Alternative Supporting Statement for Information Collections Designed for
Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes
Phase II Evaluation Activities for Implementing a Next Generation Evaluation Agenda for the Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood: A Study of the Use of the Family Unification Program (FUP) for Youth who have Experienced Foster Care
OMB Information Collection Request
0970-0544
Supporting Statement
Part A
December 2019
Updated March 2021
Submitted By:
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
4th Floor, Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
Project Officer: Maria Woolverton
Type of Request: This information Collection Request is for a non-substantive change for the collection for the Family Unification Program (FUP) for Youth Study. We are requesting approval for the full project duration, which was previously approved by OMB until March 21, 2022.
Progress to Date: The project team has conducted the web-based survey for the relevant public child welfare agencies, public housing authorities, and Continuums of Care. The team is currently selecting which sites to contact for further discussion to learn more about the implementation of their program.
Summary of changes requested: Given travel restrictions and safety concerns related to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), we are requesting approval to conduct project activities virtually to ensure compliance with federal, state, and agency-level recommendations. Activities impacted by this change include site visits, interviews, and focus groups with key stakeholders connected to the FUP.
Description of Request: Project activities included in the FUP for Youth study have not changed since the previous approval granted on February 6, 2020. Data collection procedures include a web-based survey; site visits, including one-on-one interviews and focus groups; and collection of administrative data from the three FUP partners: public housing agencies (PHAs), public child welfare agencies (PCWAs), and local Continuums of Care (CoCs). This submission is to request approval to conduct project activities (e.g., site visits, interviews, focus groups) virtually due to travel restrictions caused by COVID-19.
Time Sensitivity: The project team is currently identifying agencies to contact for site visits, and plan to conduct these site visits during the first months of 2021. The team is unable to move forward until approval to conduct these activities virtually is granted.
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Program for Successful Transition to Adulthood (Chafee) was created following the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act (FCIA) of 1999 (Public Law 106-169). The program provides assistance to help youth currently and formerly in foster care achieve self-sufficiency by providing grants to States and eligible Tribes that submit an approved plan. Activities and programs allowable under Chafee include, but are not limited to, help with education, employment financial management, housing, emotional support and assured connections to caring adults for older youth in foster care. The FCIA also required the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to conduct rigorous evaluations of independent living programs that are “innovative or of potential national significance” such as the Family Unification Program (FUP). ACF is engaging in this specific collection at the agency’s discretion, and these activities help to fulfill the requirement for evaluations of programs of national significance under the Chafee legislation because it will inform a future impact study of FUP for youth.
FUP housing vouchers are provided through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A previous study sponsored by HUD found that a minority of public housing agencies (PHAs) award FUP vouchers to youth, and youth constituted only about 14 percent of all FUP program participants (Dion et al. 2014). Since 2012, when data was collected for that study, several changes have occurred in the FUP program and in foster care provision. In particular, the maximum age of FUP youth eligibility increased from 21 to 24; the length of time FUP can be used by youth increased from 18 to 36 months; the Continuum of Care (CoC) became a required partner in the local FUP program, with an emphasis on identifying and serving eligible youth; the emphasis on identifying former foster youth eligible for FUP has increased; many more states have extended foster care to age 21; and the change to allow use of Chafee funds to support youth to age 23 in states that extended foster care to age 21. In 2015, the Family Unification Program and Family Self Sufficiency (FUP/FSS) Demonstration was authorized by HUD, offering some youth the opportunity to extend FUP voucher use to five years while participating in the FSS program, which provides services designed to increase earned income and reduce subsidy dependence. The proposed study will build on the prior research by documenting implementation practices among 2018 and 2019 FUP grantees given these significant changes.
We are seeking OMB approval to continue to engage in the aforementioned data collection activities and allow for flexibility in how these activities are conducted. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, travel restrictions and safety recommendations may prevent team members from conducting activities, such as site visits, in-person. We are requesting permission to conduct these components virtually should travel be deemed infeasible and/or unsafe. This change will allow activities to continue as plan and support ACF’s work in fulfilling the requirement for evaluations of programs of national significance under the Chafee legislation.
