Supporting Statement A CHaRMED 4.30.2020_CLEAN

Alternative Supporting Statement for Information Collections Designed for

Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes

Coparenting and Healthy Relationship and Marriage Education for Dads (CHaRMED)

OMB Information Collection Request

0970-0540

Supporting Statement

Part A

December 2019

Revised April 2020

Submitted By:

Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE)

Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

4^th Floor, Mary E. Switzer Building

330 C Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20201

Project Officer:

Nicole Constance, ACF/OPRE

Part A

Executive Summary

• Type of Request: Nonsubstantive, minor changes, described in the accompanying memo, to the OMB package approved on February 3, 2020 are included in this package for approval.

• Description of Study: The purpose of the Coparenting and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education for Dads (CHaRMED) study is to better understand the services that federal and non-federal fatherhood programs provide in the areas of Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) and coparenting to learn what strategies hold promise for promoting fathers’ active engagement in these services. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has contracted with Child Trends, who will lead this work by conducting semi-structured interviews with fatherhood program staff, community partners, fathers, coparents, and curriculum developers. The data collected will be drawn from a sample of federally-funded Responsible Fatherhood (RF) grantees and non-RF fatherhood programs. The findings are meant to inform efforts to promote healthy romantic relationships and coparenting among the broad (federal and non-federal) field of fatherhood programming. The data collection is not intended to produce statistically generalizable results. We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.

• Description of Request: ACF is requesting several minor changes to the package through this request. First, data collection for this study began in March 2020 just as many states and local jurisdictions were beginning to implement social distancing guidance to contain the spread of COVID-19. As a result, ACF seeks to modify several components of the CHaRMED study’s design to allow for remote data collection and procedures, as well as to include new questions in interview protocols related to how COVID-19 may be affecting fathers, coparents, and the programs that serve them. Additional modifications requested include the addition of new consent forms to allow for the inclusion of fathers recently released from prison in the study sample, and minor edits to existing data collection instruments to improve question clarity based on feedback from interview staff training and initial program staff interviews completed in March and early April.

• Time Sensitivity: We are requesting approval as soon as possible. Enrolled fatherhood programs are beginning to notify fathers and coparents about the CHaRMED study, therefore, the team would like to move forward with conducting remote interviews using the revised instruments while their interest is piqued. Additionally, the CHaRMED team would like to be able to collect information on changes in programming due to social distance policies as soon as possible when these changes and their implications are still recent.

A1. Necessity for Collection

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate this collection. ACF is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency. ACF seeks approval for information collection (IC) activities as part of their effort to better understand the services that fatherhood programs are providing to support fathers’ healthy romantic and relationships.

Coparenting relationships refer to fathers’ relationships with the mother(s) of their children or others that play a significant role in helping to parent or raise their children. Romantic relationships refer to fathers’ relationships with people they are dating, committed to, or married to, whether they are having sex or not. Although romantic relationship and coparenting services are commonly offered among both federally-funded and non-federally funded fatherhood programs, recent federal evaluations have found that these services are not highly attended by program participants (Avellar, Covington, Moore, Patnaik, & Wu, 2018). To date, it is unclear whether fathers use healthy romantic and coparenting relationship services less than other services because they lack interest (or have more salient needs) and/or because the services they receive are insufficient. There is therefore a need for policy makers, researchers, and practitioners to better understand how to promote fathers’ engagement in these services, how fatherhood programs support fathers’ healthy romantic relationships and their coparenting relationships, and how these services can be improved to better meet the needs of fathers and their families.

A2. Purpose

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for the study design and data collection components as described below.

Purpose and Use

The information collected is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge on ACF programs. It is not intended to be used as the principal basis for a decision by a federal decision-maker, and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific information.

The authorizing legislation¹ for the Responsible Fatherhood grant program requires programs to provide services in three key activity areas: healthy marriage, responsible parenting, and economic stability. The purpose of this descriptive, exploratory research study is to better understand the services that federal and non-federal fatherhood programs provide to fathers to support their healthy romantic and coparenting relationships.

