Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request, 36261-36263 [2012-14819]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting
costs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is 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
(including hours and cost) 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.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: June 13, 2012.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–14802 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Socioeconomic
Assessment of Gulf of Mexico
Fisheries Under the Grouper-Tilefish
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before August 17, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:02 Jun 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Dr. Larry Perruso, (305) 361–
4278 or Larry.perruso@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This request is for a new information
collection.
The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) proposes to collect
demographic, cultural, economic and
social information about Gulf of Mexico
fisheries managed under the GrouperTilefish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ)
Program. The survey also intends to
inquire about the industry’s
perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about
the performance of the Grouper-Tilefish
IFQ Program. The data gathered will be
used to describe the social and
economic changes brought about by the
Grouper-Tilefish IFQ Program, assess
the economic performance of the
industry under the Grouper-Tilefish IFQ
Program, and evaluate the
socioeconomic impacts of future federal
regulatory actions. In addition, the
information will be used to strengthen
and improve fishery management
decision-making, satisfy legal mandates
under Executive Order 12866, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the Endangered Species
Act, and the National Environmental
Policy Act, and other pertinent statues.
II. Method of Collection
The socioeconomic information
sought will be collected via in-person
surveys.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: None.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission
(request for a new information
collection).
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
120.
Estimated Time per Response: 2 hrs.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 240.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36261
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) 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.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: June 13, 2012.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–14770 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
Information Collection; Submission for
OMB Review, Comment Request
Corporation for National and
Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Corporation for National
and Community Service (CNCS) has
submitted a public information
collection request (ICR) entitled Senior
Corps Performance Measurement
Surveys Parts A, B, and C for review and
approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter
35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, may be
obtained by calling the Corporation for
National and Community Service,
Angela Roberts, at (202) 606–6822 or
email to aroberts@cns.gov. Individuals
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call 1–800–
833–3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday.
SUMMARY:
Comments may be
submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB
Desk Officer for the Corporation for
National and Community Service, by
any of the following two methods
within 30 days from the date of
publication in the Federal Register:
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
36262
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
(1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974,
Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk
Officer for the Corporation for National
and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by email to:
smar@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB
is particularly interested in comments
which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of CNCS, including whether
the information will have practical
utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Propose ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
Comments
The 60-day Notice soliciting
comments was published on Thursday,
December 8, 2011 on page 76697. A
total of 278 comments were received
from 87 commenters. Most individuals
providing comments submitted more
than one comment each. The
commenters represented all three Senior
Corps programs in the following
proportions: 65 Individuals, or 75
percent from RSVP; 2 individuals, or 2
percent from the Foster Grandparent
Program; 2 individuals or percent from
the Senior Companion Program; 12
individuals, or 15 percent had no
program identified; and the remaining 6
individuals, or 6 percent represented a
combination of programs. In all cases,
the majority of comments were from
RSVP, which accounted for a total of
237 comments, or 85 percent of the total
comments. Comments were broken out
into eleven discrete categories, as
follows:
(1) The survey is partially or entirely
unnecessary: 33 comments or 11 percent
of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or
91 percent were from RSVP.
(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool
or process already used by respondents:
17 comments or 6 percent of the total.
Of the 17 comments, 13 comments or 76
percent were from RSVP.
(3) The survey places a particularly
high burden on RSVP program grantees:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:02 Jun 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
23 comments, or 8 percent of the total.
Of the 23 comments, 100 percent were
from RSVP.
(4) The survey is too long, and
contains too many questions: 19
comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of
the 19 comments, 17 or 89 percent were
from RSVP.
(5) The survey is partially or entirely
irrelevant: 20 comments, or 7 percent of
the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85
percent were from RSVP.
(6) The survey represents too great a
time burden: 40 comments or 14 percent
of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72
percent were from RSVP.
(7) The survey should be conducted
as a sample, rather than the proposed
census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the
total. Of the 15 comments, 14 or 93
percent were from RSVP.
(8) The survey is too costly: 47
comments or 16 percent of the total. Of
the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were
from RSVP.
