Overview
Title
Subject 60-Day Notice for the “CARES Act Funding State Arts Agency Survey”
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Endowment for the Arts wants to know what people think about some questions they want to ask state arts groups on how money from the CARES Act has helped them, to make answering those questions easier for everyone.
Summary AI
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is inviting comments on a proposed information collection as part of their efforts to lessen paperwork and respondent burden. This survey aims to assess the impact of CARES Act funding on state arts agencies. Feedback is sought particularly on the necessity, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected, as well as ways to minimize the burden of this data collection on respondents. Submissions are due by April 19, 2021.
Abstract
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection for the survey of state arts agencies in regards to the impact of CARES Act funding awards on grantees. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register presents a notice from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), inviting comments on a proposed information collection effort aimed at assessing the effects of CARES Act funding on state arts agencies. This effort is part of the NEA's ongoing initiative to reduce paperwork and lessen the burden on respondents. By gathering feedback from the public and federal agencies, the NEA hopes to ensure that the data collected is useful, clearly understood, and appropriately recorded. They are particularly interested in comments regarding the necessity and utility of the information, the accuracy of burden estimates, and suggestions for minimizing this burden, such as utilizing modern technological means for data collection. Comments are requested by April 19, 2021.
General Summary
The NEA seeks to ensure that their information collection is efficient and valuable. The survey in question is intended to evaluate the impact of the CARES Act funding on grantees, focusing on how these funds have been utilized by state arts agencies. Through this public consultation, the NEA aims to streamline the process and make it easier for the agencies to respond, using methods like electronic submission to reduce the response time and costs.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise regarding this document. First, the document does not delve into specific methodologies or assumptions used in estimating the burden of data collection, which is crucial for constructive public input. Providing such details would enable stakeholders to give more precise and meaningful feedback. Additionally, highlighting specific examples or case studies of the CARES Act's impact on grantees could offer practical insight into the survey’s importance and relevance.
Furthermore, the term "respondent burden" is not thoroughly explained. Public readers may not fully understand what this entails or how it is measured, potentially limiting their ability to offer informed comments. Lastly, the document's language, specifically around the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, could be deemed technical, potentially alienating some members of the public who are not familiar with legislative terminology.
Impact on the Public
From a broad perspective, this notice represents an invitation for public participation, empowering individuals and organizations to influence how government agencies collect and handle data. It emphasizes a collaborative approach, seeking feedback to improve government operations.
However, as the methodology and case examples are not sufficiently detailed, the general public might find it challenging to assess the survey's true impact or identify specific areas that need improvement. This could result in a less informed response, limiting the public's ability to influence change effectively.
Impact on Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, such as state arts agencies and past CARES Act funding recipients, the proposed information collection program offers a vital platform to communicate their experiences and challenges. These organizations will benefit from having a say in the data collection process, potentially leading to more tailored and constructive information requirements that are relevant to their operations and less burdensome to fulfill.
On the flip side, stakeholders might feel constrained by the lack of detailed guidance on methodologies, which could stymie their ability to give comprehensive feedback. Technical jargon can deter engagement from smaller organizations or those without specialized staff, affecting a fair representation of views across diverse agencies.
In conclusion, while the NEA's efforts towards transparency and efficiency in data collection are commendable, addressing these issues could foster a more inclusive and effective consultation process, ensuring that the resulting information collection strategies are robust and supported by all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific details on the methodologies or assumptions used in estimating the burden of the proposed collection of information, which might be valuable for public review and comment.
• The document lacks specific examples or case studies on how the CARES Act funding has impacted grantees, which could offer valuable context and clarity on the practical utility of the information collection.
• The document could be more detailed in explaining the term 'respondent burden' and how it is measured, to ensure clarity for all readers.
• The language used is somewhat technical, particularly in explaining the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which might not be accessible to all members of the general public.