FR 2024-31780

The document is a notice from the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women. It outlines a request for feedback on its initiative to continue collecting information via the Semiannual Progress Report related to their grant program. This program supports efforts to address sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. The notice is part of the procedure under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which mandates that the public has an opportunity to comment on information collection processes.

General Summary

The document serves as a request for public comments on a specific data collection method employed by the Department of Justice. It aims to gather evaluations and suggestions concerning the burden, effectiveness, and necessity of the Semiannual Progress Report filled out by 200 grantees. These grantees are involved in mitigating crimes related to domestic violence and similar offenses, and they are required to submit this report twice a year. The comments are open until February 10, 2025, and can be submitted through an online portal.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues emerge from the document that warrant attention:

1. Cost and Funding Clarity: The document mentions an annual cost of $11,200 to the federal government but lacks detailed breakdowns of how these costs are calculated. More transparency could prevent any misconceptions about possible inefficient expenditure.

2. Role Clarification: While the document specifies the range of entities required to complete the reports, it could benefit from a clearer explanation of the roles and obligations of these different entities.

3. Time Estimation: The document estimates a completion time of one hour for the report, which might be underestimated for more complex cases. A more detailed breakdown of the activities required could help validate this estimate.

4. Technical Language: Use of terms like “ICJR Program” assumes prior knowledge, which could hinder comprehension for those unfamiliar with the subject matter.

5. Instructions for Commentary: The instructions for submitting feedback could be more direct about what kinds of comments would be most useful to the agency.

Impact on the Public

The document may have a broad impact, especially for those concerned with law enforcement effectiveness and resources allocated to combating violence-related offenses. Ensuring that data collection methods are efficient and not overly burdensome supports better-functioning grant programs and, by extension, more effective responses to violence.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For grantees, this document is crucial as it directly affects their reporting requirements. The report simplification could either reduce their administrative burden or increase it if data gathering proves more complex than anticipated. On the flip side, an efficient reporting process can enhance the quality of data collection, leading to better strategic decisions and potentially more funding in the future.

Overall, the document is an invitation for stakeholders to weigh in on how information is collected and used, thereby shaping the future of the grant programs aimed at combating violence. It's a chance for grantees, government agencies, and concerned citizens to contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of these critical programs.

The document in question refers to the annualized costs to the Federal Government amounting to $11,200. This amount is associated with the review of progress reports submitted by grantees of the Improving Criminal Justice Responses to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking Grant Program. However, details on how this figure is calculated are notably absent, which raises questions about transparency and the potential for unnecessary or excessive spending.

In examining the financial allocation, it's important to consider whether this amount captures the full extent of federal expenditures or if it only accounts for part of the process, such as staff review. Without a breakdown of the costs, there is the possibility of missing elements that could contribute to a more accurate representation of the financial obligations of the federal government in managing this program. For example, administrative overhead or other indirect costs might be involved, but are not mentioned.

A significant issue relates to whether this cost assessment considers the financial burden on the grantees themselves. The document specifies the cost to the federal government but does not mention if there are any financial implications for the grantees in completing and submitting these reports, which could also influence the overall financial assessment of the program implementation.

Furthermore, the conclusion that the report takes approximately "one hour" to complete may seem superficially aligned with the cost estimate; yet without detailed insight into the report's requirements, it is difficult to gauge the accuracy of this time prediction. If the report preparation requires extensive data collection or coordination, the associated costs might surpass the federal review expenditure, impacting both the federal and grantees' financial standing.

Finally, while the document outlines procedural steps for public comment and review, it lacks clarity on the exact nature of feedback that might influence future financial allocations or spending efficiencies. Greater transparency in this area could help in understanding if public input is factored into financial decision-making processes or cost assessments.

In summary, the mention of the $11,200 annualized cost is a starting point, yet the lack of detail in its calculation and implication points to broader questions about the financial transparency and accountability of the program. More detailed financial disclosures and clarity on both grantee and federal costs could help mitigate concerns about waste and help ensure that financial resources are effectively allocated.