The purpose of this information collection is to complete a descriptive study of the implementation of FUP for youth. ACF will use the information collected to build an evidence base for interventions with potential to help youth currently and formerly in foster care achieve self-sufficiency. HUD and FUP voucher grantees may use the information collected to help improve future implementation and administration of FUP for youth. An additional goal of this descriptive implementation study is to inform the sampling scheme and overall design for a future rigorous evaluation of the program. 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.
Our core study questions include:
How is the partnership between the PHA, the PCWA, and the CoC structured?
Which youth are targeted by the public child welfare agency (PCWA) and CoC for FUP?
How are the CoCs and PCWAs identifying eligible youth?
How are partners prioritizing youth for referrals?
How many youth are served with FUP vouchers?
How do communities determine how many youth and families to serve with FUP?
What share of youth who receive FUP vouchers sign a lease and maintain their housing?
What are the barriers and facilitators to a youth signing a lease and to maintaining their housing?
To what extent are parenting youth accessing FUP?
How do the needs and success of parenting youth in the program differ from childless youth?
What types of services are provided along with the FUP housing subsidy?
Which agency provides these services?
What is the nature, frequency and duration of the services?
To what extent do youth participate in the FSS program?
What does the program offer youth?
What does it require of youth?
To what extent do activities outlined in the site’s FUP program model reflect actual program practice?
How does context shape the FUP program in each site?
How does extended foster care affect how FUP is used?
How does the local housing market affect FUP?
How does the local economy affect youths’ abilities to prepare for when their FUP voucher expires?
How does the local service environment complement or substitute for FUP?
Are there regulatory or statutory barriers to serving youth?
How do youth experience FUP?
What can we learn to inform a future evaluation of how FUP impacts youth outcomes delineated in the Chafee legislation (e.g., education, employment, well-being)?
The study data collection will consist of a web-based survey census of FUP liaisons at PHAs, PCWAs and CoCs; focus groups with youth; interviews and focus groups with staff; and administrative data collection at organizations involved in administering FUP. The study is designed to capture an updated view of how and to what extent 2018 and 2019 FUP grantees are using FUP to serve youth. We will collect information on variation in implementation across sites, how FUP is used to serve youth on the ground, how eligible youth are identified, how they are referred for FUP, the barriers to youth in obtaining a FUP voucher or leasing-up into housing, what PHAs and PCWAs have done to streamline the voucher process, and other aspects of how the program operates.
For the first phase of data collection, the project team will administer the web-based survey. Topics covered in the survey (Instruments 1-3) pertain to:
The community and agency contexts
Reasons for using or not using FUP to serve youth
How communities are using FUP vouchers to serve youth
How PHAs, PCWAs and CoCs are partnering to identify youth in need and provide them with services
Successes and challenges in using FUP, and other non-FUP strategies communities may use to serve the housing needs of youth aging out of foster care.
To facilitate the self-administered nature of the web-based survey, the survey will use mostly close-ended items (with either quantitative or categorical response categories). For topics in which multiple perspectives are desired (for example, challenges to serving this population with FUP vouchers), the survey will ask the same questions of PHA, CoC, and PCWA staff.
For the second phase of data collection, the research team will select 8 sites after the survey closes and conduct site visits. The research team will select sites that have provided 20 or more vouchers to youth and that include diversity of geography, rental vacancy rates, state extended foster care policies, and history of using FUP vouchers to serve youth. The visits will take place with 2018 awardees, but if the team determines that it cannot identify a group of eight sites that are ideal candidates for visits from among the 2018 awardees, it will opt to conduct a portion of the site visits at 2019 awardee sites. During site visits, we will gather information on the child welfare system in which the FUP program for youth operates; details on the local FUP program including eligibility, referrals, and screening; the structure of the FUP partnerships; services offered; and the community context. We will also collect youths’ perspectives on their experience with the program. The site visits and focus groups may occur virtually depending on the health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. To ensure the safety of all parties involved, the project team will follow travel recommendations present at the time of each visit.
The descriptive information obtained in the web-based survey will be supplemented with detailed and more subjective information from semi-structured site visit interviews and focus groups (Instruments 5-11) with key informants and focus groups with youth (Instrument 4) who have leased up with FUP collected during site visits.