(9) The survey contains invasive
questions that would be perceived as
encroaching on the privacy of the
respondents: 29 comments or 10 percent
of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or
83 percent were from RSVP.
(10) The program model makes it
difficult to reach the clients in order to
conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12
percent of the comments. Of the 32
comments, 29 or 91 percent were from
RSVP. The Senior Companion Program
grantees did not raise this as a core
issue, and the model supports access to
the assigned clients and volunteers.
(11) The condition of clients, such as
Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia, would
make it difficult to survey some number
of clients: 3 comments or 1 percent of
the total. All three of the comments
were from representatives of the Foster
Grandparent or Senior Companion
programs.
In summary, 85 percent of the
comments were submitted by
individuals representing the RSVP
program. The comments from RSVP
reflected concerns in every category,
with particularly emphasis on time
burden, cost, and direct client contact
due to the program model.
CNCS concurs that, due to the scope,
magnitude, and decentralized volunteer
placement structure of RSVP, the survey
is less aligned with RSVP than with the
Foster Grandparent and Senior
Companion programs.
Based on the comments received,
CNCS will exempt RSVP grantees from
a mandatory requirement to use the
survey as a means to collect client
performance data and volunteer benefit
data. CNCS will offer RSVP the
opportunity to participate solely on a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
voluntary basis. CNCS believes that this
exemption addresses the concerns of the
majority of commenters. The survey will
be required of Foster Grandparent and
Senior Companion program grantees.
CNCS will make the following
modifications in response to the
comments:
(1) The survey is partially or entirely
unnecessary: 33 comments or 11 percent
of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or
91 percent were from RSVP. Response:
CNCS believes the survey will yield
significant data in the FGP and SCP
programs. RSVP grantees will not be
required to participate.
(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool
or process already used by respondents:
17 comments or 6 percent of the total.
Of the 17 comments, 13 comments or 76
percent were from RSVP. Response:
CNCS believes the survey will provide
new data to demonstrate national
outcome data in the FGP and SCP
programs. RSVP grantees will not be
required to participate.
(3) The survey places a particularly
high burden on RSVP program grantees:
23 comments, or 8 percent of the total.
Of the 23 comments, 100 percent were
from RSVP. Response: Due to the scope
and decentralized placement of RSVP
volunteers, CNCS concurs and will
exempt RSVP from required
participation in the survey.
(4) The survey is too long, and
contains too many questions: 19
comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of
the 19 comments, 17 or 89 percent were
from RSVP. Response: CNCS modified
the survey tools by dividing one
consolidated tool into three separate
instruments. The Independent Living
Surveys—comprising one instrument for
clients (primarily frail seniors) served
by Senior Companions and one
instrument for caregivers of clients
served by Senior Companions, were
restructured to contain a total of ten
questions each. The survey is formatted
for ease of use, with the client or
surrogate circling the correct response to
each question. The Benefits to the
Volunteer Survey is now a separate
instrument in a similar format.
Additionally, the Benefits to the
Volunteer Survey frequency of use was
changed from annual to one-time. The
Independent Living Surveys will remain
annual.
(5) The survey is partially or entirely
irrelevant: 20 comments, or 7 percent of
the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85
percent were from RSVP. Response:
CNCS believes the data to be collected
through the survey is relevant to both
the volunteer experience and the
outcomes to clients and caregivers
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2012 / Notices
receiving respite. RSVP will not be
required to participate in the survey.
(6) The survey represents too great a
time burden: 40 comments or 14 percent
of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72
percent were from RSVP. Response:
comments about the length of the
survey, CNCS reformat the survey into
individual instruments that each focus
on one discrete dimension of
performance.
(7) The survey should be conducted
as a sample, rather than the proposed
census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the
total. Of the 15 comments, 14 or 93
percent were from RSVP. Response: The
method original envisioned is that all
clients and caregivers receiving
independent living support and/or
respite, and all volunteers would
participate. While RSVP will not be
required to participate in the survey,
there may be some opportunity to
engage in a separate evaluation-focused
activity that would use a sampling
model.
