Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request-Child Strength Study
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Consumer Product Safety Commission wants to study how strong kids are and has asked for permission to do this. They'll check how strong around 800 small kids are to help make safer toys and things for kids to use.
Summary AI
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is conducting a new study to assess the strength capabilities of children, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. They have submitted a request for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and invite public comments by February 18, 2021. The study, in partnership with the University of Michigan, will collect data from nearly 800 children aged 3 months to 5 years to update strength data that was last gathered over 40 years ago. This information will help improve child safety standards and designs for consumer products.
Abstract
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that CPSC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a new proposed collection of information for a study that will assess the strength capabilities of children. On August 31, 2020, CPSC published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the agency's intent to seek approval of this collection of information. After reviewing and considering the comments CPSC received, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that CPSC has submitted to OMB a request for approval of this collection of information.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register announces that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is conducting a new study to assess the strength capabilities of children. This study, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is in collaboration with the University of Michigan and aims to gather updated strength data from children aged 3 months to 5 years. The CPSC has sought approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and is inviting public comments by February 18, 2021. This initiative intends to update strength data last gathered over 40 years ago to enhance child safety standards and the design of consumer products.
General Summary
The CPSC's study will collect data from nearly 800 children on strength capabilities, focusing on measures like bite strength and the strength of extremities. The information is intended to improve safety standards for children's products, ensuring that they better protect young users. This effort is vital because the last comprehensive data collection in this area occurred over four decades ago, and researchers believe that the updated data will more accurately reflect the current strength capabilities of children.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from this document. Firstly, the choice of the University of Michigan as the study's contractor is not explained, leading to potential questions about whether a competitive bidding process was used to select them. Secondly, the total cost of the contract, $1,134,502, stands out as a substantial expenditure. Without a detailed budget breakdown or justification, this amount may appear excessive to the public.
The study's methodology, although detailed, includes complex terminologies like "static anthropometry" and "functional anthropometry," which might be confusing for general readers. Furthermore, the exclusion of psychometric measures from the study might leave gaps in understanding how children interact with consumer products, thus potentially limiting the study's comprehensiveness.
Impact on the Public
The study's results could significantly impact public safety by providing more accurate data to inform product safety standards and design guidelines aimed at protecting children. This could lead to safer products on the market, reducing the risk of accidents and injuries among young children. However, concerns about budget transparency and the selection of the University of Michigan might lead to public skepticism regarding how taxpayer money is being utilized.
Impact on Stakeholders
For manufacturers and designers of children's products, the updated data could provide a critical resource for developing items that are safer and more suitable for child use. Parents and caregivers might benefit from products that better safeguard their children, leading to increased trust in consumer goods. Conversely, the academic and research community might view the study as an opportunity to use updated data for further research or critical policy development.
In conclusion, while the CPSC's initiative is a positive step towards enhancing child safety, transparency in project execution and clear communication of its methodologies could improve public perception and elucidate the importance and value of such studies.
Financial Assessment
The document details a new study conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to assess the strength capabilities of children. As part of this initiative, several financial allocations and cost references are outlined, which deserve further examination.
Overview of Financial Allocations
The CPSC has contracted the University of Michigan to design and conduct the study, with the contract amounting to $1,134,502. This substantial sum is allocated for the project under the contract number 61320618D0004. Additionally, there are costs associated with government personnel working on the study, estimated at $170,356. These costs are based on 12 staff months at a defined government salary level. Consequently, the total cost to the federal government for conducting this study is $1,304,858.
Breakdown and Context
The expenditure for the contract with the University of Michigan, $1,134,502, may appear high. The document does not detail why the University of Michigan was chosen, potentially raising concerns about the selection process or the lack of competitive bidding. Without a clear justification for such a large contract amount, there might be questions regarding whether the financial outlay is necessary or efficient.
Moreover, a concern arises regarding potential wasteful spending, as indicated by the total projected federal expenditure of $1,304,858. While this figure includes both the contract and government personnel costs, the document does not provide a detailed budget breakdown. This absence of detailed financial explanation might lead to concerns about the necessity and management of such significant funds.
Additional Financial Considerations
The CPSC estimates that the study will engage 3,050 respondents and require a total of 1,813 hours of participation. The monetized hourly cost for an adult caregiver is set at $37.73. This results in an estimated total cost burden of $68,404 for these participants. While these figures reflect the study's logistical requirements, they emphasize the financial scope and its potential impact on the federal budget allocation for such research projects.
Public Interaction with Financial Aspects
The document indicates that public comments were received regarding the study, with suggestions for additional measures. However, it does not specify how financial concerns or suggestions were considered in adjusting the study's design or budget. For instance, although the study addresses hand grip and bite strength, the lack of clarity on why certain psychometric measures are excluded may lead to budgeting decisions left unchecked by public insight.
In summary, while the document outlines critical financial allocations for the Child Strength Study, it lacks specific explanations and justifications for the high expenditure levels, the contractor selection process, and how these funds align with public feedback. Such financial narratives are crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in government-funded initiatives.
Issues
• The document does not elaborate on why the University of Michigan was chosen as the contractor, leaving potential concerns about favoritism or lack of competitive bidding.
• The cost of the contract with the University of Michigan is $1,134,502, which may appear high without sufficient justification for why this specific amount is necessary.
• The text includes specific technical terminologies, such as 'static anthropometry' and 'functional anthropometry,' which might not be easily understood by the general public.
• The level of detail in the description of the methodology and intended data collection processes might be overwhelming for lay readers, leading to potential misunderstanding of the project's scope and purpose.
• Potential wasteful spending could be suggested by the total estimated cost to the federal government of $1,304,858, which is substantial, but the rationale for this expenditure in terms of detailed budget breakdown is not provided.
• There might be a lack of clarity on why certain psychometric measures are excluded from the study, potentially leaving gaps in understanding children's interactions with consumer products.
• The paper mentions updating the data 40 years after the initial studies were conducted, which might raise questions about the timeliness and urgency of conducting such studies more frequently.
• Although the document provides responses to public comments, it does not detail how these considerations affected the final study design, if at all, which might suggest a lack of responsiveness to public input.