Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Performance Measures and Additional Data Collection (New Collection)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Administration for Children and Families wants to know what people think about new rules for collecting information from programs that help parents and marriages be healthier. They are updating how they collect details on what happens in these programs to make sure they do a good job.
Summary AI
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), through the Office of Family Assistance, is seeking public comments on a new data collection for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Grant Programs. These programs are designed to improve family stability through education and parenting initiatives. The new cohort of grantees, awarded in 2020, will be required to collect detailed information about program activities, participant demographics, and outcomes using revised data collection tools. Comments are requested on these revisions to ensure the effectiveness of the data collection and improve program delivery.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) has had administrative responsibility for federal funding of programs that strengthen families through healthy marriage and relationship education and responsible fatherhood programming since 2006, through the Healthy Marriage (HM) and Responsible Fatherhood (RF) Grant Programs. ACF required the 2015 cohort of HMRF grantees--which received 5-year grants in September 2015--to collect and report performance measures about program operations, services, and clients served (OMB #0970-0460). A performance measures data collection system called nFORM (Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management) was implemented with the 2015 cohort to improve the efficiency of data collection and reporting and the quality of data. This system allows for streamlined and standardized submission of grantee performance data through regular progress reports and supports grantee-led and federal research projects. ACF will continue performance measure and other data collection activities for the HMRF grant program with a new cohort of grantees who received 5-year awards in September 2020. ACF is requesting comment on a new data collection to support these activities with the 2020 HMRF grantee cohort. ACF has made changes to the previous cohort's data collection instruments and performance reports for use in the new cohort. This new grantee cohort is expected to begin collecting performance measure data and reporting to ACF in April 2021.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under examination is a public notice from the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. It shares details about a new data collection initiative for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Grant Programs. With these initiatives, the agency aims to promote family stability through education and responsible parenting programs. The document requests public comments on this new data collection framework to refine and improve the program's effectiveness. Here, we'll explore a general summary, potential concerns, and the broad impact on the public and specific stakeholders.
General Summary
The central focus of the document is the deployment of a new performance data collection system for the 2020 cohort of HMRF grantees. The purpose is to gather detailed information on program activities, participant demographics, and outcomes using revised tools. The system aims for streamlined data reporting, necessary for both tracking program progress and supporting related research initiatives. The ACF is looking for public feedback to ensure these revisions meet the desired objectives in sharpening program delivery and efficiency.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several concerns arise from the content. Firstly, there is a lack of detailed cost analysis related to the implementation of the nFORM system and data collection activities. Without this information, it's hard to discern whether the spending is justified or if there are any areas of financial inefficiency.
The changes to the data collection instruments and performance reports are not explicitly detailed, potentially causing confusion regarding what specific improvements have been enacted. This ambiguity could hinder meaningful public commentary.
Additionally, the document references technical terms without offering definitions or context, potentially alienating readers unfamiliar with government jargon. Terms like "OMB #0970-0460" and "nFORM" could confuse readers and limit their ability to provide valuable feedback.
A significant omission is any discussion of data privacy and security measures. Given the sensitivity of the collected data, concerns over how participants’ privacy will be protected could be important for public trust and acceptance of the program.
Lastly, the requirement for continuous quality improvement (CQI) planning may seem burdensome to grantees. Without concrete examples or detailed explanations, it's challenging to gauge the real impact or required effort for this initiative.
Impact on the Public
Overall, the document signals a positive step toward effective program implementation and accountability through improved data collection. For the public, this could mean better-managed programs that more effectively support family well-being, provided that they are well-designed and efficiently executed. However, without assurances on cost-effectiveness and data security, there may be hesitancy to wholly embrace these initiatives.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For grantees—typically organizations and agencies tasked with delivering these programs—the changes could mean an increased administrative burden due to the detailed reporting requirements and CQI planning. The revisions to the collection instruments and performance measures might necessitate additional training or resource allocation.
For participants, known as clients, the new entrance and exit surveys aim to capture comprehensive information about their experiences and outcomes. While this potentially enhances program tailoring and efficacy, concerns about data privacy need addressing to secure participants' trust and willingness to engage truthfully with the surveys.
In summary, while the initiative strives for improvements in program execution through refined data practices, attention to clarity, transparency in costs, detailed explanations, and data security are vital for widespread acceptance and success. Broad public and stakeholder engagement via comments could shape these plans effectively, provided they overcome the noted barriers to understanding and participation.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed cost analysis of the data collection activities or the implementation of the nFORM system, making it difficult to assess whether there is any wasteful spending.
• The changes made to the data collection instruments and performance reports for the new cohort are not described in detail, which may lead to ambiguity about the specific improvements or changes made.
• It may be difficult for the public to understand the specifics of the continuous quality improvement (CQI) planning and the burden it poses, as there are no concrete examples or detailed explanations of what it entails.
• The use of bureaucratic and technical terms such as 'OMB #0970-0460', 'nFORM (Information, Family Outcomes, Reporting, and Management)', and 'Quarterly Performance Progress Report for HM Programs' without definitions or further explanations can make the document difficult to understand for those not familiar with government processes.
• The structured format of performance measures and surveys is described, but there is no clear explanation of how participants' privacy and data security will be handled or ensured, which could be a concern.