census tracts, majority race/ethnicity of census tracts, rurality,
communities engaged)?

6

Domain 3: Grantees’ programs
•
•

•
•
•

3.1 How have grantees engaged underserved communities prior to their ArtsHERE award?
3.2 How do capacity building efforts provided through learning opportunities support grantees’
engagement with underserved communities during the ArtsHERE grant? What works well? What
challenges or barriers do grantees experience?
3.3 In what ways do grantees demonstrate commitment to equity in meeting the
needs/interests of their community?
3.4 What are organizations doing to integrate arts/culture into programming with their
community? How does this vary across NEA-defined disciplines?
3.5 What other priorities and/or programs are addressed through ArtsHERE funding?

Domain 4: Organizational capacities of grantees
•
•
•

4.1 What are grantees’ organizational capacities prior to ArtsHERE?
4.2 What do grantees view as community needs/interests that they meet or address through
their ArtsHERE capacity building project?
4.3 What changes or developments, whether positive or negative, can be attributed to ArtsHERE
in terms of organizational or program growth?

Domain 5: Grantee connections
•
•

•

5.1 What are the role(s) of grantees in their community’s arts ecosystem?
5.2. What connections are grantees able to form or strengthen in their communities, within a
broader arts ecosystem, with other grantees, and with public funders, including other RAOs and
the NEA?
5.3. How, if at all, does ArtsHERE support grantees in connecting with their communities, within
a broader arts ecosystem, with other grantees, and with public funders, including other RAOs
and the NEA?

Domain 6: Grantee learning
•
•

6.1. What did learning opportunities provision look like under Arts HERE and who participated
in services?
6.2. How do grantees experience participation in learning opportunities?

Domain 7: Grantee funding
•
•

7.1. How, if at all, did not requiring a match benefit grantees?
7.2. In what ways, if any, did receiving funding support grantees’ priorities and programs?

Domain 8: ArtsHERE lessons learned
•

8.1. What overall lessons can be shared with funders and the arts ecosystem about the
ArtsHERE pillars (investment, learning, and evaluation)?

7

•

•

8.2. What lessons might arise for the NEA’s own grantmaking processes, but also those of RAO
partners? (“Grantmaking” can be considered in the widest sense—inclusive of
communications/outreach, customer service, technical assistance, etc.)
8.3 What opportunities were there to provide input, feedback, and overall thoughts regarding
the development of ArtsHERE?

Study Design
A developmental, descriptive study design has been designed for the ArtsHERE pilot initiative to allow
for a detailed exploration and documentation of the initiative’s progress, evolution, and outcomes over
time, providing valuable insights into its effectiveness, challenges, and potential areas for improvement.
To address the ArtsHERE research questions, data will be collected through both primary and secondary
data collection. Primary data will be collected using surveys and interviews. Web-based surveys will be
developed and administered to regional review panelists, the ArtsHERE planning group (NEA, RAOs,
committee chairs, and others), learning opportunities facilitators and coaches, and grantees during the
implementation period. This method of data collection ensures that a broader sample of ArtsHERE
planners and grantees perspectives are represented in the overall analysis.
Data collection instruments were drafted by a contractor with input from the NEA, the Cooperator, and
other RAOs. Following NEA review of these draft instruments, each form/instrument underwent
cognitive testing to gain information on time needed to complete the instrument and identify questions
and instructions that were confusing or unclear. Six individual volunteers whose characteristics closely
match potential grantees (e.g., individuals from arts and cultural organizations and affiliates)
participated in cognitive testing of the instruments. Additionally, four RAO representatives from the
ArtsHERE Evaluation Committee participated in cognitive testing of the learning logs. No single item was
tested with more than six persons. A brief report of the results and implications from cognitive testing
was shared with the NEA for review, and subsequent revisions were approved by the NEA. The cognitive
testing report can be found in Attachment C.
The specific instruments used to gather data for the MEL plan are outlined in Exhibit 2 below. More
information about these instruments and data collection is available in section B3 of Supporting
Statement B.

