CFCE Evaluation Supporting Statement A

The National Endowment for the Arts
Creative Forces®: NEA Military Healing Arts Network
Community Engagement Program Evaluation
OMB Information Collection Request - New Collection
Justification – Part A Supporting Statement
Last updated: June 9, 2025

Table of Contents
A1. Circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. .............................................. 4
A2. Purpose and use of the information. .............................................................................................. 8
A3. Use of information technology and burden reduction. ............................................................... 14
A4. Efforts to identify duplication. ...................................................................................................... 15
A5. Impacts on small businesses or other small entities..................................................................... 15
A6. Consequences of collecting the information less frequently. ....................................................... 16
A7. Special circumstances relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.6. .............................................. 16
A8. Comments in response to the Federal Register Notice and efforts to consult outside Agency. .. 16
A9. Explain any decisions to provide any payment or gift to respondents. ........................................ 17
A10. Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents. ............................................................ 17
A11. Justification for any questions of a sensitive nature................................................................... 18
A12. Estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information................................................. 19
A13. Estimates of other total annual cost burden. ............................................................................. 20
A14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal Government. .......................................... 21
A15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the burden
worksheet. .......................................................................................................................................... 21
A16. Plans for tabulation, and publication and project time schedule. .............................................. 21
A17. Displaying the OMB Approval Expiration Date. .......................................................................... 25
A18. Exceptions to the certification statement identified in Item 19. ............................................. 25

Table of Attachments
Attachment A: Creative Forces Community Engagement Grant Program Logic Models
Attachment B: Instruments
Instrument 1 – Participant Survey
Instrument 2 – Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey
Instrument 3 – Grantee Interview Protocol
Instrument 4 – Partner Interview Protocol
Instrument 5 – Participant Interview Protocol
Instrument 6 – Grant Leadership Interview Protocol
Attachment C: Outreach Communication
Template 1 – Grantee Initial Outreach Email
Template 2 – Grantee Post-Webinar Email
Template 3 – Grantee Interview Invitation
Template 4 – Case Study Invitation
Attachment D: IRB Notice of Approval
2

Attachment E: Cognitive Testing Report: Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey
Attachment F: Cognitive Testing Report: Participant Survey

3

Part A. Justification
Executive Summary
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Office of Research and Analysis (ORA) requests
information collection for an independent mixed-methods evaluation of the Creative Forces®:
NEA Military Healing Arts Network (Creative Forces) Community Engagement Grant Program. 1
This is a new Information Collection Request, requesting approval for data collection for two
grantee cohorts (FY2026 and FY 2027) between July 2025 and July 2027. The data to be
collected are available only through this information collection and not available elsewhere.
The purpose of the evaluation of the Creative Forces Community Engagement (CFCE) Grant
Program is to assess program implementation, document the effect of the program on
participants and grantees, and identify best and promising practices for CFCE and other
community arts engagement programs for military-connected populations. 2 Evaluation
results will provide actionable evidence to support current and future iterations of the grant
program and CFCE grantees. The data collected in the study are not intended to be
generalized to a broader population.

A1. 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.
Creative Forces is an initiative of the National Endowment for the Arts in partnership with the U.S.

NEA and M-AAA Creative Forces Community Network information pages:
https://www.arts.gov/initiatives/creative-forces/creative-forces-community-network; https://www.maaa.org/fororganizations/creative-forces/
2
Creative Forces broadly defines the military-connected population as including active-duty service members,
guardsmen, reservists, veterans, military and veteran families, as well as caregivers and healthcare workers
providing care for military service members and veterans.
1

4

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that seeks to improve the health, well-being, and
quality of life for military and veteran populations exposed to trauma, as well as their families and
caregivers, through clinical and community arts engagement programs. 3 Since 2017, Creative
Forces has invested in community arts engagement projects in order to advance understanding
of the benefits and impacts for military-connected populations who have been exposed to
trauma. Having announced the CFCE program in 2020, Creative Forces began awarding
Community Engagement Grants in partnership with the Mid-America Arts Alliance (M-AAA) in
2022 to support community-based arts programs and activities and expand the reach of
Creative Forces nationwide. Since then, more than 100 CFCE grants, ranging from $10,000 to
$50,000 in matched funding, have been awarded to eligible organizations nationwide. 4 This is a
request for clearance for the NEA to conduct an independent mixed-methods evaluation of the
CFCE Grant Program from July 2025 through July 2027, involving two cohorts of grantees.

