Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations, 2675-2677 [2014-00586]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
2675
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
The Regional Network Leader (RNL)
surveys will be completed by the 5 RNL
funded SHDs and will take 1 hour to
complete a telephone interview. The
four Surveillance Quality Improvement
(SQI) funded SHDs will complete a onehour telephone interview. The four
Motor Vehicle Child Injury Prevention
Policy (MVP) SHDs will complete a
telephone interview that will take one
hour to complete.
There are no costs to respondents
other than their time. The total
estimated annual burden hours are 163.
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN HOURS
Type of
respondents
Form name
Core VIPP Funded SHD Injury Program director.
Core VIPP Funded SHD Injury Program director.
Core VIPP Funded SHD Injury Program management and staff.
Core VIPP Funded SHD Injury Program management and staff.
RNL awardees ................................................
RNL awardees ................................................
State of the States Survey (SOTS)—Attachment C.
SOTS Financial Module—Attachment E ........
RNL awardees ................................................
SQI awardees .................................................
MVP awardees ................................................
LeRoy Richardson,
Chief, Information Collection Review Office,
Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the
Associate Director for Science, Office of the
Director, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2014–00585 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[60 Day–14–0941]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Data Collections Submitted
for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement
of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for
opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic
summaries of proposed projects. To
request more information on the
proposed projects or to obtain a copy of
the data collection plans and
instruments, call 404–639–7570 or send
comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600
Clifton Road, MS–D74, Atlanta, GA
30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:04 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
Proposed Project
Evaluation of Dating Matters:
Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen
Relationships TM (0920–0941,
Expiration 5/31/2016)—Revision—
National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control (NCIPC)—Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote
Healthy Teen Relationships TM is the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s new teen dating violence
prevention initiative.
To address the gaps in research and
practice, CDC has developed Dating
Matters, teen dating violence prevention
program that includes programming for
students, parents, educators, as well as
policy development. Dating Matters is
based on the current evidence about
what works in prevention and focuses
on high-risk, urban communities where
participants include: Middle school
students age 11 to 14 years; middle
school parents; brand ambassadors;
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1
3
20
1
1
20
1
1.5
20
1
1.5
5
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
4
4
RNL Telephone Interview—Attachment G .....
RNL Network Satisfaction Survey—Attachment H.
RNL Needs Assessment Survey—Attachment I.
SQI Telephone Interview—Attachment J .......
MVP Telephone Interview—Attachment K ....
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. Written comments should
be received within 60 days of this
notice.
Average
burden per
response
(in hrs.)
20
Supplemental SOTS Survey Questions—Attachment F.
BIC Telephone Interview—Attachment D ......
PO 00000
Number of
responses
per
respondent
Number of
respondents
1
1
1
1
educators; school leadership; program
implementers; community
representatives; and local health
department representatives in the
following communities: Alameda
County, California; Baltimore,
Maryland; Broward County, Florida;
and Chicago, Illinois. In the evaluation,
a standard model of TDV prevention
(Safe Dates administered in 8th grade)
will be compared to a comprehensive
model (programs administered in 6th,
7th, and 8th grade as well as parent,
educator, policy, and communications
interventions).
The primary goal of the current
proposal is to amend the available
administration formats for the student
follow-up survey for the participating
youth as they matriculate into high
school and to propose the use of
monetary gifts for the completion of the
student follow-up survey by high school
youth to the approved outcome and
implementation evaluation of Dating
Matters in the four metropolitan cities to
determine its feasibility, cost, and
effectiveness. Following Dating Matters
program participants into high school
may prove challenging and without a
high response rate, the evaluation
design may be compromised. To address
such concerns, we are requesting to
provide a nominal monetary gift to
participants in an amount up to $25.
The use of this monetary gift is critical
to maintain a high response rate of this
high-risk and highly mobile sample.
