Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 78095-78098 [2014-30288]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices
42. Marlie Dulaurier, M.D., Columbus,
Ohio, Court of Federal Claims No:
14–1138V.
43. Larry Thompson, Lynchburg,
Virginia, Court of Federal Claims
No: 14–1139V.
44. Richard Greenslade, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, Court of Federal Claims
No: 14–1140V.
45. Navid Nourani, Tempe, Arizona,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1142V.
46. Andrew Funk, Tempe, Arizona,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1143V.
47. Duke Duquette, Uxbridge,
Massachusetts, Court of Federal
Claims No: 14–1144V.
48. Candace Johnson, Portland, Oregon,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1145V.
49. Thalia Monsha Stallworth Lewis on
behalf of Alton Jerome Lewis,
Deceased, Birmingham, Alabama,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1147V.
50. Billy Whitchurch, Dallas, Texas,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1148V.
51. Andrea Gasaway, Dallas, Tennessee,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1149V.
52. Barbara Budgake, Rahway, New
Jersey, Court of Federal Claims No:
14–1150V.
53. Douglas A. Dinunzio, Charlotte,
North Carolina, Court of Federal
Claims No: 14–1151V.
54. Imogene B. Fowler, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, Court of Federal Claims
No: 14–1152V.
55. Mary Daniels, Boston,
Massachusetts, Court of Federal
Claims No: 14–1153V.
56. Amy Junker, Frederick, Maryland,
Court of Federal Claims No: 14–
1155V.
57. Paula Pasquinelli, Carnegie,
Pennsylvania, Court of Federal
Claims No: 14–1156V.
[FR Doc. 2014–30402 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
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.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Dec 24, 2014
Jkt 235001
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: Cell Biology
Integrated Review Group; Nuclear and
Cytoplasmic Structure/Function and
Dynamics Study Section.
Date: January 29–30, 2015.
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase
Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW.,
Washington, DC 20015.
Contact Person: David Balasundaram,
Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5189,
MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301–435–
1022, balasundaramd@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Risk, Prevention and
Health Behavior Integrated Review Group;
Psychosocial Risk and Disease Prevention
Study Section.
Date: January 29–30, 2015.
Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Villa Florence Hotel, 225 Powell
Street, San Francisco, CA 94102,
Contact Person: Stacey FitzSimmons,
Ph.D., MPH, Scientific Review Officer, Center
for Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3114,
MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451–
9956, fitzsimmonss@csr.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel;
Psychosocial Risk and Disease Prevention.
Date: January 29, 2015.
Time: 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: Villa Florence Hotel, 225 Powell
Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.
Contact Person: Kristen Prentice, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3112,
MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496–
0726, prenticekj@mail.nih.gov.
Name of Committee: Center for Scientific
Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR 13–374
Modeling of Social Behavior.
Date: January 29, 2015.
Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Agenda: To review and evaluate grant
applications.
Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892,
(Telephone Conference Call).
Contact Person: Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew,
Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for
Scientific Review, National Institutes of
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3164,
MSC 7770, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806–
0009, brontetinkewjm@csr.nih.gov.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine;
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78095
93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333,
93.337, 93.393–93.396, 93.837–93.844,
93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National
Institutes of Health, HHS)
Dated: December 19, 2014.
Anna Snouffer,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory
Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014–30257 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health
Notice of Correction for National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke, Interagency Pain Research
Coordinating Committee Call for
Committee Membership Nominations
The National Institutes of Health
(NIH) is correcting a notice previously
published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2014 (79 FR 74102) and
titled ‘‘National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke, Interagency Pain
Research Coordinating Committee Call
for Committee Membership
Nominations.’’ The notice announced
that The Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) is seeking
nominations for the Interagency Pain
Research Coordinating Committee.
NIH is amending the due date for
nominations from January 5, 2015, as
stated toward the end of the notice, to
January 12, 2015. For further
information about the meeting, please
contact Linda Porter, Ph.D., porterl@
ninds.nih.gov.
Dated: December 16, 2014.
Walter J. Koroshetz,
Acting Director, National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National
Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 2014–30387 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140–01–P
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.
35). To request a copy of these
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
78096
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
Project: National System of Care
Expansion Evaluation—NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health
Services (CMHS) is requesting approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for the new collection of
data for the National System of Care
(SOC) Expansion Evaluation.