Through primary data collection, CHaRMED will describe how fatherhood programs currently address healthy romantic relationships and coparenting and how their approaches align (or do not) with the needs of the fathers in their target populations. The data collected will inform ACF and the fatherhood field about potential future directions in Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education (HMRE) and coparenting programming for fathers.

To accomplish this, the study will collect data from fatherhood program staff, community partners, fathers, coparents, and curriculum developers. The data collected will meet the goals of this study by providing multiple perspectives on how fatherhood programs support, and could better support, fathers’ healthy romantic and coparenting relationships.

The information will improve ACF’s understanding of fatherhood programs’ intended approaches for addressing healthy romantic relationships and coparenting, and will inform ACF’s technical assistance to fatherhood programs on how to better support participants’ healthy romantic and coparenting relationships. The study is also intended to inform the broader field of fatherhood research and programming by providing information about promising strategies for promoting healthy romantic relationships and coparenting among fathers.

Research Questions or Tests

This study has multiple research questions (see Appendix A. Table of Objectives, Questions, and Respondents) designed to address three overarching objectives:

1. To describe the current approaches fatherhood programs use to support fathers’ healthy relationships (romantic and coparenting).

2. To explore the extent to which programs’ current approaches to supporting fathers’ healthy relationships (romantic and coparenting) align with participants’ needs around their relationships.

3. To identify promising fatherhood program implementation strategies for healthy romantic and coparenting relationship services, including strategies around recruitment, retention, and engagement.

Study Design

The CHaRMED study is designed to collect information from fatherhood programs (both federally-funded RF grantees and non-RF programs). The study design approved in Feb 2020 included three main recruitment or data collection components: (1) recruitment/screening; (2) individual interviews with fatherhood program staff, partner organization staff, nonparticipating fathers, and curriculum developers; and (3) focus groups with participating fathers and coparents associated with the fathers in the programs. The current request now only proposes two recruitment and data collection components: (1) recruitment/screening and (2) individual interviews with fatherhood program staff, partner organization staff, participating fathers, nonparticipating fathers, coparents, and curriculum developers. A brief questionnaire will be administered to nonparticipating fathers, participating fathers and coparents after their interviews(see Table 1 below for details). The team will also collect information through program observations with select sites. The team will work to schedule virtual program observations when possible. A summary of the types of information to be assessed through the program observations is included in Appendix C. Program Observation Protocol.

Table 1. Data Collection Components

Data Collection Activity	Instrument(s)	Respondent, Content, Purpose of Collection	Mode and Duration
Recruitment/screening	Instrument 1 – screener for selecting fatherhood sites	Respondents: Program Directors Content/purpose: Series of questions to assess fit/relevance of programming	Mode: Telephone interviews Duration: 30 minutes (this estimate accounts for the telephone screening only. For selected sites, we estimate an additional 5.5 hours will be needed for data collection scheduling and logistics)
Individual Interviews	Instrument 2 – semi-structured interviews with fatherhood program staff	Respondents: Program Directors and Facilitators Content/purpose: Series of questions to assess program staff perceptions of HMRE/coparenting services, father engagement in services, and what could be improved	Mode: In-person/Telephone/Videoconference interviews Duration: 90 minutes for the interview and up to 30 minutes for scheduling
Individual Interviews	Instrument 3 – semi-structured interviews with partner organization staff	Respondents: Program Partner Staff Content/purpose: Series of questions to assess partner staff perceptions of HMRE/coparenting services, father engagement in services, and what could be improved	Mode: In-person/Telephone/Videoconference interviews Duration: 90 minutes for the interview and up to 30 minutes for scheduling
Individual Interviews	Instrument 4 – semi-structured interviews with nonparticipating fathers	Respondents: Nonparticipating fathers Content/purpose: Series of questions to assess nonparticipating fathers’ perceptions of HMRE/coparenting services, why they stopped attending these services, and what could be improved	Mode: In-person/Telephone/Videoconference interviews Duration: 60 minutes for the interview and up to 30 minutes for scheduling
Individual Interviews	Instrument 5 – semi-structured interviews with participating fathers	Respondents: Participating fathers Content/purpose: Series of questions about fathers’ experiences in fatherhood programs and how programs could better meet their needs	Mode:; In-person/Telephone/Videoconference interviews Duration: 90 minutes for the discussion and up to 30 minutes for scheduling
Individual Interviews	Instrument 6 – semi-structured interviews with coparents	Respondents: Coparents Content/purpose: Series of questions about coparents’ experiences and how fatherhood programs engage them in services	Mode: In-person/Telephone/Videoconference interviews Duration: 90 minutes for the discussion and up to 30 minutes for scheduling
Individual Interviews	Instrument 7 – discussions with curriculum developers	Respondents: Curriculum Developers Content/purpose: Series of questions to learn more about a specific curriculum and how it can help address healthy romantic or coparenting relationships among fathers	Mode: Telephone interviews Duration: 60 minutes
Individual Interviews	Instrument 8 – brief questionnaire – fathers	Respondents: Fathers (participating and nonparticipating) Content/purpose: Series of questions to collect demographic and family information about study participants to contextualize focus group and interview findings	Mode: Questionnaires (verbally administered during phone or videoconference interviews; self-administered during in-person interviews) Duration: 15 minutes
Individual Interviews	Instrument 9 – brief questionnaire – coparents	Respondents: Coparents Content/purpose: Series of questions designed to collect demographic and family information about study participants to contextualize focus group findings	Mode: Questionnaires (verbally administered during phone or videoconference interviews; self-administered during in-person interviews) Duration: 15 minutes