This information will be further supplemented with administrative data (Instrument 12) from sites selected for visits to provide a more precise picture of the services grantees are providing to youth with FUP, along with youths’ housing outcomes. Administrative data collected will include PHA data on housing outcomes; PCWA data on referrals, placement histories, and age at entry; Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) data maintained by the CoCs; program/service data on the dates and amounts of services received by each youth; and education data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC). We will request the specific data elements listed in Instrument 12 in a format that is convenient for the agency compiling the data.
Study limitations include the fact that interview and focus group data collected during site visits are not generalizable and the fact that the study is not designed to capture the practices of FUP grantees who were awarded prior to 2018. Limitations will be clearly noted in any public information related to this information collection.
Table A1
Data Collection Activity |
Instruments |
Respondent, Content, Purpose of Collection |
Mode and Duration |
Web-based survey |
Public Child Welfare Agency Survey (1) Public Housing Agency Survey (2) Continuum of Care Survey (3)
|
Respondents: PHA and PCWA FUP liaison and CoC FUP manager Content: How and to what extent FUP grantees are using FUP to serve youth Purpose: Quantitative data on FUP use for youth from census of 2018 and 2019 FUP grantees |
Mode: Web
Duration: 35 minutes |
Site visits – Focus Groups |
Focus Group Guide for Youth (4) Focus Group Guide for Public Housing Agency Intake Workers and Case Managers (5) Focus Group Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers, Referring Partner and Service Provider Partners (6) |
Respondents: Focus groups with front-line workers and youth participants at 8 grantees Content: How FUP grantees are using FUP to serve youth Purpose: In-depth youth and practitioner perspectives on use of FUP vouchers to serve youth at a subset of grantees |
Mode: In-person or virtually (i.e., phone, video)
Duration: 1.5 hours |
Site visits - Interviews |
Interview Guide for Public Housing Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison (7) Interview Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison (8) Interview Guide for Continuum of Care Lead Organization Administrator and FUP Liaisons (9) Interview Guide for Service Provider FUP Leads (10) Interview Guide for Family Self Sufficiency Manager (11) |
Respondents: Interviews with agency heads, program managers, and service providers; Content: How FUP grantees are using FUP to serve youth Purpose: In-depth youth and practitioner perspectives on use of FUP vouchers to serve youth at a subset of grantees |
Mode: In-person or virtually (i.e., phone, video)
Duration: 1 hour |
Administrative data collection |
Administrative data list (12) |
Respondents: PCWAs, PHAs Content: Data on housing outcomes, referrals, child welfare history, HMIS data, and program/services Purpose: Analysis of youth outcomes at grantees selected for site visits |
Mode: Electronic
Duration: 5 hours |
The survey of PHAs, PCWAs and CoCs takes advantage of computer-assisted survey technology to reduce burden on respondents. The 35-minute web-based instrument offers the easiest means of providing data, as it is programmed to automatically skip questions not relevant to the respondent. The instrument also allows respondents to complete the survey at a time convenient for them without the risk of losing a paper survey questionnaire. If respondents are unable to complete the survey in one sitting, they may save their place in the survey and return to the questionnaire at another time.
The research team will work with each site to identify the best way to collect information on the administrative data list (Instrument 12) with the least burden on staff. All data we are requesting exists in electronic form, as it is collected for various federal reporting, thus allowing us to receive the data in electronic formats of the agency’s choosing. The research team may take advantage of a Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) or other technology to complete data transfers when deemed appropriate and least burdensome to sites.
To reduce respondent burden during the site visits, the project team will hold small-group interviews and focus groups when feasible. These discussions may occur virtually over Zoom and conference line or in-person depending on safety restrictions due to COVID-19.. Small-group interviews and focus groups reduce the overall time that a single organization spends on the study. The project team will try to schedule the interviews and focus groups when the input from multiple respondents with comparable roles (e.g., child welfare case workers, youth leased up with FUP) will increase the efficiency and the amount of information the project team can gather in a single session. With respondents’ permission, the project team will audio record the interviews and focus groups to minimize time needed for potential follow-up for clarification.