Evaluation Plan and Data Collection
Activities. The purpose of the National
SOC Expansion Evaluation is to assess
the success of the SOC expansion
planning and implementation grants in
expanding the reach of SOC values,
principles, and practices. These include
maximizing system-level coordination
and planning, offering a comprehensive
array of services, and prioritizing family
and youth involvement. In order to
obtain a clear picture of SOC expansion
grant activities, this longitudinal, multilevel evaluation will measure activities
and performance of grantees at three
levels essential to building and
sustaining effective SOCs. The three
levels are: jurisdiction, local system,
and child and family levels.
Data collection activities will occur
through four evaluation components.
Each component includes data
collection activities and analyses
involving similar topics. Each
component has multiple instruments
that will be used to address various
aspects. Thus, there are a total of eight
new instruments that will be used to
conduct this evaluation. All four
evaluation components involve
collecting data from implementation
grantees, but only the Implementation
assessment includes data collection
from planning grantees as well.
The four studies with their
corresponding data collection activities
are as follows:
(1) The Implementation assessment
will document the development and
expansion of SOCs. Data collection
activities include: (a) Stakeholder
Interviews with high-level
administrators, youth and family
representatives, and child agencies to
describe the early implementation and
expansion efforts of planning and
implementation grants, (b) the webbased Self-Assessment of
Implementation Survey (SAIS) to assess
SOC implementation and expansion at
the jurisdictional level over time, and
(c) the SOC Expansion Assessment
(SOCEA) administered to local
providers, managers, clients, and their
caregivers to measure SOC expansion
strategies and processes implemented
related to direct service delivery at the
local system level. Implementation
grantees will participate in all three of
the Implementation assessment data
collection activities. Planning grantee
participation will be limited to the
Stakeholder Interview and the SelfAssessment of Implementation Survey.
(2) The Network Analysis will use
Network Analysis Surveys to determine
the depth and breadth of the SOC
collaboration across agencies and
organization. Separate network analysis
surveys will be administered at the
jurisdiction and local service system
levels. The Geographic Information
System (GIS) Component will measure
the geographic coverage and spread of
the SOC, including reaching
underserved areas and populations. At
the jurisdictional and local service
system levels, the GIS component will
use office and business addresses of
attendees to key planning,
implementation and expansion events.
At the child/youth and family level,
Census block groups (derived from
home addresses) will be used to depict
the geographic spread of populations
served by SOCs.
(3) The Financial Mapping
Component involves the review of
implementation grantees’ progress in
developing financial sustainability and
expansion plans. The Financial
Mapping Interview will be conducted
with financial administrators of
Medicaid Agencies, Mental Health
Authorities, mental health provider
trade associations, and family
organizations. The Benchmark
Component will compare relative rates
of access, utilization, and costs for
children’s mental health services using
the Benchmarking Tool and
administrative data requested from
financial administrators and personnel
working with Medicaid Agency and
Mental Health Authority reporting and
payment systems.
(4) The Child and Family Outcome
Component will collect longitudinal
data on child clinical and functional
outcomes, family outcomes, and child
and family background. Data will be
collected at intake, 6-months, and 12months post service entry (as long as the
child/youth is still receiving services).
Data will also be collected at discharge
if the child/youth leaves services before
the 12-month data collection point. Data
will be collected using the following
scales: (a) A shortened version of the
Caregiver Strain Questionnaire, (b) the
Columbia Impairment Scale, (c) the
Pediatric Symptom Checklist-17, (d)
Family/Living Situation items, and (e)
background information gathered
through the Common Data Platform
(CDP). Although OMB approval for the
CPD has been sought separately under
an unrelated contract, this data
collection will include both youth age
11 to 17 and their caregivers whereas
CDP includes only one of these
respondents (i.e., youth or caregiver).
Estimated Burden. Data will be
collected from approximately 51
planning and 106 implementation grant
jurisdictions and local systems. Data
collection for this evaluation will be
conducted over a 4-year period.
The average annual respondent
burden estimate reflects the average
number of respondents in each
respondent category, the average
number of responses per respondent per
year, the average length of time it will
take to complete each response, and the
total average annual burden for each
category of respondent for all categories
of respondents combined. Table 1
shows the estimated annual burden
estimate by instrument and respondent.
Burden is summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Instrument/Data
collection activity
Number of
respondents
Respondent
Responses
per
respondent
Total number
of
responses
Hours per
response
Total annual
burden hours
Implementation Assessment
Stakeholder Interviews a.