Exhibit 2. Information collections
Data Collection
Instrument
Review Panelist
Survey

Grantee
Baseline Survey

Respondent(s)

Content, Purpose of Collection

100 review panelists
who participated in
phase 2 of the
application review
process

Content:
• Panelists’ demographic characteristics
• Experience serving on prior review
panels
• Perspectives on the panel review
process

All 95 grantees

Purpose: To understand the experience
of panelists in the panel review process
and identify areas for improvement
Content:
• Foundational organizational
characteristics and capacities

Mode, Duration (in
hours), and Frequency
Mode: Web-based survey
Duration: 0.33 hours
Frequency: One-time

Mode: Web-based survey
Duration: 0.50 hours

8

• Community needs and priorities
• Program and community demographics

Annual
Progress Report

Learning
Opportunities
Tracker

Grantee
Learning
Opportunities
Quarterly
Survey

All 95 grantees

15 learning
opportunities
providers (ArtsHERE
coaches and
facilitators)

All 95 grantees

Purpose: To understand grantees’
baseline characteristics, including
organizational strengths, capacities,
community connections, NEA and peer
relationships, partner involvement, and
capacity building goals.
Content:
• Distinct grantee practices related to
arts and culture
• Successes and barriers to engaging
underserved communities
• Description of capacity building
activities
• Capacity-building successes and
challenges
• Impact of ArtsHERE participation
Purpose: To capture mid-point grantee
progress and experiences to inform the
ArtsHERE learning plan and selection of
case studies
Content:
• Service type(s) and content provided
each month
• Participating partners
• Engagement experience
• Facilitators and challenges to service
provision
Purpose: To capture the supportive
services that are provided to grantees,
including cohort convenings, one-on-one
coaching, and topical expert workshops
Content:
• Satisfaction with learning opportunities
received
• Learning opportunities engagement
• Quality, relevance, and effectiveness of
cohort-based and one-on-one
organizational services
• How services can be improved

Frequency: One-time

Mode: Electronic
submission to a secure
website
Duration: 2 hours
Frequency: One-time

Mode: Web-based survey
Duration: 0.17 hours
Frequency: Monthly x 18
months (November 2024
through April 2026), x 15
monthly sessions per
provider, 270 times total

Mode: Web-based survey
Duration: 0.25 hours
Frequency: Quarterly
(January 2025 through
April 2026), six times total

Purpose: To understand grantees’ selfassessment of learning opportunities
received, including cohort convenings,
one-on-one coaching, and topical expert
workshops

9

Learning Logs

Final
Descriptive
Report

15 NEA, South Arts,
and RAO
representatives

All 95 grantees

Content:
• ArtsHERE planning group reflections on
the following:
o Panel/selection process
o Application and award data
o Grantee Learning Opportunities
Quarterly Survey data
o Mid-pilot, APR
reactions/reflections
Purpose: To capture the reflections of
ArtsHERE planners on the processes and
learning at key milestones of the
initiative. Reflection results will also
inform group discussions and MEL plan
changes.
Content:
• Description of capacity-building project
activities
• ArtsHERE-supported practice
enhancements
• Early indications of change
• Relationships with key partners

Mode: Electronic
submission to a secure
website
Duration: 0.50 hours
Frequency: Seven times
total

Mode: Electronic
submission to a secure
website
Duration: 2.5 hours
Frequency: One-time

Purpose: To gather information on
grantees’ organizational characteristics,
perceptions, experiences, and outcomes
during the grant award period.
TOTAL PER
YEAR

225 respondents

GRAND TOTAL

225 respondents

1,093 total hours
annually
4.86 average hours per
respondent
1,391 total hours
6.18 average hours per
respondent

The proposed developmental evaluation approach is a flexible method that is designed to be adapted in
future evaluation phases as the initial information gathered and analyzed helps generate new thinking.2
The research design and planning process is designed to incorporate input from a variety of
stakeholders, including the NEA, the Cooperator (South Arts), RAOs (through representatives on internal
committees), external experts (through the Technical Working Group, or TWG), and grantees
themselves, as described in the MEL plan. By embedding equity-focused prompts across data collection
tools, evaluators will obtain insights about who is (and is not) invited to participate in the grant
opportunity, how responsive are capacity-building supports (i.e., one-on-one coaching, cohort learning,
and topic-based support), who has (and who should have) decision-making powers, etc.
The purpose of this study is to monitor progress, make midcourse corrections if necessary, and evaluate
outcomes of ArtsHERE, with an interest in learning how the NEA might support similar field-building
2

Michael Quinn Patton, Developmental Evaluation.

