1



# NHES: **2015 Full** **- scale Data Collection**  **Request for OMB Review**  

# OMB# 1850 **- 0768 v.10**  **Part A**

**APRIL 30, 2014**2 **TABLE OF CONTENTS** Page JUSTIFICAT ION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 1 A.1 Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information ................................ ........... 7 A.2 Purposes and Uses of the Data ................................ ................................ .................. 7 A.3 Use of Improved Information Technology ................................ ................................ 8 A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication ................................ ................................ .................. 9 A. 5 Consultations Outside the Agency ................................ ................................ ............ 10 A. 6 Payments to Respondents ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 A. 7 Assurance of Confidentiality ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 A. 8 Sensitive Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15 A. 9 Estimated Response Burden ................................ ................................ ...................... 17 A. 10 Annualized Cost to Respondents ................................ ................................ ............... 17 A. 1 1 Annualized Cost to the Federal Government ................................ ............................ 17 A. 1 2 Publication Plans and Project Schedule ................................ ................................ ..... 18 A. 1 3 Approval for Not Displaying the Expiration Date for OMB Approval ..................... 18 A. 1 4 Exceptions to the Certification Statement ................................ ................................ . 18 B .1 Statistical Design and Estimation ................................ ................................ .............. 11 B .2 Survey Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 15 B .3 Methods for Maximizing Response Rates ................................ ................................ . 17 B .4 Individuals Responsible for Study Design and P erformance ................................ .... 18 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 18 **List of Tables** Table Page 1 Estimated response burden for NHES:2015 ................................ .............................. 1 7 2 Expected percentage of households with eligible children or adults, by sampling domain ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 13 3 Expected numbers sampled and expected numbers of completed screeners and topical surveys for households in Screener Group A in the NHES :2015 .............................. 13 4 Expected numbers sampled and expected numbers of completed screeners and topical surveys for households in Sc reener Group B in the NHES:2015..................... 5 Numbers of completed topical interviews in previous NHES surveys administrations 6 Margins of error for the screeners............................................................. 7. Margins of error for topical surveys in Screener Group A ................................. **List of Exhibits and Figures**  Exhibit 1 Surveys conducted under the National Household Education Surveys Program, by years administered: 1991 through 20 12 ................................ ................................ ..... 3 2 Number of questionnaire items by survey section and adult topical survey type ...... 4 3 NHES :2015 sc hedule of major activities ................................ ................................ ... 11 Figure 1 Screener Data Collection ................................ ................................ ........................... 19 2 Screener Internet Data Collection Mailing Plan...................................... 3 Topical Mailing Plan

– ECPP/PFI ................................ ................................ ............. 20 4 Topical Mailing Plan

– CWS /TWS ................................ ................................ ........... 2 13 **JUSTIFICATION Request for Clearance**  In 2008, the National Household Education Surveys p rogram (NHES) began a redesign effort to convert from a system of landline random digit dial (RDD) surveys to a self - administered mail survey using an address -based sample (ABS). This redesign was prompted by declines in response rates to the telephone survey and concerns about population coverage using the landline telephone frame (due to increasing conversion to cellular- only coverage). The goals of the redesign effort were to develop and assess approaches to coll ecting important information on education topics from households while improving response rates and coverage from the previous design. A feasibility test of the new design was conducted in 2009 followed by a field test in 2011. The field test results helpe d to inform the final design of a full - scale NHES collection in 2012 (OMB# 1850 - 0768 v.9 ) . During the same period of time , NCES began supporting developmental work on new questionnaire items for federal household surveys on work-related education, training, and credentials for adults and out - of - school youth . The Interagency Working Group on Expanded Measures of Enrollment and Attainment (GEMEnA) is a collaboration among federal statistical agencies established by the OMB Office of Statistical and Science Policy, the Council of Economic Advisors, and the Under Secretary of Education to improve federal household statistics on the attainment of non - degree credentials such as industry -recognized certifications, occupational licenses, and educational certificates. In 2012, GEMEnA ’s commission expanded to include the development of new and revised measures of enrollment or participation in education and training for work. One of GEMEnA’s roles is to guide NCES’s development of a new household survey on these topics to support research and policy analysis. NCES conducted two pilot studies (OMB# 1850 - 0803) , first a two - stage telephone survey ( 42% response rate) and then a single - stage self

