Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 47053-47055 [E7-16537]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
II. References
The following reference has been
placed on public display in the Division
of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES), and may be seen between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
1. Payne, B.K., C.M. Cheng, O. Govorun, et
al., ‘‘An Inkblot for Attitudes: Affect
Misattribution as Implicit Measurement,’’
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
vol. 89 (3), pp. 277–293, 2005.
Dated: August 16, 2007.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E7–16603 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120
Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Christine A. Livingston,
PhD, Scientific Review Administrator,
Division of Extramural Activities, National
Institutes of Health/NIDCD, 6120 Executive
Blvd.—MSC 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(301) 496–8683, livingsc@mail.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research
Related to Deafness and Communicative
Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: August 14, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07–4101 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
National Institute on Deafness and
Other Communication Disorders;
Notice of Closed Meetings
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given of the following
meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the
public in accordance with the
provisions set forth in sections
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
as amended. The grant applications and
the discussions could disclose
confidential trade secrets or commercial
property such as patentable material,
and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the grant
applications, the disclosure of which
would constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, T35 Short
Term Institutionals Research Training.
Date: September 20, 2007.
Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6120
Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Stanley C. Oaks, PhD,
Scientific Review Administrator, Division of
Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH,
Executive Plaza South, Room 400C, 6120
Executive Blvd—MSC 7180, Bethesda, MD
20892–7180, 301–496–8683, so14s@nih.gov.
Name of Committee: National Institute on
Deafness and Other Communication
Disorders Special Emphasis Panel, Diseases
of the Vestibular System.
Date: September 24, 2007.
Time: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) will publish a summary of
information collection requests under
OMB review, in compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Project: Independent Evaluation of the
Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant Program—NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), the Center for Mental
Health Services (CMHS) administers the
Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant (CMHS BG). The
Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant was funded by Congress to
develop community-based systems of
care for adults with serious mental
illness (SMI) and children with severe
emotional disorders (SED), and has been
the largest Federal program dedicated to
improving community mental health
services. States have latitude in
determining how to spend their funds to
support services for adults with SMI
and children with SED. The only
requirements outlined in the
authorizing legislation for State receipt
of CMHS BG funds are provisions to
increase children’s services, create a
State mental health planning council,
and to develop a State mental health
plan to be submitted to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS). The
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47053
State mental health planning council is
to comprise various State constituents
including providers, administrators, and
mental health services consumers. Each
State plan must:
• Provide for the establishment and
implementation of an organized
community-based system of care for
individuals with mental illness.
• Estimate the incidence and
prevalence of adults with SMI and
children with SED within the State.
• Provide for a system of integrated
services appropriate for the multiple
needs of children.
• Provide for outreach to and services
for rural and homeless populations.
• Describe the financial and other
resources necessary to implement the
plan and describe how the CMHS BG
funds are to be spent.
In addition, Congress included a
maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
requirement that a State’s expenditures
for community mental health services
be no less than the average spent in the
two preceding fiscal years.
The CMHS BG received an adequate
rating on the OMB PART in 2003.
Clearly in the follow up period to that
assessment, one of the critical areas that
must be addressed is the expectation
that an independent and objective
evaluation of the program is to be
carried out initially and at regular
intervals. In addition, the program
evaluation has been designed to be of
high quality, sufficient scope and
unbiased (with appropriate
documentation for each of these
elements). In fact it is in addressing an
evaluation of the program that critical
elements of accountability and program
performance are also identified and
initially assessed. The rigor of the
evaluation is seen in how it addresses
the effectiveness of the program’s
impact with regard to its mission and
long term goals. By legislative design
the CMHS BG Program has previously
focused on legislative compliance. Now
it addresses the impact of the program
nationally, over time, with a view to
coming to terms with identified program
deficiencies and the corresponding
impact of proposed changes.
In this evaluation, a multi-method
evaluation approach is being used to
examine Federal and State performance
with regard to the CMHS BG and its
identified goals. This approach
emphasizes a qualitative and
quantitative examination of both the
CMHS BG process (e.g., activities and
outputs in the logic model) and systemlevel outcomes whereby Federal and
State stakeholder perspectives on the
CMHS BG, as captured through semistructured interviews and surveys, are
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
47054
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
corroborated and compared to the
considerable amount of alreadycollected source documents provided by
States and CMHS (e.g., State plans,
implementation reports, review
summaries and monitoring site visit
reports). More specifically, data
collection will be conducted using four
primary strategies: interviews and
surveys of key stakeholders, data
abstraction from source documents (i.e.,
CMHS BG applications and
implementation reports), secondary data
analysis (e.g., analysis of Uniform
Reporting System (URS) data and
National Outcome Measures (NOMS),
and case studies highlighting important
themes and issues relating to State
CMHS BG implementation.