Creative Forces is funded through Congressional appropriation. The Congressional Committee
on Appropriation “supports the NEA’s continued efforts to expand upon this successful
program to embed Creative Arts Therapies at the core of integrative care efforts in clinical
settings, advance collaboration among clinical and community arts providers to support
wellness and reintegration efforts for affected families, and advance research to improve our
understanding of impacts of these interventions in both clinical and community settings.”5

NEA Creative Forces information page: https://www.arts.gov/initiatives/creative-forces
https://www.creativeforcesnrc.arts.gov/programs/community-engagement/
5
S. Rept. 115-276 - DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, 2019. Congress.gov, Library of Congress, 16 November 2021, https://www.congress.gov/congressionalreport/115th-congress/senate-report/276.
3
4

5

Creative Forces is a key element for meeting the NEA’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan, 6 Strategic
Objective 2.1: Support Arts Projects with a Focus on Advancing the Health and Well-Being of
Individuals. As noted in this strategic objective, the CFCE Grant Program:

“… aims to improve the health, well-being, and quality of life for military-connected
populations… The lessons learned from implementing Creative Forces will inform other
strategies to advance individual health and well-being through the arts. The
networking, technical assistance, and the evaluation and learning that occur across the
Creative Forces program are typical of the field-building activities necessary to realize
this strategic objective for broader population groups. At the federal level, the NEA
models this knowledge transfer by leading the Interagency Task Force on the Arts and
Human Development, which meets quarterly to examine research projects and
evidence-based practice at the intersection of the arts, health, and human
development.” 7

Creative Forces also supports Strategic Objective 1.1 Expand Public Access to the NEA’s
Programs and Award-Supported Activities through cross-agency collaborations 8 with the U.S.
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, as well as state and local arts agencies.

NEA Strategic Plan: FY2022-2026: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2022-2026-Strategic-Plan-Feb2022.pdf.
NEA Strategic Plan: FY2022-2026 (see p.22)
8
NEA Strategic Plan: FY2022-2026 (see p.14)
6
7

6

CFCE grants support non-clinical arts engagement programs taking place in healthcare,
community, or virtual settings. These grants support community programs in a range of arts
activities, including visual, written, and performing arts offered through single events, drop-in
programs, and ongoing engagement led by artists in residence, teaching artists, or creative arts
therapists. The grants are also intended to help grantees and partners increase their capacity
through networking; building capacity to design, implement, and evaluate programs to meet
the needs of participants; and increase understanding of the value and impact of the arts.
Projects must: 1) be led by or include a partner organization or individual that has a history of
creative/artistic programming; 2) include at least one partner to provide resources that help or
support the project; and 3) include the perspective of one or more of the local members of the
target military connected groups that the project will serve. 9

This Information Collection Request is for a two-year period of the CFCE Grant Program,
involving two cohorts of grantees. During this period, the NEA anticipates awarding
approximately 50 awards annually, with the first round of grant-funded projects taking place
after July 1, 2025. The awards are matching grants of $10,000 to $50,000 for emerging
(“Emerging”) and established (“Advanced”) community-based arts engagement projects to
serve military-connected populations. The grant program supports a range of models (e.g.,

During development of the CFCE Grant Program, the NEA commissioned literature reviews and

9

M-AAA Creative Forces information page: https://www.maaa.org/for-organizations/creative-forces/

