Supporting Statement Part A

SUPPORTING STATEMENT - PART A

DoD-wide Data Collection and Analysis for Department of Defense Qualitative Data Collection in Support of the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault Recommendations (OMB Control Number 0704-0644)

Title of Collection: Prevention Workforce Evaluation

Expected Fielding Date: 1 September 2023 – 1 September 2029

Summary of Changes from Previously Approved Collection

• The scope and length of this effort were reduced significantly. First, the previous project included analysis of outcomes (e.g., suicide, health, etc.), with secondary data collected from various Department of Defense (DoD) data owners. In the current effort, that portion has been eliminated completely, yielding a reduction in the burden on Government personnel to secure those data. More importantly, the burden on respondents has likewise decreased, as the length of this effort has been shortened. The previous effort had three years of active data collection; the new effort has approximately 2 years. The Leader/Supervisor interview component will entail 2 data collection rounds, instead of 3. The Survey component will entail 3 rounds of data collection, instead of 5. The component tracking prevention activities will entail 6 rounds of data collection with respondents, instead of 11. The component focused on collection of resume data will involve 3 touchpoints with respondents, rather than 4. In sum, the burden on the Government for the collection of secondary data is now null and the number of points at which respondents will be engaged for collection of data are significantly fewer. This yields an overall lower burden for the Government and respondents.

• The burden has increased due to the sample size of IPPW growing over time, but RAND does not know exactly what the pool of respondents will be at any given time over the evaluation period. In our most recent OMB submissions, we calculated burden based on an average of respondents with a less than full response rate. We then received feedback that this approach was not in line with the SSA template. To make the estimated burden more concrete and straightforward, we then calculated the burden based on the full expected sample with a full response rate. That is why the burden appears to have gone up when in fact, as stipulated above, the evaluation has been substantially reduced in scope.

• The outcome evaluation component of the study was removed. What remains is a process evaluation study only. Thus, the aims and key evaluation questions have been revised to focus in on process questions only.

• For the Leader and Supervisor Interviews, we made minor wording changes to the protocols and reduced the number of waves of data from three to two waves (which decreases burden)

• For the IPP Personnel Survey, we revised the language for the knowledge and experience questions (which did not add any response time to each survey) and reduced the number of waves of data from five waves to three waves (which decreases burden). Revisions to the language in the survey was made to ensure items are relevant to military populations and service members (i.e., inserting military-specific language such as “unit,” “base,” or “command”) and ensure widespread item applicability and relevancy (i.e., change specific harms such as substance use were modified to “harmful behaviors”). Further, some revisions to item language were also made to ensure that all required Department of Defense Knowledge/Experience domains were proportionally being assessed within the survey. Despite these minor changes, all revised items continue to assess specific prevention personnel Knowledge/Experience domains, while also preserving the thematic elements contained within the initially approved items.

• For the IPACT, we made minor wording changes and reduced the number of waves of data from 11 waves to six waves (which decreases burden).

• We shifted from using an in-person Cohort Study to instead focusing on virtual Case Studies, with a single in-person observation of a prevention activity. The protocols are largely the same with minor wording updates, and the burden for discussions with respondents is the same.

• For the Resume Review, we reduced the number of times we request resumes from IPP personnel from four to three times. We increased the number of resumes that we anticipate reviewing from a random sample of 10% (~200 resumes) to the total number of resumes submitted via the IPP Personnel survey portal (estimated to be about 450 resumes). We estimate it takes less than 1 minute to upload a resume to the survey portal, making the increased burden to respondents negligible.

1. Need for the Information Collection

Harmful behaviors (suicide, domestic violence, harassment, sexual assault, child abuse) can have detrimental and long-lasting impacts on U.S. service members’ physical and mental health, affecting their quality of life and their military careers. Moreover, reducing rates of these harmful behaviors can improve force readiness.