This evaluation is also seeking to
measure the effectiveness of the CMHS
BG through a variety of infrastructure
indicators and NOMS measures.
Infrastructure refers to the resources,
systems, and policies that support the
nation’s public mental health service
delivery system, and is a potential
contributor to significant State
behavioral health system outcomes.
Examples of infrastructure include staff
training, consumer involvement in the
State mental health system, policy
changes, and service availability.
Outcomes related to infrastructure and
the NOMS were included in the
program logic model that has been
developed and are expected to be
examined through the data collection
strategies listed above.
Infrastructure indicators that can be
measured in this evaluation, for which
some form of data can be collected
include:
• Range of available services within a
State.
• Capacity (No. of persons served).
• Specialized services (such as cooccurring disorders).
• Number of persons served by
evidence-based practices (EBPs).
• Staff credentialing (identify
patterns).
• Program accreditation (as a quality
marker).
• Staff/workforce development (TA &
training available for State staff).
• Connections with other agencies
(e.g., MOUs, joint funding, joint
appointments).
• Policy changes initiated.
• Policy changes completed.
• Consumer involvement.
Two data collection strategies will be
used for this evaluation: Two (2) openended interviews and four (4) Webbased surveys. Interviews will be
conducted with Federal staff involved
in the administration of the CMHS BG
and State staff from all States and
Territories involved in their State’s
implementation of the CMHS BG
program. The two interview guides, one
for Federal staff and one for State staff,
range from 54 to 94 open-ended
questions. The Federal staff interview is
expected to take one hour to complete
while the State staff interview is
expected to take two hours on average
to complete, and can be done over two
sessions. Because of the relatively small
number of Federal and State staff
participating in the evaluation,
interviews are an optimal data
collection strategy to gather the
extensive qualitative data needed for the
evaluation while minimizing reporting
burden. Federal staff stakeholders will
be interviewed in person due to their
close proximity to the interviewers and
State staff stakeholder interviews will be
conducted via conference call. State
Mental Health Agency (SMHA)
Commissioners will select those State
staff who are knowledgeable about the
CMHS BG for participation in the
interviews. It is anticipated that, at a
minimum, a State Planner, State Data
Analyst, and the SMHA Commissioner
will participate.
The four (4) Web-based surveys will
be distributed nationally to State
Planning Council Chairs, State Planning
Council Members, CMHS BG Regional
Reviewers, and CMHS BG Monitoring
Site Visitors. The Web-based surveys
will be tailored so that each of the four
different stakeholder groups will receive
survey questions designed to capture
their specific knowledge of and
experience with the CMHS BG. It is
estimated that any one individual
stakeholder will require one hour to
complete their own survey, which
contains a range of 22 to 42 mostly fillin-the blank type questions. Each
member of the four major stakeholder
groups will submit their responses to
the survey online over a three-week
period.
Table 1 summarizes the estimate of
the total time burden to Federal and
State staff stakeholders resulting from
the interviews. Table 2 summarizes the
estimate of the total time burden to
Planning Council members, Regional
Reviewers, and Monitoring Site Visitors
resulting from completion of the webbased surveys. Table 3 summarizes the
total reporting burden for all data
collection strategies.
TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN OF INTERVIEWS
Number of
respondents
Respondent
Estimated total
burden
(hours)
Average hours
per interview
State Mental Health Agency Commissioner ....................................................................
State Planners .................................................................................................................
State Data Analysts .........................................................................................................
Federal CMHS Block Grant Staff ....................................................................................
59
59
59
20
3.5
3.5
3.5
1
206.5
206.5
206.5
20
Total Burden .............................................................................................................
197
............................
639.5
TABLE 2.—ESTIMATED REPORTING BURDEN OF WEB-BASED SURVEYS
Number of
respondents
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Respondent
Estimated total
burden
(hours)
Average hours
per survey
Planning Council Members ..............................................................................................
Regional Block Grant Reviewers .....................................................................................
Monitoring Site Visitors ....................................................................................................
2000
35
28
1
1
1
2000
35
28
Total Burden .............................................................................................................
2,063
............................
