[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 78 (Monday, April 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22064-22066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08634]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-7034-N-23]


30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: The Outcomes 
Evaluation of the Choice Neighborhoods Program; OMB Control No. 2528-
New

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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 30 days of public comment.

DATES: Comments Due Date: May 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding 
this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed 
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of 
this notice to [email protected] or www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting 
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using 
the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management 
Officer, QMAC, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th 
Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email her at [email protected] or 
telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Person with 
hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by 
calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies 
of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs the public that HUD is 
seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in 
Section A. The Federal Register notice that solicited public comment on 
the information collection for a period of 60 days was published on 
June 1, 2020 at 85 FR 33189.

A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: The Outcomes Evaluation of the 
Choice Neighborhoods Program.
    OMB Approval Number: 2528-New.
    Type of Request: New collection.

[[Page 22065]]

    Form Number: NA.
    Description of the need for the information and proposed use:
    This request is for the collection of information for an outcomes 
evaluation of the Choice Neighborhoods Program (Choice). Choice 
leverages significant public and private dollars to support locally 
driven strategies that address struggling neighborhoods with distressed 
public or HUD-assisted housing through a comprehensive approach to 
neighborhood transformation; local leaders, residents, and stakeholders 
come together to create and implement a plan that revitalizes 
distressed HUD housing and addresses the challenges in the surrounding 
neighborhood.
    Launched in 2010, Choice provides direct investments through 
competitive grants targeted to neighborhoods marked by high rates of 
poverty with distressed public or HUD-assisted housing. Today, Choice 
remains one of HUD's primary tools to support planning and 
implementation efforts to catalyze redevelopment efforts in cities 
across the nation.
    Under contract with HUD's Office of Policy Development and 
Research, the Urban Institute (Urban) is conducting an evaluation of 
Choice, focusing on the neighborhoods that received grants in 2011 and 
2013: Quincy Corridor neighborhood in Boston, Massachusetts; Woodlawn 
neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois; Iberville/Trem[eacute] neighborhood 
in New Orleans, Louisiana; Eastern Bayview neighborhood in San 
Francisco, California; Yesler neighborhood in Seattle, Washington; Near 
East Side neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio; South Norwalk neighborhood in 
Norwalk, Connecticut; North Central Philadelphia neighborhood in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Larimer/East Liberty neighborhood in 
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The overarching goal of the current 
evaluation is to understand the impact of the Choice program and the 
investment it brings, with an emphasis on understanding the first 
cohort of grantees, funded in 2011 and four additional grantees from 
the third cohort of grantees, funded in 2013.
    The evaluation will use qualitative and quantitative methods to 
answer the following overarching research question: Whether public and 
private dollars were successfully leveraged to (1) replace distressed 
public and assisted housing with high-quality mixed-income housing that 
is well-managed and responsive to the needs of the surrounding 
neighborhood, (2) improve outcomes for households in the target 
housing, including employment and income, health, and education, and 
(3) create the conditions necessary for public and private reinvestment 
in distressed neighborhoods to improve amenities and assets. The 
evaluation is a follow-up to an initial evaluation completed by Urban 
in 2016, and will employ analysis of administrative/secondary data, 
including HUD data, as well as primary data collection in the form of a 
large household survey of households living in the Choice sites, and 
interviews and observations from stakeholders regarding the Choice 
program. In total, Urban expects to field the survey to up to 2,388 
Choice residents and contact 275 respondents for qualitative 
interviews. This information is necessary to evaluate Choice and to 
understand differences across sites, over time, in different types of 
HUD-assisted housing, by grantee type, and for different contextual 
conditions.
    Respondents: Residents who are living in Choice Neighborhoods 
(Choice) sites in the Quincy Corridor neighborhood in Boston, 
Massachusetts; Woodlawn neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois; Iberville/
Trem[eacute] neighborhood in New Orleans, Louisiana; Eastern Bayview 
neighborhood in San Francisco, California; Yesler neighborhood in 
Seattle, Washington; Near East Side neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio; 
South Norwalk neighborhood in Norwalk, Connecticut; North Central 
Philadelphia neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Larimer/
East Liberty neighborhood in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as well as 
stakeholders who were, or remain, engaged with the Choice program. 
Stakeholders include the lead grantee, implementation leads for 
housing, people, and neighborhood pillars, HUD managers of Choice 
grants, city agency officials and staff, public housing and affordable-
housing property management staff, housing developers, early education 
providers, case management providers, other service providers, 
community and resident leaders, local police precinct commanders, and 
staff from local anchor institutions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                      Annual    Hourly cost
              Information collection                  Number of     Frequency  of   Responses per   Burden  hour      burden        per          Cost
                                                     respondents      response          annum       per  response     hours       response
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household survey.................................           2,388               1           2,388             .58     1,385.04       $17.00   $23,545.68
Interviews with resident leaders.................               5               1               5             1.5          7.5        17.00       127.50
Interviews with High-level informants: Lead                    45               1              45             1.5         67.5        42.30     2,855.25
 grantees, City officials and staff..............
Interviews with HUD staff........................              18               1              18             1.5           27        75.82     2,047.14
Interviews with housing informants: Housing                    54               1              54             1.5           81        35.39     2,866.59
 implementation lead, Housing developers, Public
 housing and affordable-housing property
 management staff................................
Interviews with people informants: People                      63               1               1             1.5         94.5        23.92     2,260.44
 implementation lead, Case management staff,
 Other service providers.........................
Interviews with education informants: Education                27               1               1             1.5         40.5        23.92       968.76
 implementation lead, education implementation
 staff...........................................
Interviews with Neighborhood informants:                       63               1               1             1.5         94.5        35.52     3,356.64
 Implementation lead, Local police precinct
 commanders, Local anchor institution staff,
 Community leaders...............................
                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................           2,663  ..............  ..............  ..............     1,797.54  ...........    38,028.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and 
affected parties concerning the collection of information described in 
Section A on the following:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;

[[Page 22066]]

    (2) If the information will be processed and used in a timely 
manner;
    (3) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information;
    (4) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to 
these questions.

C. Authority

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35.

Anna P. Guido,
Department Reports Management Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-08634 Filed 4-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P