Overview
Title
Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Department of Defense wants people's thoughts on how they collect information from the public, hoping to make it easier and less time-consuming. They are asking for suggestions on how to do this better by March 7, 2025.
Summary AI
The Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) of the Department of Defense is asking for public comments on a proposed information collection. This is part of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which aims to reduce the amount of paperwork the government asks from the public. The feedback will help improve service delivery and program management. Comments must be submitted by March 7, 2025, and can be sent through a dedicated website or by mail.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the WHS 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
The document published by the Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) of the Department of Defense is a formal notice requesting public input on a proposed information collection. This request comes in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, which aims to minimize burdensome requests for information from the public by government agencies. The proposal seeks qualitative feedback—essentially insights, opinions, and perceptions—from various public and private sector participants to enhance service delivery and improve program management. Stakeholders and interested parties have a deadline of March 7, 2025, to provide their comments through a dedicated online platform or by mailing their responses.
General Summary
The notice identifies the agency's desire to gather feedback that can aid in enhancing the quality and delivery of services provided. This feedback will be gathered through a framework that ensures the process is voluntary, low-cost, and low-burden for participants. The agency also plans to focus on maintaining participants' privacy by limiting the scope of personal information collected.
Significant Issues or Concerns
Several complexities arise from the document's presentation:
Jargon and Technical Language: The document uses specialized terms such as "generic clearance" and "OMB Control Number" without offering lay explanations. This technical language might alienate a portion of the audience who lack expertise in policy or governmental procedures.
Complex Bureaucratic Language: The document features dense, bureaucratic prose in its summary and supplemental sections. This complexity can hinder comprehensive understanding, particularly for readers without a background in federal information collection processes.
Lack of Specific Feedback Focus: While the document outlines the types of feedback it wishes to collect, it does not articulate specific areas of focus. This might lead to confusion for potential respondents about what their feedback should address.
Justification for Respondents and Burden Hours: The document does not elucidate why a specific number of respondents or burden hours were chosen, leading to questions about the efficacy or necessity of the proposed collection.
Impact on the Public
The overall public impact is twofold:
Positive Aspects: By gathering qualitative feedback, the WHS aims to refine service delivery and address specific issues in a timely manner. This could lead to improvements in transparency and client satisfaction, thereby, aligning with broader governmental commitments to better service delivery.
Potential Challenges: The complexity and obscurity of language used might leave less-informed segments of the public unsure about participation. For individuals unfamiliar with government proceedings, this could limit engagement and feedback quality.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
General Public and Households: These stakeholders might find the feedback process an opportunity to voice experiences and influence future service delivery. However, the complications noted could serve as barriers to participation.
Businesses and Institutions: Entities reliant on efficient interactions with the Department of Defense could benefit from enhancements in service delivery that arise from the feedback. This group, generally more familiar with formal information collection practices, might find participation less cumbersome.
Federal, State, and Local Governments: These bodies stand to benefit through improved intergovernmental efficiencies. Feedback outcomes might lead to harmonized operational procedures across various governmental levels, enhancing public service delivery.
In conclusion, while WHS's initiative is commendable, addressing the complex language and clarifying the scope and necessity of the data collection could bridge gaps in public understanding and engagement. Such measures might also enhance the feedback's effectiveness in improving governmental services.
Issues
• The document uses technical terms like 'generic clearance' and 'OMB Control Number' without providing a layperson's explanation, making it complex for general audiences.
• The summary and supplementary information sections are lengthy and use bureaucratic language, which can be difficult to understand without a background in policy or governance.
• The criteria for submitting a collection under the generic clearance include multiple points that could be clearer if broken down more thoroughly, especially for those unfamiliar with federal information collection protocols.
• There is no clear explanation of what specific types of feedback are being sought from the public, which might lead to ambiguity for respondents.
• The document does not provide any justification or context for the number of respondents or the estimated burden hours, leaving room for questions about the necessity or efficiency of the collection process.