FR 2024-28580

The document from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) outlines the agency's intentions to secure a three-year extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for continuing the collection of workforce demographic data with the State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4). This report is particularly focused on gathering such data from state and local governments that employ 100 or more people. The proposed revisions aim to enhance the EEO-4 report by updating some aspects of the data collection process, specifically salary bands, and introducing changes to make data submission less burdensome. This information is crucial as it assists the EEOC in investigating cases of employment discrimination within these governments and helps the agency in gathering data for broader workforce demographic analysis. The public is invited to share their comments on the proposed changes until January 6, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One notable concern with the document is its lack of clarity regarding the specifics of the proposed revisions. While there is mention of updating salary bands and submission methods, the document does not clearly articulate the nature of these updates or how they will be implemented. This lack of detail could lead to confusion or uncertainty about what is expected from the participating governments.

Another issue is the anticipated increase in the number of respondents. The EEOC projects that the number of filers could rise to 6,607, which suggests that the complexity and volume of data processing could increase significantly. However, the document does not address how the EEOC plans to manage this potential increase in bureaucratic processes to prevent additional costs or inefficiencies.

The document also uses technical language, especially when discussing the respondent burden hours and associated costs. This could make it difficult for a general audience or smaller agencies without legal expertise to fully comprehend the implications of the reporting requirements.

Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders

Broadly speaking, the document and its proposed revisions could lead to changes that affect local and state governments across the United States. For example, updates to salary bands might reflect more accurately the current economic climate, thereby providing a clearer picture of wage disparities across different demographics. This could be beneficial in highlighting areas where employment equity needs to be addressed further.

For state and local government bodies, the increased number of required filing participants implies that more governments will have to comply with the reporting requirements. This could mean having to invest additional resources into ensuring accurate and timely data submission, which could place a strain on smaller governments with limited staffing or administrative capabilities.

The public, especially those interested in employment equity and nondiscrimination, might find the data collection beneficial as it serves as a tool to fight systemic inequalities. However, the lack of stakeholder engagement, evidenced by the absence of comments received during the public consultation period, raises concerns about whether these stakeholders are adequately aware or involved in the process.

Overall, while the EEOC’s intentions to refine and improve the data collection process could lead to more accurate and useful data, potential confusion over the specifics of the revisions and the increased responsibilities for participating governments need careful consideration. Efforts to enhance communication clarity and manage increased participation effectively could mitigate these challenges and contribute to the report’s success and utility.

The document concerns proposed revisions to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) State and Local Government Information Report (EEO-4) and discusses several financial aspects related to this process.

Financial Summary

The document outlines the cost implications associated with the administration of the EEO-4 report. The Respondent Burden Hour Cost is listed at $563,868.27 per biennial collection. This figure represents the total cost incurred by respondents—state and local governments with 100 or more employees—in terms of the hours spent completing the report over the collection period. The Federal Cost associated with the biennial collection is $327,440.12, which reflects the expenses borne by the federal government to manage and process the EEO-4 data.

Relation to Identified Issues

One of the main issues identified is the anticipated increase in the number of filers, which could potentially lead to an increase in bureaucratic processes and associated costs. However, the document does not explicitly address strategies for handling these potential efficiencies or any mechanisms for mitigating rising costs. With a projected increase in filers to 6,607, there may be substantial financial implications, yet the text lacks clarity on how the financial burden associated with this increase will be managed from both the respondent and federal perspectives.

Moreover, while the document calculates an estimated average burden hour cost per report at $85.34, the lack of discussion on measures to reduce this burden and related costs might concern stakeholders. The document asserts that modernizing data collection processes will make it less burdensome for respondents, but it does not provide specific actions or metrics for reducing financial impact in practical terms.

Lastly, the document refers to a negligible burden increase due to updates in salary bands, yet it does not define what constitutes a "negligible" cost in this context, nor does it substantiate how the conclusion was reached. This may leave readers uncertain about the financial accuracy and implications of the changes when the respondent burden is already substantial in monetary terms.

In conclusion, while the document provides specific financial figures related to the EEOC's EEO-4 data collection efforts, it raises questions about efficiency and cost-management strategies amid anticipated increases in participation. The lack of comprehensive explanations about efforts to mitigate financial burdens both from a respondent and governmental perspective suggests room for further transparency and clarification.