The study team analyzed existing grantee data from grantee applications and performance progress reports as well as publicly available information to help select fatherhood programs to approach for screening (for example, the study team reviewed programs’ goals and objectives related to romantic relationship and coparenting content, the curriculum used, whether coparents are included in programming, etc.) and to identify commonly implemented curricula across grantees. The team will also consult with ACF about the programs to approach for study participation (See SSB. Sampling and Site Selection for more information).

The study team has begun reaching out to program directors at selected fatherhood programs to gauge their interest in participating in the study (see Appendix B. CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts and scheduling screening calls. The study team anticipates screening up to 20 programs and selecting up to 13 programs for participation². The purpose of the screening call, which lasts approximately 30 minutes, is to learn more about the romantic relationship and coparenting services each program provides, the populations they serve, and when romantic relationship and/or coparenting programming is occurring. As part of the screening process, directors also will be asked to help identify other participants. If the site is selected, directors will be asked to help schedule data collection activities or put the study team in contact with potential participants (up to 5.5 additional hours of directors’ time).

Fatherhood programs are selected based on their geographic location, populations served, types of services offered, and relationships with program partner organizations (see SSB2. Methods and Design for more information). The study team is prioritizing selecting a diverse group of fatherhood programs whose services seem to be reflective of the overall fatherhood program population. Given the qualitative nature of the proposed data collection, the goal of the data collection strategy is not to produce statistically generalizable results. However, the sample will represent a wide range of fatherhood programming in order to provide relevant recommendations to fatherhood programs and other organizations serving fathers.

Note that the study design approved in Feb 2020 proposed that data collection with program staff, partner staff, fathers and coparents would primarily occur in-person during program visits. The current request proposes instead to conduct data collection primarily via telephone or videoconference, with the possibility for program visits.

Each participant will be interviewed once via a 60-90-minute semi-structured interview (see Instruments 2-6). Nonparticipating fathers, fathers, and coparents will also complete a brief questionnaire (administered by the interviewer over the phone/video conference or self-administered if the interview occurs in person) after their interview (see Instruments 8 and 9). The purpose of the questionnaires is to contextualize the qualitative findings from the study by better understanding some basic information about the participants.

Semi-structured telephone interviews with curriculum developers will last up to 60 minutes. The purpose is to better understand the content and purpose of curricula commonly used by fatherhood programs to support fathers’ healthy romantic and coparenting relationships (see Instrument 7. Interview Protocol with Curriculum Developers). To select curriculum developers, the study team will review grantee data and identify commonly used curricula, supplemented with a broader internet search of appropriate curricula. They will review publicly available information about each curriculum and request interviews with developers of curriculum where information is limited.