10

initiatives in other areas of its portfolio. However, results are not intended to promote statistical
generalization to other service populations.
Other Data Sources and Uses of Information
Secondary data analyses. Additional data will be tracked and collected using a variety of existing data
sources. This method helps reduce grantee burden and leverages the wealth of existing information
created and tracked for the purposes of ArtsHERE implementation. Some of the information needed to
answer research questions about ArtsHERE implementation will be captured through program data
sources. These are data that will be tracked and/or reviewed regarding overall ArtsHERE activities,
awarding the ArtsHERE subgrants, and learning opportunities design and implementation. The
secondary data sources and the information they will provide are described in Exhibit 3 below.
Exhibit 3. Secondary Data Sources
Data Source
Cooperator Program Data
Learning Opportunities Provider Data

Information Provided
Number and type of organizations applying and
awarded
Schedule of planned learning opportunities,
attendance/roster sheets for learning opportunities
participation

Future information requests. Future information collection requests will cover remaining components of
the ArtsHERE equity pilot study. In alignment with the developmental nature of this pilot and study,
additional data collection instruments will be developed for administration during the second (and final)
year of the ArtsHERE awards. A second PRA clearance package or amendment to the first PRA package
will be prepared based on the information learned from the data gathered above. The second package
or amendment will be submitted by the first contractor in March 2025 and will include the following
instruments: Final Grantee Survey and Grantee Interview Protocol. Additionally, a separate generic
clearance package, under our existing Generic Clearance Protocol (OMB Co. Number 3135-0130) will be
completed by NEA for the ArtsHERE planning group discussion topics and grantee reflective prompts
using Mentimeter. The instruments to be developed for the second PRA clearance package and the
information they will provide are described in Exhibit 4 below.
Exhibit 4. Additional Instruments Submitted in Second PRA Package
Data Source
Grantee Final Survey

Grantee Interview Protocol

Information Provided
Grantee self-assessment of the following potential
topics: experiences with engaging in the feedback
process, most useful supports for building capacity,
what has worked well in engaging underserved
populations, accomplishments and challenges in
engaging underserved populations, program
commitment to equity, how grantees center arts
and cultural activities, and their role(s) in their arts
ecosystem.
Key topics explored during interviews will include
staffing, resources, challenges, community-based
relationships, and grantee experiences.

11

Final ArtsHERE Program Planner Interview Protocol

A3.

ArtsHERE planning group reflections on lessons
learned related to planning and implementation.

Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden

The NEA takes its responsibility to minimize burden on respondents very seriously and has designed this
project with that goal in mind. Wherever possible and appropriate, information technology will be used
to capture information and reduce burden relative to alternative methods of data collection.
Administration of most evaluation surveys will be web-based, utilizing email notification and Internetbased survey technologies creating efficiencies for survey administrators, allowing flexibility and
convenience for recipients, and ideally resulting in a user-friendly experience for respondents. Survey
respondents will receive an email notification inviting them to complete the appropriate survey
instrument by accessing a web-link to an online survey. Nearly all targeted respondents are expected to
be able to access the web-link or online surveys. We anticipate that these formats will provide the
lowest burden on the respondent.

A4.

Use of Existing Data: Efforts to reduce duplication, minimize burden, and increase utility and
government efficiency

Data collected for this study cannot be found anywhere else. The proposed instruments are intended to
uniformly collect data that will allow for the understanding of cross-cutting research questions posed by
the NEA. Project stakeholders, including the NEA, South Arts, M-AAA, the Technical Working Group
(TWG), and RAO representatives on the Evaluation Committee, have reviewed the research plan and
data collection instruments. The instruments have been revised to address potential overlap and reduce
collection frequency, and the timing of data collection activities will be closely coordinated to further
minimize burden.
A5.

Impact on Small Businesses

The study will be conducted primarily with grant recipients of nonprofit organizations. These grantees
will likely include smaller organizations. To minimize the burden on these organizations, the study will
be coordinated and administered by a contractor.
A6.

Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

To improve ArtsHERE services and supports to grantees, the NEA, South Arts, and RAOs need timely data
on the provision of learning opportunities and implementation of ArtsHERE, grantee experiences of
these services, the perceived benefits and challenges of participating in this initiative, and the lessons
learned from grantees as well as ArtsHERE planning group members. Less frequent data collection
would hinder the funder’s timely utilization of this information for service enhancement and decisionmaking.
A7.

Now subsumed under 2(b) above and 10 (below)

12

A8.