To augment efforts focused on integrated primary prevention (IPP, addressing two or more of these harmful behaviors through primary prevention) DoD is hiring about 2,000 Integrated Primary Prevention personnel, comprised of full-time personnel (herein called the Integrated Primary Prevention Workforce or IPPW) and part-time or support personnel. As this significant investment in prevention unfolds, a DoD- sponsored evaluation will be necessary to track the progress towards hiring these personnel. Hiring these personnel was recommended by the Independent Review Committee (IRC) on Sexual Assault in the Military and endorsed by Secretary of Defense as a priority for DoD. Thus, this project will provide support to decision makers and leaders within the DoD and external to DoD (e.g., IRC members) as well as the service branches and installations that hire and integrate the IPPW.

This evaluation is sponsored by the DoD’s Violence Prevention Cell (VPC) and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Security Research Division (NSRD), which operates the National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense intelligence enterprise.

2. Use of the Information

This evaluation will address six questions:

1. Assess how the DoD components’ IPP policies and plans are aligned with the requirements set forth by DoD;

2. Assess the hiring progress (e.g., number and type of personnel hired) and qualifications of the IPP Workforce (IPPW);

3. Describe the structure and functioning of prevention infrastructure and whether the IPPW perceives having sufficient infrastructure support;

4. Assess the elements of leader support for the conduct of prevention (e.g., understanding of IPP, belief that IPP is important and works well), and assess the level of leader support perceived by the IPPW;

5. Assess the quality and comprehensiveness of the Comprehensive Integrated Primary Prevention (CIPP) Plans, what aspects of the plans are implemented as intended, and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation; and

6. Describe how the IPPW is building and maintaining prevention teams at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels and how these prevention teams are connected to leaders at each of these levels.

To address these questions, this evaluation will employ multiple methods, which we describe below in turn.

LEADER AND SUPERVISOR INTERVIEWS: Qualitative interviews to assess strategic and operational IPP personnel and DoD component leaders’ perceptions of progress hiring and integrating tactical-level IPP personnel.

To identify who we will interview, we will start with IPPW at the strategic- and operational-levels to ask who their direct supervisors are until we get to a non-IPPW personnel and interview that person. We will refer to this non-IPPW personnel as a DoD component leader. We will also interview members of the Prevention Collaboration Forum, a governance body to oversee the implementation of the IPP policy (DODI 6400.09).

We will conduct semi-structured interviews in two waves with these DoD component leaders and strategic- and operational-level IPP personnel to capture progress and barriers: early in the initiative (Q4 FY24/Q1 FY25) and after the initiative has matured (Q4 FY26/Q1 FY27). In the first administration, we will sample through ‘snowball’ referrals—i.e., using DoD stakeholders to guide us to the most appropriate individuals with whom to interview. We will ask the sponsor for points of contact in Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the DoD components, and potentially the Joint Staff. Once identified, we will ask the following as part of the snowball sampling:

• Who in your organization will have responsibility for the hiring, supervision, and management of these new IPP personnel? Who will the new IPP personnel report to?

• Who in your organization will have oversight for policy and resource allocation decision-making for the IPP personnel?

We will interview personnel across the DoD components. We anticipate interviewing about 5 to 10 personnel (to include both uniformed and civilian, as relevant) in each DoD component (Table 1), depending on the snowball sampling.

Table 1. Proposed DoD Components

Proposed Organizations for DoD Component Leaders

U.S. Air Force: Active HQ; Reserve HQ; National Guard HQ

U.S. Space Force: Active HQ

U.S. Army: Active HQ; Reserve HQ; National Guard HQ

U.S. Navy: Active HQ; Reserve HQ

U.S. Marine Corps: Active HQ; Reserve HQ

U.S. National Guard Bureau

*Contingent upon where the IPPW are placed (e.g., whether any are assigned to reserve installations)

It is also anticipated that we will interview leaders at OSD Personnel and Readiness organizations with a role in recruiting or coordinating with the IPP personnel and monitoring outcomes of prevention activities, as well as members of the Prevention Collaboration Forum. In the second administration, we will follow up with the same personnel from the first administration, or different ones if the personnel have changed positions or position responsibilities have changed.

