Overview
Title
60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP); OMB Control No.: 2506-0157
Agencies
ELI5 AI
HUD wants people to give their thoughts on how they collect information for a program that helps build homes. They want to make sure the process is fair and asks if technology can make it easier and faster.
Summary AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is asking the public to comment on a proposed information collection related to the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). They seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for continuing data collection to assess and rank applicants applying for SHOP grants. HUD collects this information to ensure applicants meet eligibility criteria and comply with program rules. Public comments are invited on whether this data collection is necessary, how accurate the time estimates are for respondents, and how the process might be improved or simplified, including through the use of technology.
Abstract
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document titled "60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP); OMB Control No.: 2506-0157" from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) serves as an important channel for inviting public commentary on its proposed information collection under the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP). HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue data gathering from potential applicants. This data is crucial for determining eligibility, ensuring compliance with program requirements, and for the equitable assessment and ranking of SHOP grant applicants.
Summary
The Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program aims to foster partnerships with national and regional non-profit housing organizations to aid in homeownership. To maintain this program’s effectiveness, HUD is seeking feedback on its information collection approach. Specifically, HUD is interested in whether the information collection is necessary for proper agency functions, the accuracy of estimated respondent burden, and methods to enhance or simplify the collection process using technology.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A key issue with the document is its lack of detail regarding the costs associated with collecting this data. Without a clear cost framework, stakeholders, including taxpayers, might find it challenging to discern the potential for inefficient use of resources. Another concern is the absence of clearly defined criteria for assessing SHOP applicants. This lack of transparency could invite allegations of favoritism or bias, which may undermine public trust in the program.
The document also fails to elucidate terms such as "SHOP NOFO" (Notice of Funding Availability) and "Executed Grant Agreement,” which may confuse readers unfamiliar with these terminologies. Additionally, while the document provides some insight into the forms required (such as SF-424 and HUD 424 CB), it lacks explanatory content regarding each form's specific purpose. This could hinder applicants who are unfamiliar with these bureaucratic processes.
Public Impact
Broadly speaking, the document’s solicitation of public feedback is an effort to engage stakeholders, potentially leading to improvements in the SHOP program’s operation and efficiency. By engaging the public, HUD hopes to fine-tune its information collection methods, thus positively affecting the program's accessibility and utility.
However, the unclear presentation of cost and procedural details could dilute public engagement efforts. People may be less willing to provide valuable feedback if they are not adequately informed about the procedures and implications of such data collection.
Stakeholder Impact
For national and regional non-profit housing organizations, which form the main stakeholder group for the SHOP program, this notice holds substantial relevance. These organizations depend on clarity and efficiency in HUD's processes to successfully participate in and benefit from the program. Any improvements to the data collection procedure could reduce administrative burdens, thereby allowing these bodies to focus more on their core missions.
Conversely, the current document’s lack of clarity might deter or disadvantage these stakeholders, especially smaller organizations with limited resources, as they might find the preparation of detailed responses overly burdensome without clear guidance.
For individuals and communities that benefit from SHOP-funded projects, streamlining requirements and feedback processes may lead, ultimately, to more efficient project implementation and increased access to homeownership opportunities.
In conclusion, the document makes a commendable effort to engage the public in shaping future HUD policies concerning data collection for the SHOP program. However, without greater transparency and clarity, both in the description of processes and costs, the full potential of public and stakeholder engagement may not be realized.
Issues
• The document lacks a detailed breakdown of the anticipated costs associated with the information collection, making it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• The specific criteria for assessing the eligibility and compliance of SHOP applicants and proposals are not clearly defined, which could lead to favoritism or perceived bias.
• Language related to the forms required (e.g. SF-424, HUD 424 CB) could be clarified by providing a brief explanation of each form's purpose to improve understanding.
• The estimation of the total number of hours needed for information collection is vague, lacking specific data or examples to illustrate its calculation based on geographic service areas or number of affiliates.
• Terms such as 'SHOP NOFO' and 'Executed Grant Agreement' are used without preliminary explanation, potentially confusing readers unfamiliar with these terms.
• While the document mentions the solicitation of public comments, it does not provide examples of previous feedback or how it has influenced past decisions, which would offer transparency and encourage meaningful public engagement.
• The document should consider including examples of how automated collection techniques might minimize burdens, providing a clearer path for respondents to utilize technology efficiently.