Response rates for the follow-up survey
were anticipated to be 90%, however, in
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
2676
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
the first administration of the survey in
2012/2013, within school year (e.g., Fall
to Spring) follow-up with the middle
school students proved challenging due
to community characteristics—such as
high mobility—and as a result we
achieved an overall response rate of
73%. Among outgoing 8th graders who
will be the first cohort to be surveyed
in high school as of Spring 2014, the
2013 follow-up response rate was
56.3%. Efforts to improve response rates
for middle school youth are underway,
however, we have particular concerns
for youth who matriculate from middle
school to high school, as they will be in
different school buildings and their
schools will no longer be participating
in the programmatic components of the
initiative. Therefore, for these high
school youth, additional measures,
including monetary gifts and multiple
administration formats, will be
necessary to engage them in the survey
to achieve our target response rate.
Population. The study population
includes students in 6th through 12th
grades at 44 schools in the four
participating sites. At most, schools are
expected to have 6 classrooms per
grade, with an average of 30 students
per classroom yielding a population of
23,760 students (44 schools × 3 grades
× 6 classrooms per grade × 30 students
per classroom). All student evaluation
activities will take place during the
school year. The sampling frame for
parents, given that we would only
include one parent per student, is also
23,760 for the three years of data
collection covered by this package. If we
assume 40 educators per school, the
sampling frame for the educator sample
is 1,760.
Students: In each year of data
collection, we will recruit 11,880
students (30 students per classroom × 3
classrooms per grade × 3 grades × 44
schools). We assume a 95%
participation rate (n = 11,286) for the
baseline student survey and 90%
participation rate (n = 10,692) at followup survey.
Parents: We will recruit a sample of
2,020 parents. We expect that 95% of
the 2,020 parents will agree to
participate at baseline (n = 1,919) and
90% will participate in the follow-up
survey (n = 1,818) parents.
Educators: We will attempt to recruit
all educators in each school (44 schools
× 40 educators per school = 1,760). We
expect a 95% participation rate for an
estimated sample of 1,672 educators at
baseline and 90% participation rate at
follow-up for an estimated sample of
1,584.
School data extractors: We will
attempt to recruit one data extractor per
44 schools to extract school data to be
used in conjunction with the outcome
data for the students. Data extractors in
each school will access individual
school-level data for those students in
their school who consented and
participated in the baseline student
survey (3 × 4 × 30 × 95% = 342).
Implementation Evaluation
For the student focus groups, we will
recruit groups of 10 students per group.
Two groups will be held per each of the
4 sites (10 × 2 × 4 = 80 total student
participants).
Student implementer focus groups
will be organized by site, with two
annual focus groups per site with 10
implementers in each group (10 × 2 × 4
= 80 total student program implementer
participants).
Communications focus groups will be
organized by site with up to four groups
per site (4 × 4 × 6 = 96 total student
participants).
Parent program implementer focus
groups will be organized by site, with
two annual focus groups per site with
10 implementers in each group (10 × 2
× 4 = 80 total parent program
implementer participants).
School leadership: based on the
predicted number of two school
leadership per comprehensive school
(21 schools), the number of respondents
will be 42.
Local Health Department
representative: based on the predicted
number of four communities/sites and
four local health department
representatives working on Dating
Matters per community, the number of
respondents will be 16.
Community Advisory Board
Representative: based on the predicted
number of 20 community
representatives per 4 communities/sites,
the number of respondents will be 80.
Parent Program Manager: With a
maximum of one parent program
manager per community/site, the
number of program manager
respondents will be 4. It is anticipated
that they will receive up to 50 TA
requests per year and complete the form
50 times.
Student Program Master Trainer TA
Form: With a maximum of 3 master
trainers per community. There will be
12 master trainers. It is anticipated that
they will receive up to 50 TA requests
per year and complete the form 50
times.
Parent Curricula Implementers: It is
expected that each school implementing
the comprehensive approach (n = 21)
will have two implementers (or 42
parent program implementer
respondents). Please note that on the
burden table the number of respondents
is multiplied by the number of sessions
in each parent program.