2,063
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 22, 2007 / Notices
collection of information on
TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED REPORTING
BURDEN OF ALL DATA COLLECTION respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
STRATEGIES
other forms of information technology.
Proposed Project: Cross-Site Evaluation
of the Minority Substance Abuse/HIV/
Hepatitis Prevention Program—NEW
Interviews ..............................
639.5
The cross-site evaluation builds on
Web-based Surveys .............
2,063
five previous grant programs funded by
Total Burden ..................
2,702.5 SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention (CSAP) to provide HIV
prevention services for minority
Written comments and
populations. The first two were
recommendations concerning the
proposed information collection should planning grant programs and the last
three were service grant programs. HIV
be sent by September 21, 2007 to:
Cohort 1 and HIV Cohort 2 funded 2SAMHSA Desk Officer, Human
year planning grants in FY 2000 and FY
Resources and Housing Branch, Office
2001 respectively. HIV Cohort 3 funded
of Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 48 3-year grants in FY 2002, HIV Cohort
Washington, DC 20503; due to potential 4 funded 22 5-year grants in FY 2003
and HIV Cohort 5 funded 46 4-year
delays in OMB’s receipt and processing
grants in FY 2004. The goals for the
of mail sent through the U.S. Postal
Cohort 3–5 grants were to add, increase,
Service, respondents are encouraged to
or enhance integrated substance abuse
submit comments by fax to: 202–395–
(SA) and HIV prevention services by
6974.
providing supportive services and
Dated: August 13, 2007.
strengthening linkages between service
Elaine Parry,
providers for at-risk minority
Acting Director, Office of Program Services.
populations. The HIV Cohort 1–3 grants
[FR Doc. E7–16537 Filed 8–21–07; 8:45 am]
previously received OMB clearance No.
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
0930–0208.
The current HIV Cohort 6 Minority
SA/HIV/Hepatitis Prevention Program
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
funded 81 5-year grants in FY 2005 to
HUMAN SERVICES
community based organizations that are
required to address the SAMSHA
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF)
Services Administration
and participate in this cross-site
evaluation. The grantees are expected to
Agency Information Collection
provide leadership and coordination on
Activities: Proposed Collection;
the planning and implementation of the
Comment Request
SPF that targets minority populations
In compliance with Section
and the minority reentry population in
3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork
communities of color with high
Reduction Act of 1995 concerning
prevalence of SA, HIV/AIDS, and
opportunity for public comment on
Hepatitis. The primary objectives of the
proposed collections of information, the cross-site evaluation are to: (1) Assess
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
the process of adopting and
Services Administration (SAMHSA)
implementing the SPF with the target
will publish periodic summaries of
populations; (2) measure the
proposed projects. To request more
effectiveness of specified intervention
information on the proposed projects or strategies such as cultural enrichment
activities, educational and vocational
to obtain a copy of the information
services; and/or computer-based
collection plans, call the SAMHSA
Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276– curricula; and (3) determine the success
of the program in delaying, preventing,
1243.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether and/or reducing the use of alcohol,
the proposed collections of information
tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD) among
are necessary for the proper
the target populations. The grantees are
performance of the functions of the
expected to provide an effective
agency, including whether the
prevention process, direction, and a
information shall have practical utility;
common set of goals, expectations, and
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate accountabilities to be adapted and
of the burden of the proposed collection integrated at the community level.
of information; (c) ways to enhance the
While the grantees have substantial
quality, utility, and clarity of the
flexibility in choosing their individual
information to be collected; and (d)
evidence-based programs, they are all
ways to minimize the burden of the
required to base them on the five steps
Data collection strategy
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Estimated total
burden
(hours)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:26 Aug 21, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47055
of the SPF to build service capacity
specific to SA, HIV, and Hepatitis
prevention services. In FY 2006, all the
grantees initiated Steps 1–3 of the SPF,
namely conducting a needs assessment,
building capacity, and planning how to
implement their projects. Once their
plans have been approved by their
Project Officers they can proceed to Step
4 (implementation) and Step 5
(evaluation). Conducting this cross-site
evaluation will assist SAMHSA/CSAP
in promoting and disseminating
optimally effective prevention
programs.