SAIS a ...................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Project Director ..................................
57
1
57
1.6
90
Family Organization Representative
Youth Organization Representative ..
Core Agency Partners b .....................
Grant leadership ................................
57
57
287
1,540
1
1
1
1.93
57
57
287
2,970
1.6
1.6
1.3
0.82
90
90
358
2,426
19:09 Dec 24, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
78097
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN—Continued
Instrument/Data
collection activity
Respondent
Number of
respondents
SOCEA ................
Project Director & Representatives
from Family & Youth Organizations.
Core Agency Rep, Service Providers
Care Coordinators .............................
Caregivers .........................................
Clients 14–21 .....................................
Responses
per
respondent
Total number
of
responses
Hours per
response
Total annual
burden hours
143
1
143
1.5
215
429
95
95
95
1
1
1
1
429
95
95
95
1.0
1.7
0.75
0.5
533
162
106
48
1
1
353
707
0.4
0.4
147
294
424
424
0.25
0.25
106
106
Network Analysis Survey
Jurisdiction ...........
Local system ........
Grant leadership ................................
Local providers of direct services ......
353
707
GIS Component: Group Collaborative Events for GIS Analysis Form
Jurisdiction ...........
Local system ........
Grant administrator/Project Director ..
Local administrator/Project Director ..
106
106
4
4
Financial Mapping and Benchmark Components
Financial Mapping
Interview.
Benchmark Tool ...
Financial administrators at: Medicaid
Agencies & MH Authorities.
Financial administrators at: Trade associations & Family organizations.
Payment/reporting
personnel
at:
Medicaid Agencies & MH Authorities.
97
1
97
2.0
217
332
1
332
1.5
52
24
1
24
40.0
960
Child and Family Outcome Component
Background Information (CDP) c.
Family/Living Information.
Caregiver Strain
Questionnaire—
Short Form.
Columbia Impairment Scale.
Pediatric Symptom
Checklist-17.
Client record review.
Caregivers of clients age 11–17 d .....
631
e 2.12
1,337
0.37
491
Clients age 11–17 .............................
Caregivers of clients age 5–17 f ........
631
3,172
2.12
2.12
1,337
6,725
0.37
.05
491
336
Clients age 18–21 g ...........................
Caregivers of clients age 5–17 .........
650
3,172
2.12
2.12
1,377
6,725
.05
0.12
69
807
Caregivers of clients age 5–17 .........
3,172
2.12
6,725
0.08
538
Clients age 11–21 h ...........................
Caregivers of clients age 5–17 .........
1,911
3,172
2.12
2.12
4,051
6,725
0.08
0.05
324
336
Clients age 11–21 .............................
Site staff .............................................
1,911
28
2.12
407
4,051
11,261
0.05
0.21
203
2,365
........................
56,664
........................
11,958
Total Annual Burden
All .........................
All .......................................................
9,365
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
a. Burden includes planning and implementation grantees.
b. Core agency partners include (1) representatives from MH, child welfare, and juvenile justice and (2) CMHI quality monitors.
c. OMB clearance sought for CDP is limited to the added burden for a second respondent (Caregiver OR Client age 11 to 17). For clients age
11 to 17, CDP only collects information from either Caregivers OR youth. In addition, clearance is requested for the burden only as OMB approval of CDP has been sought separately.
d. Assumes 33% of clients will be age 11 to 17 and that the additional CDP interview for clients age 11 to 17 and their caregiver will be evenly
split between clients and caregivers. Evaluation design requires all participating clients age 5 to 17 to have a caregiver participating in the evaluation.
e. Accounts for attrition.
f. Assumes 83% of clients will be age 5 to 17.
g. Assumes 17% of clients will be age 18 to 21.
h. Assumes 50% of clients will be age 11 to 21.
TABLE 2—TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN
Number of
respondents
Instrument/Data collection activity
Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Dec 24, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
459
29DEN1
Total number
of
responses
459
Average
annual
burden
(hours)
628
78098
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 248 / Monday, December 29, 2014 / Notices
TABLE 2—TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN—Continued
Number of
respondents
Instrument/Data collection activity
SAIS .............................................................................................................................................
SOCEA ........................................................................................................................................
Network analysis survey ..............................................................................................................
GIS ...............................................................................................................................................
Financial mapping interview ........................................................................................................
Benchmark Tool ...........................................................................................................................
Child and family tools (respondent & staff burden) .....................................................................
