Overview
Title
Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Navy wants to know if people think it's helpful to ask families about how they handle being apart when Navy members go on trips for work, and they want ideas on how to make asking these questions easier and less time-consuming. They're also checking to make sure people's private details are kept safe when they share their thoughts.
Summary AI
The Department of the Navy, part of the Department of Defense, is seeking public comments on a proposed information collection related to the Navy Family Ombudsman Program. This program involves selecting a volunteer Ombudsman, usually a spouse of a Navy member, to help with communication and support for families, especially during deployments or crises. The Navy is asking if this information collection is necessary and how it can be improved or made less burdensome. Comments will be considered until February 10, 2025, and feedback is encouraged to enhance the efficiency and utility of the program.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commander, Navy Installation Command announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Document
The document is a notice from the Department of the Navy, under the Department of Defense, announcing a proposal for collecting information as part of the Navy Family Ombudsman Program. This program is designed to facilitate communication and support for Navy families, especially during deployments or crises, by selecting volunteer Ombudsmen from the spouses of active duty or Selected Reserve members. Public comments on the necessity and efficiency of this information collection are being solicited, with a deadline for feedback set for February 10, 2025.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues arise from the document that may be of concern to the public and require further clarification. Firstly, there is a lack of detail regarding the efficiency of the information collection process. Specifically, the document does not address what measures will be undertaken to ensure that the process is not wasteful, leaving the public to wonder whether their time and efforts will be optimized.
Moreover, the proposal's estimation of the burden—2,250 annual burden hours for 4,500 responses—is not explicitly justified. This raises questions about whether this constitutes the most efficient use of resources. Without a detailed explanation, it is hard to assess whether the burden imposed on respondents is reasonable or necessary.
Another significant issue is the lack of clarity on how trends during deployment are identified from the collected data and how these are used to benefit the families. Additionally, the document only vaguely outlines the waiver process for appointing an Ombudsman, especially concerning what constitutes a "diligent search" for candidates and how it will be verified.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broadly, this document may impact the public by occasionally requiring individuals to participate in this information collection process, potentially affecting thousands of Navy families. Given the program's aim to enhance family support during challenging times, the efficient and effective collection of data could lead to better support services and communication strategies. However, the document's lack of transparency in some elements may lead to skepticism or reluctance among potential respondents.
Specific stakeholders, such as Navy families and those directly involved in the Ombudsman Program, stand to be most affected. Positively, a well-structured program could provide significant support resources and help foster a more cohesive community among Navy families. On the downside, a process perceived as burdensome or disorganized could undermine confidence in the program and possibly dissuade participation, leaving gaps in the intended support network.
Additionally, the complexity of language used in the document, including terms like "practical utility" and "burden of the proposed information collection," might be difficult for some members of the general public to fully grasp without further clarification. This complexity can lead to misunderstandings about the implications and responsibilities associated with the information collection.
In conclusion, while the document aims to seek improvement and public input on the Navy Family Ombudsman Program's information collection, the raised issues suggest that clearer explanations and justifications are necessary. Addressing these concerns could lead to a more effective program, benefiting Navy families by providing them with the support and communication required during critical periods.
Issues
• The document lacks specific information on the measures taken to ensure that the information collection process is efficient and not wasteful.
• There is no detailed explanation of why 2,250 annual burden hours are required for 4,500 responses, and whether this constitutes the most efficient use of resources.
• The document does not specify any criteria or standards used to assess the accuracy of the agency's estimate regarding the burden of information collection.
• It is not clear how 'trends during deployment' are identified from the collected data or how these findings are utilized to benefit command families.
• The process for granting waivers for the Ombudsman position is vague, especially regarding what constitutes a 'diligent search' and how this will be verified.
• The complexity of language, such as terms like 'practical utility' and 'burden of the proposed information collection,' may be difficult for the general public to fully understand without further clarification.
• The document does not provide insight into the safeguards or measures taken to protect personal identifiers or contact information when made available for public viewing on the internet.
• The average burden per response of 30 minutes is stated, but there's no contextual explanation of whether this time frame is reasonable from the respondent's perspective.