FR 2021-03134

The document is a notice from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), an agency under the National Foundation for the Arts and the Humanities. It has submitted a request for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to embark on a three-year plan aimed at pre-testing surveys. This initiative seeks to enhance the quality and usability of data collection tools, ensuring that data is reported efficiently and accurately, with minimal burden on respondents.

General Overview

The IMLS is focusing on improving its survey techniques by using methods such as focus groups, cognitive laboratory activities, and usability testing, but this requires the approval of the OMB. Public comments are solicited, particularly regarding the necessity, accuracy, and burden of the proposed data collection. Interested parties have until March 16, 2021, to provide their feedback either online or through the mail.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One issue with the document is its lack of a detailed financial plan. While it states the total annual federal costs at $145,000 and the annual cost burden at $18,915, it provides no specifics on how these funds will be used. This lack of transparency may raise concerns about potential financial inefficiencies or favoritism.

Furthermore, the technical language used to describe survey methodologies, including terms like "cognitive laboratory activities" and "usability testing," might be daunting for readers unfamiliar with these concepts. Providing clear explanations or examples would be helpful for broader understanding and engagement.

Additionally, the document mentions a previous 60-Day Notice that received no public comments. The notice does not analyze or provide reasons for this lack of response, which could suggest inadequate communication with potential stakeholders.

Another point of concern is the apparent outdated timeframe, as the clearance mentions "2020-2023," yet comments are solicited for 2021, indicating possible discrepancies in planning or execution timelines.

Public Impact

The general public could be affected by this notice mainly through improved data collection processes leading to more informed decision-making by the IMLS. Better surveys can mean more effective policies and programs that benefit museums and libraries, which, in turn, enrich community access to educational and cultural resources.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders—which include state, local, and tribal governments, as well as libraries and museums—the proposed initiative may lead to more efficient reporting processes with less administrative burden. This could free up time and resources for these entities to focus on service delivery instead of data submission.

However, without clear communication or understanding of the benefits and processes involved, stakeholders may be hesitant to engage fully with these efforts. Therefore, the success of the program also hinges on IMLS's ability to clearly convey the advantages and support processes to those affected.

In conclusion, while the document outlines a plan to improve survey techniques through pre-testing, the lack of detail and clear communication may hinder its acceptance and implementation. By addressing these concerns, the IMLS can ensure that its efforts are supported and leveraged to maximum effect.

The document in question outlines financial allocations linked to a proposal for pre-testing surveys by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). This proposal is related to minimizing the burdens of survey data collection and enhancing the quality and usability of collected information.

Financial Overview

The document states two main financial figures: $145,000 as the Total Annual Federal Costs and $18,915 as the Total Annual Cost Burden. These amounts reflect the projected financial resources required for supporting the various activities involved in pre-testing surveys and improving their methodologies over a three-year period from 2020 to 2023.

Financial Allocations and Issues

A key concern is the lack of a detailed breakdown of these financial references. The document notes the total sums involved but fails to specify how these funds will be allocated across different activities. Without clarification on where and how these funds will be utilized, it becomes difficult to assess whether these allocations are efficient or if there's potential for unproductive expenditure.

Moreover, while the document describes the proposed use of various specialized techniques in pre-testing surveys—such as cognitive laboratory activities and usability testing of electronic data collection instruments—it lacks details on how the allocated funds will support these specific activities. The technical language used may be challenging for some readers, suggesting a potential barrier to understanding how funds contribute to these experimental techniques and what outcomes are anticipated.

Conclusion

In summary, the financial figures of $145,000 and $18,915 are central to understanding the investment in pre-testing surveys. However, the document would benefit from a more detailed accounting of how these funds are distributed among the proposed activities. Greater transparency in financial allocations would allow stakeholders to more effectively assess the efficacy and appropriateness of the proposed expenditures. Additionally, clearer communication about how these financial resources enhance survey methodologies could improve understanding and garner more informed feedback from the public.