Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and approval; Comment Request; Application for Grants Under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Master's Degree Program
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is asking people to share their thoughts on a plan to help certain schools (called Historically Black Colleges and Universities) get money for masters degree programs that help African Americans learn more about science and technology. They want to know if people think this plan is useful and if it takes too much time and effort for schools to apply for the money.
Summary AI
The Department of Education is inviting public comments regarding the reinstatement of a data collection activity without changes under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection concerns applications for grants under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Master's Degree Program, which aims to improve educational opportunities at the master's level for African Americans in specific fields like science and technology. Comments should be submitted by March 1, 2021, and the program offers grants for up to six years to qualified institutions that significantly contribute to graduate education for African Americans. The Department is interested in public opinions on the necessity, usefulness, and potential burden of this data collection effort.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved collection.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The Department of Education has issued a notice inviting public comments on the proposed reinstatement of a data collection activity related to grant applications under the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Master's Degree Program. This program, originating from the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, aims to enhance master's level educational opportunities for African Americans in fields such as science, technology, and allied health. The intended outcome is to boost contributions these institutions make to graduate education for African Americans, providing grants for up to six years to eligible institutions.
General Summary
The focus of the notice is the reinstatement of the collection process for information from entities interested in applying for these grants. This process aims to ensure that applications for the HBCU Master's Degree Program can be effectively evaluated and that such programs receive the support they need to thrive. Interested parties are encouraged to submit their comments by March 1, 2021.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A few notable issues are apparent in the document. Firstly, it lacks specific criteria for how the Department decides which institutions are substantially contributing to graduate education. This absence may lead to ambiguity or the perception of subjective decision-making.
The estimated 306 annual burden hours for the 18 respondents could suggest inefficiencies in the process that would add significant workload to each applicant. Streamlining processes might help in reducing this burden and making the process more efficient.
Moreover, while the document references several legal acts and numbers, it does not provide sufficient explanations for them. This may leave those unfamiliar with such terms, like the Paperwork Reduction Act or the OMB Control Number, somewhat confused.
Impact on the Public
Generally, the outcome of this initiative is positive, intending to bolster educational opportunities for African Americans at HBCUs, potentially leading to increased representation in crucial fields like science and technology. This goal aligns with broader societal objectives of diversity and inclusion in higher education and related careers.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For the stakeholders directly involved, including HBCUs, state, local, and tribal governments, this initiative promises additional funding avenues. Eligible institutions could benefit significantly from the financial support, allowing them to strengthen or establish master's programs, hence enhancing their educational offerings.
However, the note of caution remains with the administrative burden the application process could place on participants. Clarification of criteria and possible reduction of bureaucratic hurdles might improve participation and successful funding outcomes. Overall, while promising, the program's success could hinge on these procedural improvements and clear communication from the Department.
Issues
• The document does not specify the criteria used by the Department to determine which institutions are making a 'substantial contribution' to graduate education opportunities, which may seem vague and open to subjective interpretation.
• The estimated burden of 306 annual hours for 18 respondents could appear high relative to the number of responses, indicating potential inefficiencies.
• The document mentions the collection being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections, but does not elaborate on how this process affects the grant application process, which may lead to confusion.
• The inclusion of many references to legal acts and numbers (e.g., PRA, OMB Control Number, etc.) without explanations might make the text difficult to understand for readers unfamiliar with such terminology.