This data collection does not duplicate other data collection efforts and the data we are collecting is not available or being collected elsewhere. The administrative data being collected from the child welfare agencies and public housing authorities does not duplicate any information accessible to ACF. These data collection efforts also do not duplicate efforts with ACF’s current study of FUP for families (OMB #0970-0514) because that project is focused only on families in a small number of sites while this new data collection is focused on youth only and more broadly. The current study also does not duplicate efforts of the 2014 study of FUP for youth (Dion et al 2014; OMB #2528-0285) because substantial changes in the program and in foster care legislation have rendered that information obsolete. We are investigating the effect of the changes to the program since that data collection and only including agencies who received new FUP vouchers as a part of the 2018 or 2019 awards. Our plan is to work with each site to identify the best way to collect the needed information with the least burden on staff.
We have designed the data collection instruments so that no two instruments collect the same information, even when addressing the same research question. We note, however, that different respondents may be asked the same questions to capture different knowledge and different perspectives. This provides a more robust description of FUP implementation.
The web-based survey will collect data from local agencies that may vary in size. PHA and PCWA respondents are from public agencies and not small businesses, though they may contract out to service providers that are small businesses. CoCs may include respondents representing small nonprofits. To minimize burden on small entities, the survey will be available in a web version and respondents may access it at their convenience. Further, the team will minimize the burden on any staff from small businesses who participate in site visit data collection by keeping the interviews and focus groups as short as possible, by scheduling the interviews and focus groups at a time most convenient for respondents, and holding them on-site or virtually depending on current safety recommendations due to COVID-19.
All data collection activities are one-time events, with no repetition of data collection planned. If the proposed activity is not implemented, the government will have to rely on outdated information to assess current implementation and usage of the FUP program.
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 October 2nd, 2019, Volume 84, Number 191, page 52511, and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. A copy of this notice is attached as Attachment X. During the notice and comment period, no substantive comments were received.
The study team consulted with Amy Dworsky, a principal author of the previous study of FUP use for youth, in preparing the survey instruments (Dion et al. 2014). The proposed instruments are based upon instruments that were previously cleared by OMB and used for that study (OMB #2528-0285).
Agency heads and staff will not receive a token of appreciation for participating in interviews or focus groups; nor will web-based survey respondents receive tokens of appreciation.
The project team proposes to offer youth who used a FUP voucher to lease an apartment a $25 token of appreciation in recognition of their participation in focus groups. While the qualitative data from focus groups is not intended to be statistically generalizable to the full voucher population, the study’s findings will be most relevant for policy and practice if we are able to secure participation from a wide range of participants, including those with substantial financial challenges or other barriers. This token is intended to offset costs of participation in the study, such as transportation costs, childcare, or other expenses that might otherwise prevent this important segment of our target population from participating in the study. Should the focus group be conducted virtually, participants will be given a $25 e-gift card.
We will obtain names, emails, and phone numbers in order to schedule interviews with program staff during the site visits. For in-person focus groups with youth, agency staff will lead recruitment and maintain all youth contact information. Should the focus groups be conducted virtually, agency staff will provide a list of the contact information for youth to the project team. This information will be used for scheduling purposes, and youth emails will also be used to send the $25 e-gift card token of appreciation if they participate in a virtual focus group. When we send participants the token of appreciation, we will ask for an email or text message confirmation that they received the gift card. Once confirmation is received, we will permanently delete any correspondence containing participant contact information, emails, and texts with the participant.
To maintain participants’ privacy, the project team will request verbal consent at the start of each discussion. Participants will be provided a physical copy of the consent form before the interview if it is in-person or presented with the consent form via video or email if the visit is virtual. Program staff who helped with the recruitment may be physically present at the sites if these discussions are conducted in-person but will not be permitted in the focus group itself. If conducted virtually, program staff will not be permitted on the Zoom or phone call during the discussion. Similar to an in-person setting, program staff may be present at the start of the meeting to help participants connect with the project team (e.g., set up the technology, ensure participants are in the right place) but will exit before the discussion begins.
If the program cannot recruit enough participants for the focus groups, we will ask to interview participants individually and follow the same privacy, informed consent, and interview procedures as a virtual or in-person focus group.
The information we collect will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. Urban will obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for all data collection under this contract. All researchers working with the data will read and sign the Urban Institute’s Confidentiality Pledge, agreeing to adhere to the data security procedures laid out in the approved IRB submission. The contractor will safeguard all data, and only authorized users will have access to them. Information gathered for this study will be made available only to researchers authorized to work on the study.
