Resubmission Memo

TO: Cortney Higgins, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

FROM: Samantha Illangasekare, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

DATE: October 16, 2017

SUBJECT: Data collection clearance package for Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship programs (RIViR)

Background on RIViR Clearance Package

To support the safety of their participants, federally funded healthy relationship programs often provide screening or other opportunities for participants to disclose intimate partner violence (IPV) or teen dating violence (TDV), but the effectiveness of these practices is unknown. The Responding to Intimate Violence in Relationship programs (RIViR) was funded to assess the psychometric properties and compare the effectiveness of screening and other opportunities for IPV/TDV disclosure in healthy relationship program settings.

In November 2016, OPRE submitted a new information collection request for the RIViR study. We received passback from OMB in April 2017, including clarifying questions and comments regarding the proposed incentives. OPRE delayed submission of a revised package due to the need for additional coordination with ACF program offices regarding our study instruments, the result of which would require changes to the final proposed instruments. In light of this delay, OMB requested that the revised package be withdrawn and provided as a new submission. The changes to the proposed instruments still fall within the constructs described and within the burden estimates provided in the initial information collection request (ICR). Therefore, OMB advised that a 30-day Federal Register Notice related to this re-submission is not necessary.

Changes Since Original Submission

This submission has been revised to respond to OMB’s questions and feedback, and to incorporate changes made by OPRE to planned study instruments and forms since the original submission. None of these changes affect the burden estimates included in the Federal Register Notices or in the original ICR submission. An overview of these changes is provided below.

Responses to OMB’s Questions and Feedback

In response to OMB’s questions and feedback received in April 2017 on our November 2016 submission, we have:

• Substantially decreased the participant incentives for the study. The new incentive amounts are described in Supporting Statement A with additional justification (pp. A-16 to A-20), reflected in Supporting Statement B (p. B-7), and updated in all participant-facing materials (Attachments A and B).

• Provided additional information on sites’ reporting obligations (p. A-4)

• Corrected the reference to a table with the data collection timeline (p. A-5)

• Added a detailed explanation of site selection criteria (pp. A-7 to A-8)

• Explained difference between program and study permission processes (p. A-8)

• Explained need for randomization of study instruments (p. A-8 to A-9)

• Revised text on data collection procedures to clarify that each study participant will complete a maximum of three instruments over the course of study participation (p. A-9)

• Explained use of OMB-reviewed locator information form to support case selection for non-OMB-reviewed qualitative interviews (to be conducted with fewer than 10 youth and adult participants) (p. A-10).

• Updated Table A.2 to reflect new content of post-screener questions (p. A-10)

OPRE-Initiated Changes to Instruments and Forms

Based on OPRE-initiated changes to study instruments and forms, we have:

• Replaced one of the screeners for youth with a much shorter instrument (Updated Instrument 2.1 and explained on pp. A-13, A-14, and A-15). Instrument citations have also been added or updated (p. B-8 and Attachment D.1).

• Developed a brief, supplemental module (added to Attachment C.1 and explained on pp. A-6, A-9, A-11, A-12) that will appear at the end of the third screening instrument to collect feedback about the participants’ experiences with the screeners and the program staff. An explanation of how these items will be used to address study aims has also been added (pp. B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-6).

• Prepared Spanish translations of the parent permission form (Attachment B.3s) and script (Attachment B.4s).

• Added clarifications to interviewer instructions and a field to indicate if the respondent declined to provide a given form of contact in the locator form (Attachment C.2).

• Added the following additional information to the parent contact information form: “Participation in the feedback interview is voluntary” and “You do not have to complete this form for your child to participate in the study” (Attachment C.3).

• Made minor instrument revisions in the process of preparing programming specifications for tablet-based administration (tracked in Instruments 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3).

Updates to Study Timeline and Leadership

This submission reflects a transition in leadership to Samantha Illangasekare as the sole technical project officer for OPRE (p. B-9).

It also incorporates an updated study timeline to reflect the delay (p. A-26). This updated study timeline reflects our understanding from OMB that:

(1) A new Federal Register Notice will not be required, and

(2) Consideration of this package by OMB as a new submission will require the same calendar time as if OPRE were to provide it as a non-substantive change to our previously reviewed submission.

(Due to scheduling constraints associated with the school-based information collection sites, deviations from these assumptions could heavily impact the overall study timeline and cost.)

2