Supporting Statement A - ACF Reviewer Recruitment_Extension 2023_0970-0477_fnl

ACF’s Generic Clearance for Reviewer Recruitment Forms

OMB Information Collection Request

0970 - 0477

Supporting Statement Part A - Justification

April 2023

Submitted By:

Administration for Children and Families

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1. Circumstances Making the Collection of Information Necessary

This request by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is to extend approval of the generic clearance for Reviewer Recruitment Forms with no changes. ACF may recruit reviewers for a variety of different activities and each program office within ACF has a slightly different needs for information about reviewer applicants for different activities. This overarching generic clearance allows ACF to request slightly different information from potential reviewers, yet the individual forms serve the same general function. The abbreviated clearance process of the generic clearance allows program offices to gather a suitable pool of candidates within the varied time periods available for reviewer recruitment.

The forms submitted under this umbrella generic are and will be voluntary, low-burden and uncontroversial. Information will be collected electronically unless specified otherwise in an individual generic information collection (GenIC) request.

The following are examples that would necessitate ACF’s use of this generic clearance¹.

1. Grant Reviewer Recruitment: Within ACF, each program office is responsible for reviews of all eligible applications for grants and cooperative agreements submitted in response to a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO). These reviews are required to be objective, effective and economical in compliance with statues, regulations and policies. Therefore, it’s incumbent on each program office to assemble a pool of experts knowledgeable in the relevant fields to select the best qualified applications.

The review process is in accordance with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 2.04 "Awarding Grants", the HHS Awarding Agency Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM), Chapter 2.04.104C "Objective Review of Grant Applications”, and the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Sections 799(f) and 806(e).

2. Conference Submission Material Reviewer Recruitment: ACF hosts a variety of conferences² for which potential participants submit materials for presentations, discussions, poster sessions, etc. Submissions must be reviewed for relevance and quality prior to acceptance. Reviewers should have relevant expertise. The collection of resumes or other information to review and confirm expertise in relevant areas will help ensure objective and effective review of conference materials. This will help improve the quality of ACF’s conferences.

3. Document Reviewer Recruitment: ACF produces a variety of documents, including reports, infographics, etc. It could be helpful to recruit a pool of reviewers with relevant expertise to review and provide feedback on such documents. This will help improve the quality of ACF’s dissemination efforts.

2. Purpose and Use of the Information Collection

The purpose of the requests under this umbrella generic is to select qualified reviewers for ACF review processes based on professional qualifications using data entered and documents provided by candidates. Example documents include writing samples and curriculum vitae and/or resume.

ACF will use the information collected to recruit well-qualified reviewers with relevant background experience and knowledge. Information collected is for internal use by ACF.

All ACF grant reviewer recruitment materials will include the following language (offset) which was approved by the HHS Office of General Counsel. A section of each reviewer recruitment form will contain a menu that includes the OMB categories used to identify race and ethnicity.

Diversity of Membership of Peer Review Panels

The Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services is committed to increasing the diversity of the non-federal peer reviewers utilized in the competitive grants review process. One of ACF’s goals is to advance equity by reducing structural barriers including racism and other forms of discrimination that prevent economic and social well-being. Targeted grant review applications allow ACF to increase the representation of diverse perspectives on the grant review panels and track our progress in increasing diversity among reviewers. One way ACF is working to achieve this goal is by requesting that respondents voluntarily indicate race and/or ethnicity on the self-identification section reviewer application forms. Please note that this section will utilize the standard Federal identification categories. This and similar information is invaluable in enabling the agency to promote broad representation, especially for underserved and underrepresented groups, and track our progress on this important goal.

3. Use of Improved Information Technology and Burden Reduction

The forms will include options such as, but not limited to, user-entered fields, drop-down menus, check boxes, radio buttons and an upload function to allow uploading of the curriculum vitae or resume. These forms may be posted on individual program offices’ web-pages, programmed into an online survey platform, or emailed in document form. We expect the forms to be distributed to potential reviewers through listservs or other forms of email, conference websites, and/or program office websites. In the future they may be incorporated into the On Line Data Collection (OLDC) system which offers on line access and offers additional conveniences. Individual GenICs will provide information about the mode of data collection.

4. Efforts to Identify Duplication and Use of Similar Information

There are no duplicative efforts to collect this information from potential reviewers.

5. Impact on Small Businesses or Other Small Entities

Individuals who apply to serve as ACF reviewers may be affiliated with small entities. However, the information requested is the minimum needed to identify well-qualified applicants and the burden on applicants will not be significant.

6. Consequences of Collecting the Information Less Frequently

Individuals will have to submit an application only one time to be included in a program’s reviewer database, unless they wish to update information previously submitted. Without these application forms, ACF will not be able to identify and select well-qualified reviewers in a consistent, standardized manner as needed.