7

an evaluation of Creative Forces community engagement pilot programs 10 and convened a
working group with subject matter experts. Collectively, these activities 1) documented the
needs of military and veteran populations exposed to trauma, and of their families and
caregivers, 2) identified goals for community arts engagement programming and four
outcomes for participants, 3) produced logic models and measurement frameworks for the
grantee and national program levels, 4) contributed to grant guidelines, and 5) evaluated
methodologies and instruments for data collection. Attachment A provides the overall logic
model for the national grant program, as well as the grantee logic model.
A2. Purpose and use of the information.
Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a
new collection, indicate how the agency has actually used the information received from
the current collection.
Data collected through this Information Collection Request will enable the NEA to conduct an
independent, mixed-methods evaluation of the CFCE Grant Program. This evaluation is critical
to assessing the program’s effectiveness, understanding its impact on military-connected
populations, and identifying opportunities to improve program implementation and outcomes.
The resulting evidence will inform the NEA’s decision-making for program improvements, help
ensure it benefits the participants, and maximize the program’s public value.

During the planning phase, the evaluator established a Technical Working Group (TWG) to
provide feedback on the evaluation plan, implementation, selected deliverables, reporting, and

10

Community Connections Project Study Report - Creative Forces National Resource Center:

https://www.creativeforcesnrc.arts.gov/resources/community-connections-report/

8

dissemination of funding. The TWG consists of 11 representatives of similar community-based
non-profits with arts programs, partners of those organizations, military-connected individuals,
organizations that serve military-connected individuals that partner with the arts, participants
of CFCE programs, and researchers and evaluators working in this field. Thus far, the TWG has
provided detailed feedback on the evaluation plan, the study research design, research
questions, and the data collection instruments. Moving forward, they will assist in translating
the findings into meaningful recommendations for the study’s primary audiences.

The evaluation is guided by research questions that address participant and organizational
outcomes, grantee partnerships, technical assistance, and program strategies and practices.
The evaluation will produce actionable, evidence-based findings that can be used by the NEA,
M-AAA, grantees, and other programs providing community arts engagement for military
connected populations. The findings will enable the NEA to enhance the effectiveness and
impact of the program through decisions that support efficiency and ensure the program has
tangible value for military-connected individuals.

9

Evaluation Design. The evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach, incorporating quantitative
and qualitative data from primary and secondary sources. The evaluation will incorporate data
from all grantees. This study has been reviewed and approved by Solutions IRB, which
determined it meets the ethical standards for research involving human participants
(Attachment D). Exhibit 1 provides an overview of the research questions and their associated
data sources.
Exhibit 1.
1.

2.

3.

4.

CFCE Evaluation at a Glance
Research Question
Data Source
• Participant pre-post survey, change over time
What participant outcomes are associated
o Disaggregation by outcome, participant
with participation in the Creative Forces
variables (e.g., service member, veteran)
Community Engagement grant program?
Creative expression, social
• Interviews with grantees (post)
connectedness, resilience, independence • Interviews with participants (as available during
and adaptation to civilian life
case studies)
• Participant Survey (pre-post)
Which program strategies and partnerships
o Disaggregation by outcome, program
proved most effective in realizing participant
variables, grantee/partner variables
outcomes? To what degree are differences in
participant outcomes attributable to
• Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey
differences in grantees’ strategies or
• Interviews with grantees, M-AAA (post)
partnerships?
• Interviews with participants (as available during
case studies)
• Grantee data (M-AAA) and reports (Application,
Interim Report, FDR)
• Interviews with grantees, M-AAA (post)
What organizational outcomes are
associated with participation in the Creative • Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey
Forces Community Engagement grant
• Grantee data (M-AAA) and reports (Grantee
program?
Application Form, Interim Report, Final
Networked organization, strengthened
Descriptive Report)
capacity, understanding of the value
and impact of the arts
Which technical assistance strategies proved • Technical assistance needs assessment data (MAAA)
most effective in strengthening
organizational practices and outcomes? To
• Interviews with grantees, M-AAA (post)
what degree are differences in grantee
• Grantee data (M-AAA) and reports (GAF, Interim
outcomes attributable to differences in
Report, FDR)
technical assistance strategies?

10

5. What distinct practices are grantee

organizations using to engage militaryconnected communities? What are the
lessons learned from grantees that can be
shared with other nonprofit arts
organizations seeking to engage militaryconnected communities?

• Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey
• Interviews with grantees, M-AAA (post)
• Grantee data (M-AAA) and reports (GAF, Interim
Report, FDR)

Data Sources. To answer the research questions, the evaluation will utilize primary and
secondary data sources. Primary data includes surveys and interviews, and secondary sources
include grant program data collected by M-AAA, as well as forms and reports completed by
grantees. The sources are described below. Information about the data collection process,
sampling, and analysis is provided in subsequent sections for each instrument. Participation in
evaluation activities is outlined in the Creative Forces Community Engagement Grants
Application Guidelines. Grantees are required to participate in an interview, and data from their
required reporting will be incorporated into the evaluation. Participation in Case Studies is
optional, and grantees who are invited to participate may choose to opt in or opt out.
Evaluation activities are optional for grantees’ partners, arts engagement facilitators, and
program participants, and they will receive a gift card in appreciation for their involvement.
Primary Data Sources
Participant Survey (Attachment B). This pre-post survey assesses the four participant
outcomes: creative expression, social connectedness, resilience, and independence and
successful adaptation to civilian life. The survey will be completed by participants of CFCE
programs where the program model provides a minimum of three sessions or eight hours of
engagement. This minimum is required in order for participants to have sufficient exposure to
the programming that measurable change may occur, and to allow pre and post administration.

11

Three formats for administering the survey will be offered (outlined in Supporting Statement B)
and each grantee will select the format best suited for their participants. The survey collects
identifying information to enable pre-post matching of individual participants’ responses.
Respondents review a $35 eGift card as token of appreciation.
Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey (Attachment B). Within CFCE, an Arts Engagement
Facilitator is someone who leads, facilitates, or teaches arts activities or experiences for
programs supported by Creative Forces grants. The survey collects information about the key
practices and strategies they use, and their effectiveness, in order to guide decisions about the
program and training for arts engagement facilitators. Respondents receive a $35 eGift card as
token of appreciation. The survey is designed to be anonymous or confidential, depending on
whether the respondent chooses to enter their name and e-mail address at the end of the
survey (responses are confidential) or to contact the evaluator separately to submit their name
and e-mail address (responses are anonymous).
Interviews with Principal Stakeholders (Attachment B). As part of grant requirements, each
grantee will identify a representative of the CFCE program leadership to participate in a virtual,
one-hour interview. Each grantee will also be invited to identify a representative of one key
partner to participate in a separate virtual 30-minute interview. Case study sites have an
additional allotment of four hours for 30-minute, in-person interviews with other grantee staff,
program personnel, partners (including arts engagement facilities), and/or participants.
Whether virtual or in-person, partner and participant interviewees will receive a $35 eGift card
for a 30-minute interview in appreciation of their participation. In addition, grant program
leadership will be interviewed annually.
12

Case Studies with Site Visits. The evaluation includes eight case studies with in-person site
visits for interviews and data collection. Case studies allow this study to go deeper with the
evaluation questions, particularly around 1) organizational outcomes related to networks,
partnerships and connections with military connected communities; 2) grantees’ understanding
the needs of military-connected communities and capacity building related to support for
military-connected individuals; 3) effective technical assistance; and 4) lessons learned.

The case study will include eight grantees from the FY2026 cohort and will occur between
October 2025 and May 2026. A representative sample (with alternates) will be developed in
collaboration with the TWG to identify the selection criteria most relevant to the evaluation
questions. Variables that may be considered include service delivery model, rural/urban
location, region, type of organization and/partners, grant tier, arts discipline, population
served, degree of success in meeting goals, etc.
Secondary Data Sources
Grant Program Data. Data collected by M-AAA reflecting implementation of the grant
programs (number of applicants, number of awards, amounts of awards, etc.).
Grantee Forms and Reports. Grantees complete three reports 11 that provide a range of
information about their organizations (e.g., type of organization, mission statement, operating
budget), their partners (e.g., role in project), and their CFCE programs (e.g., goals, program,
model, participant demographics, budget). The data in these forms and reports will be accessed
11

