Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Formative Data Collections for ACF Research and Evaluation
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Administration for Children and Families wants to keep collecting information to help low-income families and is asking more people to join in and tell them what they think. They're not changing what they ask but will have more people sharing their thoughts to understand better how people can be helped.
Summary AI
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend data collection for research and evaluation under an existing clearance. The proposal does not change the types of information collected but anticipates an increase in the number of respondents, raising the overall burden estimate. Comments are invited within 30 days of publication. The data collected will support ACF's research on programs related to welfare, child care, and other areas to assist low-income families.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes to extend data collection under the existing overarching generic clearance for Formative Data Collections for ACF Research and Evaluation (OMB #0970-0356). There are no changes to the proposed types of information collection or uses of data, but the request does include an increase to the estimated number of respondents and, therefore, the overall burden estimate.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has issued a notice seeking public comment on its proposal to extend existing data collection efforts under the overarching generic clearance for research and evaluation. While the types of information collected will remain unchanged, the number of respondents is expected to increase, subsequently raising the overall burden estimate.
Summary of the Document
The notice announces ACF's intention to continue its data collection activities to support research and evaluation in various program areas that aim to assist low-income families, such as welfare and child care. The data collections are meant to inform the research, maintain a relevant agenda, ensure current research products, and guide technical assistance. The document invites public commentary within a 30-day window to influence the OMB's decision-making process regarding this data collection effort.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises several concerns that warrant attention. Firstly, while it mentions an increase in the number of respondents and the overall burden estimate, it does not specify the magnitude of this increase or its implications on budgetary allocations. The absence of this detail could lead to uncertainty about the financial and logistical feasibility of the proposed data collection efforts.
Secondly, the description of the target respondents is broadly defined, encompassing a wide range of participants such as government officials, service providers, and program participants. However, it lacks specific criteria or justification for how these respondents are chosen, raising questions about the validity and representativeness of the data collected.
Another noteworthy issue is the use of technical jargon within the document, like "generic clearance" and "formative data collections," which may not be clearly understood by all readers. This complexity could limit public engagement and feedback on the proposal.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document's proposal to extend data collection efforts may enhance understanding and improvement of programs that support low-income families. However, without detailed information about the cost and respondent selection process, it remains unclear how effectively these efforts will be implemented and whether they will lead to meaningful improvements.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders directly involved with ACF programs, such as researchers, service providers, and participants, this proposal may offer potential benefits by promoting informed decision-making and program enhancement. The inclusion of a diverse range of respondents could also lead to a richer understanding of program effectiveness and the diverse needs of different communities.
Conversely, the lack of detail regarding cost implications and respondent engagement strategies could be viewed as a missed opportunity to involve a broader array of participants effectively. This could limit the potential for obtaining a comprehensive view of program successes and areas for improvement.
Overall, while the initiative to extend data collection activities under the existing clearance holds promise for advancing program evaluation and effectiveness, stakeholders may require additional information and clarification to fully assess the impact and feasibility of these efforts.
Issues
• The document mentions an increase in the estimated number of respondents and overall burden estimate, but it does not provide specific details on how much the increase is or how it impacts budgetary allocations.
• The description of respondents is vague and includes a broad range of potential participants without specific criteria or justification for how these respondents are selected or categorized.
• The document lacks detailed information about the cost implications of the increase in respondents and whether additional funds are required for this expansion.
• The language in the supplementary information section is dense and includes technical terms without further explanation, which may be confusing to lay readers. For instance, terms like 'generic clearance' and 'formative data collections' could use clarification.
• The specifics about the respondent engagement methods such as ‘semi-structured discussions’ and ‘focus groups’ are listed but not detailed, leaving questions about implementation and effectiveness.
• The document states that each request under this clearance will include 'supplementary documents', but it does not specify what kinds of documents will be submitted or their purpose.