C_FE Supporting Statement A - Final 2.21.19

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks approval for data collection activities for a study that will examine the perspectives and lived experiences of children and families living in poverty. ACF seeks OMB approval for four data collection instruments that will be used as part of the site selection process and field interviews:

Phone Screener for Prospective Families (Appendix A)
Adult Interview Guide (Appendix B)
Adolescent Interview Guide (Ages 12-17) (Appendix C)
Child Interview Guide (Ages 7-11) (Appendix D)

The proposed data collection activities will collect qualitative data about how children describe their lives materially; what children understand about their families’ economic circumstances; what children know about any public benefits that their families receive or do not receive; how children feel about any public benefits that their families receive or do not receive; how children interact with public assistance offices and workers; what the most salient aspects of families’ interactions with public assistance offices are; and how parents perceive their economic circumstances and/or benefit receipt as impacting their family and children. This justification provides supporting statements for each of the eighteen points outlined in Part A of the OMB guidelines.

A.1.1 Study Background

The Childhood and Family Experiences (C&FE) study is sponsored by the ACF’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation within HHS. The study seeks to increase researchers’ and policymakers’ understanding of how children and families living in poverty, including parents who receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other safety net benefits, perceive their situations.

A large body of research spanning decades has reflected a range of psychological, educational, health, and other serious and sometimes long-term impacts associated with severe economic disadvantage in childhood. While there is a growing literature on the experiences of adults in conditions of severe deprivation, less work has looked at how low-income children of various ages experience, perceive, and view the day-to-day circumstances of living in poverty. In particular, relatively little attention has been paid to how children describe what it is like to be poor, their thoughts and feelings about their economic status, and the roles that they see benefit programs in general, and TANF in particular, play in their lives. Further research on children’s experiences is important to inform programs and make them as responsive as possible to children’s needs.

A.1.2 Legal or Administrative Requirements that Necessitate the Collection

There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. ACF is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency.

A.2 Purpose of Survey and Data Collection Procedures

A.2.1 Overview of Purpose and Approach

The C&FE study is designed to add a more holistic understanding of children and families’ experiences living in poverty within and outside of the programmatic sphere in order to inform future directions for the field. Moreover, the study reflects ACF’s interest in demonstrating viable approaches for systematically collecting qualitative data from children living in poverty and accessing families who are and are not receiving benefits in order to improve how human services programs can help families achieve self-sufficiency while still providing a safety net, and to make these programs as responsive as possible to children’s needs.

The proposed data collection activities include interviewing 30 families total in three cities or communities. Each interview unit will be made up of one to two parents/guardians and one or two children, yielding a total sample of approximately 45 adults and approximately 50 children (about 20 adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 and 30 children between the ages of 7 and 11).

These interviews will inform our understanding of the challenges faced by families living in poverty. Although ACF is the primary beneficiary of the proposed data collection effort, other federal agencies, researchers, policymakers, program operators, and practitioners will also benefit from more detailed accounts of children and families’ experiences in poverty. ACF will use this information in order to improve their understanding of how human services programs help families achieve self-sufficiency

A.2.2 Research Questions

A considerable research base documents the causes, correlates, and outcomes of living in poverty in the United States.¹ Much less is known, however, about the personal views, experiences, and expectations of children and families who live in poverty. This study seeks to help fill this knowledge gap through four primary research questions:

What do children understand about their families’ economic circumstances?
How do families talk about public assistance benefits such as TANF?
How do parents perceive their economic circumstances and/or benefit receipt as affecting their family and children?
How do parents and their families interact with public assistance offices and workers? If children interact with these offices, what is it like for them?

