Overview
Title
Proposed Information Collection Activity; Grants to States for Access and Visitation, OMB #0970-0204
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Health and Human Services Department wants to know what people think about keeping a survey going that helps families see their kids. They want people to share if the survey is helpful and how it can be easier to fill out.
Summary AI
The Health and Human Services Department, specifically the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), is asking for public feedback on extending the Access and Visitation Survey for three more years. This survey helps manage grants that support parental access and visitation through state programs. The ACF is collecting comments on various aspects, such as the necessity and efficiency of this information gathering, and suggestions to reduce any burdens on respondents. Public comments are invited within 60 days of the notice publication.
Abstract
The Division of Program Innovation (DPI), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the Access and Visitation Survey: Annual Report (OMB #0970-0204, expiration 10/31/2021). There are no changes requested to the form.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register involves an announcement by the Health and Human Services Department, specifically the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). They are seeking public input on extending a survey related to grants that support parental access and visitation through state programs for an additional three years.
Summary of the Document
The ACF is requesting comments on the need to continue collecting data through the Access and Visitation Survey. This survey plays a role in administering grants to support state programs aimed at ensuring that parents have access to and visitation with their children. Stakeholders, such as state child access and visitation programs and service providers, are involved in providing data for this survey.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document presents a few concerns:
Justification for Extension: There is a lack of detailed justification supporting the need for the survey's continuation. Without clear reasoning, this extension could seem unnecessary.
Burden Estimation Unclear: The estimated total annual burden hours, calculated at 5,600 hours, lacks transparency. An explanation of how this estimate was derived would be helpful in ensuring its credibility.
Public Participation: The document’s language regarding the means by which the public can submit comments could be clearer. Ensuring public understanding is critical to maximizing participation.
Use and Utility of Information: The document does not specify how the collected information will be optimally utilized. This may raise questions about whether the data collected will truly be put to good use.
Consideration of Alternatives: There seems to be no exploration of alternative, potentially more efficient methods for data collection, which could mitigate the burden on respondents.
Clarity for Respondents: Instructions on identifying requests by the title of the information collection could be elaborated further for individuals unfamiliar with the procedure.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Public Impact: The general public may be affected by this survey’s results as it relates to state-supported programs for family access and visitation. Ensuring that these programs are functioning effectively is in the public interest, particularly for families who rely on such services to facilitate parental involvement in children’s lives.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders: State and local child access and visitation programs, as well as service providers, are directly impacted by this survey. The renewal of the survey means continued administrative responsibilities to provide data. However, if the process is arduous or inefficient, it could place an unnecessary burden on these stakeholders.
Overall, while the survey itself likely plays an important role in evaluating and improving access and visitation programs, the document highlights areas where clarity, justification, and efficient data collection methods are needed. Addressing these concerns can enhance the survey’s effectiveness and ensure that the effort is worthwhile for all involved.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed justification for the necessity of extending the information collection, which could be viewed as a potential waste if not properly justified.
• There is no explanation of how the estimated total annual burden hours (5,600 hours) were calculated, which might lead to concerns about its accuracy.
• The language regarding the methodology for collecting feedback and comments from the public could be clearer to ensure maximum participation and understanding.
• The document does not specify any steps taken to ensure the collected information is used effectively, which might raise concerns about the practicality and utility of the data collection.
• It is unclear whether the agency has considered alternative methods for data collection that could reduce the burden on respondents, which could be perceived as overlooking potential efficiencies.
• The statement about requests needing to be identified by the title of the information collection could be better elaborated to ensure clarity for respondents unfamiliar with the process.