Overview
Title
Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The CDC wants to ask people who plan cities about what makes it easy for people to eat healthy and play outside in different communities, and they are hoping people share their thoughts on this plan.
Summary AI
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of a new information collection project called the National Survey of Community-Based Survey of Supports for Healthy Eating and Active Living (CBS HEAL). This project aims to survey city planners and managers in 4,417 communities across the U.S. to gather data on policies and environments that support healthy eating and physical activity. The information collected will aid in understanding community characteristics that promote healthful diets and activity, comparing community strategies nationally, and guiding local initiatives. Public comments are invited within 30 days of the notice publication to evaluate the necessity, burden, and costs associated with this proposed data collection.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review originates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and outlines a request for approval of a new information collection project titled the National Survey of Community-Based Survey of Supports for Healthy Eating and Active Living (CBS HEAL). This project aims to gather data from city planners and managers to better understand community supports for healthy eating and active lifestyles across 4,417 U.S. communities. The document is presented in a formal government notice format, inviting public feedback within 30 days.
Summary of the Document
Primarily, the document is a procedural notice highlighting the CDC's initiative to conduct a nationwide survey. The survey seeks to collect valuable data on community policies and environments that promote healthy diets and physical activity. The intended data is expected to assist in understanding the current status and progression of such supports since previous studies conducted in 2014. Furthermore, it offers local agencies an opportunity to compare their strategies both nationally and with other similar communities, potentially guiding future initiatives aimed at improving public health.
Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise upon reviewing the document. Firstly, it lacks detailed financial information, leaving the public without a sense of the project's overall cost or any assurance against potential mishandling of resources. Secondly, the audience for comments is ambiguously defined, combining both public and “affected agency” feedback without clarification on who qualifies as affected and the rationale for their involvement.
The survey’s description is quite broad, omitting specifics on distribution methods or incentives for participation, leading to uncertainty about its likely response rate and effectiveness. Moreover, the complexity of the language and the absence of specifics about learnings from past studies hint at challenges in public comprehension and engagement. The document also briefly notes the non-response follow-up through phone calls and mail but does not elaborate on the management or historical success of these approaches.
Potential Impacts on the Public and Stakeholders
From a broad perspective, the project holds promise for improving public health by fostering environments conducive to healthy living. By revealing the efficacy and prevalence of community support systems, the survey can guide improvements in public health policy and urban planning. However, the document's lack of clear communication may impede public participation and optimize insight into community needs.
Specific stakeholders, such as local government officials and public health agencies, may find the collected data beneficial for benchmarking and strategy development. Yet, without detailed information on the project’s costs and execution, there is a risk of disengagement from these groups due to skepticism about the project’s financial viability and administrative effectiveness.
In conclusion, while the document presents a forward-looking initiative, addressing the highlighted issues concerning audience clarity, cost transparency, and operational specificity could significantly enhance stakeholder trust and public engagement, thereby optimizing the project's impact on community health initiatives.
Issues
• The document does not provide any information about the specific budget or costs associated with the project, leaving potential concerns about wasteful spending unaddressed.
• The audience for responding to the document might not be clear, as it invites both public and affected agency comments without specifying who exactly should respond or why they are considered 'affected'.
• The description of the survey and its intent is broad, and it does not provide specific details about how the survey will be distributed or any incentive plans, which might lead to questions about response rate and effectiveness.
• The language used in describing the objectives and process is a bit complex and could be simplified to ensure comprehension by a broader audience.
• The document mentions lessons learned from previous studies but does not provide details on what those lessons were, which might be helpful for understanding any changes or improvements in the new survey.
• The estimated annualized burden hours (1693) are given without context, such as how this compares to similar surveys or how these hours were calculated.
• The procedures for non-response follow-up are briefly mentioned (telephone and mail), but no information is provided on how this will be effectively managed or whether it has been successful in the past.