Total ......................................................................................................................................
Written comments and
recommendations concerning the
proposed information collection should
be sent by January 28, 2015 to the
SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). To ensure timely receipt of
comments, and to avoid potential delays
in OMB’s receipt and processing of mail
sent through the U.S. Postal Service,
commenters are encouraged to submit
their comments to OMB via email to:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov.
Although commenters are encouraged to
send their comments via email,
commenters may also fax their
comments to: 202–395–7285.
Commenters may also mail them to:
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, New Executive Office Building,
Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2014–30288 Filed 12–24–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162–20–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
35). To request a copy of these
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports
Clearance Officer on (240) 276–1243.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:09 Dec 24, 2014
Jkt 235001
Project: Networking Suicide Prevention
Hotlines—Evaluation of the Lifeline
Policies for Helping Callers at
Imminent Risk (OMB No. 0930–0333)—
REVISION
The Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration’s
(SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health
Services (CMHS) funds a National
Suicide Prevention Lifeline Network
(‘‘Lifeline’’), consisting of a toll-free
telephone number that routes calls from
anywhere in the United States to a
network of local crisis centers. In turn,
the local centers link callers to local
emergency, mental health, and social
service resources. This project is a
revision of the Evaluation of Lifeline
Policies for Helping Callers at Risk and
builds on previously approved data
collection activities [Evaluation of
Networking Suicide Prevention Hotlines
Follow-Up Assessment (OMB No. 0930–
0274) and Call Monitoring of National
Suicide Prevention Lifeline Form (OMB
No. 0930–0275)]. The extension and
revision data collection is an effort to
advance the understanding of crisis
hotline utilization and its impact.
The overarching purpose of the
proposed Evaluation of the Lifeline
Policies for Helping Callers at Imminent
Risk is to implement data collection to
evaluate hotline counselors’
management of imminent risk callers
and third party callers concerned about
persons at imminent risk, and counselor
adherence to Lifeline Policies and
Guidelines for Helping Callers at
Imminent Risk of Suicide. Specifically,
the Evaluation of the Lifeline Policies
for Helping Callers at Imminent Risk
will collect data, using a revised
imminent risk form, to inform the
network’s knowledge of the extent to
which counselors are aware of and
being guided by the Lifeline’s imminent
risk guidelines; counselors’ definitions
of imminent risk; the rates of active
rescue of imminent risk callers; types of
rescue (voluntary or involuntary);
barriers to intervention; circumstances
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1,540
858
1,060
212
129
24
5,083
9,365
Total number
of
responses
2,970
858
1,060
848
129
24
50,316
56,664
Average
annual
burden
(hours)
2,426
1,063
442
212
269
960
5,959
11,958
in which active rescue is initiated,
including the caller’s agreement to
receive the intervention, profile of
imminent risk callers; and the types of
interventions counselors used with
them.
Approval is being requested for one
activity to assess the knowledge,
actions, and practices of counselors to
aid callers who are determined to be at
imminent risk for suicide and who may
require active rescue. This evaluation
will allow researchers to examine and
understand the actions taken by
counselors to aid imminent risk callers,
the need for active rescue, the types of
interventions used, and, ultimately,
improve the delivery of crisis hotline
services to imminent risk callers. A total
of eight new centers will participate in
this evaluation. Thus, SAMHSA is
requesting OMB review and approval of
the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline—Imminent Risk Form-Revised.
Crisis counselors at eight new
participating centers will record
information discussed with imminent
risk callers on the Imminent Risk FormRevised, which does not require direct
data collection from callers. As with
previously approved evaluations, callers
will maintain anonymity. Counselors
will be asked to complete the form for
100% of imminent risk callers to the
eight centers participating in the
evaluation. This form requests
information in 15 content areas, each
with multiple sub-items and response
options. Response options include
open-ended, yes/no, Likert-type ratings,
and multiple choice/check all that
apply. The form also requests
demographic information on the caller,
the identification of the center and
counselor submitting the form, and the
date of the call. Specifically, the form is
divided into the following sections: (1)
Counselor information, (2) center
information, (3) call characteristics (e.g.,
line called, language spoken,
participation of third party), (4) suicidal
desire, (5) suicidal intent, (6) suicidal
capability, (7) buffers to suicide, (8)
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78095-78098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30288]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 35). To request a copy of these
[[Page 78096]]
documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.
