Overview
Title
Information Collection Activities; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Bureau of Labor Statistics wants to hear what people think about changing a big survey they do with young people to learn about their jobs and families as they grow up. They want to make sure the survey is easy to understand and not too much work for the people answering the questions.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is seeking public comments on the proposed changes to the "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997," which aims to study the transition from education to work and family life by surveying the same group of individuals over many years. This notice invites feedback on whether the data collection is necessary, the estimated burden on respondents, and suggestions to improve the quality and clarity of the collected data. The survey, conducted mainly by phone, will include new questions on work accommodations and retirement expectations, while reducing focus on topics like coronavirus and health behaviors to lessen respondent burden. Comments are due by April 28, 2025, and will be considered in the approval process for the information collection request.
Abstract
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997." A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register seeks public comments on the proposed revision of the "National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997." This long-term survey aims to track individuals from youth into their adult lives, gathering data on education, work, and family transitions. With the renewal of this survey's round 22, set to take place between September 2025 and June 2026, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) invites feedback on various aspects of the data collection process, including its necessity, the burden it imposes on participants, and suggestions for enhancing the clarity and utility of the information collected.
Summary and Purpose
The survey mainly aims to provide data that can help shape policies in education, employment, and family support by studying individuals born between 1980 and 1984. The forthcoming survey round introduces new questions about work accommodations and retirement expectations while aiming to reduce the overall respondent burden by scaling back less pertinent questions on health behaviors and coronavirus impacts. The feedback period extends until April 28, 2025.
Key Issues and Concerns
Several notable issues arise from the Federal Register notice. Firstly, there is a lack of detailed cost analysis related to conducting this expansive survey, which complicates the assessment of its fiscal efficiency. Furthermore, the document does not elaborate on how it will ensure the accuracy of its burden estimates, opening the process to potential bias. The criteria for the 2 percent of respondents selected for follow-up validation interviews remain unclear, which may lead to concerns over bias or preferential treatment.
Additionally, while the questionnaire is being streamlined, the specific measures being taken to reduce respondent burden are not sufficiently detailed, making it challenging to gauge the extent of relief it offers. Certain terminologies, such as "platform work" and "broad measures of disability," are introduced without definitions, possibly resulting in confusion.
The notice uses technical terms like "nationally representative sample" and "longitudinal focus" without context, which might be challenging for a general audience to understand. This lack of clarity could hinder effective public feedback, as understanding these concepts is crucial for evaluating the necessity and efficiency of the survey.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
This document has the potential to impact the public significantly, particularly individuals directly involved in or influenced by labor market and educational policies. By refining the method of data collection, the BLS aims to provide more accurate and relevant information that can inform policy decisions impacting millions of Americans.
For stakeholders, such as policymakers, educators, and sociologists, this survey provides a vital dataset that has historically contributed to numerous academic and governmental analyses. A more efficient and precise survey process can lead to more reliable data, enhancing research outcomes and policy formulations.
Participants in the survey, however, might feel overwhelmed by the technical terminology and process, especially without adequate clarification. The lack of transparency in cost analysis and detailed explanations may lead to skepticism regarding the survey's utility and efficiency. It's essential, therefore, that the BLS addresses these concerns to foster trust and cooperation from the public.
In conclusion, while the proposed survey aims to continue providing critical data for decades, the execution of its objectives should ensure transparency, clarity, and efficiency to maximize its benefits across all sectors and stakeholders involved.
Issues
• The document does not specify the total cost associated with conducting the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97), which makes it difficult to assess potential wasteful spending.
• There is no specific mention of how the evaluation of the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden will be conducted, which could leave room for subjective assessment.
• The document could be clearer about the criteria for selecting the 2 percent of respondents for the validation interview, which might raise concerns about bias or favoritism.
• Details on how exactly the streamlined questionnaire will specifically reduce the burden on respondents are not provided, which might make this claim seem vague.
• The term 'platform work' is introduced as a new question category but is not defined, which may lead to confusion among respondents.
• The complexity of language, such as 'nationally representative sample' and 'longitudinal focus,' might be hard for a lay audience to understand without additional context.
• The desire to collect broad measures of disability is mentioned, but the lack of definition or framework for what constitutes 'broad measures' could lead to inconsistent data collection.