- administered mail survey ( 69 % response rate ) . **NHES Feasibility Study (NHES**  **- FS)**  **Summary** One of NCES’s goal s from the beginning of the GEMEnA project was to see whether it would be feasible to eventually incorporate a revised survey on adult credentials back into the NHES. In 2014 a F easibility S tudy testing the integration of an adult topical survey into NHES mail operations and processing was conducted . The F easibility S tudy (NHES -FS) include d several experiments to inform the final design of the 2015 full - scale NHES which will include the Credential s for Work Survey (CWS) and the two child- focused surveys fielded in the NHES: 2012 , the Parent and Family Involvement in Education (PFI) , and Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) surveys . The 2015 NHES will also pilot the adult Training for Work Survey (TWS) , planned for a future NHES administration. Using one household survey platform for both child and adult surveys provides greater efficiency in the data collection and reduces overall national burden by maximizing the use of a single household sample draw. Before adding an adult education survey back into the NHES it was important to test the feasibility of using a mail survey to screen households for both adults and children, and to test different approaches to coll ecting topical data from households (e.g., sampling either an adult or a child from the same household for topical follow up compared to sampling both and adult and a child for follow up). In addition to testing different approaches to collecting topical data from households, the NHES -FS included several other experiments to test approaches aimed toward decreasing unit and item nonresponse. These experiments are described below. 1. Experiment 1 tested unit and item response rate differences between a screener that asked for age measured in years versus a screener that asked for age measured as year and month of birth. Both screeners are included in Appendix B. The NHES:2015 will use the best -performing screener from the NHES -FS as measured by overall unit resp onse rates and item response rates to the questions that ask for age measured in years and age measured as month and year of birth. 2. Experiment 2 tests different response option orders for the question about household members’ school enrollment status. In one version of the screener, the response option “homeschool instead of school for some classes or subjects” is the first response option, after “public or private school, or preschool”. In the other version, “homeschool instead of school for some classes or subjects” is the first option and “public or private4

school, or preschool” is the second response option. Analysis of the NHES:2012 data suggested there may have been under-reporting of homeschooling on the screener. This experiment is designed to test whether response distributions are sensitive to response option order. The best-performing response order for this item will be chosen for the NHES:2015 screener. 3. Experiment 3 tested response rate differences between households that did not receive a cash incentive with their initial screener questionnaire mailing and households that received the NHES standard $5 incentive. Preliminary results from the NHES -FS seem to indicate that the $5 incentive is associated with higher response rates than no incentive. Based on this we plan to include a $5 incentive in the initial screener mailing in the NHES:2015. 4. Experiment 4 tested the effectiveness of mailing a large credit- card sized magnet with the screener to serve as a reminder to complete the survey. This experiment was designed to test whether the magnet was associated with higher response rates in the second stage of the survey. If analysis from the NHES -FS topical data indicate that households that receive d a magnet in their initial screener mailing had higher response rates at the topical level compared to households that did not receive a magnet, a magnet will be included in the NHES:2015 initial screener mailing. 5. Experiment 5 tested unit response rates when a household was mailed both an adult topical questionnaire and a child topical questionnaire (the After- School Programs and Activities, or ASPA, survey) versus a single CWS or ASPA questionnaire. Due to the operational comp lexity of fielding two topical surveys per household and the relatively small increase in efficiency for dual households, households will only receive one questionnaire (adult or child) in the NHES:2015. 6. Experiment 6 included a split -ballot test of the ASP A topical instrument to test the efficiency of different question wordings and formats (grid versus non - grid) for selected items. The analysis is ongoing to determine the results of the ASPA split ballot test. NCES is not requesting clearance for the ASPA for the NHES:2015; however, several tests of alternate item wordings were included as part of the ASPA split ballot test that are applicable to the NHES:2015 child surveys. The best -performing item in the test will be included in the NHES:2015 surveys. Items that are part of the analysis and alternative item wording are noted in Appendix C. 7. Experiment 7 included a split -ballot test of a full Adult Training and Education Survey (ATES) instrument including sections on work- related training and non - credit coll ege classes versus a shorter CWS instrument including only key items from those sections. In NHES:2015, N CES plans to field the CWS and pilot test the TWS for NHES:2017. **Overview of NHES:2015 Target**  **population** Adults ages 16 to 65 who are not enrolled in grade 12 or below will be eligible for the CWS and TWS topical survey s and children from birth through 12 th grade who are age s 20 or younger will be eligible for the child- focused topical survey s . The NHES:2015 will screen 250 , 000 households , which splits into a 235,000 household sample that will be sent paper screeners and a 15,000 household sample that will be selected to participate in a selfresponse Internet screener experiment. The Internet screener experiment will allow NCES to examine response rates and coverage when initiating the NHES survey using a web mode. We will also experimentally test nonresponse follow -up by mail at either the 3 rd mailing and 4 th mailing or the 4 th mailing only. The Internet screener will be develop ed and ho sted by the Census Bureau. For both groups, an expected screener response rate of 70 percent and an address ineligibility 1 rate of 11 percent are assumed, bringing the total number of expected screeners to 155,750. From these completed screeners, it is expected that approximately 56 percent or 86 , 676 households will contain an eligib l e adult but no eligible children; approximately 27 percent or 42 , 708 households will contain an eligible ad

ult and an eligible child ; and approximately 0.4 percent or 666 households will contain an eligible child but no eligible adults (for example, children who live with grandparents above age 65) 2

