Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Public Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the State Grants for Assistive Technology Program Annual Progress Report; OMB #0985-0042
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is checking how states help people with disabilities use special tools and wants to know what people think about making changes to these checks. Some people are worried that the changes might make more work for the states, but it's not clear why the changes are needed.
Summary AI
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) has submitted a proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This information collection relates to the State Grants for Assistive Technology Program Annual Progress Report and aims to collect comments by February 4, 2021. The report is necessary for states and territories to comply with the Assistive Technology Act, which provides grants to operate statewide programs that enhance access to assistive technology for individuals with disabilities and older Americans. The ACL has addressed public comments received concerning various proposed changes, including the data collection process and reporting requirements.
Abstract
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under section 506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the reinstatement with change for the information collection requirements related to State Grants for Assistive Technology Program Annual Progress Report [OMB #0985-0042].
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a notice by the Administration for Community Living (ACL), under the Department of Health and Human Services, announcing a proposed collection of information related to the State Grants for Assistive Technology Program. The proposal involves the submission of an Annual Progress Report that is directed by the Assistive Technology Act. This report aims to ensure that states and territories are executing programs that enhance access to assistive technologies for individuals with disabilities and older adults. The notice specifically requests public comments on this data collection initiative by February 4, 2021.
General Summary
The primary focus of this document is on the compliance requirements for states and outlying areas that receive grants under the Assistive Technology Act. These entities are mandated to submit both a State Plan every three years and annual progress reports. The data collected through this process aims to evaluate progress and assist in reporting to Congress on the efficacy of programs designed to improve access to assistive devices and technologies. Furthermore, this information is essential for meeting the reporting mandates of the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010.
Significant Issues
There are several key issues and concerns brought up within the document. First, there's a lack of detailed explanation with regards to the nature or the extent of the proposed changes to the information collection requirements, which could lead to misunderstandings. This is compounded by the public's concern that the proposed new data elements regarding Public Awareness and Information & Assistance present a significant data burden without clear justification.
The requirement for seven specific measurable goals raises questions about their necessity and alignment with the broader objectives of the Assistive Technology Act. Additionally, adjustments to Device Demonstration reporting have been criticized for potentially causing duplicative work, adding administrative strain without apparent benefit. Moreover, updates to outcome measures are mentioned, but the specifics are not detailed, possibly leading to confusion among stakeholders.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
For the general public, the focus of the notice on improving access to assistive technology can potentially yield positive outcomes, particularly for people with disabilities and the elderly, by ensuring better accessibility and availability of necessary devices and services. However, the lack of clarity on specific changes and the concern over increased data burdens could result in a slower implementation, ultimately delaying the benefits to intended recipients.
Specific stakeholders, such as the state AT Act Program grantees, could face challenges due to the proposed data elements and reporting requirements. The process appears to demand considerable resources, approximately 80 hours annually, which may divert attention and manpower from other critical program tasks. On the positive side, if well-implemented, the effort can lead to more streamlined and effective reporting, potentially improving these programs by identifying areas for enhancement.
The persistent response of "no changes made" to several public comments might signal an oversight of stakeholder feedback, indicating a potential need for further engagement between ACL and program grantees to find mutually agreeable solutions, reducing the administrative and operational burden while achieving the objectives of the program effectively.
Issues
• The notice mentions collecting comments on information collection requirements but does not clearly specify the nature or extent of changes being proposed, which could lead to misunderstandings.
• There is concern over the proposed new data elements related to Public Awareness and Information & Assistance, with commenters stating a significant new data burden without clear justification.
• The document states that "Every state and outlying area is required to include a minimum of seven prescribed measurable goals," but it does not clearly elaborate on why these specific seven goals are necessary or how they align with the objectives of the AT Act.
• The proposed change in Device Demonstration reporting has received feedback that it may cause duplicative reporting, which could increase administrative burden without clear benefit.
• The document mentions updating outcome measures, but without specifying what the updates entail, leading to potential confusion.
• The estimated program burden mentions an average of 80 hours annually per grantee for data collection, which could be seen as burdensome without further justification or support for why this amount of time is needed.
• The proposals for data collection could be viewed as complex, potentially creating challenges for grantees to interpret and implement effectively.
• The response to comments often states 'no changes made,' which might signal an oversight of public input, warranting further explanation or justification to alleviate stakeholders' concerns.