Project: National System of Care Expansion Evaluation--NEW
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA), Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting
approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the new
collection of data for the National System of Care (SOC) Expansion
Evaluation.
Evaluation Plan and Data Collection Activities. The purpose of the
National SOC Expansion Evaluation is to assess the success of the SOC
expansion planning and implementation grants in expanding the reach of
SOC values, principles, and practices. These include maximizing system-
level coordination and planning, offering a comprehensive array of
services, and prioritizing family and youth involvement. In order to
obtain a clear picture of SOC expansion grant activities, this
longitudinal, multi-level evaluation will measure activities and
performance of grantees at three levels essential to building and
sustaining effective SOCs. The three levels are: jurisdiction, local
system, and child and family levels.
Data collection activities will occur through four evaluation
components. Each component includes data collection activities and
analyses involving similar topics. Each component has multiple
instruments that will be used to address various aspects. Thus, there
are a total of eight new instruments that will be used to conduct this
evaluation. All four evaluation components involve collecting data from
implementation grantees, but only the Implementation assessment
includes data collection from planning grantees as well.
The four studies with their corresponding data collection
activities are as follows:
(1) The Implementation assessment will document the development and
expansion of SOCs. Data collection activities include: (a) Stakeholder
Interviews with high-level administrators, youth and family
representatives, and child agencies to describe the early
implementation and expansion efforts of planning and implementation
grants, (b) the web-based Self-Assessment of Implementation Survey
(SAIS) to assess SOC implementation and expansion at the jurisdictional
level over time, and (c) the SOC Expansion Assessment (SOCEA)
administered to local providers, managers, clients, and their
caregivers to measure SOC expansion strategies and processes
implemented related to direct service delivery at the local system
level. Implementation grantees will participate in all three of the
Implementation assessment data collection activities. Planning grantee
participation will be limited to the Stakeholder Interview and the
Self-Assessment of Implementation Survey.
(2) The Network Analysis will use Network Analysis Surveys to
determine the depth and breadth of the SOC collaboration across
agencies and organization. Separate network analysis surveys will be
administered at the jurisdiction and local service system levels. The
Geographic Information System (GIS) Component will measure the
geographic coverage and spread of the SOC, including reaching
underserved areas and populations. At the jurisdictional and local
service system levels, the GIS component will use office and business
addresses of attendees to key planning, implementation and expansion
events. At the child/youth and family level, Census block groups
(derived from home addresses) will be used to depict the geographic
spread of populations served by SOCs.
(3) The Financial Mapping Component involves the review of
implementation grantees' progress in developing financial
sustainability and expansion plans. The Financial Mapping Interview
will be conducted with financial administrators of Medicaid Agencies,
Mental Health Authorities, mental health provider trade associations,
and family organizations. The Benchmark Component will compare relative
rates of access, utilization, and costs for children's mental health
services using the Benchmarking Tool and administrative data requested
from financial administrators and personnel working with Medicaid
Agency and Mental Health Authority reporting and payment systems.
(4) The Child and Family Outcome Component will collect
longitudinal data on child clinical and functional outcomes, family
outcomes, and child and family background. Data will be collected at
intake, 6-months, and 12-months post service entry (as long as the
child/youth is still receiving services). Data will also be collected
at discharge if the child/youth leaves services before the 12-month
data collection point. Data will be collected using the following
scales: (a) A shortened version of the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire,
(b) the Columbia Impairment Scale, (c) the Pediatric Symptom Checklist-
17, (d) Family/Living Situation items, and (e) background information
gathered through the Common Data Platform (CDP). Although OMB approval
for the CPD has been sought separately under an unrelated contract,
this data collection will include both youth age 11 to 17 and their
caregivers whereas CDP includes only one of these respondents (i.e.,
youth or caregiver).
Estimated Burden. Data will be collected from approximately 51
planning and 106 implementation grant jurisdictions and local systems.
Data collection for this evaluation will be conducted over a 4-year
period.
The average annual respondent burden estimate reflects the average
number of respondents in each respondent category, the average number
of responses per respondent per year, the average length of time it
will take to complete each response, and the total average annual
burden for each category of respondent for all categories of
respondents combined. Table 1 shows the estimated annual burden
estimate by instrument and respondent. Burden is summarized in Table 2.
Table 1--Estimated Average Annual Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Responses per Total number Hours per Total annual
Instrument/Data collection activity Respondent respondents respondent of responses response burden hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implementation Assessment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Interviews \a\............. Project Director............... 57 1 57 1.6 90
Family Organization 57 1 57 1.6 90
Representative.
