SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT FOR STATES USING
ALTERNATIVE POVERTY DATA TO REDISTRIBUTE TITLE I, PART A FUNDS TO LOCAL
EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES WITH

**FEWER THAN 20,000 TOTAL RESIDENTS (1810-0620)**

# A. Justification

1.  *Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information
    necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that
    necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section
    of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the
    collection of information.*

We are requesting a three-year extension of the current paperwork
clearance package (OMB number 1810-0620) related to using alternative
poverty data to redistribute Title I, Part A funds to educational
agencies (LEAs) with fewer than 20,000 total residents. This information
package was last approved in 2005.

Sections 1124(a)(2)(B), 1124A(a)(4)(A), and 1125(d) of Title I, Part A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No
Child Left Behind Act, authorize State educational agencies (SEAs) to
use alternative poverty data to redistribute Title I Basic,
Concentration, and Targeted Grant allocations determined by the
Department of Education (ED) to "small" local educational agencies
(LEAs) with fewer than 20,000 total residents. (See
<http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf> for the text of
the relevant sections of the statute.) Section 200.74 of the Title I
regulations further clarifies this provision by extending this
flexibility to Educational Finance Incentive Grants. The statute
requires ED to obtain approval of any alternative poverty measure they
choose to use for this purpose. (See
<http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.pdf>
for the text of §200.74 of the regulations concerning the use of an
alternative method to distribute allocations to small LEAs.)

These statutory provisions have been part of the Title I, Part A statute
since 1994. They were first implemented in 1999 when ED switched to
allocating Title I funds directly to LEAs.

Note that there is no collection of data by ED associated with these
provisions in the statute and regulations. This narrative addresses only
the burden associated with the actual process an SEA must follow to
obtain approval from ED to use alternative poverty data to redistribute
Title I, Part A funds to small LEAs. The burden connected with SEAs
collecting alternative poverty data and using them to redistribute
ED-determined allocations to small LEAs is addressed in the narrative of
clearance package 1810-0622 concerning SEA procedures for adjusting
ED-determined allocations.

2.  Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be
    used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the
    agency has made of the information received from the current
    collection.

In applying to ED for approval of the alternative poverty data selected,
an SEA must identify the type of alternative data it proposes to use and
assure that it has established a procedure through which a small LEA
that is dissatisfied with the determination of its grant may appeal
directly to the Secretary. As noted in item 1 above, this process is a
continuation of procedures that have been in place since 1999. This
narrative addresses the SEA burden connected with obtaining approval of
the alternative data from ED. There is no requirement for an SEA to
submit the alternative poverty data it chooses to ED.

3.  *Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information
    involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
    technological collection techniques or forms of information
    technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and
    the basis for the decision to adopt this means of collection. Also
    describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce
    burden.*

The statute and regulations neither require nor preclude SEAs from using
information technology to reduce burden. Most States have the data
needed for this purpose available in an electronic form. States are not
required to submit the alternative poverty data selected to ED.

4.  *Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any
    similar information already available cannot be used or modified for
    use for the purposes described in Item 2 above.*

There is no duplication.

5.  *If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other
    small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83-I), describe any methods used
    to minimize burden.*

Small businesses are not affected by this data collection. The small
entities that would be affected by the provision in the statute and
regulations are small LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds. Nationally,
10,931 (77 percent) of 14,136 LEAs nationally have a total resident
population of less than 20,000.

6.  *Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities
    if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently,
    as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.*

This clearance package only addresses the burden to States that apply to
ED for approval to use alternative data. There is no collection of data
involved at the Federal level. SEAs must obtain approval from ED for the
use of alternative poverty data in order to notify LEAs of their final
Title I allocations. To take advantage of this flexibility, an SEA would
need to collect the alternative poverty data at the State level in order
to determine small LEA eligibility and to redistribute Title I, Part A
funds to those LEAs based on those alternative data. Failure to obtain
permission from ED to use alternative poverty data would mean that SEAs
could not take advantage of the flexibility available to them under
sections 1124(a)(2)(B), 1124A(a)(4)(A), and 1125(d) of the statute and
§200.74 of the regulations. Currently ten States have chosen to use this
flexibility. As many as 25 States may use this flexibility.

7.  *Explain any special circumstance that would cause an information
    collection to be conducted in a manner\--*

-   *requiring respondents to report information to the agency more
    often than quarterly;*

-   *requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection
    of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;*

-   *requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two
    copies of any document;*

-   *requiring respondents to retain records, other than health,
    medical, government contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more
    than three years;*

-   *in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to
    produce valid and reliable results that can be generalized to the
    universe of study;*

-   *requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not
    been reviewed and approved by OMB;*

-   *that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by
    authority established in statute or regulation, that is not
    supported by disclosure and data security policies that are
    consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing
    of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or*

-   *requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade secrets, or other
    confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it
    has instituted procedures to protect the information\'s
    confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.*

The requirements in the statute and regulations are consistent with the
guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5. None of the special circumstances outlined
in the supporting statement instructions apply.