The first three questions emphasize internal family understandings and perceptions regarding the family’s economic circumstances and benefit receipt (or lack of benefit receipt). While ethnographies and case study qualitative research have provided important insights into how adults in poverty manage the uncertainties and barriers that they face,² there is much less research about children’s understandings of their economic situations and about how parents and children discuss these matters.³ The fourth research question considers the family’s interactions with public assistance offices and workers. While some research has examined adults’ interactions with public assistance officers, the perceptions of children about these interactions have received much less research attention.⁴

A.2.3 Study Design

The study comprises one round of in-person interviews with 30 families across three sites. When study staff arrange an interview time and location, they will ask the parent to suggest an interview location that would be free from too many other distractions. This may include in the families’ homes or in an alternate location. The study team will provide interviewers with guidelines about how to balance children’s safety and privacy. This will include leaving the door of the interview room open, facing children away from the family during the interview or setting up a pop-up interview space that allows parents to see the child but gives the child a sense of privacy, and taking breaks in the interview when interruptions occur or when privacy may be at risk. Should the interview take place in any setting outside the home it will be set up in a similar way so the parent/legal guardian will be able to see the child, but not be able to hear details of what the child is saying.

The qualitative study design will result in a description of how families and children living in poverty perceive their situation. With 30 families in the interview sample, the research team expects to interview a total of roughly 95 people: 50 children and adolescents and up to 45 adults. This amount of respondents will provide a diverse, but not representative, sample. The sites will be purposefully selected for interviews. They will vary by state policy, welfare policies and benefit levels, economic conditions, geographic region, and urban/rural area. One limitation of the qualitative study design and small sample size is that results may be difficult to generalize beyond the parents and children interviewed. The study design aims to collect a consistent set of information (from the interview guides) that allows the research team to provide insight into the core study questions while obtaining varied information from participants that adds depth to the interview beyond what might be collected in a closed-ended response instrument. For further discussion of the study design and procedures, see A.16.1 and Supporting Statement B.

A.2.4 Universe of Data Collection Efforts

Exhibit A-1 below provides examples of questions in each data collection instrument that will help answer the research questions:

Data Collection Instrument	Research Question	Examples of Instrument Questions
Phone Screener for Prospective Families (Appendix A)	RQ1	Do you think your children would want to talk with us?
Phone Screener for Prospective Families (Appendix A)	RQ2	Are you willing to talk about your household’s economic situation and any public benefits you may get?
Adult Interview Guide (Appendix B)	RQ1	How do you think your children feel about their economic circumstances?
	RQ2	What do you tell your children about money or your family’s financial issues?
	RQ3	In general, what do you think about public benefit programs? How do you think public benefit programs impact children in particular?
	RQ4	What was your experience like with staff who handled your application at the [TANF, local program] office? Have you ever taken your child or children with you for appointments at the [TANF, local program] office? How did the office react? How did your child react? Was there childcare or books/games?
Adolescent Interview Guide (Ages 12-17) (Appendix C)	RQ1	For this next question, I want you to imagine that this ladder [point to picture of ladder on page] pictures how American society is set up. At the top are people that have the most money and at the bottom are the people who have the least money. Now, think about your family. Where do you think they would be on this ladder? How do you feel about your family using [fill in with appropriate public assistance program]?
	RQ2	Do you ever talk with [caregiver] about how much money your family has?
	RQ4	Have you ever visited the [fill in with appropriate public assistance program] office with your primary caregiver? Tell me about your visit.
Child Interview Guide (Ages 7—11) (Appendix D)	RQ1	Children sometimes ask their parents or someone else in their family to buy or pay for something they need, like supplies for school, to go on a school field trip, or to participate in sports or another activity. When you ask your [primary caregiver] to buy something you need, does your [primary caregiver] usually get it for you? Do you think your [primary caregiver] worries about how much money your family has?
Child Interview Guide (Ages 7—11) (Appendix D)	RQ4	Have you ever visited the [fill in with appropriate public assistance program] office with your primary caregiver? Tell me about your visit.

A.3 Improved Information Technology to Reduce Burden

The information from site visits will be collected through semi-structured interviews that are not conducive to information technology, such as computerized interviewing. However, the research team will record these discussions with permission, in addition to taking written notes. Audio recording will be used to facilitate interviewer-participant dialogue without extensive note-taking and laptop note-taking during interviews in order to increase accuracy of documentation of all points raised during the discussions.

A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication

The data that the study team collects using the proposed instruments are not currently available through any outside sources. OPRE has done previous work examining the experiences of adults in poverty.⁵ However, the focus of the C&FE study data collection activities on the lived experiences of children in poverty is not currently available through other sources. In addition, all interview guides have been developed using guidance from the qualitative methodology interviewing literature and expert consultations in order to maximize the content the study team is able to gather through individual questions and to avoid asking multiple questions to collect the same information.