. 1 Ineligible addresses are those that are undeliverable. Once a screener mailing for an address is returned as a postmaster ret urn (PMR), the address will be coded ineligible. 2 Percentages based on population proportions from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS).5

**NHES Background** NHES is NCES’s principal mechanism for addressing education topics appropriate for households rather th an establishments . Such topics cover a wide range of issues, including early childhood care and education, children’s readiness for school, parent perceptions of school safety and discipline, before - and after- school activities of school - age children, participation in adult education and training , parent involvement in education, school choice, homeschooling, and civic involvement. The NHES consists of a series of rotating survey s using a two - stage design in which a household screener collects household membership and key characteristics for sampling and then appropriate topical survey(s) are mailed to sample members. Data from the NHES are used to provide national cross - sectional estimates on populations of special interest to education researchers and policymakers. For surveys about children, the population of interest is defined by age or grade in school, or both, depending on the particular survey topic and research questions. For surveys of adults, the population of interest is those age d 16 to 65 wh o are not enrolled in grade 12 or below, excluding those on active duty military service and those who are institutionalized. The NHES targets these populations using specific screening and sampling procedures. The NHES design also yields estimates for subgroups of interest for each child and adult survey, as defined by age (or grade for children), education level for adults, Hispanic origin, and racial background for all populations of interest3 . In addition to providing cross - sectional estimates, the NHES is designed to produce estimates from repeated cross sections to measure changes in key statistics. The last NHES data collection prior to the redesign was conducted in 2007 and included the Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey (PFI) and the School Readiness Survey (SR) 4

. The NHES:2012 was the first full scale data collection using an addressed-based sample and a self - administered questionnaire -- it included the PFI survey and ECPP survey. The overall screener plus topical response rate was approximately 58 percent for both the PFI and the ECPP in 2012 , compared to the 2007 overall response rate of 39 -41% (depending on the survey). The results suggest that the new methodology has the ability to address the response rate and coverage issues identified in the 2007 data collection. The 2015 NHES will reintroduce an adult survey component . The Credentials for W ork S urvey (CWS) will provide a means to investigate issues related to the prevalence and key characteristics of credentials for work that cannot be adequately studied through the Center’s institution -based data collection efforts. NCES is also requesting clearance for a small pilot study of a complementary Training for Work Survey (TWS) that focuses on participation in workre lated education and training. NCES expects to field the TWS as part of NHES:2017 . Survey data from the NHES have been used for a large number of descriptive and analytic reports and articles, including NCES publications, publications of other Federal agencies, policy analyses, theses and dissertations, conference papers, and journal articles. A list of NHES publications issued by NCES can be found on the NHES website, http://nces.ed.gov/nhes . **NHES :2015**  **Surveys** As s hown in exhibit 1, each administration of the NHES has included more than one topical survey. However, thus far under the new mail data collection methodology , households have only been screened for and topical surveys have only focused on children. The NHES :2015 will include three topical surveys: the CWS , the PFI , and ECPP

3 NCES collect s information on the following racial/ethnic groups in the NHES topical surveys: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White. Reported estimates by race typically use the following categories: White, non - Hispanic; Black, non - Hispanic; Hispanic; Asian or other Pacific Islander, non - Hispan ic; and other, non Hispanic. Areas with higher concentrations of Blacks and Hispanics are ty pically oversample d in order to ensure suffici ent samples sizes to generate reliable estimates for these subgroups. In the Feasibility Study , these groups were not oversampl ed because no estimates will be publish ed, instead comparisons will primarily be made across item distributions for the two split panel forms. 4 NHES:2007 also included an adult education module, but data collection was stopped due to low response rates.6

surveys . To develop the CWS survey, NCES has been redeveloping and testing new survey content since 2009 , including pilot testing, expert review, cognitive testing , and focus groups . **Exhibit 1. Surv**  e**ys conducted under the National Household Education Surveys Program, by years**

**administered: 1991 through 2012** Topical survey NHES survey administration 1991 1993 1995 1996 1999 1 2001 2003 2005 2007 2012 Early childhood education/ program participation √ √ √ √ √ √ Adult education √ √ √ √ √ √ School readiness √ √ √ School safety and discipline √ Parent and family involvement in education √ √ √ √ √ Civic involvement √ √ After - school programs and activities √2 √ √ 3 √ Household library use √ Homeschooling √ √ √ √ 1 The NHES:1999 was a special end - of - decade administration that measured key indicators from the surveys fielded during the 1990s . 2 The After- School Programs and Activities Survey of the NHES:1995 only asked about children in first through third grades . 3 The After- School Programs and Activities Survey of the NHES:2001 also included items on before - school programs. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES), 1991

–2012. The PFI and ECPP surveys are repeat administration s of the topic s administered in the mail survey mode in the NHES:2012. NCE S decided to repeat these surveys in 2015 to establish the first trend data for the newly designed NHES. Tracking changes in the population over time is a key research goal of the NHES program.