8.  *If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number
    of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER of the agency's notice,
    required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information
    collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public comments
    received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by
    the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address
    comments received on cost and hour burden.*

*Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain
their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the
clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting
format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or
reported.*

*Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to
be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once
every 3 years even if the collection of information activity is the same
as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude
consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be
explained.*

This has been an ongoing activity since 1999. The public had repeated
opportunities for comment on the burden hour estimate for this activity
when this package was published in 2002 and 2005.

9.  *Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents,
    other than renumeration of contractors or grantees.*

No payment is provided to respondents to apply for this flexibility.

10. *Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
    and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulations, or agency
    policy.*

Not applicable. The statute and regulations require no assurance of
confidentiality.

11. *Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive
    nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs,
    and other matters that are commonly considered private. This
    justification should include the reasons why the agency considers
    the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the
    information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the
    information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their
    consent.*

The statute and regulations do not involve any questions of a sensitive
nature.

12. *Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of
    information. The statement should:*

-   *Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual
    hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.
    Unless directed to do so, agencies should not conduct special
    surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden
    estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential
    respondents is desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is
    expected to vary widely because of differences in activity, size, or
    complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, and explain the
    reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include
    burden hours for customary and usual business practices.*

-   *If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide
    separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour
    burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I.*

-   *Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour
    burdens for collections of information, identifying and using
    appropriate wage rate categories. The cost of contracting out or
    paying outside parties for information collection activities should
    not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item
    14.*

The estimated cost to the 25 SEA respondents that could seek approval
from ED to use alternative poverty data for redistributing Title I funds
to small LEAs is \$5,000. This assumes that the additional time needed
for the 25 States to develop their requests would total 200 hours at a
cost of \$25 per hour. (See the appendix for a more detailed breakout.)
This estimate also assumes that SEAs renewing their approval of the use
of alternative poverty data for small LEAs would continue to use the
same alternative poverty data. The approval for the use of alternative
data would remain in effect for the duration of the current Title I
authorization.

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents
    or record keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do
    not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)

-   *The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total
    capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its expected
    useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase
    of services component. The estimates should take into account costs
    associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing
    the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estimate
    major cost factors including system and technology acquisition,
    expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and
    the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and
    start-up costs include, among other items, preparations for
    collecting information such as purchasing computers and software;
    monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record
    storage facilities.*

-   *If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should
    present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the
    variance. The cost of contracting out information collection
    services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In
    developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample
    of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB
    submission public comment process and use existing economic or
    regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing
    the information collection, as appropriate.*

-   *Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or
    services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1,
    1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not
    associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other
    than to provide information or keep records for the government,
    or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private
    practices.*

There are no startup costs.

14. *Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
    Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost,
    which should include quantification of hours, operational expenses
    (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any
    other expense that would not have been incurred without this
    collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost
    estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table.*

The cost to the Federal Government is estimated to be \$1,200. This
estimate is based on the possible need to develop and send out
additional guidance and process requests from States seeking approval
from ED for use of alternative poverty data. (See the appendix for a
breakout of the estimated costs.)

15. *Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported
    in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.*

The current burden hours estimate associated with Sections
1124(a)(2)(B), 1124A(a)(4)(A), and 1125(d) of Title I, Part A, is
already part of OMB's inventory. Therefore, an extension of this
clearance package would not add any burden hours currently reported in
the OMB inventory for this activity.

16. *For collections of information whose results will be published,
    outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex
    analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule
    for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the
    collection of information, completion of report, publication dates,
    and other actions.*

> Not applicable because there is no collection of information. SEAs
> would be required to obtain approval of alternative data once during
> the reauthorization period. An SEA would be required to submit a new
> request to ED only if it wished to change the alternative poverty
> measure used for redistributing Title I, Part A funds to its small
> LEAs.

17. *If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
    approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that
    display would be inappropriate.*

> The proposed display of the OMB expiration date for data collection is
> not applicable because there is no information collected by ED. The
> SEA would collect and use any alternative poverty data needed to
> redistribute Title I funds to its small LEAs. The SEA is not required
> to submit those data to ED. ED will display the OMB expiration date on
> any guidance issued concerning the use of alternative data.

18. *Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in
    Item 20, \"Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,\"
    of OMB Form 83-I.*

There are no proposed exceptions to the certifications.

**B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods**

These regulations do not involve the collection of data and do not,
therefore, employ statistical methods.

SASA/BROWN/8/9/05/260-0976/Title I/Paperwork 2005//Alternative method
narrative 2005

cc: OF/Hunkin/chron/State/writer

**APPENDIX**

**ESTIMATE OF HOURS**

**State level**

[State level estimate]{.underline}

Number of States 25

X Time needed at State level to develop

request to ED to use alternative poverty data for

LEAs with fewer than 20,000 total residents [8]{.underline} hours

200

[Total respondent hours]{.underline} 200 hours

X Cost rate [\$25]{.underline} per hour

\$5,000

[Average burden hours per respondent]{.underline}

Person hours required nationally for

States to develop requests to ED

to use alternative poverty data for LEAs

with fewer than 20,000 total residents 200 hours

X Number of respondents 25

= Average burden hours per respondent 8 hours

**Federal Level**

Person hours 40

X Cost rate [\$30]{.underline} per hour

\$1,200