Overview
Title
Proposed Collection; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to check if schools follow certain rules and is asking people to share their thoughts about this. They want to know if collecting this information about the schools is helpful and how it can be made easier for everyone.
Summary AI
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD P&R) has announced a proposed collection of information and is seeking public comments. This collection is part of the Department of Defense's Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding Institutional Compliance Program, aimed at assessing the compliance of educational institutions with the MOU standards. The process involves reviewing recruiting practices, financial matters, accreditation, and post-graduate opportunities. The Department invites feedback on whether this information collection is necessary and how it can be made more effective and less burdensome.
Abstract
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the OUSD P&R, 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 the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document is an announcement from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD P&R), part of the Department of Defense. It proposes a new information collection initiative and is seeking public comments on its effectiveness and necessity. This initiative falls under the Department of Defense's Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding Institutional Compliance Program (MOU ICP), which aims to evaluate educational institutions on their adherence to MOU standards.
Key Summary
The proposal includes a detailed assessment of educational institutions focusing on four main areas: recruiting practices, financial matters, accreditation, and postgraduate opportunities. The process uses a large dataset to evaluate and give feedback to institutions to improve compliance with the MOU requirements, thereby enhancing their service to students, particularly those who are Service members.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One major concern is the average burden per response, which totals 12 hours for each educational institution. This may place a significant strain, particularly on smaller institutions with limited resources. The document does not clearly outline how feedback provided to institutions actually leads to enhanced compliance beyond executing Corrective Action Plans. It might benefit from greater transparency and explanation in this area.
The document's language appears complex and could be a barrier to participation or offering feedback. Simpler language may encourage broader cooperation from diverse educational institutions.
Moreover, the process for selecting 250 out of a potential 2,700 institutions for in-depth review remains vague. Clarifying this selection criterion could help improve the document's transparency and reduce perceptions of arbitrary decision-making.
Potential Impacts on the Public
The document represents an attempt to ensure that Service members receive adequate and accurate educational opportunities. It aims at improving transparency and compliance within educational institutions, which may ultimately benefit the broader public seeking educational services.
For educational institutions, particularly those serving Service members, the compliance program's results could enhance the quality of their offerings, ensuring students receive transparent and reliable program information. However, the substantial administrative burden might be a disadvantage, especially for institutions with fewer resources.
Impacts on Specific Stakeholders
Educational institutions are directly impacted, as they are required to engage with this compliance process. They might bear extra administrative tasks, with potential financial and staffing implications driven by the time-intensive nature of the data collection. Conversely, Service members and students stand to benefit from improved institutional compliance, which could translate into better educational experiences and outcomes.
In summary, while the proposed information collection has the potential to enhance educational quality and compliance, the associated burden and opaque elements of the process may present challenges to the involved institutions. Clarifying these issues could lead to more effective implementation and increased institutional participation.
Issues
• The average burden per response is 12 hours, which may be considered high for some institutions, potentially creating a significant burden.
• The document does not provide clear details on how the feedback from the ICP team is used by educational institutions beyond the implementation of Corrective Action Plans.
• The 'Needs And Uses' section could benefit from additional clarification on how the risk-based compliance program specifically reduces risks and enhances compliance.
• The language used to describe the compliance program and its processes might be perceived as overly complex, which could deter smaller or less-resourced institutions from participating or providing feedback.
• The methodology or criteria for narrowing down the number of institutions from 2,700 to 250 for assessment is not fully explained, which could be seen as lacking transparency.