FR 2024-28169

The document, titled "Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection: Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems (SSCHIS)," published by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, aims to gather feedback from the public regarding a revision to an existing data collection initiative. It seeks comments on the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, which evaluates the functioning and effectiveness of state criminal history record systems. Public comments will be accepted until January 2, 2025.

General Summary

This notice announces the DOJ's intention to revise an existing collection, the SSCHIS, to improve the quality and utility of the data it gathers. It calls for input from state, local, and tribal governments to understand better how criminal history records are maintained and shared. The survey is biennial, focusing on aspects such as automated record percentages and interstate data exchanges via national fingerprint systems. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide feedback on whether the data collection is necessary, the burden it imposes on respondents, and any potential improvements.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several significant issues arise from the document:

1. Cost Burden: While it mentions an estimated annual other costs burden of $84,440, the document lacks a detailed explanation or breakdown justifying this figure. This absence of detail may lead to questions regarding the appropriateness and necessity of such costs.

2. Annual Reporting Ambiguity: The survey is conducted biennially, yet the document presents annual estimates for time and cost burdens. This discrepancy could create confusion regarding why such details are projected annually from a biennial survey.

3. Vague Audience Definitions: The term "Affected Public" is used broadly without specifying which specific agencies or levels of government within the state, local, and tribal categories will be involved. Greater specificity could enhance understanding and targeted engagement.

4. Complex Language: The language employed in the supplementary information section is technical and dense, potentially hindering comprehension by the general public. Simplification or additional explanation may be required for broader public understanding.

5. Lack of Electronic Submission Details: While the document expresses an intention to minimize respondent burden through electronic submission, it does not specify the methods or platforms recommended or available, leaving stakeholders without clear guidance.

Impact on the Public

Overall, the document represents a routine process for ensuring governmental data collection initiatives are effective and efficient. From a broad public perspective, this initiative has minimal direct daily impact. However, it contributes to broader efforts of transparency and effective governance concerning criminal history records.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For state, local, and tribal governments likely to be involved, the revision of this survey may necessitate adjustments in how they manage and report on criminal history data. This could mean adopting new technologies or processes, which might bring about resource and time management challenges. Conversely, the potential improvements in data accuracy and utility may benefit these entities in the long term by enhancing their criminal justice systems' effectiveness.

In conclusion, while the DOJ seeks to enhance its data collection processes, clear communication and detailed information remain crucial for engaging and assisting the involved stakeholders effectively. Addressing the issues identified could facilitate more meaningful feedback and successful data collection outcomes.

The document presented is a notice from the Department of Justice regarding the Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems (SSCHIS). This survey is a part of the Bureau of Justice Statistics' ongoing efforts to gather data on state criminal history record systems. One particular section of this notice addresses financial implications associated with conducting this survey.

Financial References and Allocations

The document provides limited financial detail, specifically mentioning a "total estimated annual other costs burden" of $84,440. However, the notice does not supply a breakdown or detailed justification for this financial figure. This lack of detailed financial explanation may hinder a comprehensive understanding of what the costs encompass, making it challenging to evaluate whether this estimate is appropriate or necessary for the effective execution of the survey.

Relationship to Identified Issues

One noted issue is the absence of clarity surrounding why these costs are reported on an annual basis when the survey itself is conducted biennially. Typically, when engaging in such periodic surveys, one would expect the cost estimates to align with the frequency of the activity, i.e., biennially in this case. The disconnect between the survey's operational timeline and how costs are reported may cause confusion about the utilization of resources or the accumulated burden over time.

Furthermore, the broad categorization under "Affected Public" without indicating specific government entities involved could obscure the context of how these costs, totaling $84,440 annually, are allocated among different parties. Greater specificity regarding who bears these financial burdens could add clarity to the financial narrative presented in the notice.

Lastly, while the document does refer to initiatives to minimize response burdens through technological means, it lacks explicit details on how these electronic solutions would factor into the costs. This omission may leave respondents uncertain about whether their participation will incur additional expenses, or how these potentially helpful technologies are considered as part of the total estimated costs.

In conclusion, while the notice includes an estimated annual costs burden, the document would benefit from more detailed financial reporting and clearer connections between the survey's frequency, affected parties, and technological strategies to enhance transparency and understandability for the general public.