Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 4367-4369 [E6-964]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
whether an applicant’s proposed
program of utilization is an approvable
public health program, and then
recommends to the Administrator
which excess and surplus real property
is needed for that approved program in
the protection of the public health. 40
U.S.C. 550(d); 45 CFR 12.3(a).
Title V of the McKinney Act, which
was enacted in 1987, directs HHS to
include, as a permissible use in the
protection of public health, the
furnishing of surplus real property to
assist homeless individuals and
families. Title V does not prescribe
appropriate homeless assistance
programs.
HHS concluded in 1992 that longterm housing did not constitute an
appropriate public health use of surplus
real property under Title V. HHS
subsequently adopted the Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s
(HUD) standard, limiting occupancy in
Title V’s transitional housing programs
to 24 months. Until now, HHS has not
considered whether the provision of
long-term, community-based housing
linked with supportive services for
persons experiencing homelessness was
a permissible public health use.
The Secretary exercises the authority
to approve permanent supportive
housing programs for Title V, consistent
with HHS’ mission to protect the public
health. There are several critical
distinctions between the policy decision
in 1992 regarding the use of surplus real
property for low-income housing and
the current proposal to allow surplus
real property to be used for permanent
supportive housing. Low-income
housing is defined as subsidized
housing opportunities for individuals
with low incomes. The provision of
low-income housing (i.e. the Section 8
Housing Choice Voucher Program) is
under the purview of HUD. HHS, as the
nation’s public health agency, does not
operate low-income housing programs,
and does not possess the experience or
expertise to complement HUD’s
mission. The proposed policy revision
is intended to reaffirm HHS’ 1992
determination that the provision of lowincome housing does not constitute an
appropriate public health use of surplus
real property under Title V. In contrast,
we are proposing a permanent
supportive housing program that is
long-term, community-based, and
linked to supportive services for
homeless persons with disabilities.
II. Proposed Policy Revision
HHS has historically been involved in
the provision of permanent supportive
housing, such as through the Projects for
Assistance in Transition from
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Jan 25, 2006
Jkt 205001
Homelessness (PATH) program that is
operated in SAMHSA. Given HHS’
history of involvement in the health
service component of supportive
housing programs, there is precedent to
suggest that this would be an
appropriate public health use of surplus
real property under Title V.
Permanent supportive housing is a
service model that links housing and
services together, without the 24-month
time limit traditionally imposed by a
transitional housing program. Initial
research thus far suggests the
effectiveness of permanent supportive
housing for individuals with disabilities
and those who are chronically
homeless. In several studies, this model
has been successful at achieving
housing stability. For example,
placement of homeless people with
severe mental illness in permanent
supportive housing is associated with
reductions in subsequent use of shelters,
hospitalizations, and incarcerations
(Culhane et al., 2001). Early outcomes in
a study of supportive housing with
integrated services suggest that these
services reduced the use of emergency
health care rooms, psychiatric and
detoxification programs as well as
inpatient care (Corporation for
Supportive Housing, 2000).
Experimental studies comparing the
relative impact of case management and
housing resources suggest that long-term
housing resources are distinctively
effective in reducing homelessness
(Rosenheck, 2003).
The proposed policy revision would
allow property acquired through the
Title V process to be utilized for the
development of permanent supportive
housing programs that provide
permanent housing along with
supportive services to homeless people
in need of public health assistance and/
or services (e.g., substance abuse,
mental health, case management, and
disabled and frail elderly homeless
services). This change would not
preclude communities from using
surplus property to develop transitional
housing programs, emergency shelter
programs, or any other homeless
assistance program currently approvable
by HHS, but simply expands the options
available under Title V.
For the purpose of the Title V
program, permanent supportive housing
means programs that provide long-term,
community-based housing that is linked
to appropriate supportive health and
social services (e.g., substance abuse,
mental health, case management, and
disabled and frail elderly services) that
enable homeless individuals and
homeless families with disabilities to
maintain housing. Eligible populations
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4367
for this program include homeless
individuals with disabilities, homeless
families with a disabled family member
(either parent or child), and homeless
frail elderly populations.
The same evaluation criteria outlined
in the joint regulation will continue to
apply to all applications received for
consideration under Title V, including
those requesting property to be used for
permanent supportive housing.
Applicants must fully describe the
proposed program, demonstrate how the
services to be provided will address the
needs of the homeless population to be
served, and otherwise comply with the
requirements of Title V and the joint
agency regulation.
