Overview
Title
Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG) (Office of Management and Budget No.: 0970-0209)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is asking for more time to make a guide that helps people who work on child support know what to do. They're also inviting people to share their thoughts on what could make the guide better.
Summary AI
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), is asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG) for another three years. The IRG helps State and Tribal child support agencies manage their programs by providing key information. Proposed updates include changes to the guide's terminology and question formats to improve clarity and effectiveness. Public comments on these changes are invited until January 13, 2025.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), is requesting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG) for an additional three years. The IRG contains State and Tribal child support information that helps State and Tribal child support agencies (CSAs) administer their respective programs. Minor updates are proposed, as described below. The current OMB approval (OMB #: 0970- 0209) expires on February 28, 2025.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Office of Child Support Services within the Administration for Children and Families is seeking public input on its proposal to update the Intergovernmental Reference Guide (IRG). The IRG is an important tool for State and Tribal child support agencies that provides essential information to aid in the management of child support programs. The Office is asking for these updates to be approved for an additional three years.
General Summary
The IRG operates as a centralized repository of information about child support services, facilitating smoother cooperation between different jurisdictions, including states, tribal entities, and foreign countries. This document indicates that some minor adjustments are proposed to refine the language and clarity of the guide. Suggestions for updates were collected from previous user feedback and expert recommendations to improve the document's usefulness.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Though the document acknowledges changes are based on feedback, it does not provide a thorough explanation of or justification for the specific updates. Additionally, it mentions an increased estimated time for completing the State profile from 0.3 hours to 0.5 hours per response, yet it falls short of providing details on how this new time estimate was derived. Moreover, the document includes references to specific U.S. Code and CFR sections, which may be challenging for non-experts to interpret. This could limit public accessibility to understanding the implications of the updates.
The process for submitting public comments is described, but the document does not clarify how feedback will influence the final changes, nor does it explain how the public will be informed about changes resulting from their input. There is also no discussion of potential financial implications, such as costs or savings, that the proposed updates may introduce.
Impact on the Public
The document invites the public to contribute their views, which underscores the importance of community involvement in shaping tools affecting child support services. The updates could potentially lead to a more effective administrative process that enhances the accessibility and usability of the IRG. This may result in improved support services for families across the involved jurisdictions.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For State and Tribal child support agencies, the proposed clarifications and additional questions may offer a clearer framework to manage and coordinate their efforts effectively. By refining the guide based on previous feedback, agencies might expect a tool that reflects current administrative needs and challenges, thereby improving the efficacy of child support processes.
However, the increased time estimate for completing responses might demand additional resources from these agencies. Without an explicit explanation of the calculation, stakeholders may find themselves spending more time than anticipated on administrative tasks.
In conclusion, while the document highlights the importance of updating and refining the IRG, the lack of detailed justifications and explanations could pose challenges in gaining a comprehensive understanding of the proposed changes. Public engagement appears to be encouraged but lacks clarity on follow-up procedures, and there is an absence of detailed budgetary analysis. These aspects could benefit from further clarification to fully grasp the potential impacts of the IRG updates.
Issues
• The document does not provide a detailed explanation or justification for the minor updates except for mentioning they are based on feedback and internal recommendations.
• The document mentions an increase in estimated time per response without providing a detailed breakdown or justification for how this increase was calculated.
• The document uses technical jargon and references specific U.S. Code and CFR sections without explanation, which can be difficult for the general public to understand.
• The process for public comments is not thoroughly explained, for instance, there is no mention of how the public will be informed of any changes made as a result of their comments.
• The document does not clarify how the proposed changes will specifically improve the administrative efficiency or effectiveness of child support services.
• There is no mention of any specific budgetary implications or potential additional costs associated with the proposed updates to the IRG.