A.5 Involvement of Small Organizations

The primary organizations involved in this study are state agencies and community-based organizations that provide services to children and families living in poverty. The research team will conduct individualized introductory calls with each site to introduce the study and determine site capacity. Because we anticipate needing to screen up to 40 families per site to complete interviews with 10 families in each site, we will reach out to organizations that have strong relationships with their clients and/or have access to a large number of families. Prior to starting the family recruitment process, we will get input from site staff about the level of involvement they would prefer to have in the recruitment process, focusing on minimizing burden to staff, and ask site staff for their input about the best ways to communicate with families. We anticipate a low recruitment burden on small organizations, because close relationships with families will enable staff to identify families most likely to be interested in participating in the study. The research team will minimize burden for these entities, including those that could be considered to be small organizations, by providing clear guidance on recruitment goals and procedures, by requesting only the information required to achieve the study’s objectives, and by offering opportunities for regular communication to gauge level of burden.

We anticipate no adverse impact for any organizations participating in the study.

A.6 Consequences of Less Frequent Data Collection

This is a one-time request for information.

A.7 Special Circumstances

There are no special circumstances for the proposed data collection efforts.

A8. Federal Register Notice and Consultation

A.8.1 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), ACF published a 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 January 22, 2018 , Volume 83, Number 14, page 2996, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is attached as Attachment 1. During the notice and comment period, one comment was received. Meghan Maury, Policy Director at the National LGBTQ Task Force, requested a copy of the C&FE study instruments. ACF provided Ms. Maury with the instruments and she responded, “I got a chance to look it over, and the study looks phenomenal. Appreciate the opportunity to read it through, and thank you for the work you do!”

A.8.2 Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

The study team conducted phone consultations with researchers, policymakers, and program operators who have a range of expertise in family and childhood survey and interview methodology and question development, as well as in childhood deprivation. These experts helped ensure age-appropriate data collection methods for interviews with children. The recommendations received from experts helped shape the final data collection instruments. The following outside experts contributed to the study design:

Outside Expert	Affiliation	Contact Information
Rashmita Mistry	UCLA	Moore Hall 3302A, 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90095 mistry@gseis.ucla.edu; 310-825-6569
Sisifo Taatiti	Utah Department of Workforce Services	140 E 300 S Salt Lake City, UT 84111 staatiti@utah.gov; 801-526-4370
Yolanda Padilla	University of Texas-Austin	The University of Austin School of Social Work ypadilla@cswe.org; 512-471-6266
Kristin S. Seefeldt	University of Michigan	1080 S University Ann Arbor, MI 48109 kseef@umich.edu
Robert Walker	University of Oxford	University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 Wellington Sq Oxford, OX1 2ER Robert.walker@spi.ox.ac.uk; 01865 270347
Mary Dozier	University of Delaware	University of Delaware, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences mdozier@psych.udel.edu
Stacia Gilliard-Matthews	Rutgers University	Rutgers University, Sociology, Anthropology, & Criminal Justice Sg798@camden.rutgers.edu
Carla Horwitz	Yale University	Yale School of Medicine, Child Study Center Carla.horowitz@yale.edu

A.9 Incentives for Respondents

A primary contribution of our study will be the collection of multiple family members’ perspectives on living in poverty, including adolescents and younger children typically not included in such work. This study design requires that, in addition to being interviewed themselves, focal adults coordinate and facilitate the participation of their children in the study. We propose providing adults who agree to be interviewed with a $40 gift card, intended to help offset direct costs incurred by participating in the study, including transportation and child care. We propose that adolescents between the ages of 12 and 17 would receive a $25 gift card, and children between the ages of 7 and 11 would pick small gifts from a container containing small toys, books, colored pencils, and notebooks (valued at up to approximately $10).

