Overview
Title
Proposed Information Collection Activity; Pre-Testing of Evaluation Data Collection Activities (OMB #0970-0355)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Administration for Children and Families wants to keep testing a plan to make sure their surveys are easy for people to fill out. They're asking everyone to share their thoughts on how helpful these tests are, if they're clear, and if they take too much time.
Summary AI
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is asking for public comments on their proposal to extend a permit for Pre-testing of Evaluation Data Collection Activities. The aim is to refine data collection methods to ensure they are effective and easy for participants to complete. Comments on the necessity, accuracy, clarity, and burden of the proposed information collection are requested from the public. All comments should be submitted within 60 days of the notice publication date.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to extend the existing overarching generic clearance for Pre-testing of Evaluation Data Collection Activities (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0355) with no changes.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register invites public commentary regarding a proposal by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to extend an existing permit related to the pre-testing of evaluation data collection activities. The document aims to ensure that the tools used for gathering data are both effective and manageable for participants. Public feedback is particularly sought to assess the necessity, accuracy, clarity, and the overall burden on participants in relation to the proposed data collection. Comments are requested within a 60-day window following the publication date.
General Summary
The primary intent of the document is to seek public input on extending a generic clearance used to pre-test various methods and tools employed in collecting evaluation data. Pre-testing encompasses a range of technical processes aimed at refining these data collection efforts to make them less burdensome and more efficient for respondents. The undertaking is part of the broader research and evaluation goals of the ACF, aimed at understanding and improving services offered to low-income children and families.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A key issue within the document is the lack of clear articulation regarding the necessity and practical implications of extending this clearance. While it outlines some methodologies involved, such as cognitive techniques and pilot studies, these processes might be too technical for most readers without additional explanation. Moreover, while it purports that the data will not be the primary subject of any major reports, the potential public usage of this data through various means is vaguely described.
The document mentions an estimated annual total burden of 3,825 hours due to data collection activities, but it does not break down how this figure was calculated. This absence could lead to questions about the accuracy and manageability of this burden. Additionally, while comments from the public are requested, the document provides limited guidance on what specific areas feedback might influence or past examples of how public input has impacted similar projects.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the extension of this clearance has potential implications for how data is collected from participants in various ACF programs. These implications are dual-faceted: on one hand, by optimizing data collection methods, the ACF aims to make participation less cumbersome, reflecting in weaker hesitations and more engaged responses from program participants. On the other hand, the burden of participation as denoted by estimated hours—and the lack of context for this calculation—could raise concerns among members of the public about the demands involved in participating.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The document has particular relevance for those currently involved in or impacted by ACF programs, including participants, grantees, and potential comparison groups. For these stakeholders, the proposed data collection pre-testing theoretically promises more refined methods that could reduce participant burden while enhancing the overall quality of data obtained. This could lead to more effective evaluation and improvement of programs intended to benefit low-income families.
Yet, the lack of clarity on specific improvements that result from pre-testing, as well as the absence of clear projections or case examples of resultant benefits, might not provide enough assurance to stakeholders, leaving them uncertain about the real-world implications.
In summary, while the ACF’s request for public input aims at enhancing its data gathering processes, the document could benefit from clearer explanations and contextual details to more effectively engage the public and other stakeholders. This would ensure that the program's long-term benefits are more transparently communicated and understood.
Issues
• The document title and summary mention the extension of a generic clearance for pre-testing of evaluation data collection activities, but the necessity or practical implications of this extension are not clearly explained.
• The reference to 'cognitive and usability laboratory and field techniques, behavior coding, exploratory interviews, respondent debriefing questionnaires, split sample experiments, focus groups, and pilot studies/pre-tests' might be too technical for lay readers without further explanation.
• The document states that the information collected will not be the primary subject of published reports but may still be used publicly in various ways. This could be clearer in terms of what kinds of publications or presentations this refers to.
• The estimated total annual burden hours section offers a figure (3,825) but lacks context or breakdown of how this number was calculated, which might be useful for understanding its accuracy and feasibility.
• The comments section requests public input but might benefit from more explicit guidance on how stakeholders could meaningfully contribute or examples of previous impact that such comments have had.
• The document could provide more context on how collecting this information benefits program participants or the broader public to justify the burden of data collection.
• While authority is cited from the Social Security Act, the specific relevance or implications of this authority on the proposed action might be unclear for those unfamiliar with legal references.