Survey respondents will be told the purposes for which the information is collected, and that any identifiable information about them will not be used or disclosed for any other purpose, except under such circumstances as may be required by law. Respondents will be given this assurance during recruitment, as well as assurance that the information being gathered is for research purposes only (Appendices A, B and I). Respondents will be informed that participation is voluntary, that they may refuse to answer any question, and that they may stop their participation at any time.
For interviews and focus groups with agency heads and staff, Urban will use the informed consent documents attached to each interview and focus group guide (Instruments 5-11) to obtain consent for participation in the study. These forms detail the risks and benefits of participating and the expected privacy for each participant. These respondents are not in categories designated as vulnerable populations, and the information the evaluation team will collect is not highly sensitive. Because some study participants will be local agency or organization leaders, administrators or staff members, and because the team will name the sites in our reports, individuals reading the reports may be able to attribute particular information or comments to that respondent. The evaluation team will inform respondents about this potential risk.
For focus groups with youth who have leased up with FUP, Urban will use the informed consent for participants included with the focus group guide for youth (Instrument 4). The consent statement details the risks and benefits of participating and the level of expected privacy for each participant. Although there are some sensitive questions that will be asked (see section A11), the questions primarily revolve around the youth’s experience with FUP. Youth will be informed that they may choose not to answer any or all questions during the interview.
The project team will rely on agency leaders and staff at each site to recruit youth for the youth focus groups and to provide the physical space for the discussions. As directed by the research team, agency staff will recruit young adult participants age 18 and older who have leased up with FUP. Should focus groups be conducted virtually, program staff will share the contact information for youth with the project team. This information will be kept on a secure server and used for scheduling purposes as well as tracking the distribution of gift cards to youth. If focus groups are conducted in-person, agency staff will collect and maintain any contact information necessary for recruitment and coordinate with youth focus group participants.
To maintain participants’ privacy, the research team will request verbal, not written, consent, at the start of the focus group. Note that the agency staff who help with recruitment may be physically present at the sites of the youth focus groups when the groups are held to help with access to the building and other logistics, but will not be permitted to observe the focus group itself. Staff may also be present at the beginning of the virtual focus groups, to assist youth as they sign on, but will exit the meeting prior to the discussion.
The Urban Institute will also have a data security plan that outlines how the project will store, transfer and destroy sensitive information as well as the precautions to be taken during each of these activities to ensure the security of those data. The contractor has a secure server for a web-based data collection, utilizing its existing and continuously tested web-based survey infrastructure. The infrastructure features the use of HTTPS (secure socket, encrypted) data communication; authentication (login and password); firewalls; and multiple layers of servers, all implemented on a mixture of platforms and systems to minimize vulnerability to security breaches. Hosting on an HTTPS site ensures that data are transmitted using 128-bit encryption, so that transmissions intercepted by unauthorized users cannot be read as plain text. This security measure is in addition to standard password authentication that precludes unauthorized users from accessing the web application. The contractor has established data security plans for handling all data during all phases of survey execution and data processing for the surveys it conducts. Its existing plans meet the requirements of U.S. federal government agencies and are continually reviewed in the light of new government requirements and survey needs. Such security is based on (1) exacting company policy promulgated by the highest corporate officers in consultation with systems staff and outside consultants, (2) a secure systems infrastructure that is continually monitored and evaluated with respect to security risks, and (3) secure work practices of an informed staff that take all necessary precautions when dealing with private data.
There are no sensitive questions that will be asked of agency heads and staff. The only sensitive questions that will be asked as a part of the data collection are in the guide for the focus groups with youth who have leased up with FUP (Instrument 4). The goal of these focus groups with youth is to understand how they have experienced the FUP program, including what services they received and how FUP has affected their lives. All sensitive questions are asked purely in the context of how the youth experience the program. These questions will be used to describe the program from the youths’ perspectives. The sensitive topics include:
Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Domestic Violence and Legal Service Receipt. There are questions in the guide that ask whether youth received counseling or substance abuse treatment. There are also questions that ask whether they received help with a domestic violence situation or a legal issue. The guide does not ask about these issues beyond receiving services.
Child Welfare Involvement. All youth in the study will have been child welfare involved. In the guide, we ask a question about their history in foster care.