(8) The survey is too costly: 47
comments or 16 percent of the total. Of
the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were
from RSVP. Response: CNCS
determined that RSVP would be exempt
from participating in the survey process.
(9) The survey contains invasive
questions that would be perceived as
encroaching on the privacy of the
respondents: 29 comments or 10 percent
of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or
83 percent were from RSVP. Response:
CNCS will eliminate or de-identify the
data received so that individual
responses cannot be linked back to
specific respondents.
(10) The program model makes it
difficult to reach the clients in order to
conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12
percent of the comments. Of the 32
comments, 29 or 91 percent were from
RSVP. The Senior Companion Program
grantees did not raise this as a core
issue, and the model supports access to
the assigned clients and volunteers.
Response: CNCS will not require RSVP
grantees to participate in the survey.
(11) The condition of clients, such as
Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia, would
make it difficult to survey some number
of clients: 3 comments or 1 percent of
the total. All three of the comments
were from representatives of the Foster
Grandparent or Senior Companion
programs. Response: CNCS will
incorporate alternative protocols or
methods, such as observation, to collect
survey data.
Description: CNCS is seeking approval
of the Senior Corps Performance
Measures Surveys that are used by
Foster Grandparent and Senior
Companion Program grantees (required)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:02 Jun 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
and by RSVP grantees (voluntary/
optional) to collect performance data
related to independent living and
benefits to the volunteers who serve.
Type of Review: New.
Agency: Corporation for National and
Community Service.
Title: Senior Corps Performance
Measures Surveys.
OMB Number: None.
Agency Number: None.
Affected Public: Clients served by
Senior Companions, caregivers served
by Senior Companions, Foster
Grandparent and Senior Companion
volunteers.
Total Respondents:
Independent Living Surveys for
Clients and Caregivers: 74,000.
Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 46,000.
Frequency: Independent Living
Surveys for Clients and Caregivers:
Annual.
Benefits to the Volunteer Survey:
One-time.
Average Time per Response:
Independent Living Surveys for
Clients and Volunteers: 30 minutes per
survey.
Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 30
minutes per survey.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 60,000
hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):
None.
Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintenance): None.
Dated: June 12, 2012.
Erwin J. Tan,
Director, Senior Corps.
[FR Doc. 2012–14819 Filed 6–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests; Office of
Postsecondary Education; Higher
Education Opportunity Act (HEOA)
Title II Reporting Forms on Teacher
Quality and Preparation
The Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 calls for annual
reports from states and institutions of
higher education (IHEs) on the quality
of teacher preparation and state teacher
certification and licensure (Pub. L. 110–
315, sections 205–208). The purpose of
the reports is to provide greater
accountability in the preparation of the
nation’s teaching forces and to provide
information and incentives for its
improvement.
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before August
17, 2012.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36263
Written comments
regarding burden and/or the collection
activity requirements should be
electronically mailed to
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or mailed to U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., LBJ, Washington, DC
20202–4537. Copies of the proposed
information collection request may be
accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov,
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on
link number 04871. When you access
the information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537.
Requests may also be electronically
mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed
to 202–401–0920. Please specify the
complete title of the information
collection and OMB Control Number
when making your request.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–
8339.
ADDRESSES:
Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that Federal agencies provide interested
parties an early opportunity to comment
on information collection requests. The
Director, Information Collection
Clearance Division, Privacy, Information
and Records Management Services,
Office of Management, publishes this
notice containing proposed information
collection requests at the beginning of
the Departmental review of the
information collection. The Department
of Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Higher Education
Opportunity Act (HEOA) Title II
Reporting Forms on Teacher Quality
and Preparation.
OMB Control Number: 1840–0744.
