**SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR**

**PAPERWORK REDUCATION ACT SUBMISSION**

# FY 2006 Migrant Education Program (MEP) Consortium Incentive Grants

#### \[OMB 1810-0649\]

## A. Justification

*Q1. 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.*

A1. An application is required for the award of FY 2006 grants under the
Migrant Education Program (MEP) Consortium Incentive Grant (CIG)
program. The program provides competitive grants to State Educational
Agencies (SEAs) that participate in high-quality consortium arrangements
with another State or appropriate entity that will improve the delivery
of services to migratory children whose education is interrupted. The
program is authorized by section 1308(d) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. The Notice of final
requirements included in the application package and published in the
Federal Register on March 3, 2004 (69 FR 10110) describes the
requirements and procedures for awarding the MEP consortium incentive
grants.

The application form requests the minimum programmatic and budgetary
information needed to evaluate applications based on the provision in
the authorizing statute and selection criteria as authorized by section
75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
(EDGAR).

With the following exception, the requirements and procedures to be used
are the same as those last used in making consortium incentive grant
awards in FY 2004. The criteria to be used for FY 2006, while still
selected from the standard discretionary grant criteria in 75.210 of
EDGAR, are different and more detailed than those used in FY 2004.

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the U.S. Department
of Education is seeking OMB approval under the Streamlined Clearance
Process within 30 days from the end of the 30-day public comment period
for the information collection.

The Notice of Action approving the last collection included the
following "terms of clearance:" "At the time of the next collection, ED
will examine whether the PBDMI \[Performance Based Data Management
Initiative\] database (or any other electronic database) can be used to
collect any evaluation data associated with this information collection.
If the PBDMI system does provide ED with information that could reduce
the burden of this information collection, it will make the appropriate
changes to this application form and then submit it for OMB approval. If
ED concludes that the PBDMI program does not collect data relevant to
this information collection, it will provide OMB with its reasons for
such a determination upon resubmission." According to the ED personnel
responsible for the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) Submission
System, the database underlying PBDMI, EDEN does not have the system
availability to collect the evaluation data associated with this
information collection. The reason for this determination being that
EDEN is designed to collect a *standard* set of data elements from *all*
States on achievement by subgroups, program funding allocations, AYP
status, etc. The CIG program does not provide grant awards to, or need
to collect data from, all States; only a limited number of States
participate in a limited number of approved consortia. Additionally, the
activities and performance objectives/measures will vary by consortium,
as well as by year over the two-year cycle of the grants, therefore the
performance data elements to be collected will not be standard across
the States and will change annually. For these reasons, EDEN staff do
not believe that EDEN can or should be used to collect the CIG
performance data. Therefore, CIG evaluation data will be collected using
the generic performance report (US Department of Education Form ED 524B)
that has already been cleared separately from this collection under OMB
No. 1890-0004.

*Q2. 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*

A2. The application enables a respondent to apply for Federal
assistance. The application describes 1) the goals and measurable
outcomes of the proposed consortium arrangement, and activities that
each participating SEA or entity will conduct during each project
period, including how it will improve the services to migratory children
whose education is interrupted; 2) the need for and value of the
proposed consortium arrangement to each participating SEA; and 3) the
process each participating SEA will use for evaluating its progress in
the consortium. The U.S. Department of Education uses the information
provided in each application to competitively evaluate and select
consortium arrangements, and to determine the amount of participating
States' awards under the Notice of final requirements.

*Q3. 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 of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any
consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.*

A3. Nothing precludes the SEA applicants from using information
technology (e.g., fax or email) to communicate with each other in the
development of their multi-State consortium applications. SEA applicants
will be able to readily access the application and all related forms via
the U.S. Department of Education's website. Applications will also be
disseminated electronically to SEAs.

Q4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any
similar information already available cannot be used or modified for use
of the purposes described in Item 2 above.

A4. The information supplied by the applicant is not in any other data
collection, and is unique to this program and the particular grantee.
The application is a single document intended to serve a specific
authorized purpose, and is in keeping with statutory requirements.

*Q5. 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.*

A5. Small businesses are not impacted by this data collection.

*Q6. 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.*

A6. The collection is necessary in order to provide incentive grant
funds to States under Section 1308(d) of ESEA.

*Q7. 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.*

A7. There are no special circumstances that require the collection to be
conducted in a manner inconsistent with the requirement of 5 CFR 1320.5.

*Q8. 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.*

A8. Because this collection is being submitted under the "streamlined
clearance process," the Department did not publish an initial 60-day
notice for public comment. However, the public was given the opportunity
to comment on the previous collection in FY 2004 and no substantive
comments on cost or hour burden were submitted relative to the
information collection. Department staff have consulted via telephone
and meetings with the FY 2004 applicants regarding their views on the
information collection. No substantive suggestions for changes were
provided. Department staff will discuss the approved application process
with prospective applicants at a meeting of State Directors of Migrant
Education in Washington, DC in February 2006.