 **The Early Childhood Program Participation Survey (ECPP),** previously conducted in 1991, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2012 , surveys families of children ages 6 or younger who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten and provides estimates of children’s participation in care by relatives and non -relatives in private homes and in center-based daycare or preschool programs (including Head Start and Early Head Start). Additional topics addressed in ECPP interviews have included family learning activities; out- of -pocket expenses for nonparental care; continuity of care; factors relate d to parental selection of care; parents’ perceptions of care quality; child health and disability; and child, parent , and household characteristics.

 **The Parent and Family Involvement in Education Survey (PFI** **),** previously conducted in 1996, 2003, 2007, and 20 12 , surveys families of children and youth enrolled in kindergarten through 12 th grade or homeschooled for these grades, with an age limit of 20 years, and addresses specific ways that families are involved in their children’s school; school practices to involve and support families; involvement with children’s homework; and involvement in education activities outside of school. Parents of homeschoolers are asked about their reasons for choosing homeschooling and resources they used in homeschooling. Inf ormation about child, parent, and household characteristics is also collected. To minimize response burden and potential respondent confusion, an enrolled and homeschool version of the PFI que stionnaire was created for selfadministration.

 **The Credentials**  **for Work (CWS)** provide s a means to investigate issues related to the prevalence and key characteristics of non - degree credentials that cannot be adequately studied through the Center’s institutionbased data collection efforts. It targets non - institutionalize d adults in the United States ages 16 to 65 , who are not enrolled at grade 12 or below . The CWS will collect information on educational attainment, prevalence and characteristics of certification s and licenses and their holders, preval ence and characteristics of educational certificates and certificate holders , and key measures of work-related training collected on the TWS . Itwill also collect detailed employment and background information.7

 **The Training for Work**  **Survey ( T**  **W S)**  will coll ect information on initial on -the - job training programs (such as apprenticeships and internships), college coursetaking, work-related training and key measures of non degree credentials collected on the CWS . Italso includes detailed employment and background items. T he instruments are provided in Appendices B (screener) and C (topical questionnaires). **A.1 Circumstances Necessitating Collection of Information**  The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002 : 20 U.S. Code § 95 4 3 ) defines the legislative mission of NCES to collect, report, analyze, and disseminate statistical data related to education in the United States and in other nations . The NHES is specifically designed to support this mission by providing a means to inves tigate education issues that cannot be adequately studied through the Center’s institution -based data collection efforts. For example, school - age children participate in many types of informal or formal care settings . There is no available sample frame tha t includes all of these types of care arrangements . Likewise, although attaining a postsecondary credential has become increasingly important for securing opportunities to get high -return jobs in the United States in the 21st century, NCES has traditionally only collected data on postsecondary certificates and degrees awarded through credit -bearing instruction in institutions of higher education that participate in Title IV federal student aid programs. These comprise only a portion of subbaccalaureate educ ation and training American adults seek and complete to learn the skills they need to find and keep good -paying jobs. Itis efficient and economical to interview parents about their children’s participation in child care programs and family participation in school and other education activities through a household-based approach rather than incurring the cost and nonresponse involved in enlisting schools, obtaining lists of parents, and sampling parents from those lists. Similarly, it is also most efficient to interview adults through a household-based approach rather than trying to obtain lists from a myriad of private credential awarding bodies. Also, the household approach allows for inclusion of adults who do not participate in training or have a credential, providing a point of comparison . Repeating the NHES:2012 child surveys will provide the first trend data available under the new NHES design. Tracking trends in education topics over time on a regular, repeating basis is a key research goal of the NHES program. Adding the adult education component will provide the first publicly available adult education data from the NHES in over a decade, and provide detailed data about previously unmeasured non - degree credentials. **A.2 Purposes and Uses of the Data**  The NHES:201 5 data collection will provide policymakers and researchers with data on early childhood education, parent and fami ly involvement in education, homeschooling , and adult credentials for work that are not available elsewhere. The data contribute directly to N CES education indicators, reports, and statistical abstracts . Researchers nationwide rely on NHES data for important policy analyses. **A.3 Use of Improved Information Technology**  The data for the NHES :2015 will be collected for NCES by the United States Bureau of the Census using four complementary survey systems - (1) Amgraf One Form Plus, (2) Docuprint , and (3) integrated Computer Assisted Data Entry (iCADE) , chosen for the ir efficiency and accuracy in the data collection process and (4) Enterprise Interne t Solutions (EIS) .  **Forms Design.** Questionnaires will be created using Amgraf One Form Plus. Completed hardcopy forms can be processed by iCADE to capture responses through optical mark recognition (OMR) and keying from image (KFI). Questionnaires will be printed, trimmed , and stitched through an in -house print on - demand process using a Docuprint system which allows personalization , and the ability to tailor items to each specific respondent. The data from the questionnaires will be captured by the iCADE te chnology/software, which automatically extracts all check box entries (OMR) and captures and displays an image of all other entries to an operator for KFI.8