The goal of this data collection is to capture a wide variety of economically-vulnerable families’ experiences. These data are not intended to be representative in a statistical sense; findings will not allow us to infer the prevalence of themes in the population low income US families. However, by striving to include participants with a range of salient demographic characteristics—including those in deepest poverty—we aim to capture a variety of participant experiences with program services. Future research with more representative methods (such as surveys) could then be used to examine the relative frequency of these experiences in the full population. Without offsetting the direct costs incurred by respondents participating in the data collection, the research team increases the risk of reaching only those individuals able to overcome financial barriers to participate on their own. Individuals who are less able to attend without support to offset their costs may have distinct perspectives on and experiences with poverty that would otherwise not be captured in our data collection. This would harm the quality of insights drawn from the study and its potential to meaningfully inform future research.

We expect that the provision of incentives will help with the recruitment of respondents, and to encourage them to participate in multiple interviews once they have been selected. Previous studies have shown incentives’ effectiveness in increasing response rates among low-income⁶ and low-education⁷ households, demographics of concern in this study. Given the study plans to interview adults for an hour and a half, adolescents for forty-five minutes to an hour, and children for half an hour, $40, $25, and small gifts are reasonable incentives, respectively to encourage participation in the study among those in the deepest poverty and with the lowest levels of education, allowing us to capture the perspectives of those with and without significant barriers to participation in research.

A.10 Privacy of Respondents

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 is voluntary, and that their information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. Additionally, we will share findings with participants in an accessible format.

The research team will obtain informed consent forms from all adults interviewed and informed assent forms for their children who are interviewed. Minor children (determined by the legal age of majority in each state) cannot provide consent, only assent to be interviewed.⁸ This informed consent and assent will ensure that participants understand the nature of the research and evaluation activities being conducted. The consent and assent forms for the adults, adolescents, and children are included in Appendices E-I. Language excerpted from the adult informed consent form (Appendix I) is listed below:

The interview is voluntary. If you decide not to participate, it will not affect any benefits or services you receive now or may receive in the future. It is possible that some questions may be stressful or upsetting. You can to skip any question or stop the interview if you or your children are upset by the questions asked. If you stop the interview, you will still receive the gift card.

Any information that could identify you will be protected. The researchers will not share your name with anyone. They won’t share any other information that could help to identify you with others. For example they wouldn’t share your date of birth or address. The information will be protected with a password. Only the research team will have access to this information. They will only use that information when they need to use it. The study has a Certificate of Confidentiality from the U.S. government. This certificate says that we do not have to identify you, even under a court order or subpoena. However, please keep in mind: we will keep your information private to the extent permitted by law. For example, if you or your child tells us that you intend to harm yourself or someone else we will have to tell the local authorities. Also, if your child tells us that he or she is being abused or neglected we will have to report that to the local authorities.

We may use what you say during the interview in our reports. But we won’t include your name or information that may identify you. Notes prepared from the interview will not include any information that would identify you, such as your name or where you live. The interviewers’ notes are for the research team’s use only. The notes will be stored securely. When the study is complete the notes will be destroyed.

This language, along with all interview guides, were approved by the Institutional Review Board at MDRC on July 9^th, 2018.

Due to the sensitive nature of this research (see A.11 for more information), the evaluation team has obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality, included in Appendix K. The Certificate of Confidentiality helps to assure participants that their information will be kept private to the fullest extent permitted by the law.

As specified in the contract, the research team shall protect respondent privacy to the extent permitted by law and will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information. The research team has developed a Data Safety and Monitoring Plan that assesses all protections of respondents’ personally identifiable information. The Contractor shall ensure that all of its 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. Our consultants will be asked to sign a privacy agreement in which they agree that the data is used for no other purpose than the research and that all information that is collected is kept private to the extent permitted by law.

As specified in the evaluator’s contract, the research team shall use Federal Information Processing Standard (currently, FIPS 140-2) compliant encryption (Security Requirements for Cryptographic Module, as amended) to protect all instances of sensitive information during storage and transmission. The research team shall securely generate and manage encryption keys to prevent unauthorized decryption of information, in accordance with the Federal Information Processing Standard. The research team shall: ensure that this standard is incorporated into the research team’s property management/control system; establish a procedure to account for all laptop computers, desktop computers, and other mobile devices and portable media that store or process sensitive information. Any data stored electronically will be secured in accordance with the most current National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements and other applicable Federal and Departmental regulations. In addition, the research team must submit a plan for minimizing to the extent possible the inclusion of sensitive information on paper records and for the protection of any paper records, field notes, or other documents that contain sensitive or personally identifiable information that ensures secure storage and limits on access.

