Overview
Title
Proposed Information Collection Activity; Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) National Evaluation Overarching Generic (New Collection)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to check how well programs that teach kids to be careful about taking risks are working by collecting information from these programs quickly. They also want to make sure the way they collect this information isn't too hard for the people involved and are asking for ideas on how to make it easier, like using technology.
Summary AI
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is seeking public comments on a proposed plan to collect data from Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) programs. This will help evaluate innovative strategies and improve outcomes for youth involved in these programs. The collection allows ACF to quickly gather and use data to enhance program effectiveness and understand the needs of the diverse youth populations they serve. The request also seeks comments on the necessity, accuracy, and burden of the information collection, as well as suggestions for minimizing the burden through technology.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) requests Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an overarching generic clearance to collect data from programs delivered by Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) grant recipients on behalf of the SRAE National Evaluation. The generic mechanism will allow ACF to rapidly respond to research and evaluation opportunities that would not otherwise be feasible under the timelines associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The opportunities may relate to innovative implementation strategies and program components in use by SRAE grant recipients as they arise, and in particular, for youth subpopulations served by grant recipients. The purpose of the data collections submitted under the generic will be to inform ACF programming by building evidence about what innovations work to improve programming and outcomes across the SRAE grant recipients and the youth they serve.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document outlines the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation's (OPRE) plan to collect information from programs funded by Sexual Risk Avoidance Education (SRAE) grants. The aim is to evaluate and potentially enhance these programs by rapidly gathering data to understand effective strategies and improve outcomes for youth. Public comments are requested on this initiative, with feedback specifically sought on the necessity, clarity, and potential burden of the data collection process.
Summary of the Document
The main objective of the document is to seek approval for a generic clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to allow the ACF to efficiently collect data from the SRAE programs. This approach is designed to enable OPRE to respond swiftly to opportunities for evaluating and improving program components, particularly those serving diverse youth populations. The data collected will be used to inform ACF programming towards better delivery and quality of services.
Significant Issues and Concerns
There are several notable concerns associated with the proposed plan:
Criteria for Evaluation: The document does not provide clear criteria for what constitutes "innovative implementation strategies and program components," potentially leading to ambiguity in program evaluation.
Bias and Fairness: There is a lack of information on measures to prevent bias or favoritism in selecting data sources or in reporting evaluation results, which could affect the objectivity and fairness of the assessments.
Dissemination of Information: Although the document states that findings will be shared via conference presentations, websites, or social media, it could benefit from more specific guidance to ensure wide and equitable access to information.
Oversight and Quality Assurance: There is little mention of any oversight or quality assurance processes to ensure the accuracy and ethical use of collected data.
Broader Impact
The proposal could have several broad impacts on the public:
Public Engagement: By seeking public comment, the document encourages engagement from a variety of stakeholders, including those directly involved or affected by SRAE programs.
Program Improvement: The rapid collection and use of data could lead to more effective programs, benefiting youth involved in these education initiatives. However, the lack of specificity in some aspects may limit transparency and public trust.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
SRAE Program Participants: For participants, particularly youth, the initiative promises enhancements to program quality and relevance, which could lead to better educational and life outcomes.
SRAE Grant Recipients: These organizations stand to benefit from insights gained through evaluation efforts, aiding their program development and effectiveness. However, the burden associated with data collection must be carefully managed.
Researchers and Practitioners: The proposal offers opportunities for collaboration and learning, but the reliance on generic clearance may limit the depth of individual data collections thus affecting the thoroughness of research outputs.
In summary, while the overarching goal of improving SRAE program outcomes through rapid evaluation and feedback is commendable, the plan requires further refinement to address transparency, fairness, and efficiency effectively. Balancing the need for timely data with comprehensive analysis and stakeholder engagement will be crucial for achieving the initiative's objectives.
Issues
• The document lacks clear criteria for what constitutes 'innovative implementation strategies and program components,' which might lead to ambiguity in what specifically they are evaluating or seeking.
• There is no specific mention of measures to prevent bias or favoritism towards particular organizations or individuals when selecting data sources or reporting on evaluation results.
• The method of disseminating information (through conference presentations, websites, or social media) is broad and could benefit from more specificity to ensure transparency and accessibility.
• The document discusses potential data collection efforts and dissemination without detailing any specific oversight or quality assurance processes to ensure data integrity and ethical use.
• The specific burden estimates (1,792.28 total annual burden hours) are provided without enough context or breakdowns to assess the distribution of this burden across different types of data collections or respondents.
• The mention of 'automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology' as ways to minimize burden is not elaborated upon, leaving this as an ambiguous suggestion rather than a concrete plan.
• The reliance on a 'generic clearance' may expedite processes but could potentially sidestep thorough review or specificity in public comment on individual data collection efforts.