All interviews will be conducted using Zoom.gov. RAND will take detailed notes. After each interview, the resulting notes will be de-identified via a link file and thus will not contain service member names or respondent names and contact information but will contain some demographic information that might support identification by inference for individuals in certain demographic subgroups (e.g., location, pay grade, gender, installation group combinations). These data will be stored on secure RAND servers for analysis. The link file will be encrypted and stored in one of RAND’s “cold rooms” (Cold Rooms house computers in an air-gapped environment, preventing unauthorized access to personally identifiable information data. Entry to Cold Rooms is limited and tracked to provide physical protection, and the data are password-protected with file and directory permissions. All Cold Room computers provide encryption software to further protect data from unauthorized access).

The end result of the Leader and Supervisor Interviews is that RAND will have an understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist at each level of the hiring and deployment of IPPW. If IPPW face a great deal of barriers, that could help to explain the outcomes achieved by the entire initiative.

IPP PERSONNEL SURVEY: Online survey to assess the prevention knowledge and experience of all IPPW across strategic, operational, and tactical levels and perceptions of whether a supportive climate for prevention exists. The survey will contain three sections focused on assessing: IPP knowledge and experiences, prevention infrastructure, including a supportive climate, and barriers and facilitators to IPP. We are asking IPPW these questions because in order for this initiative to succeed, these personnel must have the knowledge and skills to perform their job. Further, the climate within which they operate must be receptive and supportive to prevention work.

RAND will obtain email addresses of the IPP personnel from our service points of contact or our sponsor. All IPPW will receive a survey invite over email asking them to complete the survey, via online platform (e.g., Confirmit), annually during Q1 of FY25, FY26, and FY27 of the evaluation. We estimate the sample to cumulatively total 2,000 IPP personnel (3,650 total possible survey responses) by the end of the evaluation period, with increasing numbers each year. Each DoD Component will hire different numbers of IPP personnel to reflect each Components relative size (e.g., with the Marine Corps estimated to have fewest number of IPP personnel and Army the greatest number of IPP personnel). Depending on what year they are hired, the IPP personnel will complete the survey between one and three times. The FY25 sample size represents the number of IPP personnel hired up to the end of FY24. The FY26 sample size includes those hired through the end of FY25, and so on. The IPPW will receive a modest monetary incentive (e.g., $40) for each survey they complete.

Data will be downloaded from the survey’s secure platform and designated RAND team member(s) will download the data onto an encrypted USB thumb drive. Within one working day, all transmitted data files will be checked for the presence of unwanted identifying information. This check will be carried out in one of RAND’s cold rooms so that any unwanted identifying information can be removed prior to placing the data on a secure RAND server. Once the source file is checked for unwanted identifying information and uploaded onto a secure RAND server, the file will be deleted from the encrypted thumb drive. A link file will be created (e.g., linking the data to individual installations). The link file will be encrypted and stored in a RAND cold room. The IPP Personnel Survey and email invitation are attached.

The end result of the IPP Personnel Survey is that RAND will have an understanding of the level of knowledge and experiences of IPP personnel, the degree of the support they received, and the most common barriers and facilitators to IPP. This data will be used to contextualize the ultimate outcomes of the evaluation—the level of knowledge and experience of IPP personnel, and the level of support and barriers/facilitators to IPP, could help explain why or why not DoD was able to implement high quality IPP activities.

INTEGRATED PRIMARY PREVENTION ACTIVITY TRACKER (I-PACT): Documentation of the type and scope of prevention activities implemented by all IPP personnel.

Implementation quality is a critical predictor of community prevention and promotion of IPP program outcomes. To address DoD’s goals, prevention activities at each installation should be high quality, collectively comprehensive, continuously evaluated and sustain positive impacts over time. The Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker (I-PAcT) will assess IPP activities implemented in all installations that have hired IPP Personnel.