Information will not be maintained in a paper or electronic system from which they are actually or directly retrieved by an individuals’ personal identifier.

A.11 Sensitive Questions

The interview guides include items addressing household income and finances, conversations parents have with their children about finances, parents’ experiences receiving public benefits, adolescents’ understanding of their family’s economic circumstances, how adolescents feel about receiving public benefits, what children understand of their family’s economic circumstances, how children communicate with their parents about their economic circumstances, and how children feel about receiving public benefits.

These questions are necessary to understand respondents’ experiences living in poverty. Interviewers will inform respondents that participation in the interview is voluntary, and they are free to skip any question or stop the interview. The interviewers will also inform them that stopping the interview will not preclude them from receiving the gift card or toy and that participation will not affect any benefits or services they may receive now or in the future.

A.12 Estimation of Information Collection Burden

A.12.1 Burden Hours

Exhibit 2 presents the burden on study participants completing the instruments included in this data collection request. The estimated annual burden is 161 hours.

A.12.2 Total Annual Cost

Exhibit A-2 also presents the total annual cost. We estimated the total annual cost by multiplying the total burden hours by the average hourly wage for participants using the federal minimum wage for the Adult Interview Guide and Phone Screener for Prospective Families.

We assumed no cost for adolescent or child participants.

Exhibit A-2: Estimated Annual Response Burden and Annual Cost

Instrument	Total/Annual Number of Respondents	Number of Responses Per Respondent	Average Burden Hours Per Response	Annual Burden Hours	Average Hourly Wage	Total Annual Cost
Phone Screener for Prospective Families	120	1	.50	60	$7.25	$435
Adult Interview Guide	45	1	1.5	68	$7.25	$489.38
Adolescent Interview Guide (Ages 12-17)	20	1	.875	18	n/a	n/a
Child Interview Guide (Ages 7-11)	30	1	.50	15	n/a	n/a

Estimated Annual Burden Total				161		$924.38

A.13 Cost Burden to Respondents or Record Keepers

There are no additional costs to respondents.

A.14 Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government

The total cost for the data collection activities under this current request will be $704,624 shown in Exhibit A-3.

Exhibit A-3: Estimate of Cost to the Federal Government

Cost Category	Estimate
Instrument Development and OMB Clearance	$166,801
Field Work	$354,360
Publications/Dissemination	$183,463
Total	$704,624

A.15 Change in Burden

This is a new collection.

A.16 Plan and Time Schedule for Information Collection, Tabulation and Publication

A.16.1 Analysis Plan

We will use a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning to develop codes. We will examine the data in an integrative manner, looking for evidence of emergent themes across interviews and by possible subgroups (for example, older versus younger children; by site). Adult and child/adolescent interviews will be reviewed individually to assess the prevalence of common or salient themes that permeate across families and interviewees. We will also look at sets of household interviews to uncover themes across households. For instance, we will be examining if there are patterns associated with household composition (e.g. Do single-headed households experience poverty in ways that are qualitatively different from two-headed households? Do households with younger children have qualitatively different experiences making ends meet?).

Empirical generalizations to the population of families in deep poverty in the U.S. will not be possible. However, the project will aim to build theory and generate hypotheses by assessing the frequency of certain themes across the corpus of data, which will allow us to draw some broad conclusions about low-income families’ communication about their economic circumstances and how children and adolescents make sense of their social and economic worlds.

All interviews will be transcribed. Those conducted in Spanish will be transcribed in Spanish and then translated into English. Using corporate guidelines from MDRC’s internal Implementation Research Group and Diversity Council, we will use a translation company to translate the Spanish transcripts. We will use a firm that we have used in the past or that has experience doing translations specific to social policy issues and the population we are interviewing. Additionally, we will confirm their quality assurance process and qualifications of the translator and reserve the right to review the final translation. To gain an understanding of adults’, children’s, and adolescents’ experiences of poverty, the data will be coded in an iterative process, using software specifically designed for working with qualitative interview data (Dedoose). Initial coding will be used to break down the interview data into smaller parts, organized around the study’s guiding research questions.⁹

Next, for each research question, a pattern coding method will be used to categorize data into more meaningful, larger categories that will afford more parsimonious unit(s) for analysis purposes.