7. Special Circumstances Relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5

There are no special circumstances.

8. Comments in Response to the Federal Register Notice and Efforts to Consult Outside the Agency

Federal Register Notice and Comments

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR Part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), ACF published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency’s intention to request an OMB review of this information collection activity. This notice was published on November 18, 2022 (87 FR 69278) and provided a sixty-day period for public comment. During the notice and comment period, we did not receive comments.

Consultation with Experts Outside of the Study

When developing this umbrella generic, ACF consulted with representatives from several other Operating Divisions in HHS to determine the best practices for soliciting new reviewers.

9. Explanation of Any Payment or Gift to Respondents

There will be no payment to respondents for submitting an application. Applicants chosen as ACF reviewers will receive standard compensation for their service in that capacity. Conference reviewers are generally volunteers.

10. Assurance of Confidentiality Provided to Respondents

Information submitted in these reviewer applications will be kept private. Respondents will be informed about the planned uses of the information provided and that the information will be kept private.

11. Justification for Sensitive Questions

While it is not expected that we will collect sensitive information through reviewer recruitment forms, we may request background information when looking for applicants with lived experiences. These questions could potentially be seen as sensitive. Individual GenICs will provide information about sensitive questions. Applicants will be informed that applying and completing the related form is voluntary. All planned uses of data will be explained on the form.

12. Estimates of Annualized Burden Hours and Costs

Total burden, including previously approved collections that are ongoing in addition to requested burden over the next three years is 1,747 hours (247 + 1,500 = 1,747 hours).

Previously Approved and Ongoing

The following generic information collections were previously approved under 0970-0477 and are still in use.

Form	Number of Respondents	Responses per respondent	Hours per response	Total burden hours
Office of Community Services Community Economic Development (CED) Grant Reviewer Recruitment Form	100	1	.16	17
Eligibility Information from Applicants: Reviewer Information Form for General Reviewer and for Specific Reviewer	95	1	.17	16
Grant Reviewer Recruitment for the Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) Discretionary Grant Programs	250	1	.167	42
Children's Bureau Grant Reviewer Recruitment Module	500	1	.084	42
Demonstration Grants to Strengthen the Response to Victims of Human Trafficking in Native Communities (VHT-NC) Program Evaluation – Community Expert Consultant Recruitment	30	1	.333	10
Administration for Native Americans (ANA) Panel Reviewer Profile Questionnaire	300	1	.4	120
Total Ongoing Burden				247

Requested Burden for New Generic Information Collections

Form	Number of Respondents	Responses per respondent	Hours per response	Total burden hours	Average Hourly Wage	Total Annual Cost
Reviewer Recruitment Form	3,000	1	.5	1,500	$63.08	$94,620

The estimated number of respondents is based on the total number of respondents for all GenICs over the past three years (2,855). The estimated response time is based on an assumption that most respondents will need between 5 to 90 minutes to complete an application, but that the majority of the collections will take less than 30 minutes. These estimates are based on ACF program office experiences collecting reviewer information under this umbrella generic.

The basis for the hourly wage is determined by the average salary of individuals in locales around the country who would have the type of qualifications needed to serve as reviewers for activities such as grant or conference material reviews. Therefore, an estimated hourly wage of $31.54 per hour is used, based on May 2021 BLS data for the following occupation labor categories: Social Science (19-0000; $38.81), Community and Social Service (21-0000; $25.94), and Education and Training (25-0000; $29.88). https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. To account for fringe benefits and overhead, the wage rate is multiplied by two, which is $63.08.

13. Estimates of Other Total Annual Cost Burden to Respondents and Record Keepers

There are no other costs to respondents.

14. Annualized Cost to the Federal Government

The estimated hourly cost to the government for staff to review and process these applications is approximately $50.00. The estimated time to review these applications averages about the same amount of time to review a typical standard resume, which would vary between 15 minutes to an hour. Assuming a 38-minute review average for 1,000 applications, the total annual cost to the government will be approximately $31,667.

15. Explanation for Program Changes or Adjustments

There are no changes proposed to this umbrella generic. Burden estimates have been updated to reflect currently approved and ongoing GenICs.

16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication and Project Time Schedule

There are no plans for tabulations or publications. Information will be collected as needed by program offices after approval is received. Individual GenICs will provide information about timeline for data collection.

17. Reason(s) Display of OMB Expiration Date is Inappropriate

The expiration date will be displayed.

18. Exceptions to Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions

There are no exceptions to the certification.

1 This list is not all encompassing; it is only meant to provide relevant examples.

2 All ACF conferences are reviewed and approved by ACF leadership prior to scheduling. ACF follows HHS policies (HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending) with few exceptions.