Consultation

Federal Register Notice and Comments
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), NEA published a 60day notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intention to request an OMB review of this
information collection activity. This notice was published on February 22, 2023, Volume 88, Number 35,
page 10940, and provided a 60-day period for public comment. During the notice and comment period,
no comments were received. Cognitive testing of the 7 instruments included in this PRA package was
conducted in February 2024, with 6 respondents for one set of instruments and 4 respondents for a
separate set; no single instrument had more than 6 testers.
On May 22, 2024, a 30-day Federal Register Notice was published in 89 FR 45031 Volume 89, Number
100, pages 45031-45032.
Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study
Numerous opportunities were provided for direct stakeholders to review the proposed instruments and
to contribute to their development throughout the evaluation design phase. The evaluation contractors
were responsive to stakeholders’ comments whenever possible and used their feedback in revising the
data collection instruments. In preparation of the OMB clearance package, instruments were pilot
tested with individuals who were knowledgeable of the topics and constructs addressed and who have
expertise and experience in the arts and cultural sector. Six testers reviewed one set of instruments (up
to 6 instruments), and four reviewed another set (1 instrument). Their diverse backgrounds
encompassed various roles such as artists, administrators, researchers, educators, and evaluators,
ensuring the perspectives of grantees and the technical assistance/learning opportunity providers are
reflected in the testing of the data collection instruments. Following stakeholder review and pilot
testing, revisions were made to instruments based on comments to improve clarity of instructions and
items and, in some cases, to shorten instruments. By incorporating the suggestions and
recommendations provided by the reviewers, the instruments were refined to better serve the needs of
stakeholders within the arts and cultural sector.
The evaluation contractor consulted with NEA program office staff, South Arts, RAOs, and TWG
members throughout the MEL plan development. These consultations focused on the study design,
study aims and questions, data collection protocol and instruments. A list of TWG members is provided
in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5. Outside Experts from the TWG Consulting on the Study
Name
Michelle Ramos, Ph.D.
Andy Arias
Jara Dean-Coffey
Asali DeVan Ecclesiastes
Lulani Arquette
Antonio C. Cuyler, Ph.D.
Brea Heidelberg, Ph.D.

Affiliation
Executive Director at Alternate ROOTS
Policy Advisor at the US DOL/Georgetown University Faculty
CEO and Founder jdcPARTNERSHIPS, Founder + Lead Facilitator, Luminare
Group and Founder + Director, Equitable Evaluation Initiative
Executive Director at Ashé Cultural Arts Center, Efforts of Grace
President/CEO, Native Arts and Cultures Foundation
University of Michigan/ Antonio Cuyler Consulting
Professor Drexel University/Consultant

13

A9.

Tokens of Appreciation

No tokens of appreciation are proposed for this information collection request.

A10.

Privacy: Procedures to protect privacy of information, while maximizing data sharing

Personally Identifiable Information
This effort does not request any personally identifiable information, or PII (per OMB Circular No. A-130).
Grant award numbers will be collected rather than individual names. Email addresses will be used to
administer and manage completion of the surveys, but email addresses will not be connected to survey
data files. Access to email addresses is restricted to only those evaluation contractors working on the
study.
Privacy Act of 1974
This collection does not request any personally identifiable information, and does not require a Privacy
Act Statement (per 5 U.S.C. §552a(e)(3)). As determined by an initial study review by WCG IRB (see
Attachment D), both the primary data collection and record review portions of the study including
recording of information “in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be
ascertained directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects, the investigator does not contact the
subjects, and the investigator will not re-identify subjects”.
Assurances of Privacy
Information collected will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. Respondents will be informed
of all planned uses of data, that their participation in all evaluation activities is voluntary, and that their
information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. As specified in the contract, the
evaluation contractors will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private
information. The evaluation contractors shall ensure that all their employees, subcontractors (at all
tiers), and employees of each subcontractor, who perform work under this contract/subcontract, are
trained on data privacy issues and comply with the above requirements.
Data Security and Monitoring
For evaluation materials, the evaluation contractor has an established firm-wide System Security Plan
that assesses all data security measures and monitoring procedures to ensure secure storage and
transmittal of information. This plan is updated at least annually.
Primary data collected for the ArtsHERE evaluation will be stored on a secure OneDrive site. Secondary
data will be stored on a secure SharePoint site. The contractor is a subscriber to the FedRAMP ATOholding Microsoft Online 365 Service with both Business and Enterprise licenses. The contractor
maintains multiple SharePoint and OneDrive sites to separate data between projects and access
requirements within those projects. In addition to operating with Microsoft best practices for security,
SharePoint and OneDrive will use the following additional controls that fall within the contractor’s