 **Image Preprocessing.** iCADE applies image preprocessing to the forms in their image format in order to correct any skewing at the time of scanning , and the iCADE software performs registration to align the individual questionnaire page template with the appropriate scanned image . Th e scanner despeckles the image to remove unwanted pixels.
 **Data Capture.** iCADE reads the form image files, checks the presence of data, processes all check box fields through OMR , and presents an image of the handwritten fields to an operator for KFI.
 **Ver ification.**  Extracted KFI data are subject to 100% field validation according to project specifications . If a data value violates validation rules, the value is flagged for review by verifiers who interactively review the images and the corresponding extrac ted data, and resolve validation errors.
 **Archiving.** Images will be scanned and archived to magnetic storage located on a secured server in case they are needed later. This eliminates the need to save paper copies of the completed questionnaires.
 **Data fr**  **om a web instrument.** The Enterprise Internet Solutions (EIS) area of the Application Services Divisions (ASD) will host a web based Screener instrument. Data will be transmitted and processed daily. The web application will be hosted on the fully certifi ed and accredited Centurion system (infrastructure, security, and framework). **A.4 Efforts to Identify Duplication**  **CWS /TWS**  Senior policy officials in the Departments of Education , Commerce, and Labor, foundations including the Gates Foundation and Lumina, and research organizations such as the Georgetown Center for Education and the Workforce have recognized that there is a lack of valid statistical information on prevalence of industry-recognized certifications and education certificates , and called for t he development of new data sources. A series of meetings during the fall of 2009 launched a broad effort to begin to define and enumerate these credentials. NCES conducted a review of research literature and data collections since the work of a previous Interagency Committee in 2000, from which NCES developed a bank of existing survey items on certifications (completed 11/2009) and education certificates (completed 1/2010). This research found no surveys that adequately capture comprehensive data on adult t raining , education , and non - degree credentials . **PFI and ECPP Population:**  Most other surveys do not address the topics covered in NHES for the populations of interest. For example, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) focuses on children in Head Start, whereas all children who have not yet started kindergarten are of interest in the ECPP Survey. Likewise, the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE) focuses primarily on low income children and their program particip ation. The National Survey of Parents of Public School Students and Survey of Family and School Partnerships in Public Schools focus on parents of children in public schools; those whose children attend private schools or are homeschooled are not represented. Some studies, such as the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study , Birth Cohort (ECLS - B) ; the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study , Kindergarten Class of 1998 - 1999 (ECLS - K); and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Class of 2010 - 11 (ECLS - K:2011 ) focus on single - year cohorts that are followed over time and therefore do not provide nationally representative data on different age groups. The NHES surveys are designed to complement these longitudinal collections with more frequent and more inclusive cross - sectional data. **Survey Content:** Extant studies are limited in the content that they include relative to the goals of the NHES surveys. Studies such as the National Survey of America’s Families and the National Study of the Changing Workforce collect some information on child care or program participation, but their primary emphasis is on other topics, and the depth of information on early care and education experiences is limited. The Head Start FACES project collects information on Head Start program participation and some family measures, but does not account for all nonparental care and programs. The Current Population Survey October Education Supplement is limited to a relatively small number of items on education participation and does not addre ss the roles that parents play in9

their children’s school, schoolwork, and home activities. Also, no nationally representative study other than the NHES collects detailed data on homeschooling. **Current Estimates and Measuring Change Over Time.** Many of th e extant surveys follow one cohort or periodic cohorts (e.g., the Early Childhood Longitudinal Studies, Head Start FACES, NSECE) or are no longer conducted (e.g., the National Survey of America’s Families, Family Involvement in Education: A National Portrait). As a result, they cannot meet the NHES goal of providing up -to - date cross - sectional estimates and measures of change over time for all children who have not started kindergarten or for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, as is provided by the NHES. Due to these limitations in extant studies and the importance of data collected by the NHES, NCES plans to continue to conduct the ECPP and PFI surveys under the NHES program . Appendix D c ontains a review of other surveys prepared for the NHES:2012 that cover topics similar to those in the NHES child surveys. The review shows that there is little overlap between the NHES and these other surveys. There are no other federal survey s that collect information on the attainment of non - degree credentials; filling this gap is GEMEnA’s charge. **A. 5**  **Consultations Outside the Agency** A Technical Review Panel (TRP) comprising leading experts in survey methodology was established to provide input to the redesign of the NHES system. Most members of the panel met in February 2010 to discuss the proposed design for the field test, and their comments and suggestions led to changes reflected in this submission. **Technical Review Panel Participants and Their Affiliation at the Time of TRP Recruitment**  **Nancy Bates** U.S. Census Bureau 649 A. St. N.E. Washington, DC 20002 E - ma il: nancy.a.bates@census.gov **Paul Beatty** National Center for Health Statistics Division of Health Care Statistics 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, MD 20782 E - ma il: pbeatty@cdc.gov **Johnny Blair** Survey Sampling and Methodology Abt Associates Inc. 4550 Montgomery Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814 - 3343 E - ma il: Johnny_Blair@AbtAssoc.com **Stephen Blumberg** National Center for Health Statistics 3311 Toledo Road Hyattsville, MD 20782 E - ma il: stephen.blumberg@cdc.hhs.gov **Mick Couper** Survey Research Center University of Michigan ISR, 426 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, MI 48104 E - ma il: mcouper@umich.edu **Don Dillman** Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Professor Washington State University 133 Wilson Hall Pullman, WA 99164 - 4014 E - ma il: dillman@wsu.edu **Robert Groves** Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research University of Michigan 426 Thompson Street Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1248 E - ma il: bgroves@isr.umich.edu **Scott Keeter** Pew Research Center 1615 L. St. NW. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 E - ma il: skeeter@pew