Student Curricula Implementers:
based on the predicted number of 20
student curricula implementers per
grade per site that will be completing
fidelity instruments, the total number of
respondents will be 80 per grade (20 ×
4).
Brand Ambassadors: The Brand
Ambassador Implementation Survey
will be provided to each brand
ambassador (n = 20) in each community
with a maximum of 80 brand
ambassadors.
Communications Implementers
(‘‘Brand Ambassador Coordinators’’):
The Communications Campaign
Tracking form will be provided to each
brand ambassador coordinator in each
community. With a maximum of one
brand ambassador coordinator per
community (n = 4), the feedback form
will be collected from a total of 4 brand
ambassador coordinators.
Parent Program Participants: The 6th
and 7th grade parent satisfaction
questionnaires will be completed by
parent participating in the parent
program in each community. There is a
maximum number of parent
respondents of 1,890 (18 × 5 × 21) for
the 6th grade satisfaction questionnaire
and 1,890 for the 7th grade satisfaction
questionnaire.
There are no costs to respondents
other than their time.
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Type of respondent
Form name
Student Program Participant.
Student Outcome Survey Baseline—Attachment
D:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Jan 14, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Number of
responses per
respondent
11,286
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
1
15JAN1
Average
burden per
response
(hours)
45/60
Total burden
(hours)
8,465
2677
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 10 / Wednesday, January 15, 2014 / Notices
ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED BURDEN—Continued
Number of
responses per
respondent
Number of
respondents
Average
burden per
response
(hours)
Total burden
(hours)
Type of respondent
Form name
Student Program Participant.
School data extractor ....
Parent Program Participant.
Parent Program Participant.
Educator ........................
Student Outcome Survey Follow-up—Attachment E:
School Indicators—Attachment G .......................
Parent Outcome Baseline Survey—Attachment
H.
Parent Outcome Follow-up Survey—Attachment
EEEE.
Educator Outcome Survey (baseline)—Attachment I.
Brand Ambassador Implementation Survey—Attachment J.
School Leadership Capacity and Readiness
Survey—Attachment K.
Parent Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1–
Session 6—Attachment L–Q.
Parent Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1, 3,
5—Attachment R–T.
Student Program Fidelity 6th Grade Session 1–
Session 6—Attachment U–Z.
Student Program Fidelity 7th Grade Session 1–
Session 7—Attachment AA–GG.
Student Program Fidelity 8th Grade Session 1–
Session 10 (comprehensive)—Attachment
HH–QQ.
Communications Campaign Tracking—Attachment RR.
Local Health Department Capacity and Readiness—Attachment SS.
Student participant focus group guide (time
spent in focus group)—Attachment ZZ.
Student curricula implementer focus group guide
(time spent in focus group)—Attachment AAA.
Parent curricula implementer focus group guide
(time spent in focus group)—Attachment BBB.
Safe Dates 8th Grade Session 1–Session 10
(standard)—Attachment CCC–LLL.
Student program master trainer TA form—Attachment DDDD.
Educator Outcome Survey (follow-up)—Attachment IIII.
Community Capacity/Readiness Assessment—
Attachment JJJJ.
Communications Focus Groups—Attachment
KKKK.
Parent Program Manager TA Tracking Form—
Attachment LLLL.
6th Grade Curricula Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire—Attachment MMMM.
7th Grade Curricula Parent Satisfaction Questionnaire—Attachment NNNN.
10,692
1
50/60
8,910
44
1,919
342
1
15/60
1
3,762
1,919
1,818
1
1
1,818
1,672
1
30/60
836
80
2
20/60
53
42
1
1
42
210
3
15/60
158
126
3
15/60
95
480
1
15/60
120
560
1
15/60
140
800
1
15/60
200
4
4
20/60
5
16
1
2
32
80
1
1.5
120
80
1
1
80
80
1
1
80
800
1
15/60
200
12
50
10/60
100
1,584
1
30/60
792
80
1
1
80
96
1
1.5
144
4
50
10/60
33
1,890
1
10/60
315
1,890
1
10/60
315
..............................................................................