Grantee Application Form FY26.CFCEG Application-at-a-Glance.docx, including the Supplemental Application
Form (OMB Control No. 3135-0140); Interim Report https://maaa.tfaforms.net/4983188 (OMB Control No. 31350140); Final Descriptive Report  OMB Control No. 3135-0140).OMB Control No. 3135-0140)

13

to provide descriptive statistics of the grantee cohorts, to identify variables for disaggregation
of the Participant Survey results, and to identify variables for consideration in developing the
case study sample.
Program-Level Participation Rates and Engagement. Program participation and engagement
data, listed below, documents the extent of exposure to the CFCE programming (intervention).
If available, this data can be used descriptively and as covariates for participant outcomes
analyses. Based on experience with CFCE and similar programs, these data will be available only
for some programs. The evaluator will determine if that is the case for this evaluation.
•

Total number of participants over time

•

Total number of participants per session

•

Total hours of engagement possible

•

Total hours of engagement per person

•

Individual attendance rates

Technical Assistance Data. M-AAA will provide data documenting technical assistance
implementation and feedback, such as the topics, schedule, grantee participation rates, and
feedback.
A3. Use of information technology and burden reduction.
Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other
forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses, and
the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any
consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.
NEA takes its responsibility to minimize burden on respondents very seriously and has
designed this project with that goal in mind. By using web-based surveys, virtual interviews,
14

and a limited number of site visits for case studies, the NEA has eliminated hundreds of
hours of labor that would have been required to administer a paper-based survey and the
burden and travel costs associated with in-person interviews for grantees. These virtual
methods also increase the number of grantees, arts engagement facilitators, and programs
that can contribute to this data collection, efficiently strengthening the data, while reducing
overall burden.

A4. Efforts to identify duplication.
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 similar data collection that has been conducted or being conducted that
duplicates the efforts of the proposed data collection for the CFCE Grant Program. The grant
program is relatively new, and this is the first evaluation effort. Furthermore, this grant
program uniquely serves military-connected populations through community arts
engagement and is the largest national initiative with this focus.

A5. Impacts on small businesses or other small entities.
The study will be conducted primarily with grant recipients of nonprofit organizations. These
grantees will likely include smaller organizations. Several strategies will minimize the burden on
these organizations. The evaluation will acquire data from required reporting forms that
grantees must complete as part of their award terms. Using these secondary data sources
minimizes the need for additional data collection and reduces duplication of effort for grantees.
The evaluation team will administer the Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey, removing this
burden from grantees, and will provide technical assistance for grantees who administer the
15

Participant Survey to reduce their time and effort. For Case Study Site Visits, the evaluators will
assist grantees in arranging the interviews. Based on experience, providing a scheduling
template is simple but effective part of this assistance.

A6. Consequences of collecting the information less frequently.
Describe the consequence 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 the burden.
This is a one-time collection of information from two grantee cohorts. As this is a one-time
study, reducing the frequency is not applicable. Without this data collection, the agency will
be limited on their ability to assess the program’s effectiveness, refine future funding
strategies, and ensure that public resources are being used efficiently to support militaryconnected communities. There are no known technical or legal obstacles to reducing
burden.

A7. Special circumstances relating to the Guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.6.
The information will be collected in a manner consistent with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6
(Controlling Paperwork Burden on the Public-General Information Collection Guidelines).
There are no special circumstances contrary to these guidelines.

A8. Comments in response to the Federal Register Notice and efforts to consult outside
Agency.
On February 28, 2025, a 60-day Federal Register Notice was published at 90 FR 10955 [Vol.
90, No. 39, p. 10955]. No public comments were received in response to the notice.
On June 9, 2025, a 30-day Federal Register Notice was published at 90 FR 24302 [Vol. 9, No.
109, p. 24302].
16

A9. Explain any decisions to provide any payment or gift to respondents.
The evaluator will offer tokens of appreciation for engagement in voluntary evaluation
activities, as noted in Exhibit 2. The tokens of appreciation are offered to increase the
response rate and to offset any costs associated with participation.
Exhibit 2.