Grantees must also conduct ongoing
monitoring and evaluation of their
projects to assess program effectiveness
including Federal reporting of the
Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) of 1993, the Performance
Assessment Rating Tool (PART),
SAMHSA/CSAP National Outcome
Measures (NOMs), and HIV Counseling
and Testing. All of this information will
be collected through self-report
questionnaires administered to program
participants. All grantees will use two
instruments, one for youth aged
between 12 and 17 and one for adults
aged 18 and older. These instruments
include baseline, exit and 3–6 month
follow-up (post-exit) questionnaires
related to GPRA and NOMs augmented
by questions pertaining to HIV and
Hepatitis. While the GPRA and NOMs
measures have already been approved
by OMB (OMB No. 0930–0230), the
remaining HIV and Hepatitis-related
questions have not, hence this data
collection. Each questionnaire contains
135 questions, of which 102 relate to
HIV and Hepatitis.
Sample size, respondent burden, and
intrusiveness have been minimized to
be consistent with the cross-site
objectives. Procedures are employed to
safeguard the privacy and
confidentiality of participants. Every
effort has been made to coordinate
cross-site data collection with local data
collection efforts in an attempt to
minimize respondent burden.
The cross-site evaluation results will
have significant implications for the
substance abuse, HIV/AIDS and
Hepatitis prevention fields, the
allocation of grant funds, and other
evaluation activities conducted by
multiple Federal, State, and local
government agencies. They will be used
to develop Federal policy in support of
SAMHSA/CSAP program initiatives,
inform the public of lessons learned and
findings, improve existing programs,
and promote replication and
dissemination of effective prevention
strategies.
E:\FR\FM\22AUN1.SGM
22AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 22, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47053-47055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16537]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information
collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Project: Independent Evaluation of the Community Mental Health Services
Block Grant Program--NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), the Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) administers the
Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (CMHS BG). The Community
Mental Health Services Block Grant was funded by Congress to develop
community-based systems of care for adults with serious mental illness
(SMI) and children with severe emotional disorders (SED), and has been
the largest Federal program dedicated to improving community mental
health services. States have latitude in determining how to spend their
funds to support services for adults with SMI and children with SED.
The only requirements outlined in the authorizing legislation for State
receipt of CMHS BG funds are provisions to increase children's
services, create a State mental health planning council, and to develop
a State mental health plan to be submitted to the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (HHS). The State mental health planning council is
to comprise various State constituents including providers,
administrators, and mental health services consumers. Each State plan
must:
Provide for the establishment and implementation of an
organized community-based system of care for individuals with mental
illness.
Estimate the incidence and prevalence of adults with SMI
and children with SED within the State.
Provide for a system of integrated services appropriate
for the multiple needs of children.
Provide for outreach to and services for rural and
homeless populations.
Describe the financial and other resources necessary to
implement the plan and describe how the CMHS BG funds are to be spent.
In addition, Congress included a maintenance-of-effort (MOE)
requirement that a State's expenditures for community mental health
services be no less than the average spent in the two preceding fiscal
years.
The CMHS BG received an adequate rating on the OMB PART in 2003.
Clearly in the follow up period to that assessment, one of the critical
areas that must be addressed is the expectation that an independent and
objective evaluation of the program is to be carried out initially and
at regular intervals. In addition, the program evaluation has been
designed to be of high quality, sufficient scope and unbiased (with
appropriate documentation for each of these elements). In fact it is in
addressing an evaluation of the program that critical elements of
accountability and program performance are also identified and
initially assessed. The rigor of the evaluation is seen in how it
addresses the effectiveness of the program's impact with regard to its
mission and long term goals. By legislative design the CMHS BG Program
has previously focused on legislative compliance. Now it addresses the
impact of the program nationally, over time, with a view to coming to
terms with identified program deficiencies and the corresponding impact
of proposed changes.
In this evaluation, a multi-method evaluation approach is being
used to examine Federal and State performance with regard to the CMHS
BG and its identified goals. This approach emphasizes a qualitative and
quantitative examination of both the CMHS BG process (e.g., activities
and outputs in the logic model) and system-level outcomes whereby
Federal and State stakeholder perspectives on the CMHS BG, as captured
through semi-structured interviews and surveys, are
[[Page 47054]]
corroborated and compared to the considerable amount of already-
collected source documents provided by States and CMHS (e.g., State
plans, implementation reports, review summaries and monitoring site
visit reports). More specifically, data collection will be conducted
using four primary strategies: interviews and surveys of key
stakeholders, data abstraction from source documents (i.e., CMHS BG
applications and implementation reports), secondary data analysis
(e.g., analysis of Uniform Reporting System (URS) data and National
Outcome Measures (NOMS), and case studies highlighting important themes
and issues relating to State CMHS BG implementation.