Type of Review: Revision.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\18JNN1.SGM
18JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36261-36263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14819]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE
Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment
Request
AGENCY: Corporation for National and Community Service.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has
submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Senior
Corps Performance Measurement Surveys Parts A, B, and C for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable
supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation
for National and Community Service, Angela Roberts, at (202) 606-6822
or email to aroberts@cns.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m.
and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the
information collection activity, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the
Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following
two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register:
[[Page 36262]]
(1) By fax to: (202) 395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk
Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(2) Electronically by email to: smar@omb.eop.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Comments
The 60-day Notice soliciting comments was published on Thursday,
December 8, 2011 on page 76697. A total of 278 comments were received
from 87 commenters. Most individuals providing comments submitted more
than one comment each. The commenters represented all three Senior
Corps programs in the following proportions: 65 Individuals, or 75
percent from RSVP; 2 individuals, or 2 percent from the Foster
Grandparent Program; 2 individuals or percent from the Senior Companion
Program; 12 individuals, or 15 percent had no program identified; and
the remaining 6 individuals, or 6 percent represented a combination of
programs. In all cases, the majority of comments were from RSVP, which
accounted for a total of 237 comments, or 85 percent of the total
comments. Comments were broken out into eleven discrete categories, as
follows:
(1) The survey is partially or entirely unnecessary: 33 comments or
11 percent of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or 91 percent were from
RSVP.
(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool or process already used by
respondents: 17 comments or 6 percent of the total. Of the 17 comments,
13 comments or 76 percent were from RSVP.
(3) The survey places a particularly high burden on RSVP program
grantees: 23 comments, or 8 percent of the total. Of the 23 comments,
100 percent were from RSVP.
(4) The survey is too long, and contains too many questions: 19
comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of the 19 comments, 17 or 89
percent were from RSVP.
(5) The survey is partially or entirely irrelevant: 20 comments, or
7 percent of the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85 percent were from
RSVP.
(6) The survey represents too great a time burden: 40 comments or
14 percent of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72 percent were from RSVP.
(7) The survey should be conducted as a sample, rather than the
proposed census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the total. Of the 15
comments, 14 or 93 percent were from RSVP.
(8) The survey is too costly: 47 comments or 16 percent of the
total. Of the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were from RSVP.
(9) The survey contains invasive questions that would be perceived
as encroaching on the privacy of the respondents: 29 comments or 10
percent of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or 83 percent were from
RSVP.
(10) The program model makes it difficult to reach the clients in
order to conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12 percent of the comments.
Of the 32 comments, 29 or 91 percent were from RSVP. The Senior
Companion Program grantees did not raise this as a core issue, and the
model supports access to the assigned clients and volunteers.
(11) The condition of clients, such as Alzheimer's Disease or
dementia, would make it difficult to survey some number of clients: 3
comments or 1 percent of the total. All three of the comments were from
representatives of the Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion programs.
In summary, 85 percent of the comments were submitted by
individuals representing the RSVP program. The comments from RSVP
reflected concerns in every category, with particularly emphasis on
time burden, cost, and direct client contact due to the program model.
CNCS concurs that, due to the scope, magnitude, and decentralized
volunteer placement structure of RSVP, the survey is less aligned with
RSVP than with the Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs.
Based on the comments received, CNCS will exempt RSVP grantees from
a mandatory requirement to use the survey as a means to collect client
performance data and volunteer benefit data. CNCS will offer RSVP the
opportunity to participate solely on a voluntary basis. CNCS believes
that this exemption addresses the concerns of the majority of
commenters. The survey will be required of Foster Grandparent and
Senior Companion program grantees.
CNCS will make the following modifications in response to the
comments:
(1) The survey is partially or entirely unnecessary: 33 comments or
11 percent of the total. Of the 33 comments, 30 or 91 percent were from
RSVP. Response: CNCS believes the survey will yield significant data in
the FGP and SCP programs. RSVP grantees will not be required to
participate.
(2) The survey is duplicative of a tool or process already used by
respondents: 17 comments or 6 percent of the total. Of the 17 comments,
13 comments or 76 percent were from RSVP. Response: CNCS believes the
survey will provide new data to demonstrate national outcome data in
the FGP and SCP programs. RSVP grantees will not be required to
participate.
(3) The survey places a particularly high burden on RSVP program
grantees: 23 comments, or 8 percent of the total. Of the 23 comments,
100 percent were from RSVP. Response: Due to the scope and
decentralized placement of RSVP volunteers, CNCS concurs and will
exempt RSVP from required participation in the survey.
