Overview
Title
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Supplement to Application for Federally Assisted Housing
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The housing department wants to make sure they have the right contact information for people applying for help with housing, so they are asking for public opinions on how they collect this information. They want to make it easy but haven't explained clearly what changes they want to make or how much time it might take people to fill out the forms.
Summary AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information collection as part of the application process for federally assisted housing. This notice allows the public to submit comments on the collection for an additional 30 days. The goal of the collection is to help housing providers contact someone connected to the applicant, like a family member or friend, to assist with any issues during their tenancy. Comments can be made on the necessity and accuracy of the information as well as suggestions to improve or reduce the burden of the collection process.
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 an additional 30 days of public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published in the Federal Register is a notification seeking public input on a proposed information collection related to applications for federally assisted housing. This request, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, invites public comments for a 30-day period. Specifically, HUD aims to gather information that would allow housing providers to contact a person close to the applicant—such as a family member or friend—to assist with any issues during their tenancy.
Summary of the Document
The essence of the document is to solicit public opinion on the necessity, practicality, and burden of this proposed information collection. It aims to ensure that housing providers can better support tenants by facilitating contacts that might aid in resolving tenancy-related issues. Public comments are requested not only to assess the necessity of the collection but also to ensure the accuracy of burden estimates and to gather suggestions for improving the process.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the notice that may warrant attention. The document employs technical jargon and legal terminology, which might limit its accessibility to the general public. For effective public participation, it is crucial that the language be comprehensible to people with various levels of understanding, not just those familiar with bureaucratic processes. Additionally, there is a lack of specific details regarding the changes proposed in this reinstatement request, thereby impeding the public's ability to fully understand or critique the changes.
Furthermore, there is no detailed analysis or rationale provided for the estimated burden on respondents, raising questions about how the time and effort required were calculated. The document redundantly calls for minimizing the burden of data collection by using technology without offering any specific solutions or examples, potentially leading to confusion about what enhancements might be feasible.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, particularly those who may seek federally assisted housing, this document signifies an administrative step that could potentially streamline support services for tenants. The initiative to involve a third party in the event of tenancy issues could lead to greater support for tenants and more efficient resolution of conflicts, ultimately fostering a more stable and supportive living environment.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For housing applicants and tenants, the proposed collection could introduce an additional layer of paperwork. However, by potentially enhancing communication and support, it might also improve the overall living experience within HUD-assisted housing. Organizations working in social or health services may find themselves more involved, possibly leading to a closer working relationship with housing providers, although this also means they may need to dedicate more resources to managing these interactions.
On the other hand, housing providers might face an increased administrative burden in maintaining privacy and managing additional data. Ensuring that this information is kept confidential and used appropriately will be crucial to achieving the desired outcomes.
Overall, while the intent behind the document is to improve tenant support, the process itself could be refined to better engage the public and to ensure that the measures proposed are both efficient and effective. Improved clarity and justification in public documents could enhance understanding, participation, and ultimately lead to more impactful policy implementation.
Issues
• The document uses technical and legal terminology that may not be easily understood by the general public, which could limit meaningful public participation in the comment process.
• There is a lack of detailed information about the specific changes proposed in the reinstatement request, making it difficult for commenters to understand and evaluate the implications of the changes.
• The document does not provide any analysis or justification for the estimated burden on respondents, making it challenging to assess the reasonableness of the time and effort required.
• The call for comments on minimizing the burden of data collection mentions using appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, but lacks specifics on what technologies might be implemented or explored.
• There is repetition in the solicitation of public comment section, specifically point 4 regarding ways to minimize burden on respondents, which appears twice, potentially due to a drafting error.