We invite public comment on all
aspects of the proposed policy change,
particularly on the proposed definition
of permanent supportive housing.
Dated: December 19, 2005.
J. Philip VanLandingham,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program
Support.
[FR Doc. E6–1016 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150–03–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 concerning
opportunity for public comment on
proposed collections of information, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
will publish periodic summaries of
proposed projects. To request more
information on the proposed projects or
to obtain a copy of the information
collection plans, call the SAMHSA
Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276–
1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4368
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Proposed Project: National Evaluation
of the Protection and Advocacy for
Individuals with Mental Illness
(PAIMI) Program—NEW
In recognition that systematic
evaluation of this and other government
programs are an expected practice under
both the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of
Management and Budget’s Program
Assessment and Rating Tool (PART), the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration’s Center for
Mental Health Services (CMHS) will
conduct an independent evaluation of
the PAIMI Program. CMHS will employ
information that is routinely collected
under existing program requirements
and is also expected to collect new,
additional data that are also necessary
for the conduct of the evaluation. [On
January 1, each eligible State protection
and advocacy (P&A) system is required
to transmit to the Secretary and head of
the State Mental Health Agency, in
which the system is located, a report
describing its activities,
accomplishments, and expenditures
during the most recently completed
fiscal year. None of the data collection
activities described above will be
redundant with these existing reporting
requirements.] The evaluation plan
includes gathering information about
the PAIMI program from persons with
different perspectives. Accordingly,
CMHS proposes to proceed with the
following new data collection activities:
(1) Survey interviews with the
Executive Directors of each of the
Protection and Advocacy Grantees, as
well as other staff whom they may ask
to join them in these interviews to
include:
a. Characteristics and shared
functions between the P&A Governing
Board and the PAIMI Advisory Council
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals
and priorities
c. Federal support of the PAIMI
program
d. Federal oversight of the PAIMI
program
e. Organization and staffing of PAIMI
responsibilities within the P&A
f. Procedures for quality management
g. Background of respondent
(2) Surveys of and focus groups with
persons who receive services from
PAIMI programs to include:
a. Access to PAIMI services
b. Quality of services provided to
clients
c. Satisfaction with services
d. Background of respondent
(3) Surveys of the Chairs of the
Advisory Councils of each PAIMI
Grantee to include:
a. Characteristics and shared
functions between the P&A Governing
Board and the PAIMI Advisory Council
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals
and priorities and assessment of those
priorities
c. Organization and staffing of PAIMI
responsibilities within the P&A
d. Quality of services provided to
clients
e. Background of respondent
(4) Surveys of the Program Directors
of State Mental Health Authorities to
include:
a. Types of communication between
the State Mental Health Authority and
the PAIMI program
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals
and priorities and assessment of those
priorities
c. Relationship between the State
Mental Health Authority and the PAIMI
program
d. Role of the PAIMI program in the
mental health advocacy community
Number of
respondents
Surveys
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
P&A Executive Director Survey ...................................................................
PAIMI Client Survey ....................................................................................
PAIMI Advisory Council Chair Survey .........................................................
State Mental Health Program Directors Survey ..........................................
Directors of Other Mental Health Advocacy Organizations Survey ............
Totals ....................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Jan 25, 2006
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
57
100
57
57
171
442
Sfmt 4703
e. Background of respondent
(5) Survey of directors of other
organizations who are likely to be
familiar with or collaborate in PAIMI
activities in each State; including family
and consumer groups and other mental
health advocacy organizations to
include:
a. Types of interaction between the
State Mental Health Authority and the
PAIMI program.
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals
and priorities and assessment of those
priorities
c. Relationship between the
organization and the PAIMI program
d. Access to and quality of services
provided to PAIMI recipients
e. Role of the PAIMI program in the
mental health advocacy community
f. Background of respondent
The PAIMI program has never
undergone an independent evaluation.
The approach being used is to conduct
survey interviews with a cross-section
of five primary Stakeholder groups
connected to the PAIMI program,
including Program Directors/staff,
Clients/Recipients of services, PAIMI
Advisory Council Chairs, Directors of
State Mental Health Authorities, and
Directors of Other Mental Health
Advocacy Organizations in an effort to
obtain a representative sample of
viewpoints about the PAIMI program.
The surveys have been developed to
include questions relevant to each of the
respective Stakeholder groups named
above and range from 22 questions to as
many as 88 questions. Depending on the
Stakeholder group, respondent surveys
are expected to take from thirty minutes
up to two hours to complete.