*Q9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents,
other than renumeration of contractors or grantees*

A9. No gift or payment will be made to application respondents other
than the award to the grant recipient.

Q10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents
and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulations, or agency
policy.

A10. No assurance of confidentiality is provided.

Q11. 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.

A11. There are no questions of sensitive nature in this collection of
information.

*Q12. 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.*

A12. For the purpose of the FY 2006 MEP Consortium Incentive Grant
program, each participating SEA in the consortium provides information
to a lead SEA on its proposed activities under the consortium. The lead
SEA uses that information to develop a single application package and
submits that package to the Department on behalf of its consortium
members. The estimated average respondent cost for an application is
based roughly on 50.67 hours of preparation per application. The 50.67
hour figure is based on the total number of hours that it takes to
prepare all of the applications divided by the number of applications
that the Office of Migrant Education expects to receive. This estimate
is based on the Office of Migrant Education's staff expertise regarding
the amount of time that it will take both the lead State and the
participating States to collect, assemble, prepare and submit an
application that responds to the award criteria. A breakout of how that
figure was derived is provided below.

> **Estimated hour burden per application**
>
> 15 lead States x 24 hours per State = 360 hours
>
> 100 participating entities x 4 hours per entity = 400 hours
>
> TOTAL BURDEN HOURS = 760 hours
>
> 760 hours divided by 15 estimated applications = 50.67 hours per
> application

**Total Burden Hours to Produce All Applications**

+---------------------------+--------+-----+---------------------------+
| **Estimated Number of     | **     | #   | #### Description          |
| Respondents**             | Number | ### |                           |
|                           | of     |  To |                           |
|                           | H      | tal |                           |
|                           | ours** |     |                           |
|                           |        | **H |                           |
|                           |        | our |                           |
|                           |        | s** |                           |
+---------------------------+--------+-----+---------------------------+
| 15 Lead States (each      | 24     | 360 | This estimate includes    |
| application has a lead    |        |     | the time that it takes    |
| state)                    |        |     | for the lead State to     |
|                           |        |     | collect and assemble      |
|                           |        |     | submissions from all      |
|                           |        |     | participating States and  |
|                           |        |     | entities.                 |
+---------------------------+--------+-----+---------------------------+
| 100 Participating         | 4      | 400 | This estimate includes    |
| Entities (this is a       |        |     | the time that             |
| duplicate count that      |        |     | participating States and  |
| includes States that are  |        |     | entities spend preparing  |
| involved in more than one |        |     | their submissions.        |
| consortium arrangement)   |        |     |                           |
+---------------------------+--------+-----+---------------------------+

> **Estimates of annualized cost to respondents.** We estimate
> respondent cost at an average of \$40.61/hour \[viz., equivalent to
> the pay of a GS13/5\] so that the average cost per application would
> be \$40.61 x 50.67 hours = \$2,057.71.
>
> It is estimated that a total of 15 applications will be received for
> the competition.
>
> Total estimated cost: \$2,057.71 x 15 applications = \$30,865.65.
>
> Since the applications will cover a two-year project period, the total
> annualized cost to respondents will be \$30,865.65/2 years =
> \$15,432.83/year.

######### **Total Annual Cost Per Application and for All Applications**

+---------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+------------+
| **Res   | **Number | **Cost    | ###    | ####       | #### To    |
| pondent | of Hours | Per       | # Esti | Total Cost | tal Annual |
| Cost**  | Per      | Appl      | mated  |            | ized Cost  |
|         | Appli    | ication** | Number | #### (ov   |            |
|         | cation** |           |        | er a 2 yea |            |
|         |          | (Cost x   | #### o | r applicat |            |
|         |          | Hours)    | f Appl | ion cycle) |            |
|         |          |           | icants |            |            |
+---------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+------------+
| \$40.61 | 50.67    | \         | 15     | \          | \$15,432.8 |
| per     | hours    | $2,057.71 |        | $30,865.65 | 3/year[^1] |
| hour    |          |           |        |            |            |
+---------+----------+-----------+--------+------------+------------+

> **Estimated data burden for grants:**
>
> Reporting burden per response (includes applying and preparing
> submission of application):
>
> 50.67 hours x 15 respondents = 760 hours

####### Since the applications will cover a two-year project period, the total annualized data burden will be 760 hours/ 2 years= 380 hours/year

  --------------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
  **Estimated Number of **Estimated     **Total Burden   **Total Annualized
  Applicants**          Hours per       Hours (over a 2  Burden**
                        Application**   year application 
                                        cycle)**         

  15                    50.67 hours     760 hours        380 hours/year
  --------------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------

Q13. 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.*

A13. There are no startup costs.