Participant
Virtual interviews: 30-minute (program partners)
In-person interviews for Case Studies: 30-minute (partners, participants)
Surveys
Participant Survey (pre)
Participant Survey (post)
Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey

Token
$35 eGift card
$35 gift card
$30 eGift card

A10. Assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents.
Standard consent language is included in primary data collection instruments and protocols,
addressing the voluntary nature of the activity, risks and benefits to the participant, data
confidentiality, and how the information will be used. Partners, arts engagement facilitators,
and program participants may opt out of evaluation activities at any time, and grantees may
opt out of case studies. The survey and interview introductions and email communications
(Attachment C) indicate that the names of respondents, grantee organizations, or CFCE programs
will be not disclosed, and the individual response data will be kept confidential to the extent
permitted by law. All quotations incorporated into any reports or other materials will be used
anonymously.

The CFCE evaluation uses data reflecting the overall grant program, as well as grantee and
17

participant data. Data security procedures will be strictly maintained throughout the
evaluation to protect data and ensure confidentiality. All electronic data will be stored on
password protected computers and secure servers and accessible only to the evaluation team.
Participant Survey data will be deidentified, with identifiers replaced by unique identification
numbers prior to analysis. The link between survey respondents’ names and study identification
numbers will be kept in a separate electronic file on password protected computers. Paper data
will be stored in locked offices accessed only by the evaluation team. Whenever possible, paper
data will be labeled with only the participant’s study number or a code they generate. Any direct
identifiers will be redacted from paper data as soon as it is processed for data entry. Data will
not be made available to users external to the study. All data and identifiable information will
be destroyed at the end of the study. Deidentified data will be submitted to the NEA at the
conclusion of the evaluation.

A11. Justification for any questions of a sensitive nature.
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.
The interviews will focus on the experiences of grantees’ staff members, partners, arts
engagement facilitators, and program participants with the CFCE Grant Program. They
address program implementation, engagement strategies, successes and challenges, and
perceived outcomes. These questions are not sensitive in nature and do not ask for
personal or confidential information. The purpose is to gather feedback on program
delivery and impact, not on individual health, trauma, or private matters. This is also true
for the Arts Engagement Facilitator Survey.
18

The Participant Survey addresses the CFCE participant outcomes: Creative Expression, Social
Connectedness, Resilience, and Independence and Successful Adaptation to Civilian Life. As
evident in the definitions of these outcomes (see section A2), these outcomes touch on
participants’ perceptions of themselves, their relationships, and their feelings. To that end,
items on the Participant Survey ask about the respondent’s self- perceptions, experiences,
and adjustment, which may be considered private. The survey specifically avoids items that
address clinical pathology or lifestyle. Demographic data (age group, military- connected
status, race/ethnicity, and gender) will be collected to assess whether outcomes are
affected by participants’ demographic characteristics. Race/ethnicity survey questions
comply with OMB standards. In the survey introduction, respondents will be informed they
may skip any item or discontinue the survey at any time.
A12. Estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information.
Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number
of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how
the burden was estimated.
Exhibit 3 shows the annual hour burden for the evaluation. Estimates for survey completion
time are based calculations from survey development tools.
Program directors will provide 4.23 hours of support for survey implementation to
coordinate administration with the contractor and to gather and submit participant contact
information. They will also participate in a one-hour debrief interview. Estimated burden
hours for directors is calculated by multiplying the number of hours for each activity by the
anticipated number of directors. The numbers of persons are estimates received from M19

AAA based on pervious grant years and current applications.
Exhibit 3.
Activity

Participant Description

Participant Survey
Program Participant
Program Participant
Arts Engagement
Facilitator Survey
Arts Engagement
Facilitator

Participant
Survey (Pre)
Participant
Survey (Post)

Arts Engagement
Facilitator Survey

Grantee Interview
Grantee (lead staff)

Interview

Partner Interview
Partner

Interview

Participant Interview
Case Study Participants
(grantee staff, partner,
arts engagement
facilitator, participants)

