Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Generic Clearance for the Fast Track Clearance for the Collection of Routine Customer Feedback
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Food and Nutrition Service wants people's thoughts on how well they're doing at helping others, like customer service. They want people to say what they think, so they can get better, and everyone can tell them their ideas until February 2025.
Summary AI
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the USDA is requesting public comments on an information collection proposal under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This proposal involves collecting feedback about the agency's services through surveys and focus groups, targeting areas like timeliness, accuracy, and service delivery. The feedback is intended to help improve the quality of service and is not designed to produce quantitative data for widespread application. Comments are welcome until February 18, 2025, with a focus on reducing the burden on respondents and enhancing data clarity and utility.
Abstract
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is an extension, without change, of a currently approved collection to collect qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeks public comments on a planned extension of an existing information collection effort under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This initiative aims to collect feedback from customers and stakeholders to improve service delivery in various FNS programs, such as the Child Nutrition program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The feedback will be qualitative, focusing on perceptions and opinions rather than statistical data that can be generalized to the broader population. The public has until February 18, 2025, to submit their comments.
Summary and Intent
This document outlines a proposal for collecting qualitative feedback on the agency's services to identify areas for improvement in terms of timeliness, accuracy, and efficiency. The feedback is intended to enhance service quality and program management but is not designed for use in broader, statistically valid research or policy-making decisions.
Key Issues and Concerns
There are several notable issues within the document:
Technical Language and References: The document uses technical language and references specific laws, such as the Paperwork Reduction Act. This may make it challenging for a general audience to understand the proposal's purpose and benefits.
Rationale for Extension: The document indicates a continuation of the existing information collection without changes. However, it does not explain why the current approach is still necessary or efficient, which might lead to questions about its effectiveness.
Burden Estimation: The document lists an estimated annual burden of 85,000 hours for respondents but does not clearly explain how this figure was determined. This could raise doubts about the accuracy and reasonableness of the time commitment expected from respondents.
Utility of Feedback: There is an acknowledgment that the data collected will not produce statistically reliable results, potentially leading to concerns about the feedback's overall utility in improving services.
Diversity and Representativeness: The document lacks details on methodologies for ensuring diverse and representative feedback, which could result in biased or incomplete insights into the agency's programs.
Potential Redundancy: There is no mention of how this effort aligns with or overlaps with similar initiatives by other agencies, suggesting a risk of duplicative efforts and inefficiencies.
Clarification of Low-Burden Claim: While the document claims the collection is low-burden for respondents, it does not provide specific examples or metrics to back this claim, leaving room for misunderstanding about respondent time and costs.
Feedback Utilization and Follow-up: The document does not specify how the feedback will be used to enact improvements or any subsequent actions, raising questions about the tangible impacts of the information collection.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The proposed information collection may have several impacts on the public and specific stakeholders:
General Public: Individuals may feel that contributing feedback will help improve the services they receive. However, the acknowledgment that the feedback will not be used to inform broad policy decisions might make some respondents question the exercise's relevance.
Stakeholders and Agencies: For stakeholders, this collection offers a structured opportunity to express their views and suggest enhancements. Yet, without assurances of representative sampling and clarification on data usage, the effectiveness of this engagement might be limited.
Cost and Time Concerns: Businesses, organizations, and governmental bodies asked to provide feedback may worry about the time and potential costs involved, especially if it seems the process lacks clarity on minimizing these burdens.
Overall, while the intention behind the information collection is to gather meaningful feedback for service improvement, the execution details and their communication leave significant room for public inquiry and skepticism. Additional clarity and transparency could foster greater understanding and participation from the interested audiences.
Issues
• The document's purpose and benefits might not be clear to a general audience due to overly technical language and references to specific laws and codes like the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
• The rationale for conducting the information collection extension without change is not well explained, potentially leading to questions about the necessity and efficiency of continuing this collection activity in its current form.
• The document does not provide a detailed breakdown of how the estimated annual burden hours (85,000 hours) were calculated, which might raise questions about the accuracy and justification of these estimates.
• The document mentions that collected data will not be used for statistically reliable results or generalizations, which might lead to concerns about the overall utility and effectiveness of the feedback gathered.
• There is no mention of specific strategies or methodologies to ensure a diverse and representative sample when soliciting feedback, which could lead to biased or incomplete insights.
• The potential for overlap or duplication of efforts with other agencies or programs seeking similar qualitative feedback is not addressed, which might indicate a risk of redundancy and inefficiency.
• Although the document states the collections are low-burden, there are no specific metrics or examples to substantiate how the burden is minimized, leaving room for concerns about respondent time and cost.
• The document does not address how the feedback will be effectively used or any follow-up actions that will be taken based on the feedback, potentially leading to questions about the impact of the information collection.