Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Data Collection for a National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to check how well some programs, that were made to help people during tough times, are working and if they are fair for everyone. They will ask people who know or used the programs for their thoughts, but some people are worried it might take a lot of time to do this.
Summary AI
The Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES), under the General Services Administration, is proposing new data collection activities for evaluating the American Rescue Plan (ARP). This project aims to assess how selected ARP-funded programs contribute to achieving equitable outcomes and to inform future program design across the Federal Government. The public is invited to submit comments on these proposed data collection activities by January 15, 2025. The evaluation will include case studies and involve various respondents such as state and local administrators, policy leaders, service providers, and parents who benefited from ARP services.
Abstract
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, OES is proposing new data collection activities conducted for the National Evaluation of the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The objective of this project is to provide a systematic look at the contributions of selected ARP-funded programs toward achieving equitable outcomes to inform program design and delivery across the Federal Government. The project will include in- depth, cross-cutting evaluations and data analysis of selected ARP programs, especially those with shared outcomes, common approaches, or overlapping recipient communities; and targeted, program-specific analyses to fill critical gaps in evidence needs. This information collection request is for three mixed or multi-method evaluations under the American Rescue Plan National Evaluation Generic Clearance (OMB #: 3090-0332, expires 05/31/2027).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review pertains to the proposal by the Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES), part of the General Services Administration, to initiate data collection activities aimed at evaluating the American Rescue Plan (ARP). The intention is to conduct thorough assessments of selected programs funded by ARP, with an emphasis on gauging their contributions toward achieving equitable outcomes. The findings from this evaluation are intended to guide future program design and delivery across the Federal Government.
General Summary
The document outlines a specific plan for evaluating the impact of certain ARP-funded programs. It invites public comments on this evaluation project, which is to be concluded by January 15, 2025. The evaluation will largely consist of case studies and will involve feedback from a diverse group of participants, including state and local program administrators, policy leaders, service providers, and beneficiaries of ARP services.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several concerns arise from the proposal. Notably, the criteria for selecting which ARP-funded programs will be evaluated are not defined, which could lead to perceptions of bias. The document frequently references the aim of achieving "equitable outcomes" without providing a clear definition, potentially leading to ambiguity about the objectives of the evaluation.
Moreover, the document speaks of addressing "critical gaps in evidence needs" without clarifying what these gaps entail or how they were identified, which might cast doubt on the robustness or objectivity of the evaluation process. Additionally, there is no mention of standards for data collection, raising questions about consistency and reliability across evaluations.
Another critical issue is the relatively high burden on respondents, quantified at 442 participants and 335.80 total burden hours. This might suggest inefficiencies and highlight the need for leveraging technology to reduce participant strain. Furthermore, the document does not address how respondent data will be safeguarded, which could lead to privacy concerns.
Lastly, it remains unclear how the results of the evaluations will be communicated to stakeholders or the public, which could affect the transparency and accountability of the entire process.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document’s proposal could influence public perceptions of government transparency and efficiency in evaluating large federal programs like the ARP. If executed well, the evaluations could improve governmental program design, making them more equitable and effectively targeted. However, if stakeholders perceive biases or inefficiencies, it may foster mistrust in government processes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For respondents, particularly state and local administrators, the document suggests a significant commitment of time and resources, which may strain already stretched resources. Stakeholders might benefit from clear guidance and perhaps technology-assisted participation methods to alleviate this burden.
Service providers and direct beneficiaries of ARP programs, such as parents and guardians, could stand to benefit from improved services based on the evaluation findings. However, their level of engagement in the process remains a factor that could determine any positive outcomes. If the concerns around data privacy or lack of feedback mechanisms are not addressed, these stakeholders might be reluctant to participate actively in the evaluation process.
In conclusion, while the intent behind the evaluation is commendable, the proposal would benefit from greater clarity and transparency to ensure that it achieves its objectives without imposing undue burdens or raising concerns about bias, privacy, or accountability.
Issues
• The document does not provide specific details about the criteria for selecting the ARP-funded programs for evaluation, which could lead to concerns about bias or favoritism towards certain programs.
• The term 'equitable outcomes' is used frequently but not clearly defined within the document, which could lead to ambiguity regarding what is considered equitable.
• The document mentions targeting 'critical gaps in evidence needs' without specifying what these gaps are or how they were identified, which could lead to questions about the thoroughness or objectivity of the approach.
• There are no clear guidelines or standards mentioned for how the data collection will be conducted, which could lead to concerns about consistency or reliability across different evaluations.
• The potential burden on respondents, particularly state and local administrators, and other stakeholders, is quantified but seems substantial (442 respondents, 335.80 total burden hours), raising the question of whether this burden could be reduced through technology or more efficient methods.
• The document does not explicitly mention any safeguard measures to protect the collected data, which could raise privacy concerns.
• There is no mention of how the results will be reported back to stakeholders or the public, potentially limiting transparency and accountability of the evaluation process.