research.org **Kristen Olsen** Survey Research and Methodology University of Nebraska - Lincoln 201 N. 13th St. Lincoln, NE 68588 - 0241 E - ma il: kolson5@unl.edu **Roger Tourangeau** Joint Program in Survey Methodology University of Maryland 1218 LeFrak Hall, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 E - ma il: RTourango@survey.umd.edu11

**Gordon Willis** Division of Cancer Control / Population Sciences Nati onal Cancer Institute 6130 Executive Blvd, MSC 7344, EPN 4005 Bethesda, MD 20892 - 7344 E - ma il: willisg@mail.nih.gov The content of the NHES:2015 topical surveys repeats the content developed for the NHES:2012 administration and prior NHES administrations. As a result, the PFI and ECPP surveys reflect the cumulative input of many experts in the field and past NHES Technical Review Panels. In order to ensure that the ECPP and PFI Surveys address important issues in the topical areas of interest and incorporate important emerging issues, the design phase of the 2012 study included consultations with experts in the substantive areas addressed in the surveys. These experts included persons in government agencies, academe, and research organizations. **Substantive Experts: ECPP and Their Affiliation at the Time of TRP Recruitment**  **Jerry West -**  **Mathem atica**  Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 600 Maryland Ave., SW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20024 - 2512 E - ma il: jwest@mathematica - mp r.com **Ann Collins**
**– Abt Assoc. Cambridge, MA**  Abt Associates Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 - 1168 E - ma il: Ann_Collins@abtassociates.com **Ron Haskins**
**– Brookings Institution and Casey**  **Foundation** The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 E - ma il: rhaskins@brookings.edu **Ivelisse Martinez -**  **Beck**
**– HHS Division of Child and**  **Fam ily Development**  Administration for Children and Families 370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W. 7th Floor West, Room 7A011 Washington, D.C. 20447 E - ma il: ivelisse.martinezbeck@acf.hhs.gov **Lynda Laughlin**
**– Census**  U.S. Census Bureau 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland, MD 20746 E - ma il: lynda.l.laughlin@census.gov

**Substantive Experts: PFI and Their Affiliation at the Time of TRP Recruitment**  **Richard Brandon**
**– Univ. of**  **Washington** Human Services Policy Center, Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington 1107 NE 45 th St. Seattle, WA 98105 E - ma il: brandon@u.washington.edu **Annette Lareau**
**– Univ. of Pennsylvania**  Department of Sociology University of Pennsylvania McNeil Hall Philadelphia, PA 19104 E - ma il: alareau@sas.upenn.edu **Joyce Epstein**
**– The Johns Hopkins University**  Center for Social Organization of Schools 3003 N. Charles St., Suite 200 Baltimore, MD 21218 E - ma il: jepstein@csos.jhu.edu **Lawrence Aber -**  **NYU** Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development New York University 82 Washington Square East New York, NY 10003 E - ma il: lawrence.aber@nyu.edu As noted above, the CWS and TWS are products of ongoing work guided by GEMEnA, which has met monthly since October 2009 and consists of s enior staff from the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, the Office of Statistical and Science Pol icy (OMB), and the Office of the Under Secretary of Education. In addition, GEMEnA established an Expert Panel of substantive experts in the fields of workforce education, economic development, and non - degree credentials that met in November of 2012 and March of 2014 to provide input to content for CWS and TWS.12