Material Hardship. The guide also covers youths’ past experiences of material hardship and how the program has impacted their ability to pay for things they need.
Before starting the youth focus groups, all respondents will be informed that their identities will be kept private and that they do not have to answer any question that makes them uncomfortable. Although such questions may be sensitive for many respondents, they have been successfully asked of similar respondents in other data collection efforts, such as in the in-depth parent interviews conducted for the supportive housing study of child welfare involved families (Cunningham et al. 2014).
Table A2 below shows the estimated burden of the information collection, which will take place for a period of approximately 22 months. We expect that respondents will include:
72 PCWA administrators for 0.58 hours each (Instrument 1)
111 PHA administrators for 0.58 hours each (Instrument 2)
99 COC administrators for 0.58 hours each (Instrument 3)
96 youth leased up with FUP for 1.5 hours each (Instrument 4)
192 PHA front-line staff for 1.5 hours each (Instrument 5)
312 PCWA and partner front-line staff for 1.5 hours each (Instrument 6)
16 PHA administrators and FUP liaisons for 1 hour each (Instrument 7)
16 PCWA administrators/FUP liaisons 1 hour each (Instrument 8)
16 COC administrators/FUP liaisons for 1 hour each (Instrument 9)
7 service provider FUP leads for 1 hour each (Instrument 10)
8 FSS program managers for 1 hour each (Instrument 11)
24 staff assisting with administrative data transfer for 5 hours each (Instrument 12)
The total annual cost burden to respondents is approximately $14,905.27. For administrators and managers, the figure ($34.46/hr) is based on the mean wages for “Social and Community Service Managers,” job code 11-9151, as reported in the May 2018 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages.1 For front-line staff at child welfare agencies, referring partners, and service provider partners, the figure ($23.92/hr) is based on the mean wages for “Child, Family, and School Social Workers,” job code 21-1021, as reported in the May 2018 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages.2 For public housing authority staff, the figure ($22.14/hr) is based on the mean wages for “Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other” job code 21-1099, as reported in the May 2018 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages.3 For staff assisting with administrative data transfer, the figure ($24.09) is based on the mean wages for “Statistical Assistants” job code 43-9111, as reported in the May 2018 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages.4 For youth, the $7.25 figure is based on the federal minimum wage.
Table A2
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 Burden (in hours) |
Annual Burden (in hours) |
Average Hourly Wage Rate |
Total Annual Respondent Cost |
Instrument 1 -- Public Child Welfare Agency Survey |
|
1 |
0.58 |
42 |
21 |
$34.46 |
$723.66 |
Instrument 2 -- Public Housing Agency Survey |
111 |
1 |
0.58 |
64 |
32 |
$34.46 |
$1,102.72 |
Instrument 3 -- Continuum of Care Survey |
99 |
1 |
0.58 |
57 |
29 |
$34.46 |
$999.34 |
Instrument 4 -- Focus Group Guide for Youth |
96 |
1 |
1.5 |
144 |
72 |
$7.25 |
$522.00 |
Instrument 5 -- Focus Group Guide for Public Housing Agency Intake Workers and Case Managers |
192 |
1 |
1.5 |
288 |
144 |
$22.14 |
$3,188.16 |
Instrument 6 -- Focus Group Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers, Referring Partner and Service Provider Partners |
312 |
1 |
1.5 |
468 |
234 |
$23.92 |
$5,597.28 |
Instrument 7 -- Interview Guide for Public Housing Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison |
16 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
8 |
$34.46 |
$275.68 |
Instrument 8 -- Interview Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison |
16 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
8 |
$34.46 |
$275.68 |
Instrument 9 -- Interview Guide for Continuum of Care Lead Organization Administrator and FUP Liaisons |
16 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
8 |
$34.46 |
$275.68 |
Instrument 10 -- Interview Guide for Service Provider FUP Leads |
7 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
3.5 |
$34.46 |
$120.61 |
Instrument 11 -- Interview Guide for Family Self Sufficiency Manager |
8 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
4 |
$34.46 |
$137.84 |
Instrument 12 -- Administrative data list |
24 |
1 |
5 |
120 |
60 |
$24.09
|
$1,445.40 |
Total |
|
|
|
1,246 |
624 |
|
$14,664.05 |
There are no additional costs to respondents.