Study Limitations

This is a descriptive, qualitative study that will collect information about fatherhood program approaches, implementation strategies, and innovative efforts to engage fathers in healthy romantic relationship and coparenting programming. It does not assess the outcomes of program services.

Findings are not intended to be generalizable to the full population of federally-funded RF programs or fatherhood programs that are not federally-funded. This limitation will be discussed in all printed materials and presentations associated with the study.

Other Data Sources and Uses of Information

The information collected will be used in concert with existing data to reduce participant time and burden. Specifically, existing data from grantee applications, semi-annual performance progress reports, program documents, and publicly available curriculum information will be used to help select fatherhood programs for participation and curriculum developers for interviews.

A3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

The study was designed to minimize participant burden to the extent possible; the only burden to participants will be the time required for study procedures and data collection. To streamline the semi-structured interviews as much as possible the study team will use digital audio recorders or laptops to record the conversations, if respondents agree to be recorded. This will minimize the need to pause the discussion to take notes and ultimately keep the discussions as short as possible.

A4. Use of Existing Data: Efforts to reduce duplication, minimize burden, and increase utility and government efficiency

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

Every effort has been made to determine whether similar research and information exists by searching existing studies and reports, and in consultation with federal staff. As part of these efforts, the study team reviewed reports that specifically focus on fatherhood programs, as well as literature related to coparenting and romantic relationships. As noted above, the study team intends to analyze existing data where possible to reduce participant burden. Additional information beyond existing research and data is needed to better understand how fatherhood programs are supporting, and could better support, fathers’ healthy romantic and coparenting relationships. The study team concluded that no existing data source can provide all data needed to fully address the study’s objectives.

A5. Impact on Small Businesses

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

We do not anticipate any participating organizations will be small businesses. We will make every effort to minimize the burden on all organizations, including those that happen to be small businesses. The study team will accomplish this by reviewing as much information about the organizations as possible before contacting them so they do not spend time asking questions that are already known. The study team will interview staff and visit the programs only once and at times convenient to respondents.

A6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have implications for this section.

This is a one-time data collection.

A7. Now subsumed under 2(b) above and 10 (below)

A8. Consultation

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

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 September 20, 2019, Volume 84, Number 183, page 49524, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is attached as Appendix D. During the notice and comment period, no substantive comments were received.

Consultation with Experts Outside the Study

The study team has and will continue to regularly engage experts outside the study team throughout the duration of the study. Engaging Romantic Relationship/Coparenting/Fatherhood experts across varying fields will help ensure that they adequately identify unique challenges and considerations around supporting healthy romantic and coparenting relationships in fatherhood programs. The study team conducted a one-day in-person meeting with a group of experts, during which experts provided feedback on the study’s objectives and research questions to help refine data collection priorities. A smaller group of the experts was consulted during the development of the data collection instruments to improve the quality and relevance of the questions and instructions, as well as assess participant burden. The study team also sought feedback from experts on the overall recruitment procedures, including whether engaging program directors in the recruitment of program participants is appropriate and feasible. To date the following experts have been engaged in the project:

• Jay Fagan

• Alan-Michael Graves

• Mary Myrick

• Kirk Berry

• Francesca Adler-Baeder

• Obie Clayton Jr.

• Ronald Cox Jr.

• Michael Duncan

• Amy Lewin

• Cynthia Osborne

• Mark Feinberg

Experts will also be engaged in future study activities including interpreting findings, reviewing written products, and disseminating the study’s findings.

A9. Tokens of Appreciation

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

We propose to provide fathers and coparents participating in interviews with a $30 gift card as a token of appreciation. Although interview data are not intended to be representative in a statistical sense, it is important to secure participants with a range of background characteristics, to capture a variety of possible experiences with fatherhood program services.  As all participants will be current or former fatherhood program participants, the target population is largely low-income. Without offsetting the direct costs incurred by respondents for participating in interviews, such as arranging child care, transportation, or time off from paid work, the research team increases the risk that only those individuals able to overcome the financial barriers to participate will enroll in the study. A $30 gift card is appropriate to account for incidental expenses such as transportation and/or childcare that may otherwise prevent their participation in the study and is comparable to the amount provided in qualitative studies with similar populations, such as the Parents and Children Together Study (OMB control number 0970-0430).