This evaluation is also seeking to measure the effectiveness of the
CMHS BG through a variety of infrastructure indicators and NOMS
measures. Infrastructure refers to the resources, systems, and policies
that support the nation's public mental health service delivery system,
and is a potential contributor to significant State behavioral health
system outcomes. Examples of infrastructure include staff training,
consumer involvement in the State mental health system, policy changes,
and service availability. Outcomes related to infrastructure and the
NOMS were included in the program logic model that has been developed
and are expected to be examined through the data collection strategies
listed above.
Infrastructure indicators that can be measured in this evaluation,
for which some form of data can be collected include:
Range of available services within a State.
Capacity (No. of persons served).
Specialized services (such as co-occurring disorders).
Number of persons served by evidence-based practices
(EBPs).
Staff credentialing (identify patterns).
Program accreditation (as a quality marker).
Staff/workforce development (TA & training available for
State staff).
Connections with other agencies (e.g., MOUs, joint
funding, joint appointments).
Policy changes initiated.
Policy changes completed.
Consumer involvement.
Two data collection strategies will be used for this evaluation:
Two (2) open-ended interviews and four (4) Web-based surveys.
Interviews will be conducted with Federal staff involved in the
administration of the CMHS BG and State staff from all States and
Territories involved in their State's implementation of the CMHS BG
program. The two interview guides, one for Federal staff and one for
State staff, range from 54 to 94 open-ended questions. The Federal
staff interview is expected to take one hour to complete while the
State staff interview is expected to take two hours on average to
complete, and can be done over two sessions. Because of the relatively
small number of Federal and State staff participating in the
evaluation, interviews are an optimal data collection strategy to
gather the extensive qualitative data needed for the evaluation while
minimizing reporting burden. Federal staff stakeholders will be
interviewed in person due to their close proximity to the interviewers
and State staff stakeholder interviews will be conducted via conference
call. State Mental Health Agency (SMHA) Commissioners will select those
State staff who are knowledgeable about the CMHS BG for participation
in the interviews. It is anticipated that, at a minimum, a State
Planner, State Data Analyst, and the SMHA Commissioner will
participate.
The four (4) Web-based surveys will be distributed nationally to
State Planning Council Chairs, State Planning Council Members, CMHS BG
Regional Reviewers, and CMHS BG Monitoring Site Visitors. The Web-based
surveys will be tailored so that each of the four different stakeholder
groups will receive survey questions designed to capture their specific
knowledge of and experience with the CMHS BG. It is estimated that any
one individual stakeholder will require one hour to complete their own
survey, which contains a range of 22 to 42 mostly fill-in-the blank
type questions. Each member of the four major stakeholder groups will
submit their responses to the survey online over a three-week period.
Table 1 summarizes the estimate of the total time burden to Federal
and State staff stakeholders resulting from the interviews. Table 2
summarizes the estimate of the total time burden to Planning Council
members, Regional Reviewers, and Monitoring Site Visitors resulting
from completion of the web-based surveys. Table 3 summarizes the total
reporting burden for all data collection strategies.
Table 1.--Estimated Reporting Burden of Interviews
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average hours Estimated total
Respondent respondents per interview burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Mental Health Agency Commissioner................... 59 3.5 206.5
State Planners............................................ 59 3.5 206.5
State Data Analysts....................................... 59 3.5 206.5
Federal CMHS Block Grant Staff............................ 20 1 20
-----------------------------------------------------
Total Burden.......................................... 197 ................ 639.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Estimated Reporting Burden of Web-Based Surveys
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average hours Estimated total
Respondent respondents per survey burden (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning Council Members.................................. 2000 1 2000
Regional Block Grant Reviewers............................ 35 1 35
Monitoring Site Visitors.................................. 28 1 28
-----------------------------------------------------
Total Burden.......................................... 2,063 ................ 2,063
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47055]]
Table 3.--Estimated Reporting Burden of All Data Collection Strategies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Data collection strategy total burden
(hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviews............................................... 639.5
Web-based Surveys........................................ 2,063
--------------
Total Burden......................................... 2,702.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
information collection should be sent by September 21, 2007 to: SAMHSA
Desk Officer, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management
and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC
20503; due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service, respondents are encouraged to
submit comments by fax to: 202-395-6974.
Dated: August 13, 2007.
Elaine Parry,
Acting Director, Office of Program Services.
[FR Doc. E7-16537 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