........................
........................
........................
28,814
Student Brand ambassador.
School leadership ..........
Parent Curricula Implementer.
Parent Curricula Implementer.
Student Curricula Implementer.
Student Curricula Implementer.
Student Curricula Implementer.
Communications Coordinator.
Local Health Department
Representative.
Student Program Participant.
Student Curricula Implementer.
Parent Curricula Implementer.
Student Curricula Implementer.
Student Master Trainer ..
Educator ........................
Community Advisory
Board Member.
Students .........................
Parent Program Manager.
Parent Program Participant.
Parent Program Participant.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Total ........................
LeRoy Richardson,
Chief, Information Collection Review Office,
Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the
Associate Director for Science, Office of the
Director, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2014–00586 Filed 1–14–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Jan 14, 2014
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Center for Scientific Review; Notice of
Closed Meetings
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is
hereby given of the following meetings.
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\15JAN1.SGM
15JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2675-2677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[60 Day-14-0941]
Proposed Data Collections Submitted for Public Comment and
Recommendations
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on
proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects.
To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a
copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call 404-639-7570 or
send comments to LeRoy Richardson, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D74, Atlanta,
GA 30333 or send an email to omb@cdc.gov.
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 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. Written comments should be received
within 60 days of this notice.
Proposed Project
Evaluation of Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen
Relationships \TM\ (0920-0941, Expiration 5/31/2016)--Revision--
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)--Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Background and Brief Description
Dating Matters: Strategies to Promote Healthy Teen Relationships
\TM\ is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's new teen
dating violence prevention initiative.
To address the gaps in research and practice, CDC has developed
Dating Matters, teen dating violence prevention program that includes
programming for students, parents, educators, as well as policy
development. Dating Matters is based on the current evidence about what
works in prevention and focuses on high-risk, urban communities where
participants include: Middle school students age 11 to 14 years; middle
school parents; brand ambassadors; educators; school leadership;
program implementers; community representatives; and local health
department representatives in the following communities: Alameda
County, California; Baltimore, Maryland; Broward County, Florida; and
Chicago, Illinois. In the evaluation, a standard model of TDV
prevention (Safe Dates administered in 8th grade) will be compared to a
comprehensive model (programs administered in 6th, 7th, and 8th grade
as well as parent, educator, policy, and communications interventions).
The primary goal of the current proposal is to amend the available
administration formats for the student follow-up survey for the
participating youth as they matriculate into high school and to propose
the use of monetary gifts for the completion of the student follow-up
survey by high school youth to the approved outcome and implementation
evaluation of Dating Matters in the four metropolitan cities to
determine its feasibility, cost, and effectiveness. Following Dating
Matters program participants into high school may prove challenging and
without a high response rate, the evaluation design may be compromised.
To address such concerns, we are requesting to provide a nominal
monetary gift to participants in an amount up to $25. The use of this
monetary gift is critical to maintain a high response rate of this
high-risk and highly mobile sample. Response rates for the follow-up
survey were anticipated to be 90%, however, in
[[Page 2676]]
the first administration of the survey in 2012/2013, within school year
(e.g., Fall to Spring) follow-up with the middle school students proved
challenging due to community characteristics--such as high mobility--
and as a result we achieved an overall response rate of 73%. Among
outgoing 8th graders who will be the first cohort to be surveyed in
high school as of Spring 2014, the 2013 follow-up response rate was
56.3%. Efforts to improve response rates for middle school youth are
underway, however, we have particular concerns for youth who
matriculate from middle school to high school, as they will be in
different school buildings and their schools will no longer be
participating in the programmatic components of the initiative.
Therefore, for these high school youth, additional measures, including
monetary gifts and multiple administration formats, will be necessary
to engage them in the survey to achieve our target response rate.
