Overview
Title
Request for Information: Evidence-Building Activities
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Homeland Security wants people's help with ideas to make their plans and rules better. They are asking for suggestions until the end of March.
Summary AI
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is reopening and extending the period for public comments on a request for information (RFI) to guide evidence-building activities. This is in accordance with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, which mandates federal agencies like DHS to develop plans that address strategic and policy questions through evidence and data. The public is encouraged to provide suggestions that could help DHS enhance the effectiveness of its strategies, policies, and programs. Comments can be submitted until March 31, 2021, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Abstract
The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 requires federal agencies to develop evidence-building plans to identify and address questions relevant to Agency strategy, programs, policies, regulations, management, and operations. On November 9, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a request for information (RFI) soliciting input from the public regarding potential priority questions that can guide evidence-building activities by. DHS is reopening and extending the comment period for the RFI.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a Request for Information (RFI) from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), originally posted on November 9, 2020. This RFI forms part of compliance with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018. The Act mandates federal agencies to develop plans aimed at addressing crucial strategic and policy questions using data-driven evidence. Recently, the DHS extended the deadline for public commentary until March 31, 2021, to ensure a broader public engagement. Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Summary of the Document
The DHS is soliciting input from the public to help shape its evidence-building activities. This process involves collecting data and insights that will guide the agency in making informed decisions about its programs, policies, and operations. By reopening the comment period, DHS aims to capture a wide variety of perspectives, which is essential for comprehensive policy development.
Issues and Concerns
There are several notable issues within this document. Firstly, the document does not mention any specific budget or financial allocations pertaining to the evidence-building plan. This lack of financial detail makes it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending. Additionally, there is no clarification on which organizations or individuals might benefit from these activities, raising concerns about potential favoritism.
The complex language and statutory references within the document could pose comprehension challenges for the general public. This complexity may hinder effective engagement from individuals lacking legal expertise. Furthermore, while the document underscores the importance of public involvement, it does not clearly articulate how the public's input will influence the evidence-building plans, leading to possible perceptions of ambiguity or insufficient transparency.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
Broadly, the document has the potential to empower the public by providing them an opportunity to partake in shaping DHS strategies, policies, and operations. The extension of the comment period allows more individuals and organizations the chance to contribute, potentially leading to policies that better reflect public needs and aspirations.
However, the impact on specific stakeholders is less clear. Without detailed information on how data will be used and who will benefit, it's challenging to predict the implications for particular groups or sectors. Stakeholders in the public safety, research, and data fields may see positive effects if the evidence-building activities lead to more effective and efficient DHS operations.
Overall, while the DHS's measures to engage the public seem positive, the document would benefit from more detailed guidance on public influence and transparency in the decision-making process.
Issues
• The document discusses an extension of a Request for Information (RFI) period but does not specify any potential budget or financial allocations, making it difficult to identify if there could be any wasteful spending.
• There is no information on any specific organizations or individuals that might benefit from the evidence-building activities, which could be a point of concern if there is potential favoritism.
• The language used in the document is complex, largely due to the statutory references and formal language, which might be difficult for the general public to fully comprehend without specific legal or governmental knowledge.
• The expectation for public engagement is stated, but the document does not provide clear guidelines on how the public's input will directly impact the evidence-building plan, which might be seen as ambiguous or lacking in transparency.