Starting in Q4 FY24 and occurring every six months thereafter through Q2 FY27, RAND will collect, via online, secure data collection portal developed by RAND (i.e., I-PACT), information about the prevention activities being implemented by all IPP personnel. The I-PACT will be used to collect information from IPPW about:

• Types of prevention activities

• Needs assessment and planning efforts, including collaboration and stakeholder engagement

• Target populations and participation

• Domains, behaviors, risk and protective factors targeted

• Evidence-basis, best practice adherence, and adaptations

• Evaluation efforts

The I-PACT will be completed collectively by the IPPW at each military organization or region that submitted a Comprehensive Integrated Primary Prevention Plan. To minimize mistakes, for the first I-PACT submission, RAND staff will have a group discussion with relevant IPPW, asking them questions corresponding to fields in the I-PACT portal, and then manually enter in the information. For all subsequent timepoints, IPPW will enter in their data themselves. Data will be downloaded from the secure platform and the same procedure described above (thumb drive/brought the cold room) will be used to separate the identifiable information into a link file. The de-identified data will be saved directly onto a secure RAND server with a separate link file holding the identifiable information (i.e., name, location). The link file will be encrypted and stored in the cold room.

The end result of this data will be the calculation of a total Quality Scores for each IPP activity at an individual installation, a Total Quality score across all IPP activities for each military organization or region, and a Total Comprehensiveness score across all IPP activities for each military organization or region. We will calculate these metrics after each wave of data collection and track change over time.

CASE STUDIES: The Case Studies represent an opportunity to study in-depth the process of integrating IPP personnel, the facilitators/barriers to doing so, and perceived impacts over time. Although focused on the tactical level, the Case Studies will yield important information about how the tactical level interfaces with the operational and strategic levels. Across 24 military organizations (12 with IPPW, 12 without), this sub-study will use virtual discussions with the same military organizations over two time points, and a site visit to observe an IPP activity. This method will provide a bottom-up perspective on the hiring, integration, and effectiveness of the IPPW, as well as critical context to the overall evaluation findings, including a clearer understanding of barriers and facilitators that IPP personnel face.

Our selection of sites will involve recruiting a sample of military organizations that have hired IPP personnel (6 high scoring military organizations or regions and 6 low scoring military organizations or regions, identified based on our data from Tracking IPPW billets and CIPP Plan Review) and a sample that have not hired IPPW (12 military organizations or regions). We anticipate stratifying the sample by DoD component to ensure representation from each of the Military Departments, Services, and National Guard Bureau (e.g., Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Space Force).

Our sampling plan will also take into consideration that, for certain DoD components, a military organization may not be the ideal unit of analysis. For example, for the Navy, we may consider including one or more ships in the sample, as these often have their own prevention ecosystem and resources. We will also ensure our sampling plan includes not only Active Component organizations, but also some Guard and some Reserve organizations. We will also collaborate with DoD to identify whether there are any additional priorities that should be considered when selecting military organizations. For example, it is our understanding that each DoD component will establish criteria to determine which organizations will hire their IPP personnel first, and we will include that consideration as part of our selection process.

We will work with our service points of contact to identify appropriate sites for their respective service. We will coordinate our schedule with DoD to minimize disruption to military organizations.

Data collection for this method will take place virtually through discussions on Zoom or Teams with key stakeholders at each selected military organization (or region) in Q4 FY24 through Q2 FY25 and again in Q4 FY26 through Q2 FY27 of the evaluation. To the extent possible, there will also be a brief (i.e., one-to-two day) on-site visit coordinated with VPC to observe a prevention activity, likely to take place between Q3 FY25 and Q3 FY26 of the evaluation, to observe an IPP activity.

RAND will use a semi-structured discussion protocol to guide virtual discussions with the following groups at each military organization or region:

• IPP personnel (n=3-5). We will invite all IPP personnel to participate in these interviews.

• Other personnel that are collaborating closely with IPP personnel (or assisting with prevention efforts) at both intervention and comparison installations (n=7-8). We anticipate that this may include family readiness staff, family advocacy programs, sexual assault prevention and response staff, mental health staff, and chaplains. We will ensure that our selection of these other personnel is tailored to each DoD component (e.g., by including community action team members for Air Force installations).