Population. The study population includes students in 6th through
12th grades at 44 schools in the four participating sites. At most,
schools are expected to have 6 classrooms per grade, with an average of
30 students per classroom yielding a population of 23,760 students (44
schools x 3 grades x 6 classrooms per grade x 30 students per
classroom). All student evaluation activities will take place during
the school year. The sampling frame for parents, given that we would
only include one parent per student, is also 23,760 for the three years
of data collection covered by this package. If we assume 40 educators
per school, the sampling frame for the educator sample is 1,760.
Students: In each year of data collection, we will recruit 11,880
students (30 students per classroom x 3 classrooms per grade x 3 grades
x 44 schools). We assume a 95% participation rate (n = 11,286) for the
baseline student survey and 90% participation rate (n = 10,692) at
follow-up survey.
Parents: We will recruit a sample of 2,020 parents. We expect that
95% of the 2,020 parents will agree to participate at baseline (n =
1,919) and 90% will participate in the follow-up survey (n = 1,818)
parents.
Educators: We will attempt to recruit all educators in each school
(44 schools x 40 educators per school = 1,760). We expect a 95%
participation rate for an estimated sample of 1,672 educators at
baseline and 90% participation rate at follow-up for an estimated
sample of 1,584.
School data extractors: We will attempt to recruit one data
extractor per 44 schools to extract school data to be used in
conjunction with the outcome data for the students. Data extractors in
each school will access individual school-level data for those students
in their school who consented and participated in the baseline student
survey (3 x 4 x 30 x 95% = 342).
Implementation Evaluation
For the student focus groups, we will recruit groups of 10 students
per group. Two groups will be held per each of the 4 sites (10 x 2 x 4
= 80 total student participants).
Student implementer focus groups will be organized by site, with
two annual focus groups per site with 10 implementers in each group (10
x 2 x 4 = 80 total student program implementer participants).
Communications focus groups will be organized by site with up to
four groups per site (4 x 4 x 6 = 96 total student participants).
Parent program implementer focus groups will be organized by site,
with two annual focus groups per site with 10 implementers in each
group (10 x 2 x 4 = 80 total parent program implementer participants).
School leadership: based on the predicted number of two school
leadership per comprehensive school (21 schools), the number of
respondents will be 42.
Local Health Department representative: based on the predicted
number of four communities/sites and four local health department
representatives working on Dating Matters per community, the number of
respondents will be 16.
Community Advisory Board Representative: based on the predicted
number of 20 community representatives per 4 communities/sites, the
number of respondents will be 80.
Parent Program Manager: With a maximum of one parent program
manager per community/site, the number of program manager respondents
will be 4. It is anticipated that they will receive up to 50 TA
requests per year and complete the form 50 times.
Student Program Master Trainer TA Form: With a maximum of 3 master
trainers per community. There will be 12 master trainers. It is
anticipated that they will receive up to 50 TA requests per year and
complete the form 50 times.
Parent Curricula Implementers: It is expected that each school
implementing the comprehensive approach (n = 21) will have two
implementers (or 42 parent program implementer respondents). Please
note that on the burden table the number of respondents is multiplied
by the number of sessions in each parent program.
Student Curricula Implementers: based on the predicted number of 20
student curricula implementers per grade per site that will be
completing fidelity instruments, the total number of respondents will
be 80 per grade (20 x 4).
Brand Ambassadors: The Brand Ambassador Implementation Survey will
be provided to each brand ambassador (n = 20) in each community with a
maximum of 80 brand ambassadors.
Communications Implementers (``Brand Ambassador Coordinators''):
The Communications Campaign Tracking form will be provided to each
brand ambassador coordinator in each community. With a maximum of one
brand ambassador coordinator per community (n = 4), the feedback form
will be collected from a total of 4 brand ambassador coordinators.
