Overview
Title
Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Objective Work Plan/On-going Progress Report (Office of Management and Budget #0970-0452)
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Administration for Native Americans wants to keep using some special reports for three more years to check how well projects are doing. They're asking people to say what they think about this by February 18, 2025.
Summary AI
The Administration for Native Americans under the Administration for Children and Families is seeking public comments on their request to extend the Ongoing Progress Report and Objective Work Plan for another three years, until September 30, 2026. This extension involves changes only to the report itself. Comments must be submitted by February 18, 2025, to have full effect. This request, which is part of efforts to monitor and evaluate grants effectively, involves collecting information to assess the performance and progress of projects funded by the administration.
Abstract
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is requesting a 3-year extension to the Ongoing Progress Report (OPR) and the Objective Work Plan (OWP) (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0452, expiration September 30, 2026). Changes are proposed only to the report.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register concerns a request from the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) to extend their Ongoing Progress Report (OPR) and Objective Work Plan (OWP) for another three years, until September 30, 2026. This request involves certain unspecified changes to the report format, and the ANA is seeking public comments on this matter. Comments are expected by February 18, 2025.
Summary of the Document
This notice, issued by the Administration for Children and Families and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, is part of the ongoing effort to effectively evaluate the performance and progress of projects received financial aid under Native American Programs. The information collected through these reports helps monitor grantees' activities and assesses their outcomes, thus ensuring accountability and effective use of funds.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One primary concern with the document is the lack of transparency regarding the specific changes proposed to the OPR and OWP. While it mentions that some data elements have been eliminated and other areas clarified, it does not provide details of these modifications. This could potentially lead to confusion among stakeholders who rely on these documents for guidance.
Additionally, the document mentions an estimated annual burden of 700 hours for the respondents but does not provide a detailed breakdown of how this figure was calculated. Without this detail, it can be challenging for stakeholders to evaluate the reasonableness of the burden expected from them.
The description of the comment submission process is another area of potential confusion. The text provides both a website and an email address but does not clarify which method is preferred, or if both are necessary. This ambiguity could lead to issues in how the public submits comments, potentially affecting the effectiveness of the feedback process.
Public Impact
For the general public, this extension of the reporting process is essential for ensuring that ANA-funded projects are being monitored for performance and effectiveness. The outcome of these evaluations could influence future policy directions and funding allocations.
Impact on Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, such as federally and state-recognized tribes, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and native non-profits, could be significantly affected by these reports. On the one hand, the proposed changes might streamline reporting processes, possibly reducing administrative burdens. On the other hand, the lack of clarity on changes could create uncertainty about compliance requirements.
The ambiguity surrounding the submission process of public comments might deter involvement from individuals who wish to provide input, which could impede the ANA's ability to gather comprehensive feedback. Ensuring clarity and accessibility in this process is crucial for gaining insights from an array of stakeholders, ultimately improving the implementation and evaluation of projects under the Native American Programs.
In conclusion, while the document aims to enhance the efficiency of the evaluation process of ANA projects, addressing the outlined concerns could further improve transparency and stakeholder engagement.
Issues
• The document does not specify what changes have been made to the Ongoing Progress Report (OPR) and the Objective Work Plan (OWP), which might cause confusion or a lack of transparency.
• There is no detailed explanation or breakdown of the estimated total annual burden hours, which could make it difficult to assess the reasonableness of the 700 hours estimated.
• The document could benefit from providing examples or clearer guidance on what specific data elements were eliminated or clarified in the revised report.
• It might be unclear to stakeholders what specific criteria are used in the evaluation through the OWP information collection that determines the relative merits of the projects.
• There is potential ambiguity in the exact process for submitting comments, as the instructions mention both a website and an email address without clarifying if both methods should be used or if there is a preferred method.