A10. Privacy: Procedures to protect privacy of information, while maximizing data sharing

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for each subsection within section A10, as describe below.

Personally Identifiable Information

The study team will collect participant names and contact information for the purposes of scheduling interviews and distributing incentives when in-person data collection in not possible. Efforts will be made to reduce additional personally identifiable information (PII) collected from participants. For example, verbal consent will be obtained so that participants’ names are not recorded on consent forms (a waiver of signed consent will be requested from the Child Trends IRB). The interviewer will document that verbal consent was obtained. Verbal consent will also be obtained prior to audio recording interviews. Fathers and coparents will complete a brief questionnaire (administered by the interviewer over the phone/video conference or self-administered if the interview occurs in person), but their names will not be associated with their questionnaire responses. There is a risk that participants will volunteer PII during interviews. All PII will be redacted from transcripts, and all data collected during the study (e.g., transcripts, recordings, questionnaires) will be stored securely (see Data Security and Monitoring) until they are destroyed.

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

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 is voluntary, and that their information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. As specified in the contract, the Contractor will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information.

The study team received a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC) from the National Institutes of Health. With a Certificate of Confidentiality granted, the researchers may not disclose documents or information that may identify respondents in any federal, state, or local civil, criminal, administrative, legislative, or other action, suit, or proceeding, or that may be used as evidence (e.g., a court subpoena) unless respondents have consented for this use. Information or documents protected by this Certificate cannot be disclosed to anyone else who is not connected with the research except, if there is a federal, state, or local law that requires disclosure (such as to report child abuse). The Certificate of Confidentiality will not be used to prevent disclosure as required by federal, state, or local law of child abuse and neglect, or harm to self or others.

Data Security and Monitoring

The study team has developed a Data Security Plan that assesses all protections of respondents’ PII. The Contractor shall ensure that all employees who perform work under this contract are trained on data privacy issues and comply with the study’s Data Security Plan.

The Data Security Plan specifies that the study team will store data containing PII (participants’ names and contact information, such as phone numbers, email address, and mailing addresses) on secure servers and further encrypt with a password all documents that are used to link participant identities with their data. Every effort will be made to store data electronically only and shred any hard copies of data. Because participants will not be asked to sign consent forms, the study team does not anticipate having any paper consent forms to store or destroy. When electronic conversion is not possible, non-electronic data (e.g., paper files) will be stored in locked cabinets. In instances where data need to be shared outside of Child Trends, for example the sharing of audio recordings with a transcription service, the study team shall use an electronic secure file transfer platform (SFTP) to protect all instances of sensitive information during storage and transmission. In all other instances, PII will be redacted before information is shared. During program visits and interviews, audio recordings will be saved on a portable audio recorder or on staff’s secure laptop devices. Whenever possible, password-protected audio recorders will be used. If no password-protected recorders are available, staff are expected to move recordings from the device to a secure computer or the Child Trends’ secure server as soon as internet access is available. For remote data collection, staff’s secure laptop devices or portable audio recorders will be used for audio-recording and recordings will be saved directly on Child Trends’ secure server. Child Trends has organization-wide data security standards that includes a procedure to account for all laptop computers, desktop computers, and other mobile devices and portable media that store or process sensitive information.

A11. Sensitive Information ³

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

ACF does not intend to collect any sensitive information in the course of this study. IRB approval was received in January 2020.

A12. Burden

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for study burden due to the reduced study sample, as described below.