Number of
Responses
per Person

Number of
Persons

Total
Number of
Responses

Estimated
Burden
(Hours)

0.16

2

400

800

128

0.16

1

400

400

64

0.16

1

400

400

64

0.26

1

100

100

26

0.26

1

100

100

26

1

1

50

50

50

1

1

50

50

50

0.5

1

50

50

25

0.5

1

50

50

25

64

64

32

0.5
Interviews

Grant Leadership Interview
Grant leadership (NEA,
M-AAA)

Average
Hours per
Response

Interview

1

0.5

1

8/site
X
8 sites

64

32

1

1

4

4

4

1

1

4

4

4

Total Annual Burden Hours

265

A13. Estimates of other total annual cost burden.
Provide an estimate for the total annual cost burden to respondents or recordkeepers
resulting from the collection of information.
There are no additional costs to respondents. The estimated cost burden is $13,806.00. This is
based on the above figure of 390 hours of respondent burden multiplied by $35.40, which is the

20

average hourly earnings of employees on private payrolls. 12 This amount was chosen, in part,
because the occupations of program participants and arts engagement facilitators are
unknown.

A14. Provide estimates of annualized costs to the Federal Government.
Total one-time contracted cost to the Federal Government for all data collection and
analysis is $298,600. See Exhibit 4. The annualized cost of this one-time data collection is
$99,533.
Exhibit 4.
Cost Category

Estimated Costs

Planning, coordination, oversight with NEA, M-AAA, TWG over 36 months
Instrument development and IRB/OMB Clearance
Data Collection, including tokens of appreciation and travel for site visits, and
analysis
Reporting: documents, presentations, briefs, web materials
Total

$56,700
$40,400
$152,900
$48,600
$298,600

A15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported on the
burden worksheet.
This is a new information collection request. The information collected does not
represent any program change.

A16. Plans for tabulation, and publication and project time schedule.
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.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Table B-3. Average hourly and weekly earnings of all employees on private
nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted - 2025 M04 Results:
12

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t19.htm.

21

A final summary report will be prepared for internal use by the NEA and may be shared publicly
through the NEA’s website and other dissemination channels. Any published materials will
present aggregated data only, with no personally identifiable information included, in
accordance with federal privacy and data protection standards.
Tabulation. The results of this one-time, mixed-methods evaluation will be analyzed and
presented in both quantitative and qualitative formats. Quantitative survey data will be
tabulated using descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, means) and, where appropriate, crosstabulations to examine differences across respondent subgroups. For the Participant Survey,
the choice of statistical tests for analyzing pre/post change will be dependent on a variety of
factors, such as the number of programs where pre-post measurement of participant outcomes
is feasible, overall sample size, variations in participant exposure to the program (duration,
dose), and the characteristics of the data set. Qualitative data from grantee forms and openended survey items will be analyzed using both deductive and inductive analyses. Qualitative
data will be analyzed with assistance from the Artificial Intelligence (AI) of ATLAS.ti to identify,
analyze, and interpret patterns or themes within the data.
Grantee Cohort Timeline. Two cohorts of grantees will participate in data collection during the
evaluation period (see Exhibit 5), with two rounds of data collection for the FY2026 cohort and
one round for the FY2027 cohort. Grantees may implement their programs any time within
their grant period.
Exhibit 5.
Applications due
Awards made
Project implementation

FY2026 Grantee Cohort
January 2025
May 2025
1-year grants: July 2025 – June 2026
2-year grants: July 2025 – June 2027

FY2027 Grantee Cohort
January 2026
May 2027
1-year grants: July 2026 – June 2027

22

Evaluation Reporting. Exhibit 6 presents the primary reporting and documentation for the
evaluation. The reports and website content require up to three rounds of feedback. For the
reports, the TWG will provide one of the three feedback rounds. For the two Progress Reports
and the Final Report, one round of feedback will consist of a work session with the CFCE
leadership. This work session will focus on sensemaking and interpretation of the findings,
which will ensure the recommendations are necessary, useful, and actionable.
Exhibit 6.