*Q14. 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.*

A14. Estimated annualized Federal Cost:

Total Program Personnel Costs:

15 applications x 0.25 hours of review/application

x 1 federal reviewer @ \$30.13/hour \[viz., the pay of

a GS 12/1\] to screen the applications to ensure completeness

and that they reflect basic requirements (e.g., an absolute priority) =
\$ 112.99

15 applications x 1 hour of review/application

x 3 federal reviewers/application @ \$40.61/hour

\[viz., the pay of a GS13/5\] to review against EDGAR criteria =
\$1,827.45

4 hours for 1 federal staff @ \$30.13/hour to develop award

slate and process award documents = \$120.52

2 hours for clerical staff @ \$16.99/hour \[viz., the pay of a

GS 7/1\] to copy and mail applications and awards = \$ 33.98

Total Copying and Postage Costs:

52 application packages x \$3.00/application package = \$ 156.00

39 award documents x \$1.00/document = \$ 39.00

> Total Cost = \$2,289.94

##### **Estimated Annualized Federal Cost of Review**

Since the applications will cover a two-year project period, the total
annualized data burden will be \$2,289.94/ 2 years = 1,144.97/year.

*Q15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments
reported in Items 13 or 14 of the OMB Form 83-I.*

A15. The total annualized burden hours in item 13 of the OMB83 form will
remain the same as it was for the previous competition, 380 hours for
the 2-year program cycle. This is a program change due to the
reinstatement of hours.

*Q16. 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.*

A16. There is no plan for publication.

*Q17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB
approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display
would be inappropriate.*

A17. The expiration date will be displayed on the application package.

*Q18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified
in Item 20, \"Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,\"
of OMB Form 83-I.*

A18. There are no exceptions to the certifications.

## Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods

This collection does not employ statistical methods.

**Office of Migrant Education**

**Comparison of the Prior Law \[Improving Americas Schools Act (IASA)\]
with the Current Law \[No Child Left Behind (NCLB)\]**

**Section 1303 (d) & Section 1308 (d)**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| # IASA                            | **NCLB**                          |
+===================================+===================================+
| SEC. 1303. STATE ALLOCATIONS.     | SEC. 1303. STATE ALLOCATIONS.     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \(d\) CONSORTIUM ARRANGEMENTS-    | \(d\) CONSORTIUM ARRANGEMENTS-    |
|                                   |                                   |
| > \(1\) IN GENERAL- In the case   | > \(1\) IN GENERAL- In the case   |
| > of a State that receives a      | > of a State that receives a      |
| > grant of \$1,000,000 or less    | > grant of \$1,000,000 or less    |
| > under this section, the         | > under this section, the         |
| > Secretary shall consult with    | > Secretary shall consult with    |
| > the State educational agency to | > the State educational agency to |
| > determine whether consortium    | > determine whether consortium    |
| > arrangements with another State | > arrangements with another State |
| > or other appropriate entity     | > or other appropriate entity     |
| > would result in delivery of     | > would result in delivery of     |
| > services in a more effective    | > services in a more effective    |
| > and efficient manner.           | > and efficient manner.           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| > \(2\) PROPOSALS- Any State,     | > \(2\) PROPOSALS- Any State,     |
| > regardless of the amount of     | > regardless of the amount of     |
| > such State\'s allocation, may   | > such State\'s allocation, may   |
| > submit a consortium arrangement | > submit a consortium arrangement |
| > to the Secretary for approval.  | > to the Secretary for approval.  |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| SEC. 1308. COORDINATION OF        | SEC. 1308. COORDINATION OF        |
| MIGRANT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.     | MIGRANT EDUCATION ACTIVITIES.     |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| \(d\) INCENTIVE GRANTS-           | \(d\) INCENTIVE GRANTS- From the  |
|                                   | amounts made available to carry   |
| \(1\) IN GENERAL- From the        | out this section for any fiscal   |
| amounts made available to carry   | year, the Secretary may reserve   |
| out this section, the Secretary   | not more than **\$3,000,000** to  |
| shall reserve not more than       | award grants of not more than     |
| \$1,500,000 to award, on a        | \$250,000 on a competitive basis  |
| competitive basis, grants in the  | to State educational agencies     |
| amount of not more than \$250,000 | **that propose a consortium       |
| to State educational agencies     | arrangement with another State or |
| with consortium agreements under  | other appropriate entity that the |
| section 1303(d).                  | Secretary determines, pursuant to |
|                                   | criteria that the Secretary shall |
|                                   | establish, will improve the       |
|                                   | delivery of services to migratory |
|                                   | children whose education is       |
|                                   | interrupted.**                    |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

[^1]: This estimate is \$1,353 higher than the FY 2004 estimate
    (\$14,080) because the estimated respondent cost increased from an
    average hourly wage of \$37.06 to \$40.61 to reflect the increase in
    the average hourly pay of a GS13/5 from the 2004 to the 2005 General
    Schedule.