(4) The survey is too long, and contains too many questions: 19
comments, or 6 percent of the total. Of the 19 comments, 17 or 89
percent were from RSVP. Response: CNCS modified the survey tools by
dividing one consolidated tool into three separate instruments. The
Independent Living Surveys--comprising one instrument for clients
(primarily frail seniors) served by Senior Companions and one
instrument for caregivers of clients served by Senior Companions, were
restructured to contain a total of ten questions each. The survey is
formatted for ease of use, with the client or surrogate circling the
correct response to each question. The Benefits to the Volunteer Survey
is now a separate instrument in a similar format. Additionally, the
Benefits to the Volunteer Survey frequency of use was changed from
annual to one-time. The Independent Living Surveys will remain annual.
(5) The survey is partially or entirely irrelevant: 20 comments, or
7 percent of the total. Of the 20 comments, 17 or 85 percent were from
RSVP. Response: CNCS believes the data to be collected through the
survey is relevant to both the volunteer experience and the outcomes to
clients and caregivers
[[Page 36263]]
receiving respite. RSVP will not be required to participate in the
survey.
(6) The survey represents too great a time burden: 40 comments or
14 percent of the total. Of the 40 comments, 72 percent were from RSVP.
Response: comments about the length of the survey, CNCS reformat the
survey into individual instruments that each focus on one discrete
dimension of performance.
(7) The survey should be conducted as a sample, rather than the
proposed census: 15 comments or 5 percent of the total. Of the 15
comments, 14 or 93 percent were from RSVP. Response: The method
original envisioned is that all clients and caregivers receiving
independent living support and/or respite, and all volunteers would
participate. While RSVP will not be required to participate in the
survey, there may be some opportunity to engage in a separate
evaluation-focused activity that would use a sampling model.
(8) The survey is too costly: 47 comments or 16 percent of the
total. Of the 47, 41 comments or 87 percent were from RSVP. Response:
CNCS determined that RSVP would be exempt from participating in the
survey process.
(9) The survey contains invasive questions that would be perceived
as encroaching on the privacy of the respondents: 29 comments or 10
percent of the total. Of the 29 comments, 24 or 83 percent were from
RSVP. Response: CNCS will eliminate or de-identify the data received so
that individual responses cannot be linked back to specific
respondents.
(10) The program model makes it difficult to reach the clients in
order to conduct the survey: 32 comments or 12 percent of the comments.
Of the 32 comments, 29 or 91 percent were from RSVP. The Senior
Companion Program grantees did not raise this as a core issue, and the
model supports access to the assigned clients and volunteers. Response:
CNCS will not require RSVP grantees to participate in the survey.
(11) The condition of clients, such as Alzheimer's Disease or
dementia, would make it difficult to survey some number of clients: 3
comments or 1 percent of the total. All three of the comments were from
representatives of the Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion programs.
Response: CNCS will incorporate alternative protocols or methods, such
as observation, to collect survey data.
Description: CNCS is seeking approval of the Senior Corps
Performance Measures Surveys that are used by Foster Grandparent and
Senior Companion Program grantees (required) and by RSVP grantees
(voluntary/optional) to collect performance data related to independent
living and benefits to the volunteers who serve.
Type of Review: New.
Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Title: Senior Corps Performance Measures Surveys.
OMB Number: None.
Agency Number: None.
Affected Public: Clients served by Senior Companions, caregivers
served by Senior Companions, Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion
volunteers.
Total Respondents:
Independent Living Surveys for Clients and Caregivers: 74,000.
Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 46,000.
Frequency: Independent Living Surveys for Clients and Caregivers:
Annual.
Benefits to the Volunteer Survey: One-time.
Average Time per Response:
Independent Living Surveys for Clients and Volunteers: 30 minutes
per survey.
Benefits to Volunteer Survey: 30 minutes per survey.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 60,000 hours.
Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.
Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.
Dated: June 12, 2012.
Erwin J. Tan,
Director, Senior Corps.
[FR Doc. 2012-14819 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6050-$$-P
