Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; New Collection
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Justice wants to collect reports from schools to see how they use money to make campuses safer for women, and they're asking if anyone has thoughts on this plan. They will ask about 100 schools to fill out a short report twice a year.
Summary AI
The Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) plans to submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of an information collection in line with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection involves a Semi-Annual Progress Report for the Campus Program, which grants funds to educational institutions to reduce violent crimes against women on campuses. Approximately 100 grantee institutions will provide data twice a year, with each report taking about an hour to complete. Public comments on this proposal are being accepted until February 25, 2021.
Abstract
The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under review is a notice from the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). Its purpose is to announce the intent to submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval of an information collection activity as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The specific activity involves a Semi-Annual Progress Report related to grants aimed at reducing violent crimes against women on campuses. This is part of a program designed to help educational institutions enhance victim services and bolster security measures against crimes such as domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Summary of the Document
The notice informs that approximately 100 grantee institutions will be required to submit data twice annually, with each report taking about an hour to fill out. The Department is currently seeking public comments on the proposed information collection process, with the deadline for these comments being February 25, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from this document:
Eligibility and Award Process Ambiguity: The document mentions the Campus Program but fails to provide information on how grants are awarded or what criteria are used for eligibility. This lack of transparency could give rise to concerns over potential bias or favoritism in the grant allocation process.
Report Complexity: While it outlines that the report is segmented into various activity types, there is no detailed explanation of these sections. This lack of clarity might result in confusion for those completing the reports.
Public Comment Integration: The document calls for public comments focused on four key areas yet does not specify how these will be utilized or if they will bring about any substantive changes.
Definition of Affected Public: The term "affected public" is used but seems to only reference the 100 grantees without further clarification, possibly overlooking other stakeholders who may be impacted indirectly.
Bureaucratic Language: The document utilizes terminology typical of bureaucratic communication, which may be difficult for those not versed in governmental processes to comprehend.
Broad Impact on the Public
This notice primarily impacts institutions of higher education that apply for and receive grants. It seeks to enhance campus safety and support services for women, which is a positive endeavor affecting students, faculty, and staff. The proposal, however, could also impact taxpayers, as federal funds are used to support the grants and the processes involved in managing these programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For educational institutions, this notice signifies additional administrative responsibilities in reporting and compliance, which may allocate resources away from other activities. However, the primary beneficiaries—students and campus communities—stand to gain from improved safety and support systems. Ultimately, effective implementation and transparent processes could result in greatly enhanced on-campus safety.
For policymakers and oversight bodies, the inclusion of a public comment period proposes an opportunity to engage with the public and refine the policies based on stakeholder feedback. The effectiveness of this engagement is contingent upon how well these comments are integrated into the final approval process.
In summary, while the initiative paves the way for potentially impactful improvements in campus safety for women, the absence of detailed information raises questions about the clarity and effectiveness of its execution.
Issues
• The document lacks a clear explanation of how the 'Campus Program' grants are awarded and what criteria are used to determine eligibility, leaving room for ambiguity regarding potential bias or favoritism in the grant award process.
• The document does not provide detailed information on the specific types of activities or sections within the semi-annual progress report, which might lead to confusion among grantees completing the report.
• The 'Supplementary Information' section suggests that comments should focus on four specific points, but does not clarify how these comments will be taken into account or if they will result in any concrete changes or actions.
• The term 'affected public' is used, but the document does not clearly define what this term encompasses beyond the 100 grantees, which may lead to ambiguity.
• The document includes bureaucratic language, such as 'information collection request' and 'burden of the proposed collection,' which may be challenging for individuals not familiar with governmental processes to understand.