14

responsibilities for management. Additional documentation pertaining to the security of SharePoint and
OneDrive can be found within Microsoft’s approved FedRAMP package.
Two of the data collection instruments in this request (the Annual Progress Report and the Final
Descriptive Report) are grant reporting forms, and will be administered through the GO Smart platform.
GO Smart is the grant administration Software as a Service (SaaS) platform previously used for the
ArtsHERE statement of interest, application, and collection of additional supplemental materials. GO
Smart encrypts collected data in two ways. At rest, data stored in the GO Smart system is encrypted
using the industry standard AES-256 encryption algorithm. In transit, every connection between users
and GO Smart is encrypted using Transport Layer Security.
Access Controls
For evaluation data:
•

Contractor’s SharePoint and OneDrive requires users to authenticate using multi-factor
authentication for all users.

•

Contractor’s SharePoint and OneDrive uses role-based access permissions to limit access to
sensitive data and separate access based on assigned roles.

•

Only Administrators have access to modify the security policies, sharing permissions or rolebased access permissions. Permissions granted to a user account are based on the principle of
least privilege so that users are not afforded access to the system greater than their minimum
requirements.

•

Passwords used by user and administrative accounts require a minimum of 16 characters and
must be complex, meaning that they must contain at least one number, one capital letter, and
one symbol.

For grant reporting forms (Annual Progress Report and Final Descriptive Report):
•

Access to the GO Smart system and data is controlled by a robust access control system.
Administrators are only able to see data that belongs to their agency, pre-determined during the
creation of their administrative account.

•

Access to collected information is restricted to authorized individuals only; developers and
management teams of the SaaS platform, designated ArtsHERE grant administrators of the
participating RAOs, and the evaluation contractors. Applicant users are only able to access data
that belongs to their user account(s), created by them at the time of submitting the statement
of interest.

•

System access is logged and tracked for auditing purposes.

Remote Access
For evaluation data:
•

Contractor’s systems only permit users with a valid account access to the managed SharePoint
sites. Anonymous or sharing links are prohibited.

•

Contractor’s SharePoint Online is hosted on the FedRamp-approved Microsoft Office 365
SharePoint online service. Microsoft controls remote access to the SharePoint Platform.

15

Contractor’s controls user access into the contractor owned and operated sites. Security related
to the transmission to and from SharePoint online is documented in the Microsoft FedRamp
package available to the government at https://www.fedramp.gov.
For grant reporting forms (Annual Progress Report and Final Descriptive Report):
•

Administrator accounts are added to the system by GO Smart team members, according to
contractual permissions; in this case, approved by South Arts and each participating RAO or
partner (NEA, JBA, etc.) Administrators are only able to see data that belongs to their agency, in
this case USRAO, and each USRAO administrator can see applicant data for all six RAOs. Admin
have access to all features of the system by default, but in this case, all administrators, with the
exception of the cooperator agency admin, have restricted access only allowing them to see the
grant manager dashboard, the communication tools, and the report builders. Further
restrictions can be placed on a per-account basis.

•

Applicant accounts are created by individual applicants and access is restricted to users with
that account's username, password, and email account access. Applicant users are only able to
create and access data that belongs to their user accounts. USRAO Administrators can access
applicants' accounts via a tool on the admin portal and can view, modify, and submit forms on
behalf of the applicant.

A11.

Sensitive Information 3

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in this information collection. As determined by an initial
study review by WCG IRB (see Attachment D), “because the research only includes interactions involving
educational tests, survey procedures, interview procedures, or observations of public behavior; and any
disclosure of the human subjects’ responses outside the research would not reasonably place the
subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing,
employability, educational advancement, or reputation.”

A12.

Burden

Explanation of Burden Estimates
The total annual response burden for all instruments is estimated to be 1,093 hours for all new
information collection. Estimates for burden hours per instrument are derived from the cognitive testing
process. The total estimated burden is 1,394 hours. The estimated number of respondents is 210. The
estimated number of respondents is 210. A total of 100 review panelists will be invited to complete a
3

Examples of sensitive topics include (but not limited to): social security number; sex behavior and attitudes;
illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom
respondents have close relationships, e.g., family, pupil-teacher, employee-supervisor; mental and psychological
problems potentially embarrassing to respondents; religion and indicators of religion; community activities which
indicate political affiliation and attitudes; legally recognized privileged and analogous relationships, such as those
of lawyers, physicians and ministers; records describing how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First
Amendment; receipt of economic assistance from the government (e.g., unemployment or WIC or SNAP);
immigration/citizenship status.