The total cost for the data collection activities under this current request will be $400,000. The annualized cost is $200,000. The estimate includes the costs of project staff time to draft the surveys and discussion guides, collect the information, analyze the responses, and write up the results.
Table A3 below shows estimated costs to the federal government by cost category.
Table A3
|
FTE time |
Operation Expenses |
Total |
Study Design, Instrument, Development, and User Testing |
$64,000 |
$62,600 |
$126,600 |
Data Collection |
$89,000 |
$105,000 |
$194,000 |
Analysis and Dissemination |
$41,000 |
$38,000 |
$79,000 |
Total |
$194,000 |
$205,600 |
$399,600 |
No changes to the burden table are requested as a result of these proposed nonsubstantive changes.
Table A4 below provides a data collection schedule. The grant awards for 2018 grantees were made on November 21st, 2018 and program implementation was authorized to begin on January 1st, 2019. The Notice of Funding Availability for the 2019 grants was released on October 18th, 2019. We anticipate that 2019 grant awards will be made in February 2020 and that implementation will begin in winter 2020. The web-based survey will be administered to all FUP awardees approximately 12-14 months after the beginning of voucher issuance, upon OMB clearance. The survey will inform the selection of sites for site visits which will occur 16-17 months after the beginning of voucher issuance. These site visits will consist of interviews with agency heads, program managers, and service providers as well as focus groups with front-line workers and youth participants. Administrative data collection will occur 16-22 months after the beginning of voucher issuance.
Table A4
Task |
Description |
Timeframe (after OMB approval) |
Web-based survey |
Surveys of the PHA and PCWA FUP liaison and CoC FUP manager |
Approximately 12-14 months following beginning of voucher issuance |
Site visits (including interviews and focus groups) |
Interviews with agency heads, program managers, and service providers; Focus groups with front-line workers and youth participants |
Approximately 16-19 months following beginning of voucher issuance |
Administrative data collection |
Data on housing outcomes, referrals, child welfare history, HMIS data, and program/services |
Approximately 16-19 months following beginning of voucher issuance |
This work will result in a formative evaluation report that will be organized around assessing the falsifiability of key assumptions in FUP’s logic model.
No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.
Instrument 1 -- Public Child Welfare Agency Survey |
Instrument 2 -- Public Housing Agency Survey |
Instrument 3 -- Continuum of Care Survey |
Instrument 4 -- Focus Group Guide for Youth |
Instrument 5 -- Focus Group Guide for Public Housing Agency Intake Workers and Case Managers |
Instrument 6 -- Focus Group Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers, Referring Partner and Service Provider Partners |
Instrument 7 -- Interview Guide for Public Housing Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison |
Instrument 8 -- Interview Guide for Public Child Welfare Agency Administrator and FUP Liaison |
Instrument 9 -- Interview Guide for Continuum of Care Lead Organization Administrator and FUP Liaisons |
Instrument 10 -- Interview Guide for Service Provider FUP Leads |
Instrument 11 -- Interview Guide for Family Self Sufficiency Manager |
Instrument 12 -- Administrative data list |
Appendix A -- FUP Survey Outreach Email |
Appendix B -- FUP Survey Reminder Email |
Appendix C -- FUP Project Overview |
Appendix D -- FUP Project Fact Sheet |
Appendix E -- Youth Outreach Email |
Appendix F -- Youth Outreach Phone Script |
Appendix G -- Front-Line Staff Outreach Email |
Appendix H -- Lead Staff Outreach Email |
Appendix I -- FUP Survey Reminder Telephone Script |
Cunningham, Mary, Michael Pergamit, Maeve Gearing, Simone Zhang, and Brent Howell. 2014. “Supportive Housing for High-Need Families in the Child Welfare System.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Dion, Robin, Amy Dworsky, Jackie Kauff, and Rebecca Kleinman. 2014. Housing for youth aging out of foster care. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
1 “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed October 16th, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes119151.htm.
2 “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed October 16th, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211021.htm.
3 “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed October 16th, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes211099.htm.
4 “Occupational Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed October 16th, 2019, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes439111.htm.
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Sullivan, Laura |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2021-03-05 |