Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### General Services Administration

          - [OMB Control No. 3090-XXXX; Docket No. 2023-0001; Sequence No. 8]

# AGENCY:

Office of Evaluation Sciences; Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP); General Services Administration (GSA).

# ACTION:

Notice of request for comments regarding a request for a new OMB clearance.

# SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, OES is proposing new data collection activities conducted for the National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The objective of this project is to provide a systematic look at the contributions of selected ARP-funded programs toward achieving equitable outcomes to inform program design and delivery across the Federal Government. The project will include in-depth, cross-cutting evaluations and data analysis of selected ARP programs, especially those with shared outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping recipient communities; and targeted, program-specific analyses to fill critical gaps in evidence needs.

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before February 6, 2024.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan via                         *http://www.regulations.gov.*                         Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for the OMB Control number 3090-XXXX. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan”. Follow the instructions on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan” on your attached document. If your comment cannot be submitted using                         *https://www.regulations.gov,*                         call or email the points of contact in the                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         section of this document for alternate instructions.                    

*Instructions:*                         Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to                         *regulations.gov,*                         including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check                         *regulations.gov,*                         approximately two-to-three days after submission to verify posting.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Elizabeth Martin, Program Manager, (267)455-8556 at                         *arp.national.evaluation@gsa.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## A. Purpose

The goal of this study is to look systematically across the selected subset of ARP programs, to provide an integrated account of whether, how, and to what extent their implementation served to achieve their intended outcomes, particularly with respect to advancing equity. More specifically, the study aims to learn how lessons from examination of ARP programs and interventions with shared outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping recipient communities may inform equitable program design and delivery across the Federal Government. The study aims to address these overarching evaluation questions:
    - To what extent did ARP investments and policy interventions advance equitable outcomes for those they were designed to serve?
    - What strategies contributed to the successes, and where are different strategies needed?
    - Where multiple ARP programs aim to reach similar outcomes, especially among a shared population:

○ To what extent is there coordination across programs in their administration, customer experience strategies, or performance or outcome measurement practices?

○ To what extent are there collective impacts that could be attributed to more than one program? What kinds of impacts, if any, are observed?

○ What kinds of secondary effects are observed that may not be captured in targeted outcome measures?

                    The list of 32 programs covered in the May 2022 White House report “Advancing Equity through the American Rescue Plan” provided the scope of programs included in the National Evaluation. A partnership                           ( print page 85622)                        between the Office of Management and Budget Evidence Team and GSA's Office of Evaluation Sciences, this study is also guided by leadership from the White House ARP Implementation Team, who participate on the Steering Committee, as well as a team of agency experts across the Federal Government.                

To build evidence in support of the study goals, this project includes a series of up to five in-depth, cross-cutting evaluations of selected ARP programs or recipient communities of multiple ARP program investments with shared outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping recipient groups. These evaluations will be selected based on program, population, place, community, or a combination of these factors. A mixed-methods approach is anticipated in order to ensure that appropriate attention is paid to context and that data collection and analysis methods reflect the complexity of program implementation and address the specific evaluation questions identified through the ongoing planning and consultation process.

The ARP National Evaluation will use a multiple-phased approach for this proposed information collection activity. In Phase 1 (current request) the research team seeks approval to carry out consultations with the relevant state and local agencies, community-based organizations, and program participants, including the formal recruitment process to establish community advisory boards for each of the planned in-depth evaluations.

Under subsequent phases of the request, the project will update the information collection request for the instruments tailored to each in-depth evaluation, to reflect the specific evaluation design, information collection methods and instruments, and associated burden. The proposed information collection activities cover mixed-method approaches to implement primarily outcome and process evaluations. Data collection activities for these studies may include: (1) interviews with program administrators and staff; (2) focus groups, (3) short surveys of program participants and/or eligible non-participants, and (4) data requests.

*Respondents:*                     State and local program administrators, program staff, community-based program partners, and individuals who participate or are eligible to participate in the relevant ARP programs.                

## B. Annual Burden Estimates

The estimates below are based on the assumption that for each of up to 5 evaluations, we will consult with approximately 15 state and/or local program administrators or representatives from community-based organizations, recruit up to 9 participants for the community advisory boards (CAB) for each study, and initiate CAB meetings.

The anticipated information collections to be undertaken in Phase 2, for each of up to 5 evaluations, are expected to vary in their approaches to data collection and sample size. The estimate provided here anticipates that each of the evaluations may collect and analyze information from: approximately 5 program administrator interviews, 2 90-minute focus groups with program recipients (8 participants each), 1 brief survey of program recipients (sample of about 500 each), and 2 requests for extant administrative or implementation datasets. The subsequent information collection requests will describe the specific study design and associated burden for each evaluation.

*Total respondents:*                     2,815.                

*Total annual responses:*                     18.                

*Average burden hours per response:*                     1.43.                

*Total Burden Hours:*                     1,385.                

## C. Public Comments

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary, whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Lesley Briante,

Deputy Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 2023-27007 Filed 12-7-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-TZ-P