• Military organization/command leadership at all military organizations (n=2-3). We anticipate that this may include the military organization commander, and potentially commanders from a sample of units.

• Front-line leaders or non-commissioned officers at all military organizations to provide a Service member perspective on IPP (n=5-6 but could be greater at some locations). We will work with personnel at each military organization to randomly select a sample of these front-line leaders

Questions during the virtual discussions will be about barriers and facilitators to hiring IPP personnel and implementing IPP activities. We will also ask questions related to organizational support for IPP. To supplement the data collected during discussions, we will visit each case study organization once during the course of the evaluation to observe a prevention activity being implemented. The visit will occur between the two waves of virtual discussions but will vary by the military organizations' IPP implementation timelines. We will work with each organization to select a specific IPP activity that evaluation team members can attend without affecting the implementation of the activity. For example, having members of the evaluation team observe a small IPP activity with a subset of members from one unit would likely be disruptive to the intent of the IPP activity; observing an IPP activity with a larger audience would be less disruptive. We will use a structured observation form to capture the following factors (a) nature of the IPP activity (e.g., format, type of activity, risk and protective factors addressed, level of interactivity, target audience), (b) level of engagement by IPP personnel and participants, and (c) markers of IPP quality (same markers as used in the I-PAcT).

Discussion and observation data will be de-identified via a link file. RAND staff will save the information on RAND laptops, which are password protected and whole disk encrypted. RAND staff will either have the laptops on their person (e.g., is use during the observation visit or during travel) or locked in a hotel room. After RAND staff has returned from their on-site visit, they will download the information to a secure RAND server and then delete the data from their laptops. A link file will be created linking the data to location (i.e., installation) and that file will be encrypted and stored in the cold room.

The end result of this data collection will be 1) a qualitative analysis of the barriers and facilitators that IPP personnel face in their work as well as a quantitative rating of the interview data according to the Prevention Evaluation Framework, a measure RAND developed in collaboration with DoD that specifically assesses various markers of high quality IPP in military settings; and 2) an understanding of the quality of prevention programming as delivered in actual DoD settings (as a compliment to the self-report descriptions from the I-PAcT).

RESUME REVIEW: Using the required IPPW skills and experiences from DoD components’ PDs and the DoD’s Prevention Workforce Model, RAND will rate the alignment of all IPPW resumes with these requirements.

RAND will collect resumes by asking IPPW taking the IPP Personnel Survey to share their resumes using a secure file transfer platform (e.g., Kiteworks). Each IPPW will only be asked to share their resume one time, most likely the first time they complete the IPP Personnel Survey. Once IPPW share their resume, they will not be asked to share it again. To inform the analysis, each PD will be broken down into a list of requirements which will then be used to develop a data abstraction form for use with the resumes for IPPW hired for that PD. The skills and experiences related to each PD requirement will be abstracted from each resume submitted under the associated PD. Then each resume will be given a score as fully, partially or not at all meeting the PD requirements. We will repeat this process with requirements based on DoD component instructions and guidance, and then again with requirements based on DoD instructions and guidance.

The end result of this analysis will be a Score by position level for IPPW by DoD component describing whether the actual qualifications of the IPPW they hired (as described on their resumes) are fully, partially, or not at all aligned with what is required by the DoD component and DoD policy/guidance.

3. Use of Information Technology

About 90% of the of responses in this project will be collected electronically. The only responses not collected electronically will be interview data collected from supervisors/leaders and IPP personnel supervisors and during virtual discussions with IPP personnel as part of the case studies.

4. Non-duplication

As detailed above, this project makes use of several existing data sources, including IPPW resumes and DoD-required CIPP Plans. Although the evaluation will use existing data and documents, doing so will not add burden to respondents. The evaluation will be analyzing these sources in different ways. Other data from the evaluation will be unique, including the IPP Personnel Survey, the discussions from the Case Studies, the Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker, and the interviews conducted with superisors/leaders. These data are not available anywhere else and are required to assess the progress of the IPP personnel hiring and the quality of IPP activities.

