Overview
Title
Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Local Evaluation Final Report (New Collection)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make sure that people who give out money to help families write good reports about how the money is used. They’re asking people to say what they think about the forms these helpers use, and they need these thoughts by January 6, 2025.
Summary AI
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is seeking public comments on new report templates for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) programs. These templates are intended to help grant recipients efficiently report their evaluation findings as required by the ACF. The request is connected to the HMRF Local Evaluation Technical Assistance projects, which support the evaluation of programs aimed at improving family stability and healthy relationships. Public comments must be submitted by January 6, 2025, to be considered in OMB’s decision-making process.
Abstract
The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) in the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is requesting approval of the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Final Report Templates. HMRF grant programs are required to submit a final report describing their local evaluation analyses and findings. This request includes guidance for grant recipients in the form of templates. Information will inform technical assistance to support grantees in developing and submitting the final reports to ACF to fulfill a grant requirement.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Federal Register document issued by the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) under the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) proposes new reporting templates for the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) programs. This initiative seeks to streamline how grant recipients report their evaluation findings, which are a statutory obligation. The call for public comments is part of a transparent process inviting feedback from the public by January 6, 2025.
General Summary
This document reveals a structured effort by the OPRE to improve the reporting process for HMRF programs through standardized templates. The agency underscores the importance of these reports for evaluating how federally funded programs are performing in fostering healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood. The document also outlines the timeline for when the comments are due and directs the public on how to submit their feedback.
Significant Issues or Concerns
The document raises several concerns that merit attention:
Estimated Burden Hours: It lists an estimated total of 3,160 annual burden hours for the grant recipients. However, there is no detailed breakdown explaining how these hours are distributed across various evaluation and reporting tasks. This omission could lead to misunderstandings about the workload expected of grant recipients.
Selection and Assessment Transparency: The document does not clarify how grant recipients are chosen or the criteria used to appraise their evaluation reports. Transparency in these processes is important to uphold trust and confidence among stakeholders.
Nature of Technical Assistance: While the document mentions technical support, it fails to clearly describe what this assistance entails, who will provide it, and the extent to which it will help grant recipients meet reporting standards.
Public Comment Process: While instructions for submitting public comments are given, the language is somewhat indirect, which might cause confusion among those wishing to participate in the feedback process. Clearer guidance could promote wider public engagement.
Consequences for Non-compliance: There is ambiguity regarding what happens if grant recipients do not meet the required standards. Clarification on repercussions or remedial actions would likely incentivize more diligent compliance.
Broader Public Impact
The outlined initiative primarily impacts grant recipients by formalizing the method for reporting findings of HMRF programs. This formalization is likely to improve the consistency and reliability of data, which can ultimately lead to better-informed public policies and improved program outcomes. However, if the burdens are viewed as excessive or unclear, it might hinder organizations from participating effectively.
Impact on Stakeholders
Positive Impact: The structured templates could benefit grant recipients by providing clear guidelines, potentially easing the process of compiling and submitting reports. This might also streamline evaluation by regulatory bodies, facilitating timely assessments and potentially quicker feedback loops.
Negative Impact: Organizations might find the 3,160 burden hours significant unless justified or reduced through effective technical assistance. Lack of clarity on technical assistance and evaluation standards could add to administrative burdens or strategic uncertainties within these organizations.
In summary, while the initiative to standardize HMRF program reporting is commendable, enhancing certain aspects of transparency, clarification, and process could address lingering concerns and foster a more effective implementation for all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document lacks detailed information about the justification for the estimated total annual burden hours of 3,160. It would be beneficial to break down how these hours are allocated among different tasks related to completing the evaluation and reporting requirements.
• There is no specific mention of how the grant recipients are selected or the criteria used to assess their evaluation reports, which could be perceived as lacking transparency in how standards are applied.
• The mention of 'technical assistance' is vague and does not provide enough details about the nature, extent, or providers of this assistance, which could be clarified to enhance understanding.
• The language around the process for public comments is somewhat indirect and could be more straightforward to ensure that individuals understand how to submit their comments effectively.
• There is potential ambiguity regarding the consequences if grant recipients fail to meet the standards set by ACF for their evaluation reports, which could be clarified to outline potential actions or feedback mechanisms.