Explanation of Burden Estimates

Table 2 includes the maximum number of sites each data collection activity will be conducted at, the proposed range of participants for each data collection activity at each site, and the maximum number of participants the study team is expecting for each data collection activity. The maximum number of participants expected were used to calculate the burden estimates for this study. Please note that the proposed changes requested in April 2020 have implications for the anticipated sample size, specifically the change from conducting focus groups to conducting semi-structured interviews with fathers and coparents. The study team will now recruit up to 4 fathers per site for interviews, as opposed to 6-8 fathers per site for focus groups. The team will also recruit up to 4 coparents at up to 6 sites for interviews, as opposed to 6-8 per site at up to 6 sites for focus groups. As semi-structured interviews allow for more in-depth discussion on key topics than focus group discussions, the study team will require fewer participants to adequately explore the research questions. Additionally, because conducting individual interviews is more time intensive—and therefore expensive—than conducting focus groups, the study team believes that conducting fewer interviews will help keep study costs similar to what was originally proposed.

Table 2. Proposed Sample Sizes

	Estimated maximum number of sites	Range per site	Estimated maximum number of participants
Screening protocol	20*
Program directors (screened, not selected for data collection)	7	1-2	10
Program directors (screened, selected for data collection)	13	1-2	18
Semi structured interviews
Fatherhood program staff	13	2-4	48
Program partner staff	13	0-2	14
Nonparticipating fathers	13	1-2	20
Fathers	13	2-4	52
Coparents	6^	1-4	24
Brief questionnaire respondents-fathers (participating and nonparticipating)	13	3-6+	72
Brief questionnaire respondents-coparents	6	1-4+	24
Curriculum developer interviews	n/a	n/a	7

^*The study team plans to screen up to 20 programs in order to select 13 programs that represent: both rural and urban settings; the South, Midwest, and both coasts; programs that serve participants from specific populations of interest (e.g., underemployed); services offered in-house and through a partner organization; and services offered to coparents (both with and without the requirement that fathers’ be present). The study team estimates that multiple staff may participate in the screener at some sites, resulting in up to 10 program staff from 7 programs screened with no additional follow up. Up to 18 staff from a maximum of 13 programs will be screened and selected for inclusion in the study.

^ It is likely that not all sites selected for data collection will offer services for coparents or have established relationships with coparents, therefore we are targeting holding focus group with coparents at approximately six of the thirteen sites.

Table 3 below shows estimated burden, including the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hours of burden, and cost, of the information collection for screening and recruiting participants and for the semi-structured interviews. Burden was estimated based on the length of the protocols and the proposed recruitment strategies.

Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents

There is an estimated annualized cost to respondents of $9,287 Fatherhood Program Directors’ hourly wage estimate is $34.46 based on BLS average earnings for Social and Community Service Managers.⁴ An hourly wage of $21.62 was assumed for Program Facilitators based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) report on average earnings for Self-Enrichment Education Teachers, the job description that most closely describes the work of Program Facilitators.⁵ Thus, the average cost to respondents for the Fatherhood Program Staff Interviews is $28.04. Program Partners’ and Curriculum Developers’ hourly wage is also estimated to be $34.46 based on BLS earnings data. Fathers’ and Coparents’ hourly wage is estimated based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25.⁶

Table 3. Burden Estimates

Instrument	No. of Respondents (total over request period)	No. of Responses per Respondent (total over request period)	Avg. Burden per Response (in hours)	Total/Annual Burden (in hours)	Average Hourly Wage Rate	Total Annual Respondent Cost
Instrument 1: Screener for selecting fatherhood sites – Screened, not selected for data collection	10	1	.5	5	$34.46	$172
Instrument 1: Screener for selecting fatherhood sites – Screened, selected for data collection (includes recruitment activities)	18	1	6	108	$34.46	$3,722
Instrument 2: Semi-structured interviews with fatherhood program staff	48	1	2	96	$28.04	$2,692
Instrument 3: Semi-structured interviews with program partner staff	14	1	2	28	$34.46	$965
Instrument 4: Semi-structured interviews with nonparticipating fathers	20	1	1.5	30	$7.25	$218
Instrument 5: Semi-structured interviews with fathers	52	1	2	104	$7.25	$754
Instrument 6: Semi-structured interviews with coparents	24	1	2	48	$7.25	$348
Instrument 7: Interviews with curriculum developers	7	1	1	7	$34.46	$241
Instrument 8: Brief questionnaire – fathers	72	1	.25	18	$7.25	$131
Instrument 9: Brief questionnaire-coparents	24	1	.25	6	$7.25	$44
Total				450		$9,287

A13. Costs

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

There are no additional costs to respondents.