The burden estimate for conducting
the surveys under the evaluation plan
for the PAIMI Program is as follows:
Responses
per
respondent
Burden per
response
(hrs.)
1
1
1
1
1
........................
2
1.5
1
.5
.5
..........................
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Total burden
(hrs.)
114
150
57
28.5
85.5
425
4369
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2006 / Notices
Send comments to Summer King,
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 71–1044, One Choke Cherry
Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written
comments should be received within 60
days of this notice.
Dated: January 20, 2006.
Anna Marsh,
Executive Officer, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. E6–964 Filed 1–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with section
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 concerning
opportunity for public comment on
proposed collections of information, the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration will publish
periodic summaries of proposed
projects. To request more information
on the proposed projects or to obtain a
copy of the information collection
plans, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection
of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Proposed Project: National Evaluation
of the Comprehensive Community
Mental Health Services for Children
and Their Families Program: Phase V—
NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), Center of Mental Health is
responsible for the national evaluation
of the Comprehensive Community
Mental Health Services for Children and
Their Families Program that will collect
data on child mental health outcomes,
family life, and service system
development and performance. Data
will be collected on 25 service systems,
and roughly 7310 children and families.
The data collection for this evaluation
will be conducted over a five-year
period. The core of service system data
will be collected every 18 to 24 months
throughout the 5-year evaluation period,
with a sustainability survey conducted
in selected years. Service delivery and
system variables of interest include the
following: maturity of system of care
development, adherence to the system
of care program model, and client
service experience. The length of time
that individual families will participate
in the study ranges from 18 to 36
months depending on when they enter
the evaluation. Child and family
outcomes of interest will be collected at
intake and during subsequent follow-up
interviews at six-month intervals. Client
service experience information is
collected at these follow-up interviews.
Measures included in an outcome
interview are determined by the type of
assessment (intake or follow up), child’s
age, and whether the respondent is the
caregiver or a youth.
The outcome measures include the
following: Child symptomatology and
functioning, family functioning,
material resources, and caregiver strain.
The caregiver interview package
includes the Caregiver Information
Questionnaire, Child Behavior
Checklist, Behavioral and Emotional
Rating Scale (BERS), Education
Questionnaire, Columbia Impairment
Questionnaire, Living Situations
Questionnaire, Family Life
Questionnaire, and Caregiver Strain
Questionnaire (caregivers of children
under age 6 complete the Vineland
Screener to assess development, and do
not complete the BERS) at intake, and
also complete the Multi-service Sector
Contacts Form, Culturally Competence
and Service Provision Questionnaire
and the Youth Services Survey (a
national outcome measurement tool).
The Youth Interview package includes
the Youth Information Questionnaire,
Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety
Scale, Reynolds Depression Scale, BERS
(youth version), Delinquency Survey,
Substance Use Survey, GAIN-Quick:
Substance Dependence Scale, and
Youth Services Survey (youth version).
In addition the evaluation will
include two special studies: (1) An
evidence-based practices study will
examine provider use of evidence-based
practices, community readiness and
implementation of evidence-based
practices, and consumer experience
with these practices; (2) A cultural and
linguistic competence study will
examine the extent to which the cultural
and linguistic characteristics of
communities influence program
implementation and provider
adaptation of evidence-based
treatments, and provider service
delivery decisions based on provider
culture and language. The national
evaluation measures address the
national outcome measures for mental
health programs as currently established
by SAMHSA.
Internet-based technology will be
used for data entry and management,
and for collecting data using Web-based
surveys. The average annual respondent
burden with detail provided about
burden contributed by specific measures
is estimated below. The estimate reflects
the average number of respondents in
each respondent category, the average
number of responses per respondent per
year, the average length time it will take
for each response, and the total average
annual burden for each category of
respondent, and for all categories of
respondents combined.
ESTIMATE OF RESPONDENT BURDEN
[Note: Total burden is annualized over a 5-year period.]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Instrument
Respondent
System-of-care Assessment:
Interview Guides and Data Collection Forms.
Interagency Collaboration Scale
(IACS).
Cross-sectional Descriptive Study:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Jan 25, 2006
Key site informants.
Key site informants.
