Overview
Title
60-Day Notice for the “ArtsHERE Grant Program Forms” Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The National Endowment for the Arts wants to make sure collecting information from people who get and help with arts grants is easier and not too much work. They want people to tell them if their new plan is a good idea, and they want comments within 60 days.
Summary AI
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is seeking public comments for a proposed update to the way it collects information from subgrantees and technical assistance providers under the ArtsHERE grant program. This effort is part of a broader initiative to minimize paperwork, ensure data is collected efficiently, and reduce the burden on respondents. The NEA welcomes feedback on the necessity, accuracy, quality, and burden of the proposed information collection methods, especially those that might incorporate technology. Comments should be submitted within 60 days from the notice's publication date in the Federal Register.
Abstract
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the NEA is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of collections of subgrantee information and technical assistance provider information for the ArtsHERE grant program. A copy of the current information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is inviting public comments about proposed changes to how it collects information from its ArtsHERE grant program participants, specifically subgrantees and technical assistance providers. This is part of the NEA's broader effort to streamline the paperwork process, efficiently gather necessary data, and reduce the time and resources needed from respondents for information submissions. The request for comments aligns with the requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, aimed at minimizing the paperwork burden for individuals and entities who interact with federal agencies.
General Summary
The NEA is proposing revisions to its information collection processes as part of the ArtsHERE grant program. The announcement serves to welcome feedback from the general public, particularly regarding the necessity, utility, quality, and the potential burden of the new data collection methodologies. There is an emphasis on incorporating technology to lessen the effort required from respondents. Comments are requested to be submitted within 60 days from the publication date of this notice.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Ambiguity in Program Details: The document lacks detailed information regarding the specific nature of the ArtsHERE grant program, which might leave potential respondents uncertain about the scope or objectives of the data collection efforts.
Lack of Specifics on Data Collection: There is an absence of detailed descriptions about the type of information that will be collected. This might cause concerns about the potential invasiveness or the extent of the data collection.
No Concrete Metrics: The proposed changes do not come with clear metrics or data demonstrating how the revisions might lead to reduced paperwork or savings in time and resources for respondents.
Undefined Stakeholders: The role and identity of the 'technical assistance provider' are not clearly defined, which could be crucial for participants to understand their involvement or impact in the program's operations.
Vague Utilization of Collected Data: There is limited information about how the collected data will be used beyond the mention of aiding the agency's proper performance. This can lead to hesitations or doubts about the broader objectives of the data collection.
Lack of Stated Benefits: The document does not articulate the potential benefits or expected outcomes from the proposed revisions, which could otherwise help justify the changes to current grant procedures.
Broad Public Impact
The proposed revisions may encourage greater participation and input from those involved in the grant process by potentially simplifying the data submission requirements. The focus on minimizing burden and utilizing technology could make interactions with the NEA more efficient, possibly freeing up time for more substantive activities.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Grant Recipients and Applicants: These stakeholders might experience an easier application and reporting process if the revisions lead to reduced paperwork and processing times, making grant resources more accessible.
Technical Assistance Providers: Without clear definitions or roles provided, these stakeholders might face uncertainties about their responsibilities or how their data will be used, impacting their willingness to engage or fully participate.
Data Collection and Privacy Advocates: The lack of specific data use details and collection methods might raise privacy concerns among these groups, prompting calls for greater transparency and data protection assurances.
In conclusion, while the NEA's initiative to streamline its information collection processes is commendable, the notice could benefit from clearer communication regarding the specifics of the ArtsHERE grant program, the data collected, and the potential impacts of the revisions on all involved stakeholders.
Issues
• The document does not specify the exact nature or domains of the 'ArtsHERE grant program,' potentially leaving room for ambiguity in understanding what the collection entails.
• There is no mention of what specific information will be collected, leaving it unclear how invasive or burdensome the data collection might be for respondents.
• The document does not provide any specific metrics or data to validate the proposed revision of collections, such as specific reduction in paperwork or time savings data.
• No information is given about who the 'technical assistance provider' is, which might be relevant for understanding the scope and impact of the program.
• The document does not specify any indication of how the collected information will be used beyond mentioning the 'proper performance of functions of the agency' which could be seen as vaguely defined.
• There is no information about potential impacts or benefits of the changes to the grant program, which could help justify the revisions proposed.