A14. Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

To determine the costs outlined in the table below, the study team estimated the staff labor hours, Other Direct Costs including travel and participant tokens of appreciation, and overhead costs associated with each activity.

Table 4. Estimated Costs

Cost Category	Estimated Costs*
Instrument Development and OMB Clearance	$74,500
Field Work	$246,000
Analysis	$70,200
Publications/Dissemination	$67,100
Total costs over the one-year request period	$457,800

*It is possible that the changes in this request as well as the evolving situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic will result in changes to the cost estimates listed above. ACF will continuously monitor the budget and work with the evaluation study team to shift funds between tasks noted above to make all efforts to stay within the estimated budget of $457,800.

A15. Reasons for changes in burden

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for study burden due to the change in study design. Individual interviews will be conducted with participating fathers and coparents in lieu of focus groups to allow for remote data collection via phone or videoconference. In the study design approved in Feb 2020, the team anticipated conducting focus groups with 6-8 fathers at up to 13 sites and 6-8 coparents at up to 6 sites. The current request proposes conducting 2-4 interviews with participating fathers at up to 13 sites and with 1-4 coparents at up to 6 sites. The smaller proposed sample size reduces the overall participant burden of this study.

A16. Timeline

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have slight implications for the data collection timeline, as described below.

In the OMB package approved in Feb 2020, data collection was planned for three months following OBM approval. The current request plans for data collection for three months following the approval of the nonsubstantive change request submitted in April 2020. The requested changes should not affect the timeline for data analysis or reporting and dissemination.

Table 5. Anticipated Schedule (pending OMB approval)

Timing	Activity
Immediately following OMB approval	Recruitment/Screening
Up to three months following approval of OMB nonsubstantive change request	Data collection Program visits Interviews
3-8 months following OMB approval	Data Analysis
8-11 months following OMB approval	Reporting and Dissemination

A17. Exceptions

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 do not have substantial implications for this section.

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.

Attachments

The requested changes submitted in April 2020 have implications for this section. Notably, Appendix H: Handout and Recruitment Flyer for Focus Group Participants and Appendix I: Consent Script for Focus Groups were removed because focus groups will no longer be conducted. We have renamed Appendix E: Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection and Instrument 1: CHaRMED Program Screener, but the content remains unchanged.

Previously Approved Appendices

• Appendix A: Table of Objectives, Questions, and Respondents

• Appendix B: CHaRMED Email and Phone Scripts

• Appendix C: Program Observation Protocol

• Appendix D: 60 Day Federal Register Notice

• Appendix E: Screening Matrix CHaRMED Data Collection

• Appendix F: Study Description

Appendices Revised in this Request:

• Appendix G: CHaRMED Consent Forms

Previously Approved Instruments

• Instrument 1: CHaRMED Program Screener

• Instrument 7: Interview Protocol with Curriculum Developers

• Instrument 8: Brief Questionnaire – Fathers

• Instrument 9: Brief Questionnaire – Coparents

Instruments Revised in this Request:

• Instrument 2: Interview Protocol with Fatherhood Program Staff

• Instrument 3: Interview Protocol with Program Partner Staff

• Instrument 4: Interview Protocol with Nonparticipating Fathers

• Instrument 5: Interview Protocol with Fathers

• Instrument 6: Interview Protocol with Coparents

1 Claims Resolution Act, U.S.C. § 811 (2010)

2 The study team is targeting 13 sites to allow a diverse set of programs to be included in the study while remaining within the pre-determined data collection budget.

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.

4 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2019). Social and Community Service Managers, May 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119151.htm

5 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2019). Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018: 25-3021 Self-Enrichment Education Teachers. Retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes253021.htm

6 Department of Labor (DOL). (2019). Minimum Wage. Retrieved from: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/wages/minimumwage

16