.

5. Burden on Small Businesses

This information collection does not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses or entities.

6. Less Frequent Collection

The timeframes for data collection are the most infrequent as possible to minimize burden, while still yielding information needed for the evaluation. Some data collection will follow the schedule of work performed by the IPP personnel (I-PACT). Other data collection—The IPP Personnel Survey (annually), the Case Studies (Q4 FY24 through Q2 FY25 and again in Q4 FY26 through Q2 FY27; observations: Q3 FY25 and Q3 FY26), and the Supervisor/Leader Interviews (Q4 FY24/Q1 FY25 and Q4 FY26/Q1 FY27)—have time frames that allow for repeated measurement, which will be critical to tracking the progress of the IPP personnel. For example, the IPP Personnel Survey will be administered annually which will be important to track the newly hired IPP personnel across the evaluation period and assess how the support and IPP knowledge and skills change over time. The Supervisor/Leader Interviews also allow for repeated measurement.

7. Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines

This collection of information does not require collection to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the guidelines delineated in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

8. Consultation and Public Comments

Part A: PUBLIC NOTICE

A 30-Day Federal Register Notice for the collection published on Friday, June 28, 2024. The 30-Day FRN citation is 89 FRN 53982

Part B: CONSULTATION

We have consulted with representatives from each DoD component (Army, Navy, etc) and with the offices responsible for managing the secondary data on harmful behaviors listed in Table 2.

9. Gifts or Payment

We will offer $40 Amazon Gift Cards to each IPP personnel who completes a IPP Personnel Survey each year. These individuals will receive an email with a link to their Gift Card. There will be no requirements about the level of completion for each data collection. Once the survey is submitted online, the individual will be eligible for the Gift Card. These payments are being offered to compensate the participating individuals for their time and can be used by respondents to purchase necessary products to improve quality of life.

10. Confidentiality

A Privacy Act Statement has been provided with this package for OMB’s review.

A System of Record Notice (SORN) is not required for this collection because records are not retrievable by PII.

A draft copy of the PIA has been provided with this package for OMB’s review.

Records Retention and Disposition Schedule. RAND will either maintain records on behalf of the Government in accordance with appropriate retentions schedule (maintain for 5 years in accordance with OSD 1807-02) or transfer all records to the Government upon termination of contract.

11. Sensitive Questions

The only sensitive questions that will be asked will be about Race/Ethnicity of the IPP personnel on the IPP Personnel Survey. This will be asked to characterize the sample of IPP personnel.

12. Respondent Burden and its Labor Costs

Part A: ESTIMATION OF RESPONDENT BURDEN

Below is an estimate of burden for data collection that directly involves respondents— four collection instruments combined (IPP Personnel Survey, Case Studies, Supervisor/Leader Interviews, and Integrated Primary Prevention Tracker).

1. Collection Instrument(s)

[IPP Personnel Survey]

1. Number of Respondents: 3650

2. Number of Responses Per Respondent: 1

3. Number of Total Annual Responses: 3650

4. Response Time: .5 hour

5. Respondent Burden Hours: 1,825 hours

[Case Studies]

1. Number of Respondents: 1344

2. Number of Responses Per Respondent: 1

3. Number of Total Annual Responses: 1344

4. Response Time: 1

5. Respondent Burden Hours:1344 hours

[Supervisor/Leader Interviews]

1. Number of Respondents: 80

2. Number of Responses Per Respondent: 1

3. Number of Total Annual Responses: 80

4. Response Time: .5

5. Respondent Burden Hours: 40 hours

[Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker]

1. Number of Respondents: 7250

2. Number of Responses Per Respondent: 1

3. Number of Total Annual Responses: 7250

4. Response Time: 1 hour

5. Respondent Burden Hours: 7250 hours

2. Total Submission Burden (Summation or average based on collection)

   1. Total Number of Respondents: 12,324

   2. Total Number of Annual Responses: 12,324

Part B: LABOR COST OF RESPONDENT BURDEN

Below is an estimate of labor cost burden for data collection that directly involves respondents—IPP Personnel Survey, Case Studies, Supervisor/Leader Interviews, and Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker. Wage rate is an average across the various IPP personnel that will be hired. Salaries were taken from USA Jobs IPP personnel job postings.