Youth Organization 57 1 57 1.6 90
Representative.
Core Agency Partners \b\....... 287 1 287 1.3 358
SAIS \a\............................... Grant leadership............... 1,540 1.93 2,970 0.82 2,426
[[Page 78097]]
SOCEA.................................. Project Director & 143 1 143 1.5 215
Representatives from Family &
Youth Organizations.
Core Agency Rep, Service 429 1 429 1.0 533
Providers.
Care Coordinators.............. 95 1 95 1.7 162
Caregivers..................... 95 1 95 0.75 106
Clients 14-21.................. 95 1 95 0.5 48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Analysis Survey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction........................... Grant leadership............... 353 1 353 0.4 147
Local system........................... Local providers of direct 707 1 707 0.4 294
services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GIS Component: Group Collaborative Events for GIS Analysis Form
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jurisdiction........................... Grant administrator/Project 106 4 424 0.25 106
Director.
Local system........................... Local administrator/Project 106 4 424 0.25 106
Director.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Mapping and Benchmark Components
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Mapping Interview............ Financial administrators at: 97 1 97 2.0 217
Medicaid Agencies & MH
Authorities.
Financial administrators at: 332 1 332 1.5 52
Trade associations & Family
organizations.
Benchmark Tool......................... Payment/reporting personnel at: 24 1 24 40.0 960
Medicaid Agencies & MH
Authorities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child and Family Outcome Component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background Information (CDP) \c\....... Caregivers of clients age 11-17 631 \e\ 2.12 1,337 0.37 491
\d\.
Clients age 11-17.............. 631 2.12 1,337 0.37 491
Family/Living Information.............. Caregivers of clients age 5-17 3,172 2.12 6,725 .05 336
\f\.
Clients age 18-21 \g\.......... 650 2.12 1,377 .05 69
Caregiver Strain Questionnaire--Short Caregivers of clients age 5-17. 3,172 2.12 6,725 0.12 807
Form.
Columbia Impairment Scale.............. Caregivers of clients age 5-17. 3,172 2.12 6,725 0.08 538
Clients age 11-21 \h\.......... 1,911 2.12 4,051 0.08 324
Pediatric Symptom Checklist-17......... Caregivers of clients age 5-17. 3,172 2.12 6,725 0.05 336
Clients age 11-21.............. 1,911 2.12 4,051 0.05 203
Client record review................... Site staff..................... 28 407 11,261 0.21 2,365
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.................................... All............................ 9,365 .............. 56,664 .............. 11,958
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Burden includes planning and implementation grantees.
b. Core agency partners include (1) representatives from MH, child welfare, and juvenile justice and (2) CMHI quality monitors.
c. OMB clearance sought for CDP is limited to the added burden for a second respondent (Caregiver OR Client age 11 to 17). For clients age 11 to 17, CDP
only collects information from either Caregivers OR youth. In addition, clearance is requested for the burden only as OMB approval of CDP has been
sought separately.
d. Assumes 33% of clients will be age 11 to 17 and that the additional CDP interview for clients age 11 to 17 and their caregiver will be evenly split
between clients and caregivers. Evaluation design requires all participating clients age 5 to 17 to have a caregiver participating in the evaluation.
e. Accounts for attrition.
f. Assumes 83% of clients will be age 5 to 17.
g. Assumes 17% of clients will be age 18 to 21.
h. Assumes 50% of clients will be age 11 to 21.
Table 2--Total Estimated Annual Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Instrument/Data collection activity Number of Total number annual burden
respondents of responses (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Interviews.......................................... 459 459 628
[[Page 78098]]
SAIS............................................................ 1,540 2,970 2,426
SOCEA........................................................... 858 858 1,063
Network analysis survey......................................... 1,060 1,060 442
GIS............................................................. 212 848 212
Financial mapping interview..................................... 129 129 269
Benchmark Tool.................................................. 24 24 960
Child and family tools (respondent & staff burden).............. 5,083 50,316 5,959
Total....................................................... 9,365 56,664 11,958
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed
information collection should be sent by January 28, 2015 to the SAMHSA
Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of
comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing
of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged
to submit their comments to OMB via email to:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov. Although commenters are encouraged to send
their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to:
202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive
Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.
Summer King,
Statistician.
[FR Doc. 2014-30288 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
