Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 78095-78098 [2014-30288]

Download as PDF 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