Report
Progress Report #1

Progress Report #2
w/interim findings
Final Report
Table of Contents
draft below
Stakeholder Briefs
Website Content
Support
Presentations

Content
Actions taken during first year of contract; recommendations for
improving evaluation planning process for future (10 pages max)
Summary of evaluation findings; review of initial program and
practice recommendations; actions taken during the second year
of the contract (40 pages max, excluding appendices)
Final evaluation findings with recommendations; executive
summary with recommendations, infographics, graphics, pull-out
quotes, and/or photographs (50 pages max excluding appendices)
To accompany the second and third report: 1-page brief for each
major stakeholder group (NEA/M-AAA leadership, grantees,
general public)
In collaboration with the Creative Forces NRC team, new/revised
website content to provide evidence-based resources for program
applicants and grantees
Up to 3 presentations of findings to stakeholders or general public
through webinars, conferences, meetings, etc.

Timing
August 2025
August 2026
August 2027
August 2026
August 2027
August 2026
August 2027
TBD

The final report will present the evaluation findings based on the qualitative and quantitative
data, with illustrative examples drawn from case studies.
1. Executive Summary with Recommendations
2. Introduction
a. Grant program background
b. Theory of change and logic models (highlights, full models in appendices)
3. Research Questions and Methods Summary
4. Findings by Research Question
5. Program and Practice Recommendations
6. Appendices
a. Logic models
b. Methodology
23

i. Evaluation Design
ii. Data Collection
1. Protocols and tools (including development)
2. Methods
iii. Sampling strategies
iv. Case Studies
c. Case Study Summaries
Project Schedule. Exhibit 7 presents the primary reporting and documentation for the
evaluation. Because grantees may implement their programs any time within their grant
period, the timeline for each grantee’s data collection will be unique.

Exhibit 7.

Timing
May 2025
June 2025
July 2025

August 2025
August 2025 – June
2026
October 2025-February
2026
May 2026
June 2026
July 2026
July 2026

Activity
CFCE awards made for 2025-2027 cohort
Initial review of 2025-2027 Grantee Application Forms
Initial contact with 2025-2027 grantees
Evaluation Orientation Webinar
Develop evaluation timeline for each grantee
For grantees administering Participant Survey:
• TA Webinar
• Establish master calendar of all programs’ implementation dates
• Coordinate with each grantee on process and pre/post survey
administration dates
Begin data collection for 2025-2026 (continues through June 2026)
Progress Report #1
Data collection for Year 1 of 2025-2027 cohort
Case studies
CFCE awards made for 2026-2028 cohort
Initial review of F2026-2028 Grantee Application Forms
Analyses: Year 1 of 2025-2027 cohort
Continue collection for 2025-2027 (continues through June 2027)
Initial contact with 2026-2028 grantees
Evaluation Orientation Webinar
Develop evaluation timeline for each grantee
For grantees administering Participant Survey:
• TA Webinar

24

August 2026
August 2026 – June
2027
July 2027
July 2027
August 2027

• Establish master calendar of all programs’ implementation dates
• Coordinate with each grantee on process and pre/post survey
administration dates
Begin data collection for 2026-2027 (continues through June 2027)
Progress Report #2; Interim findings
Data collection for Year 2 of 2025-2027 cohort and Year 1 of 20262028 cohort
Analyses: Years 1 and 2 of 2025-2027 cohort plus Year 1 of 2026-2028
cohort
TWG reviews findings
PW completes analyses and drafts report (note: grantees may submit
final reports during July)
Final report, website content, stakeholder briefs

A17. Displaying the OMB Approval Expiration Date.
If you are seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.
The NEA will display the expiration date of OMB approval and the OMB approval
number on all instruments associated with this information collection, including
forms and surveys.

A18. Exceptions to the certification statement identified in Item 19.
Explain each exception to the topics of the certification statement identified in Certification for
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.

No exceptions are necessary for this information collection. The agency is able to
certify compliance with all provisions under Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I.

25