Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, Partners for Reentry Opportunities in Workforce Development (PROWD) Evaluation, New Collection
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Labor wants people to share their thoughts on a study called PROWD, which looks at how well ex-prisoners find jobs after leaving jail. They want feedback on whether the study is helpful and how to make it easier to answer their questions.
Summary AI
The Department of Labor (DOL) is asking for public feedback on their plan to gather information for the Partners for Reentry Opportunities in Workforce Development (PROWD) Evaluation. This evaluation aims to study how effective reentry services are in helping people leaving federal prisons find employment. They are particularly interested in comments about whether the data collection is useful, how accurate their estimates are, and ways to reduce the paperwork burden. The data collection includes a survey of individuals participating in the program, and responses will help them understand and improve the support provided to inmates reentering the workforce.
Abstract
The Department of Labor (DOL), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents is properly assessed. Currently, the Department of Labor is soliciting comments concerning the collection of data about the Partners for Reentry Opportunities in Workforce Development (PROWD) Evaluation. A copy of the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
In a recent move to streamline and improve data collection efforts, the Department of Labor (DOL) is inviting public input on their proposed Partners for Reentry Opportunities in Workforce Development (PROWD) Evaluation. This initiative seeks to measure the effectiveness of employment-related reentry services for individuals exiting the federal prison system. By gathering feedback from the general public and federal agencies, the Department aims to ensure the data collection is necessary, efficient, and minimally burdensome.
General Summary of the Document
The document is a notice from the Department of Labor regarding their intent to collect information as part of the PROWD Evaluation. The evaluation focuses on understanding how well employment services support individuals transitioning from incarceration to the workforce. Comments are requested by February 18, 2025, and interested parties can provide feedback via email or mail. This effort is part of a broader initiative under the Paperwork Reduction Act to minimize unnecessary burdens on respondents while maximizing the utility of collected data.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several concerns arise from this notice. Firstly, the document does not specify the total cost associated with the PROWD Evaluation, which hinders transparency regarding potential governmental spending. Additionally, there is a lack of detail concerning the selection of the evaluation team, comprising Mathematica, RTI International, and Abt Global. Without clear justification, there may be concerns about fairness in the selection process or possible favoritism.
Furthermore, the language in the document, especially terms like "OMB Control Number" and "annualized across three years," could be confusing for a general audience. Simplifying this jargon could improve public understanding and engagement. The "Desired Focus of Comments" section would benefit from less bureaucratic language to encourage more helpful feedback from those who may be put off by complexity.
Impact on the Public
The document broadly impacts the public by aiming to improve the effectiveness of reentry programs, which can enhance public safety and contribute positively to community reintegration processes. However, without clear communication and transparency, the engagement that enhances these outcomes might be compromised. Public comments play a crucial role in ensuring these programs are well-targeted and beneficial but require clear and accessible documentation for effective participation.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, including individuals exiting federal prisons and organizations involved in reentry services, are primarily affected by the PROWD Evaluation. Properly designed and executed, this evaluation can lead to more effective support services that facilitate smoother transitions into employment, benefiting both the individuals and the communities they reintegrate into. Conversely, insufficient public engagement or oversight could lead to less effective programs that do not fully address the needs of this population, resulting in missed opportunities for positive societal impacts.
In conclusion, while the Department of Labor's initiative is a step in the right direction towards assessing and improving reentry programs, the document's effectiveness in achieving these goals could be significantly improved. Addressing the stated issues would help to ensure that the evaluation process is transparent, fair, and accessible to all stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document does not specify the total cost of the PROWD Evaluation, making it difficult to assess for wasteful spending.
• There is no detailed justification for selecting the evaluation team, which includes Mathematica, RTI International, and Abt Global, creating a potential concern over favoritism or fair competitive bidding processes.
• The language used in describing the 'Impact study participant baseline survey' could be simplified for better clarity, especially when explaining the survey's components and structure.
• Technical jargon such as 'OMB Control Number' and 'annualized across three years' might be unclear to laypersons and could benefit from simplification or further explanation.
• The 'Desired Focus of Comments' section uses bureaucratic language that could be rewritten in plain English to encourage more engagement from the public.