1. Collection Instrument(s)

[IPP Personnel Survey]

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 3650

2. Response Time: .5 hour

3. Respondent Hourly Wage: $39.75

4. Labor Burden per Response: $19.88

5. Total Labor Burden: $72,562

[Case Studies]

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 1344

2. Response Time: 1 hour

3. Respondent Hourly Wage: $39.75

4. Labor Burden per Response: $39.75

5. Total Labor Burden: $53,424

[Supervisor/Leader Interviews]

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 80

2. Response Time: .5 hour

3. Respondent Hourly Wage: $39.75

4. Labor Burden per Response: $19.88

5. Total Labor: $1,590

[Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker]

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 7250

2. Response Time: 1 hour

3. Respondent Hourly Wage: $39.75

4. Labor Burden per Response: $39.75

5. Total Labor Burden: $288,187.50

2. Overall Labor Burden

   1. Total Number of Annual Responses: 12,324

   2. Total Labor Burden: $415,763

13. Respondent Costs Other Than Burden Hour Costs

There are no annualized costs to respondents other than the labor burden costs addressed in Section 12 of this document to complete this collection.

14. Cost to the Federal Government

Part A: LABOR COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

1. Collection Instrument(s)

[IPP Personnel Survey, Supervisor/Leader Interviews, Integrated Primary Prevention Activity Tracker] – No Labor cost to the Federal Government. RAND will collect this information from respondents, so there is only respondent burden for these data collections, as outlined below.

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 0

2. Processing Time per Response: 0 hours

3. Hourly Wage of Worker(s) Processing Responses: 0

4. Cost to Process Each Response: 0

5. Total Cost to Process Responses: 0

2. Overall Labor Burden to the Federal Government

   1. Total Number of Annual Responses: 0

   2. Total Labor Burden: 0

1. Collection Instrument(s)

[Case Studies] - This cost is from the time it takes for DoD personnel to arrange the virtual and observation visits with points at contact at the 24 sites (one point of contact per site) that make up the Case Studies.

1. Number of Total Annual Responses: 24

2. Processing Time per Response: 2 hours

3. Hourly Wage of Worker(s) Processing Responses: $39.75

4. Cost to Process Each Response: $79.50

5. Total Cost to Process Responses: $1,908

2. Overall Labor Burden to the Federal Government

   1. Total Number of Annual Responses: 24

   2. Total Labor Burden: $1,908

Part B: OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The below costs are the funds DoD is providing to RAND to carry out the evaluation.

1. Cost Categories

   1. Equipment: $0

   2. Printing: $0

   3. Postage: $0

   4. Software Purchases: $0

   5. Licensing Costs: $0

   6. Other:

      1. Labor – $4,219,929

      2. IPP Personnel Survey programming- $590,965

      3. Computing - $177,169

      4. Incentives (IPP Personnel Surveys and Resumes) - $186,000

2. Total Operational and Maintenance Cost: $5,174,063

Part C: TOTAL COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMEN

1. Total Labor Cost to the Federal Government: $1908

2. Total Operational and Maintenance Costs: $5,174,063

3. Total Cost to the Federal Government: $5,175,971

15. Reasons for Change in Burden

The burden has increased since the previous approval due to the sample size of IPPW growing over time.

16. Publication of Results

The results of this information collection will not be published.

17. Non-Display of OMB Expiration Date

We are not seeking approval to omit the display of the expiration date of the OMB approval on the collection instrument.

18. Exceptions to “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Submissions”

We are not requesting any exemptions to the provisions stated in 5 CFR 1320.9.