**S urvey and Methodology**  **Experts: GEMEnA Member Agency Representatives**  **Census Bureau** Bob Kominski Stephanie Ewert **Bureau of Labor Statistics** Dori Allard Harley Frazis **National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics** Dan Foley John Finamore **Council of Economic Advisors** Jordan Matsudaira **OM B Office of Statistical and Science Policy**  Shelly Martinez **Departm ent of Education** 
**– Office of the Under**  **Secretary** Jon O’Bergh **National Center for Education Statistics** Sharon Boivin Lisa Hudson Kashka Kubzdela Sarah Crissey Sarah Carroll Andy Zukerberg **S ubstantive**  **Experts: GEMEnA Expert Panel Members**  **Jim Van Erden**  Senior Policy Advisor National Association of State Workforce Agencies/ Information Technology Support Center Washington, DC **Evelyn Ganzglass** Director of Workforce Development CLASP Washington, DC **Parm inder Jassal**  Executive Director ACT Foundation Austin, TX **Morris Kleiner** Professor and Director of Graduate Studies Humphrey School of Public Affairs University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN **Jam es Parker**  Senior Research and Policy Associate Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy New York City, NY **Kent Philli ppe**  Associate Vice President, Research and Student Success American Association of Community Colleges Washington, DC **Kenneth Poole** CEO/President Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness Arlington, VA **Andrew Ream er**  Research Professor George Washington Institute of Public Policy George Washington University Washington, DC **Jesse Rothstein** Associate Professor of Public Policy and Economics Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA **Jeff Strohl** Director o f Research Center on Education and the Workforce Georgetown Public Policy Institute Georgetown University Washington, DC **Michelle Van Noy** Researcher Heldrich Center for Workforce Development Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey New Brunswick, NJ **Holly Z anville**  Senior Research Officer Lumina Foundation Indianapolis, IN

**A. 6**  **Payments to Respondents** The NHES:2003 included an extensive experiment in the use of small cash incentives to improve unit response. The experiment demonstrated that gains in respondent cooperation could be realized with relatively modest cash incentives (Brick et al. 2006). Such incentives were used in NHES:2005 and NHES:2007. The NHES:2011 Field Test included an incentive experiment at the screener level testing the effect of including a $2 cash incentive on response rates compared to a $5 cash incentive in the initial screener mailing . The $5 screener was associated with15

higher response rates than the $2 incentive, so the $5 incentive was used in the NHES:2012 . Preliminary results from the NHES -FS seem to indicate that the $5 incentive is associated with higher response rates than no incentive. We will continue with this approach in the NHES:2015 and use a $5 cash incentive in the first screener questionnaire mailing. We will continue with this approach in the NHES:2015 and use a $5 cash incentive in the first screener questionnaire mailing. The NHES: 2012 included an incentive experiment at the topical level to further refine an optimal strategy for the use of incentive s in the NHES. For those households in which a child wa s selected as the subject of an ECPP or PFI questionnaire, cases that responded to the first or second mailing of the screener receive d a $5 cash incentive with the initial topical survey mailing . Evidence from the 2011 Field Test indicated that topical response rates c ould benefit significantly by providing later screener respondents with a larger topical incentive. T o confirm this finding, we subsample d late screener respondents (those responding to the 3 rd or 4 th questionnaire mailing) to receive either a $5 or $15 cash incentive with their first topical survey mailing . The results from the NHES:2012 indicate that among later screener responders, the $15 incentive was associated with higher response rates compared to the $5 incentive. Based on these findings, we will us e the same strategy in the NHES:2015 and send a $5 cash incentive in the initial topical mailing to cases that responded to the first or second screener mailing and a $15 cash incentive in the initial topical mailing to any cases that responded later than three days after the third screener mailing. **A. 7**  **Assur ance of Confidentiality**  Respondents will be informed of the voluntary nature of the survey and of the confidentiality provision in the initial cover letter and on the questionnaires, stating that their responses may be used for statistical purposes only and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose except as required by law [ Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002), 20 U.S. Code § 95 7 3 ]. Additionally, all staff members and subcontractors working on the NHES and having access to the data are required to sign the NCES Affidavit of Nondisclosure. Notarized affidavits are kept on file by the contractor and submitted to NCES quarterly. In addition, all contractor staff members who have access to confidential data and wor k on the project more than 30 days are required to have a federal background check. **A. 8**  **Sensitive Questions** The NHES is a voluntary survey, and no persons are required to respond to it . In addition, respondents may decline to answer any question in the su rvey. Respondents are informed of the voluntary nature of the survey in the cover letter that accompanies the questionnaire, as well as on the actual questionnaire. At the same time, s ome items in the surveys may be considered sensitive by some respondents : **CWS and TWS :**  The CWS and TWS currently ask a question about income th at may be considered sensitive:  Personal earnings in the past year (categorical). A measure of income is important because educational attainment is statistically associated with income , and the empirical properties of the survey measures may differ for people with different income levels. The American Community Survey (ACS) was the source for most of the CWS and TWS employment and background items. It em response rates for income questions were reasonably high in the 2013 pilot test. The item response rate for personal earnings was 96.4 . **PFI and ECPP :**  Child development and education experts consider economic disadvantage and children’s disabilities to be important factors in children’s school experiences and their activities outside of school . As a result, the child survey s contain measures of these characteristics, including:  Household income;  Receipt of public assistance in the form of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC); and  Children’s disability conditions.16

