FR 2025-05337

The document under review is a notice from the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically the Office on Violence Against Women. It announces the DOJ's plan to submit an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The request seeks to extend a collection effort tied to the Disability Grant Program, an initiative aimed at combating violence against women with disabilities by providing necessary support and training. This program involves various grantees, including state and local governments as well as tribal and private organizations, who are required to submit progress reports twice a year.

Summary of the Document

The primary aim of the notice is to gather public comments on the proposed information collection, which is part of ensuring compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited until April 28, 2025. Grantees participating in the program are expected to submit semiannual progress reports that detail their activities, an effort estimated to require one hour per report. The document notes an estimated total annual hour burden of 36 hours across all respondents.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Some issues in the document could impact its clarity and effectiveness:

• Repetitiveness: The document mentions twice the estimate of the annual hour burden, which is cited as 36 hours. This repetition could be streamlined for better readability.

• Technical Language: Terms such as "ICR" (Information Collection Request) and specific instructions for navigating the federal website may be difficult for those without a regulatory background to understand. Simplified explanations could aid comprehension.

• Cost Clarification: The notice indicates an estimated government cost of $2016 related to reviewing progress reports. However, it is unclear whether this figure includes all administrative tasks involved or if it represents only a portion.

Impact on the Public

The document's impact on the general public might seem limited at first glance, as it directly concerns entities involved in the Disability Grant Program. However, the broader implications are significant, as the program addresses crucial social issues such as violence against women with disabilities. Public comments can help shape how efficiently and effectively these programs operate, potentially improving services and outcomes for affected individuals.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders directly involved with the program—mainly grantees that include various government and non-government organizations—the notice signifies an ongoing obligation to submit detailed progress reports. These reports are critical for monitoring the program's success and efficacy.

Positive Impacts: Stakeholders may find potential benefits in extended contributions to a program that addresses violence and abuse, which could lead to improved resources and training for combating such issues.

Negative Impacts: The burden of compliance, including the time and resources required for regular reporting, may strain some smaller organizations, especially if technical language complicates understanding of requirements.

In conclusion, while the document signifies routine administrative processes for an established grant program, its focus on gathering public input underscores the importance of active civic engagement in shaping policies aimed at protecting vulnerable populations. Simplification of language and clearer explanations of technical aspects may improve accessibility and participation.

The document under review references an estimated annual cost burden associated with the administrative procedures carried out by the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) staff. Specifically, the annualized costs to the Federal Government resulting from the OVW staff review of progress reports submitted by grantees are estimated to be $2016. This expenditure is presumably for the purpose of reviewing and processing the semiannual progress reports submitted by the grantees under the Disability Grant Program.

The specific costs outlined in the document relate to the staff time and resources needed to review these progress reports. However, there is some ambiguity surrounding whether this $2016 figure accounts for the entire scope of administrative tasks involved in the review process, or if it pertains only to a specific portion of the evaluation by the OVW staff. Without additional clarification, it remains uncertain if this figure comprehensively covers all potential administrative expenses, including report analysis, follow-up procedures, or other associated tasks.

Furthermore, the document mentions that the progress reports are completed by approximately 18 grantees, each investing about one hour to fulfill this requirement twice yearly, resulting in a total of 36 hours of annual grantee effort. This data might help evaluate the proportionality of the $2016 expenditure in relation to the amount of work generated by these reports and whether it is efficiently allocated to properly sustain the administrative review process.

Additionally, the document could benefit from clearer language and less repetition when discussing financial allocations. For instance, the total annual hour burden is mentioned twice, which may confuse the financial interpretation related to calculating staff hours required for the review. Simplifying the presentation of these facts could enhance the reader’s understanding of how financial resources are allocated and utilized.

Overall, the financial references included in the document highlight a specific budgetary commitment to ensuring the effective oversight of grant program progress reports. Greater clarity on how these funds are precisely used would provide a better understanding of their sufficiency and efficiency in supporting the program's administrative needs.