FR 2021-00251

The document in question is a notice from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) seeking public comment on a proposed information collection related to a study evaluating housing interventions for homeless families. Known as the Family Options Study, this research aims to follow up with families who previously participated, in order to assess long-term outcomes of various housing strategies.

Overview of the Notice

The HUD has initiated a process under the Paperwork Reduction Act which involves collecting feedback from the public on the data they plan to gather and utilize. This data collection effort seeks to reacquire updated contact information from approximately 2,241 families initially involved in the study. Responding families will complete a Participant Update Contact Form, an effort designed to facilitate a follow-up survey that takes place roughly eleven years after the initial study engagement.

Key Issues and Concerns

Several noteworthy issues arise from the document:

1. Lack of Clarified Benefits: The notice does not clearly articulate direct benefits to study participants or the public beyond the academic interest of maintaining robust data for a long-term study. It leaves unmentioned any tangible benefits or compensations for the families involved, which may seem limited compared to the data's potential value to HUD.

2. Cost Estimation: The estimated costs associated with participating in the study, and calculated at $10.15 per respondent, are grounded in minimum wage rates. This calculation seems potentially inadequate and might not represent the true costs of participation, especially given the time and potential inconvenience posed to respondents.

3. Privacy and Data Protection: The document does not address privacy concerns or how it plans to protect personal data, a significant oversight given the sensitive nature of the information collected from populations experiencing homelessness.

4. Communication of Findings: Though it mentions potential changes over time in study outcomes like child well-being, the notice does not detail how findings will be communicated or utilized. This absence might lead to questions about transparency and broader impacts of the research.

Implications for the Public and Stakeholders

Broad Public Impact: The broader public interest might focus on understanding whether such studies can effectively guide housing policies and improve conditions for homeless families. Insights from long-term follow-ups could inform public spending and policy decisions, but the immediate details provided are limited.

Impact on Stakeholders: The primary stakeholders, the families engaged in the initial study, could find themselves burdened by participation without clear compensating benefits or assurances on privacy. Conversely, housing policy researchers and policymakers might gain valuable data, aiding in constructing more effective interventions for homelessness.

In summary, while the HUD's request for comment on the proposed data collection could potentially yield important insights for long-term supportive housing solutions, the document lacks specifics regarding the immediate utility of findings, ethical considerations, or benefits for participants, which might raise concerns among stakeholders and the public.

The document under review discusses a proposed information collection effort by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Financial aspects of this proposal are highlighted through specific monetary references, which are fundamental to understanding the allocation and estimation of costs associated with this information collection initiative.

Summary of Financial References

The document states that the estimated total annual cost for the information collection is $1,817. This amount is derived from multiplying the total number of respondent hours, estimated to be 179 hours, by a calculated average hourly rate of $10.15. The hourly rate incorporates the minimum wage, which is set at $7.25, with an additional 40% accounted for fringe benefits.

Relation to Identified Issues

One issue highlighted in the document is that the estimated cost per respondent appears relatively low, particularly when considering the additional fringe benefits included in the hourly rate. The $10.15 rate may not accurately reflect other potential administrative or logistical expenses that could arise during the execution of this information collection. As such, there may be questions regarding whether this estimation truly covers all anticipated costs. The comprehensive coverage of costs is crucial in ensuring that the study does not encounter budgetary shortfalls, which could affect its completion and effectiveness.

Additionally, the document does not provide detailed insights on how the collected information might benefit the respondents in monetary or practical terms. While the primary aim is to update contact information for the families involved in the study, the direct advantage of this collection action to the families themselves remains vague. Understanding whether the costs of data collection, such as the $1,817 total expense, effectively translate to tangible benefits for the homeless families involved could further justify the expenditure and address public concerns about resource allocation.

Lastly, the lack of discussion around privacy concerns raises potential issues for stakeholders evaluating the sufficiency of this financial estimate. Implementing proper data protection measures may require additional financial resources not explicitly referenced in this estimate, which could influence the accuracy and completeness of the reported $1,817 cost.

In conclusion, although the document outlines a specific financial blueprint for the information collection process, questions about the adequacy and transparency of these figures remain. Addressing these financial concerns would not only enhance the credibility of the study but also contribute to a deeper understanding of how the estimated costs are justified and managed in relation to the objectives and obligations of the study.