Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Agriculture wants to know what people think about how they collect information for a food program that helps certain adults get jobs. They're asking for ideas on how to collect this information better and make it easier for everyone involved.
Summary AI
The Department of Agriculture is requesting public comments on an information collection related to the Employment and Training (E&T) Program for able-bodied adults without dependents under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They are interested in feedback on whether this information collection is necessary and methods to improve it while minimizing the burden on respondents. Comments must be submitted by March 1, 2021, through the website www.reginfo.gov. The request involves 53 State, Local, or Tribal Government respondents with a total estimated burden of 50 hours for recordkeeping and reporting.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is a notice published by the Department of Agriculture seeking public comments on an information collection related to the Employment and Training (E&T) Program under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Specifically, it focuses on able-bodied adults without dependents. The request aims to collect feedback about the necessity and practicality of this information collection, and it also seeks to identify ways to minimize respondent burden. Public comments are welcomed until March 1, 2021, and can be submitted through an online platform.
General Summary
This notice intends to engage the public and receive feedback on aspects of administrative processes and the effectiveness of information collection within a government program. The Department of Agriculture aims to gather opinions on whether the collection methods are necessary, useful, and clear, as well as suggestions for improvements. The scope of this request involves 53 State, Local, or Tribal Government respondents with a workload estimated at 50 hours for recordkeeping and reporting.
Significant Issues
There are several notable issues within this document:
Allocation Transparency: The document does not detail how the funds for the E&T Program are distributed among states, which is crucial for assessing fairness and equity.
Complex Language: The provisions for requesting additional funds are worded complexly, which might confuse some stakeholders who are not familiar with legal or bureaucratic language.
Limited Feedback Timeframe: Stakeholders are given only 30 days to submit their comments, which might not be enough time for a thorough and engaged public response.
Feedback Process: There is no clear indication of how the agency plans to deal with the feedback received or how it will be integrated into policy-making and decision-making processes.
Burden Assessment: While 50 hours are estimated for the burden on respondents, the document lacks context or comparison to other similar processes, making it difficult to gauge if this figure is reasonable.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document represents an opportunity to engage with the federal government's process and voice opinions that could influence administrative procedures. By collecting feedback, the Department of Agriculture demonstrates a commitment to public participation and transparency. However, the short comment period and the complexity of language might limit broader public engagement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
State, Local, and Tribal Governments are directly impacted as they are the primary respondents. The brief period for comments may pose challenges for these busy agencies to review and respond meaningfully. The lack of detailed descriptions of fund allocation may impact their ability to understand or contest the fairness of the distribution process.
For program beneficiaries like SNAP participants, particularly able-bodied adults without dependents, the outcomes of this information collection could affect how well their needs are understood and met. Any changes based on this feedback could potentially lead to improved support and resource allocation for these groups.
The complexity of language and procedure might also affect non-government organizations (NGOs) and advocacy groups working closely with affected individuals, as they may struggle to fully interpret and engage with the notice in a way that benefits their constituents.
In conclusion, while the document shows a positive intention towards inclusivity and efficiency in government programs, it could benefit from clearer communication and extended timelines to optimize stakeholder participation and feedback.
Issues
• The document lacks a detailed breakdown of how the funds for the Employment and Training Program Activity Report and Requests for Additional 100 Percent Funding are allocated across different states, which could help assess if the allocation is equitable.
• The language around the procedure for requesting additional E&T funds (7 CFR 273.7(d)(1)(i)(D)) is somewhat complex and could be simplified to ensure clarity.
• The document notes that comments will be considered if received by March 1, 2021, leaving only 30 days from the publication date for feedback, which may not be sufficient time for thorough public engagement.
• There is no information on how the Department plans to address potential feedback or incorporate it into the final decision-making process, which could ensure better transparency and responsiveness.
• The burden hours for respondents (50 hours) are provided, but without context or comparison to typical burden hours for similar collections, it's difficult to assess whether this is reasonable.
• The document does not elaborate on the specific monitoring metrics or performance indicators FNS will use to ensure state performance meets economic efficiency standards.