Overview
Title
30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection; OCHCO Personnel Security Integrated System for Tracking (PerSIST); OMB Control No.: 2501-0038
Agencies
ELI5 AI
HUD is asking for permission to collect information to check if people are a good fit for government jobs, and they want people to tell them what they think about this plan by January 27, 2025.
Summary AI
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is asking for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information for their Personnel Security Integrated System for Tracking (PerSIST). This information collection is meant to support decisions regarding the suitability and eligibility of people applying for federal positions. HUD is extending the time for public comments by 30 days and invites the public to share any thoughts on the necessity, utility, accuracy, and minimization of burden of this data collection. The public can submit comments by January 27, 2025, either online or by contacting Anna Guido at HUD.
Abstract
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document at hand is a notice from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding their request for public feedback on a proposed information collection initiative. HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to use the Personnel Security Integrated System for Tracking, known as PerSIST, to gather necessary information to assess the suitability and eligibility of candidates for federal employment and related roles.
Summary of the Document
This notice extends a prior period of public commentary by an additional 30 days, granting interested individuals until January 27, 2025, to share their thoughts. HUD is particularly interested in comments regarding the necessity, functionality, utility, accuracy, and potential for minimizing the burden of this data collection. Contributions can be submitted online or directly to the designated clearance officer, Anna Guido.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One immediate issue with the document lies in its use of terminology without adequate explanation, such as "PII", "PIV", and "OMB Control Number 2501-0038". For individuals who are not versed in bureaucratic proceedings or specific governmental jargon, these might serve as barriers to understanding. This opacity could deter public engagement and feedback.
Another concern is the redundancies found within the solicitation questions, particularly those regarding minimizing the burden of data collection. This repetition might lead to confusion or indicate a lack of careful drafting.
Additionally, the notice does not make clear any financial implications or allocations related to the data collection process. Without this information, it’s difficult for stakeholders to evaluate the potential for wasteful spending, which could impact public perception and trust in the agency's efficiency.
Impact on the Public
Broadly speaking, this document presents an opportunity for the public to influence and shape how HUD collects potentially sensitive personal information. The outcome of this process will affect applicants for federal roles and those who interact with federal systems—ensuring that procedures are both efficient and respectful of privacy is of public interest.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For potential federal employees, interns, or volunteers, along with contractors, the PerSIST system's implementation could streamline screening processes. If optimized correctly, it may enhance security and suitability determinations. However, if poorly executed or overly burdensome, stakeholders might face increased scrutiny or hurdles, potentially affecting recruitment and retention.
On the other hand, organizations and advocacy groups focused on data privacy and civil liberties might view this data collection with caution. It necessitates a balance between effective personnel security and the protection of individuals' personal information.
In conclusion, while the document serves an important function in soliciting public input on a potentially impactful federal initiative, it falls short in clarity and effective communication. This could hinder the participation of the wide-ranging audience it seeks to engage. The feedback process, nevertheless, remains a critical avenue for ensuring that the implementation of PerSIST aligns with both public interest and administrative efficacy.
Issues
• The document does not clearly outline any financial implications or potential spending associated with the information collection process, making it difficult to assess if there is any wasteful spending.
• There is no mention of specific organizations or individuals that might be favored by this information collection, which could raise a concern if any implicit biases exist.
• Some technical terms, such as 'PII', 'PIV', and 'OMB Control Number 2501-0038', are used without immediate clarification, which may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with these terms.
• The document uses formal and complex language which might be difficult for the general public to understand, potentially limiting effective public participation in the commentary process.
• Redundancy in solicitation questions 4 and 5: both points mention ways to minimize the burden of information collection using automated techniques, potentially causing confusion.