Parent Program Participants: The 6th and 7th grade parent
satisfaction questionnaires will be completed by parent participating
in the parent program in each community. There is a maximum number of
parent respondents of 1,890 (18 x 5 x 21) for the 6th grade
satisfaction questionnaire and 1,890 for the 7th grade satisfaction
questionnaire.
There are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Estimated Annualized Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average burden
Type of respondent Form name Number of responses per per response Total burden
respondents respondent (hours) (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student Program Participant.................... Student Outcome Survey Baseline-- 11,286 1 45/60 8,465
Attachment D:
[[Page 2677]]
Student Program Participant.................... Student Outcome Survey Follow-up-- 10,692 1 50/60 8,910
Attachment E:
School data extractor.......................... School Indicators--Attachment G........ 44 342 15/60 3,762
Parent Program Participant..................... Parent Outcome Baseline Survey-- 1,919 1 1 1,919
Attachment H.
Parent Program Participant..................... Parent Outcome Follow-up Survey-- 1,818 1 1 1,818
Attachment EEEE.
Educator....................................... Educator Outcome Survey (baseline)-- 1,672 1 30/60 836
Attachment I.
Student Brand ambassador....................... Brand Ambassador Implementation Survey-- 80 2 20/60 53
Attachment J.
School leadership.............................. School Leadership Capacity and 42 1 1 42
Readiness Survey--Attachment K.
Parent Curricula Implementer................... Parent Program Fidelity 6th Grade 210 3 15/60 158
Session 1-Session 6--Attachment L-Q.
Parent Curricula Implementer................... Parent Program Fidelity 7th Grade 126 3 15/60 95
Session 1, 3, 5--Attachment R-T.
Student Curricula Implementer.................. Student Program Fidelity 6th Grade 480 1 15/60 120
Session 1-Session 6--Attachment U-Z.
Student Curricula Implementer.................. Student Program Fidelity 7th Grade 560 1 15/60 140
Session 1-Session 7--Attachment AA-GG.
Student Curricula Implementer.................. Student Program Fidelity 8th Grade 800 1 15/60 200
Session 1-Session 10 (comprehensive)--
Attachment HH-QQ.
Communications Coordinator..................... Communications Campaign Tracking-- 4 4 20/60 5
Attachment RR.
Local Health Department Representative......... Local Health Department Capacity and 16 1 2 32
Readiness--Attachment SS.
Student Program Participant.................... Student participant focus group guide 80 1 1.5 120
(time spent in focus group)--
Attachment ZZ.
Student Curricula Implementer.................. Student curricula implementer focus 80 1 1 80
group guide (time spent in focus
group)--Attachment AAA.
Parent Curricula Implementer................... Parent curricula implementer focus 80 1 1 80
group guide (time spent in focus
group)--Attachment BBB.
Student Curricula Implementer.................. Safe Dates 8th Grade Session 1-Session 800 1 15/60 200
10 (standard)--Attachment CCC-LLL.
Student Master Trainer......................... Student program master trainer TA form-- 12 50 10/60 100
Attachment DDDD.
Educator....................................... Educator Outcome Survey (follow-up)-- 1,584 1 30/60 792
Attachment IIII.
Community Advisory Board Member................ Community Capacity/Readiness 80 1 1 80
Assessment--Attachment JJJJ.
Students....................................... Communications Focus Groups--Attachment 96 1 1.5 144
KKKK.
Parent Program Manager......................... Parent Program Manager TA Tracking 4 50 10/60 33
Form--Attachment LLLL.
Parent Program Participant..................... 6th Grade Curricula Parent Satisfaction 1,890 1 10/60 315
Questionnaire--Attachment MMMM.
Parent Program Participant..................... 7th Grade Curricula Parent Satisfaction 1,890 1 10/60 315
Questionnaire--Attachment NNNN.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... ....................................... .............. .............. .............. 28,814
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LeRoy Richardson,
Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific
Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the
Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2014-00586 Filed 1-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