During the initial thematic code development phase, research team members will read random subsets of interview responses (approximately 20 to 25 percent) – based on the subset of interview questions that inform each research question – and develop an exhaustive set of categories. Team members will discuss the emerging categories, look for confirming and disconfirming evidence, and articulate working definitions for them. This process will be repeated, drawing on additional random subsets of interview responses until no additional codes are identified. The exhaustive list of categories will then be aggregated into a more parsimonious set of summary categories based on team input.

As a final step, a subset of the research team will review all of the interviews pertaining to a topic / research question and independently code the data using meaningful “chunks” of text that relate to the same theme; disagreements will be resolved by consensus and in collaboration with the project supervisors.

In coding of the data and identification of themes and categories, we will pay particular attention to comparisons among households that have different compositions (for example, households with younger/older children, single parent homes/two parent homes/extended families), and contextual circumstances (for example, geographic location) that might shape the lives of households living in poverty and their understanding of their circumstances.

A.16.2 Time Schedule and Publications

Exhibit A-4

Data Collection or Publication Activity	Timing*
Phone Screener	Spring 2019
Site Visits and Interviews	Spring 2019 – Summer 2019
Special Topics Briefs	2019 - 2021
Final Report	2021

*Exact timing is dependent on OMB approval of proposed information collection.

A.17 Reasons Not to Display OMB Expiration Date

All instruments will display the expiration date for OMB approval.

A.18 Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

1 Duncan, Greg J. and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn (eds). 1999. Consequences of Growing up Poor (New York: Russell Sage Foundation); Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, and Greg J. Duncan (1997). “The Effects of Poverty on Children,” The Future of Children 7(2): 55-71; Duncan, Greg J., Katherine Magnuson, and Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal (2015). “Children and Socioeconomic Status.” Pages 534-573 in Marc H. Bornstein, Tama Leventhal, and Richard M. Lerner (eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, vol. 4: Ecological Settings and Processes. New York: Wiley

2 For example, Edin, Kathryn J. and H. Luke Shaefer (2015). $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt); Deluca, Stefanie, Susan Clampet-Lundquist, and Kathryn Edin (2016). Coming of Age in the Other America (New York: Russell Sage Foundation); Sandstrom, Heather, Kristin Seefeldt, Sandra Huerta, and Pamela Loprest. (2014). Understanding the Dynamics of Disconnection from Employment and Assistance, OPRE Report #2014-42, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

3 Quint, Janet, Katherine M. Griffin, Jennie Kaufman, and Patrick Landers, with Annie Utterback (2018). Experiences of Parents and Children Living in Poverty: A Review of the Qualitative Literature. OPRE Report 2018-30. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

4 For example, Soss, Joe (2000). Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the U.S. Welfare System (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press); Brodkin, Evelyn Z., and Malay Majmundar (2010). “Administrative Exclusion: Organizations and the Hidden Costs of Welfare Claiming, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 4(1): 827-848;

5 Sandstrom, Heather, Kristin Seefeldt, Sandra Huerta, and Pamela Loprest. (2014). Understanding the Dynamics of Disconnection from Employment and Assistance, OPRE Report #2014-42, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services.

6 Singer, Eleanor and Richard A. Kulka. (2002). “Paying Respondents for Survey Participation.” Studies of Welfare Populations: Data collection and Research Issues. Panel on Data and Methods for Measuring the Effects of Changes in Social Welfare Programs, edited by Michele Ver Ploeg, Robert A. Moffitt, and Constance F. Citro. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

7 Berlin, Martha, Leyla Mohadjer, Joseph Waksberg, Andrew Kolstad, Irwin Kirsch, D. Rock, and Kentaro Yammoto. (1992). An experiment in monetary incentives. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.

8 The age of majority in all but two states is 18 years; in Alabama and Nebraska, the age of majority is 19.

9 Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Supporting Statements for OMB Clearance Request Part A | 10

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-20

C_FE Supporting Statement A - Final 2.21.19