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Total average
number of
responses per
respondent
Number of
respondents
Frm 00024
Hours per
response
Total burden
hours
5 year
average annual burden
hours
525
3
1.00
1,575
315
525
3
0.13
210
42
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4367-4369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-964]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed
collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of
proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects
or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the
SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use
[[Page 4368]]
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Proposed Project: National Evaluation of the Protection and Advocacy
for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Program--NEW
In recognition that systematic evaluation of this and other
government programs are an expected practice under both the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and
Budget's Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART), the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Mental Health
Services (CMHS) will conduct an independent evaluation of the PAIMI
Program. CMHS will employ information that is routinely collected under
existing program requirements and is also expected to collect new,
additional data that are also necessary for the conduct of the
evaluation. [On January 1, each eligible State protection and advocacy
(P&A) system is required to transmit to the Secretary and head of the
State Mental Health Agency, in which the system is located, a report
describing its activities, accomplishments, and expenditures during the
most recently completed fiscal year. None of the data collection
activities described above will be redundant with these existing
reporting requirements.] The evaluation plan includes gathering
information about the PAIMI program from persons with different
perspectives. Accordingly, CMHS proposes to proceed with the following
new data collection activities:
(1) Survey interviews with the Executive Directors of each of the
Protection and Advocacy Grantees, as well as other staff whom they may
ask to join them in these interviews to include:
a. Characteristics and shared functions between the P&A Governing
Board and the PAIMI Advisory Council
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals and priorities
c. Federal support of the PAIMI program
d. Federal oversight of the PAIMI program
e. Organization and staffing of PAIMI responsibilities within the
P&A
f. Procedures for quality management
g. Background of respondent
(2) Surveys of and focus groups with persons who receive services
from PAIMI programs to include:
a. Access to PAIMI services
b. Quality of services provided to clients
c. Satisfaction with services
d. Background of respondent
(3) Surveys of the Chairs of the Advisory Councils of each PAIMI
Grantee to include:
a. Characteristics and shared functions between the P&A Governing
Board and the PAIMI Advisory Council
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals and priorities and assessment
of those priorities
c. Organization and staffing of PAIMI responsibilities within the
P&A
d. Quality of services provided to clients
e. Background of respondent
(4) Surveys of the Program Directors of State Mental Health
Authorities to include:
a. Types of communication between the State Mental Health Authority
and the PAIMI program
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals and priorities and assessment
of those priorities
c. Relationship between the State Mental Health Authority and the
PAIMI program
d. Role of the PAIMI program in the mental health advocacy
community
e. Background of respondent
(5) Survey of directors of other organizations who are likely to be
familiar with or collaborate in PAIMI activities in each State;
including family and consumer groups and other mental health advocacy
organizations to include:
a. Types of interaction between the State Mental Health Authority
and the PAIMI program.
b. Processes to establish PAIMI goals and priorities and assessment
of those priorities
c. Relationship between the organization and the PAIMI program
d. Access to and quality of services provided to PAIMI recipients
e. Role of the PAIMI program in the mental health advocacy
community
f. Background of respondent
The PAIMI program has never undergone an independent evaluation.
The approach being used is to conduct survey interviews with a cross-
section of five primary Stakeholder groups connected to the PAIMI
program, including Program Directors/staff, Clients/Recipients of
services, PAIMI Advisory Council Chairs, Directors of State Mental
Health Authorities, and Directors of Other Mental Health Advocacy
Organizations in an effort to obtain a representative sample of
viewpoints about the PAIMI program. The surveys have been developed to
include questions relevant to each of the respective Stakeholder groups
named above and range from 22 questions to as many as 88 questions.
Depending on the Stakeholder group, respondent surveys are expected to
take from thirty minutes up to two hours to complete.
The burden estimate for conducting the surveys under the evaluation
plan for the PAIMI Program is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden per
Surveys Number of Responses per response Total burden
respondents respondent (hrs.) (hrs.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P&A Executive Director Survey................. 57 1 2 114
PAIMI Client Survey........................... 100 1 1.5 150
PAIMI Advisory Council Chair Survey........... 57 1 1 57
State Mental Health Program Directors Survey.. 57 1 .5 28.5
Directors of Other Mental Health Advocacy 171 1 .5 85.5
Organizations Survey.........................
Totals.................................... 442 .............. ............... 425
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4369]]
Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer,
Room 71-1044, One Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20857. Written
comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Dated: January 20, 2006.
Anna Marsh,
Executive Officer, SAMHSA.
[FR Doc. E6-964 Filed 1-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
