Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request; Consolidated FEMA-National Training and Education Division (NTED) Level 3 Training Evaluation Forms
Agencies
ELI5 AI
FEMA wants to know if their training is helpful by asking people who took their classes for feedback. They're making changes to how they collect these thoughts and want to know if people agree it's a good idea.
Summary AI
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is seeking public comments on changes to a previously approved information collection related to training evaluation forms. These forms help FEMA assess the effectiveness of its training programs by collecting feedback from participants several months after completing the training. This helps FEMA understand how the training impacts the participants’ jobs and if the skills learned are being applied in real-life situations. FEMA invites comments on the necessity, accuracy, and effectiveness of this data collection to improve its processes.
Abstract
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the consolidation of all previous instruments into two evaluation forms to be shared by three FEMA offices to evaluate training programs.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register outlines a notification from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding a request for public comments on modifications to a previously approved information collection process. This process involves evaluation forms used to gauge the effectiveness of FEMA's training programs. These forms aim to collect feedback from participants after they have had time to apply the training in their work environments.
General Summary of the Document
The notice announces FEMA's intent to submit revised information collection forms to the Office of Management and Budget for review. FEMA is consolidating previous individual evaluation forms into two standardized forms that will be used across three of its training divisions. This consolidation aims to streamline the way FEMA assesses the impact of its training programs. The agency is soliciting comments from the public on the necessity and design of these forms, as well as their potential benefits.
Significant Issues and Concerns
A few concerns arise from the document. Firstly, the document cites an estimated annual cost to the federal government of approximately $32,314, without providing a detailed explanation or breakdown of these costs. This lack of transparency might lead to concerns about government spending efficiency.
Additionally, the value and efficiency of consolidating the forms have not been clearly articulated. The benefits of this move, as well as the rationale for developing these consolidated forms, are not fully explained. This could make it difficult for stakeholders to understand the purpose and importance of the changes.
Moreover, the document notes that no public comments were received during a prior public comment period. This could indicate either a lack of effective communication or engagement efforts to involve the stakeholders in the process.
Lastly, technical terms such as the "Kirkpatrick Four Level Training Evaluation Model" are used without sufficient explanation, possibly leading to confusion among readers unfamiliar with this terminology.
Impact on the Public
The document's proposal could broadly impact the public by potentially enhancing the quality and effectiveness of FEMA's training programs. By collecting feedback, FEMA seeks to ensure that the training it provides is applied effectively in real-world situations, thus strengthening emergency response capabilities across various levels of government and the private sector.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
State, local, and tribal governments, as well as the private sector entities involved in emergency management, stand to be directly affected by these changes. The potential for improved training assessment could lead to more effective emergency preparedness and response strategies. However, stakeholders might feel uneasy about the changes without clear communication of their benefits and without a forum that has effectively solicited their input.
In conclusion, while the proposal by FEMA seeks to streamline its evaluation processes and potentially yield better outcomes, there are significant areas where further clarification and outreach to stakeholders could enhance understanding and participation. These efforts could, in turn, build confidence in the process and ensure it meets the needs of all stakeholders involved.
Financial Assessment
The Federal Register document in question details various financial figures related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) new approach to evaluating training programs. This commentary will discuss how these figures reflect expenditures, as well as their context within the document's broader scope and potential issues.
Summary of Financial Allocations
The document outlines several financial estimations related to the training evaluation process:
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $303,922. This cost reflects the perceived financial burden on respondents involved in the evaluation process.
Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0. This suggests there are no ongoing costs assumed for respondents beyond the upfront cost referenced.
Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0. This indicates that respondents do not face any initial investment or capital outlay costs due to the new forms and evaluation process.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $32,314. This represents the government’s anticipated annual expenditure regarding the implementation and oversight of the evaluation forms.
Relation to Identified Issues
The lack of detailed information accompanying these financial figures presents several challenges in evaluating the document's propositions effectively:
Government Spending Concerns: The $32,314 cost attributed to the Federal Government is moderately high for an evaluation process, and the document does not provide a comprehensive breakdown. This lack of detail can lead to concerns about potential inefficient use of federal resources. Without transparency on how this money is allocated, stakeholders may question whether the funds are being used efficiently toward training evaluation improvements.
Need for Detailed Justification: The financial references underscore a significant need for detailed justification of the expenditure, especially concerning how the consolidated evaluation forms will enhance fiscal efficiency or policy outcomes. The document does not explicitly communicate the cost-effectiveness or the necessity of consolidating these evaluation forms, which could lead to skepticism regarding whether the financial outlay will result in tangible benefits.
Engagement and Communication Issues: The document's note that no public comments were previously received raises questions about stakeholder engagement, given the substantial financial figures involved. If stakeholders are unaware or do not engage effectively, the figures presented might not effectively reflect public and practitioner needs or concerns.
Technical Jargon and Financial Clarity: The document references technical evaluation models like "Kirkpatrick Four Level Training Evaluation Model" without much explanation, which can obscure understanding of the financial implications for individuals unfamiliar with these terms. This lack of clarity might impede the public's ability to evaluate whether the financial allocations such as $303,922 in respondent costs are justified or necessary.
Overall, while the document provides important financial estimates for FEMA's training evaluation efforts, it could benefit from more detailed explanations and justifications to ensure clarity and stakeholder confidence in financial stewardship.
Issues
• The document includes a relatively high estimated cost to the Federal Government ($32,314) without providing a detailed breakdown or justification for this expenditure, which could raise concerns about potential wasteful spending.
• There is no detailed explanation provided for the consolidated evaluation forms' development or the anticipated benefits, which might lead to unclear understanding of their necessity and cost-effectiveness.
• The document states that previously no public comments were received, which might indicate a lack of engagement efforts to solicit stakeholder opinions or that the opportunity was not effectively communicated.
• Use of terms like 'Kirkpatrick Four Level Training Evaluation Model' without detailed explanation could be unclear to readers unfamiliar with this model.
• The text regarding the coordination with 'heads of appropriate Federal agencies, the National Council on Disability, and the National Advisory Council' lacks specificity on their roles or contributions, making it difficult to assess resource allocation or accountability.
• The provided contact information is extensive and may overwhelm individuals trying to reach out for specific inquiries, suggesting a need for streamlined communication processes.