Measures of household income and government assistance are important because access to early childhood programs by children at -risk and the education involvement of families of children from different socioeconomic backgrounds is of interest to policymakers, child development specialists, and educators. These items are important in identifying children at -risk and have been administered successfully in previous NHES studies. Respondents are also asked the age at which they first became a parent to a child. This may be sensitive for parents in some situations. The 2012 response rates for these items were very high. For total household income, the 2012 PFI survey had an item response rate of 95.4 percent. It em response rates for receipt of public assistance were also high: for Tem porary Assistance to Needy Families, 97.9 percent; for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, 97.7 percent; and for Food Stamps, 98.4 percent. In the 2012 mail survey, it is not possible to examine item missing data for child disability because of the multiple response, list format of the question . Missing data may indicate either unreported data or that the child does not have a disability. However, in prior NHES collections , response to this item was high; in the 2007 PFI, the item response rates were over 99 percent. In the 20 12 PFI , the item resp onse rate for age at which the child’s parent first became a parent to any child was 96 . 2 for the first parent reported and 96.0 for the second parent reported. **ECPP Survey:** In addition to the items above, the ECPP survey also includes questions about as sistance to pay for child care. This measure is important to understand families’ and children’s access to early childhood programs. **PFI Survey:** The PFI survey includes items concerning children’s school performance and difficulties in school. Among these are:  Children’s school performance and difficulties, including school grades, suspensions, and expulsions; and  Identification of children’s schools. It ems concerning school performance and difficulty are important to the PFI survey as correlates of parent and family involvement in children’s education . These items were asked in the NHES:2012 PFI and item response rates for these items were high : 99 . 0 percent for children’s grades, 97 . 6 percent for out - of - school suspension, and 97 . 5 percent for expuls ion. Another element of the surveys that may be sensitive to some parents is the identification of children’s schools. This feature allows analysts to link the NHES data to other NCES datasets containing additional information about schools, greatly enhancing the ability to examine the relationships between students’ and families’ experiences and the characteristics of schools. The item response rate for the identification of the child’s school was 97.0 percent in 2012 . **A. 9**  **Estimated Response Burden** The response burden per instrument and the total response burden are shown in table 1 . The administration times for the screener, adult questionnaires , and child questionnaires are based on practice administrations and past experience . The expected number of respondents and number of responses are based on the expected numbers of completed surveys of each type, discussed in section B.1. 3 . The hourly rate of $ 2 1 . 50 is based on the average for all civilian workers from the March 2 01 3 Natio nal Compensation Survey (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm). There are no other costs to respondents . There are also no recordkeeping requirements associated with NHES . For the NHES :20 15 , a total of 40 , 299 burden hours are anticipated, resulting in a burden cost to respondents of approximately $ 866 , 430 .17

**Table 1. Estimated response burden for NHE**  **S :2015**  Interview forms Estimated time (minutes) Number sampled Anticipated Response Rate Estimated

Number of respondents Estimated

Number of responses Total time

(hours) Screener 8 250,000* 7 0 % 155,750 155,750 20,767 CWS questionnaire 10 77,353 70% 54,147 54,147 9 , 025 TWS questionnaire 10 20,000 70% 14,000 14,000 2 , 333 ECPP questionnaire 20 12,118 7 5 % 9,088 9,088 3 , 029 PFI questionnaire 20 20,580 75% 15,435 15,435 5 , 145 **Study Total 248,420**  **248,420 40,299**  * Approximately 11 % of addresses will be returned by USPS as invalid, reducing the final sample size to 222,500 addresses . **A. 10**  **Annualized Cost to Respondents** There are no costs beyond those presented in section A.11 . **A. 11**  **Annualized Cost to the Federal Government** The total cost of NHES :2015 to the government is approximately $6.5 million over a period of 20 months. This includes all direct and indirect costs of the design, data collecti on, analysis, and reporting phases of the study, as well as the delivery of data sets to NCES. **A. 12**  **Publication Plans and Project Schedule** Exhibit 3 presents the schedule of project activities for NHES:2015. The NHES:2015 will produce datasets, statistics, and reports. The following are the planned outcomes of the NHES:2015:  A fully documented public -use data set that will be available for download from the NCES website;  A codebook with weighted and unweighted frequencies of all variables ; and  First Look Reports that highlight key findings from the study. **Exhibit 3**  **. NHES**  **:2015 schedule of major activities**  **Task Date of Scheduled Conduct/Completion**  Survey Instruments Formatting and Printing November- December, 201 4 Data Collection Begins (advance letter mailing) January 2 , 201 5 Data Collection Ends August 31 , 201 5 Public -use data files released August 31 , 2016 Restricted-use data files released September 30 , 2016 **A. 13**  **Approval for Not Displaying the Expiration Date for OMB Approval** The OMB authorization number and expiration date will be displayed on the questionnaire s and web screener . **A. 1**  **4 Exceptions to the Certification Statement**  There are no exceptions to the certification statement.