16

one-time, voluntary Review Panelist Survey for evaluation purposes. All 95 grantees will be required to
complete the one-time Grantee Baseline Survey and the Grantee Learning Opportunities Quarterly
Survey (administrated 6 times total) for the evaluation. Additionally, all 95 grantees will be required to
complete the one-time Annual Progress Report and Final Descriptive Report for grant reporting
purposes. Fifteen ArtsHERE coaches and facilitators will be required to complete the Learning
Opportunities Tracker to document the support provided to 15 grantees on a monthly basis for 18
months (270 times total). Fifteen ArtsHERE planners representing the NEA, South Arts, and RAO
representatives will complete learning logs at key milestones of the initiative (seven times total). Exhibit
2 details mode, duration, and frequency by instrument, and Exhibit 6 details the estimates of response
burden by instrument.
Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents
The estimated annual cost to respondents is $44,469.10. To compute the total estimated annual cost for
the data collection instruments, the average hourly wage was calculated for review panelists, grantees
(nonprofit organizations), service providers, and ArtsHERE planners (the NEA, South Arts, and RAOs).
The average hourly wage for the Review Panelist Feedback Survey was determined according to
ArtsHERE guidelines for the panel review process. This guidance specifies that panelists can allocate up
to 60 hours for their review duties. Each panelist will receive a stipend ranging from $500 to $1000,
contingent upon their specific role in the process. Data from the 2023 Bureau of Labor Statistics’
Occupational Employment and Wages were used to determine mean hourly wages for the Grantee
Baseline Survey, Annual Progress Report, Learning Opportunities Tracker, Grantee Learning
Opportunities Quarterly Survey, and Final Descriptive Report. Costs were estimated based on the job
code 11-9151 (Social and Community Service Managers and Social Advocacy Organization). Nationally,
the hourly rate for social and community service managers and social advocacy organization staff is
$41.23. For the Learning Logs, the average hourly wage based on the 2023 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Costs were estimated based on the job code 11-9151
(Social and Community Service Managers- Grantmaking and Giving Services). Nationally, the hourly rate
for giving services staff was $48.37.

Exhibit 6. Estimated Annualized Burden and Costs to Respondents
Instrument

Review Panelist
Feedback
Survey
Grantee
Baseline Survey
Annual
Progress
Report
Grantee
Learning
Opportunities
Quarterly
Survey

No. of
Respondents
(total over
request
period)

No. of
Responses per
Respondent
(total over
request period)

Avg.
Burden per
Response
(in hours)

Total
Burden
(in
hours)

Annual
Burden
(in
hours)

Average
Hourly
Wage
Rate

Total
Annual
Respondent
Cost

100

1

.33

33

33

$16.70a

$551.10

95

1

.50

48

48

$41.23b

$1,979.04

95

1

2

190

190

$41.23b

$7,833.70

95

6

.25

143

95

$41.23b

$3,916.85

17

Learning
Opportunities
Tracker
Learning Logs
Final
Descriptive
Report
Total

15

270

.17

689

459

$41.23b

$18,924.57

15

7

.50

53

30

$48.37c

$1,451.10

95

1

2.5

238

238

$41.23b

$9,812.74

1,394

1,093

$44,469.10

a

Average hourly wage for review panelists is based on ArtsHERE guidance on the panel review process overview, which outlines that panelists
may devote up to 60 hours to their review, and each will be offered a stipend of between $500-$1000, depending on their role.
b
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, 11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers, Social Advocacy
Organizations industry rate May 2023. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119151.htm.
c
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, 11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers, Grantmaking and
Giving Services industry rate May 2023. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119151.htm.

A13.

Costs

There are no additional costs to respondents.

A14.

Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government

The estimated costs for the data collection for the study are noted in Exhibit 7. The estimates include
the loaded costs and fees of study team staff time on instrument development, piloting, and OMB
clearance; obtaining IRB approval; data collection; analysis; and report writing and dissemination. As
applicable, the estimates also include other direct costs associated with these activities, such as costs for
survey administration software, conference calls, recording and transcription services, and qualitative
and quantitative software packages. The request is for 3 years of approval. If needed, a request for an
extension will be submitted to complete data collection.
The total annual cost to the federal government for all activities associated with this collection is
$73,860.41. Instrument development costs are based on the evaluation contractor’s line-item budget
for instrument development, which included a total of $18,537.70 for direct staff labor for developing
instruments across the span of the ArtsHERE initiative. Half of these costs ($9,268.85) have been
apportioned for this OMB submission for the seven instruments under review. The other half will be
reflected in the second OMB package to be submitted in Year 2 of the project. Similarly, the contractor’s
line-item budget included $40,537.56 for obtaining OMB and IRB approval. Half of these costs
($20,268.78) have been apportioned for this OMB submission and the other half will be reflected in the
second OMB package submitted in Year 2. Seventy-five percent of the labor costs for these activities
were then apportioned to obtaining OMB approval ($15,201.59) due to the overlapping nature of the
tasks. This left $5,067.20 for developing materials to obtain IRB approval, including WCG IRB initial study
review costs ($1,791). Data collection and survey administration costs ($21,894.06) were calculated
based on an estimate of 186 labor hours over 18 months for managing data collected in the instruments
included in this review. Data analysis and reporting costs ($39,315.14) are based on an estimate of 334
labor hours over 18 months. Dissemination and feedback costs ($56,973.98) are based on an estimate of
246 labor hours for preparing materials to present findings on the instruments included in this review
over 24 months. To calculate the annual costs, the estimated expenses for all tasks were added together
and divided by the two years of the evaluation activities in order to calculate the total annual cost.
18

Exhibit 7. Estimated Costs to the Federal Government
Cost Category
Instrument Development
Obtaining OMB Approval
Obtaining IRB Approval
Data Collection and Survey Administration
Data Analysis and Reporting
Dissemination and Feedback Loops with Stakeholders
Total costs over the request period
Annual costs

A15.

Estimated Costs
$9,268.85
$15,201.59
$5,067.20
$21,894.06
$39,315.14
$56,973.98
$147,720.82
$73,860.41

Reasons for changes in burden

This is a new information collection request.
A16.

Timeline

Data collection will take place following Institutional Review Board (IRB) and OMB approval, beginning
with Learning Logs with ArtsHERE planners on or after May 2024. Preliminary analysis of review panelist
and grantee data will begin during or immediately after ArtsHERE awards are granted with the
administration of the Review Panelist Survey (September 2024) and the Grantee Baseline Survey
(October 2024), respectively. Final data collection are expected to end in September 2026 upon grantee
submission of Final Descriptive Reports.
Internal reporting will be ongoing through monthly and quarterly meetings and briefings. NEA
evaluation contractors will also complete annual evaluation reports to summarize MEL plan lessons
learned. These reports are intended for internal ArtsHERE planning group and NEA leadership use, but
may be shared with the TWG and relevant stakeholders and will inform the development of toolkits and
other materials shared with the arts sector. The contractor will prepare a final evaluation report that
synthesizes analysis and findings, including lessons from this initiative that might be applied to other
NEA programs and initiatives that can be used to inform other public arts funders. The report is
expected to incorporate case studies, resources, and tools that capture and facilitate best practices for
various types of arts and cultural organizations seeking to engage more effectively with underserved
groups/communities.
Data collected do not lend themselves to secondary analysis, and there are no plans for datasets to be
shared publicly. Exhibit 8 presents the timeline for data collection, feedback loops, and reporting for the
study during the ArtsHERE program implementation.

19

Exhibit 8. Timeline

A17.

Exceptions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

Table of Attachments
Attachment A: Instruments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Instrument 1: Review Panelist Survey
Instrument 2: Grantee Baseline Survey
Instrument 3: Annual Progress Report
Instrument 4: Grantee Learning Opportunities Quarterly Survey
Instrument 5: Learning Opportunities Tracker
Instrument 6: Learning Logs
Instrument 7: Final Descriptive Report

Attachment B: Email Invitation and Reminder Language
•
•
•
•
•

Template 1: Review Panelist Survey Email Template
Template 2: Grantee Baseline Survey Email Template
Template 3: Grantee Learning Opportunities Quarterly Survey Email Template
Template 4: Learning Opportunities Tracker Email Template
Template 5: Learning Logs Email Template

20

Attachment C: Cognitive Testing Report
Attachment D: IRB Determination Letter
Attachment E: MEL Plan

21