Overview
Title
Pre-Screening Interview Questionnaire Form
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection wants to collect information from people who want to work in law enforcement to see if they are suitable before giving them a lie detector test. They want to hear what people think about this new form, but some things about how it works are unclear, like what could make someone fail the first test or how people without the internet can give their feedback.
Summary AI
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), part of the Department of Homeland Security, has announced a plan to collect information as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. They are seeking public comments on a new information collection named the Pre-Screening Interview Questionnaire Form, which is part of the selection process for law enforcement candidates. The aim is to assess candidate suitability prior to a mandatory polygraph test, with feedback requested to improve the collection process. The CBP estimates that 20,000 individuals will respond to this form annually, leading to a total of 200,000 responses and requiring roughly 6,667 hours of collective effort from respondents each year.
Abstract
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 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 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document under discussion is a notice from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a part of the Department of Homeland Security. It outlines the agency's intention to initiate a new information collection process, titled the "Pre-Screening Interview Questionnaire Form." This initiative is carried out under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and aims to enhance the selection process for law enforcement candidates. By gathering pre-interview information, the CBP seeks to assess the suitability of candidates before they are subjected to a mandatory polygraph examination. Public comments on this process are being solicited to refine and improve the information collection strategy.
Summary of the Document
The primary objective of the action is to streamline the process of evaluating law enforcement candidates and identify those with the highest probability of successfully passing a polygraph exam, a requirement under the Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010. The document details procedural aspects such as the method of submission for public comments, the estimated number of respondents, and the annual burden hours associated with this information collection. It also reflects efforts by the CBP to align with pandemic-related restrictions by moving towards electronic submission processes.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One notable concern is the lack of transparency regarding the criteria that define which candidates have the "best probability" of passing the polygraph examination. Without explicit qualifications, this could lead to ambiguity and subjectivity in the selection process, potentially affecting the fairness and integrity of candidate evaluations.
Additionally, there appears to be a possible miscalculation in the estimated total annual burden hours. Given the parameters of 20,000 respondents, each contributing 10 responses annually with each response taking 2 minutes, the calculations should be revisited for accuracy. This discrepancy might imply an oversight that could affect how stakeholders perceive the workload required.
Moreover, the document mentions that due to COVID-19 restrictions, CBP will not receive public comments by mail. However, it does not account for individuals who may lack access to electronic submission methods, thereby unintentionally excluding a segment of the population from participating in the comment process.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the document illustrates CBP's intentions to use technology and public input to improve its vetting processes for law enforcement positions. While the solicitation of public comments is a commendable aspect, it is essential to ensure that all interested parties have adequate access to contribute, particularly those impacted by digital barriers.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For potential law enforcement candidates, this information collection represents an additional layer of scrutiny in the recruitment process. This could either be reassuring for those confident in their eligibility or daunting for candidates uncertain about the "disqualifying responses."
For existing CBP personnel involved in recruitment, the new collection aims to optimize resources, ensuring that polygraph examinations are reserved for the most promising candidates. However, these stakeholders might face challenges if the criteria for evaluation remain unclear or if the burden estimates prove inaccurate, thus complicating logistical planning.
In conclusion, while the initiative seeks to improve candidate vetting and conserve resources, addressing the transparency of criteria and ensuring inclusivity in the public commenting process are vital elements that require further attention.
Issues
• The document does not specify the specific qualifications or criteria that determine the 'best probability' of successfully completing the polygraph exam, which could lead to ambiguity and a lack of transparency in candidate selection.
• The estimated total annual burden hours calculation appears to be incorrect. With 20,000 respondents, each providing 10 annual responses at 2 minutes per response, the calculation should be verified to ensure accuracy.
• The document states 'Due to COVID-19-related restrictions, CBP has temporarily suspended its ability to receive public comments by mail.' but does not provide an alternative for those who may be unable to submit comments electronically, which might exclude certain individuals from participating in the comment process.
• The abstract and summary sections repeat similar information, leading to redundancy, which could be streamlined for clarity.
• There is no clear explanation of what constitutes 'disqualifying responses' as part of the pre-screening interview process, leading to potential subjectivity or bias in the screening process.