Overview
Title
Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery
Agencies
ELI5 AI
FEMA wants people to share their thoughts on how well they help others but isn't clear about how they'll collect this feedback. They're asking for ideas on how to do this better, but some people might find it tricky to share their thoughts online.
Summary AI
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is asking the public to share their thoughts on a previously approved information collection that gathers feedback on how well FEMA delivers services. This request, submitting the information for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is part of FEMA's effort to improve service quality and meet customer needs, in line with Executive Order 12862. The feedback will be used to gain insights into customer experiences and expectations, but won't be part of statistical surveys. Public comments are welcome until May 27, 2025.
Abstract
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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, without 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 Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document in question is a request from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) seeking public comments on the reinstatement of a previously approved collection of information. This collection is specifically designed to gather qualitative feedback regarding FEMA's service delivery. The aim is to align with Executive Order 12862, which mandates federal services to meet or surpass the standards set by the best services available in the private sector. It's part of FEMA's ongoing efforts to enhance the quality and effectiveness of its programs.
Summary of the Document
FEMA is reaching out to the public, encouraging them to provide insights into their experiences and expectations concerning the agency's service delivery. This feedback is aimed at helping FEMA improve its operations and ensure that its services genuinely meet the needs of its users. However, it's emphasized that the feedback collected will not be part of surveys designed to produce statistically generalizable data. Instead, it will focus on gaining qualitative insights.
FEMA is also submitting the collection for review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as per the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public comments on this collection are open until May 27, 2025, which adds a time-sensitive aspect for those wishing to participate.
Issues and Concerns
There are several notable issues and concerns identified within the document:
Cost Justification: The estimated total annual respondent cost is pegged at $12,269,944. Without a detailed breakdown or clear justification for this figure, there's potential for concern over whether such a cost is warranted or indicative of wasteful spending.
Focus and Clarity: The document does not specify which particular programs or services will be assessed through the feedback. This lack of specificity may lead to challenges in understanding the primary objectives of the feedback collection.
Collection Methods: The term "qualitative feedback" is employed without explaining how this feedback will be collected. This lack of clarification could result in diverse interpretations of the methods to be used.
Language Accessibility: The document's use of technical and bureaucratic language might make it difficult for the general public to understand. Terms such as "OMB approval of a generic clearance" and "Paperwork Reduction Act compliance" may not be immediately clear to everyone.
Feedback Collection Process: Without FEMA forms or a systematic approach specified, questions arise about how the feedback will be systematically gathered and recorded.
Data Generalization Limitations: The statement that the information collected will not be generalizable indicates limitations in how useful the data will be for broader decision-making.
Accessibility of Submission Process: The requirement for comments to be submitted via www.reginfo.gov may not be easily accessible to all, which could limit community involvement and feedback.
Impact on the Public
The broader public might not be directly impacted by this information collection unless they seek to provide feedback on FEMA's services. However, should FEMA use the gathered insights effectively, there could be positive changes in how the agency delivers services, ultimately benefiting citizens reliant on these services during emergencies.
Impact on Stakeholders
For specific stakeholders, such as individuals who frequently interact with FEMA or rely heavily on its services, the opportunity to provide feedback could lead to service improvements that better meet their needs. Conversely, unclear processes for submitting comments and the wide-ranging cost implications may negatively impact those interested in participating. Accessibility issues surrounding both the document's language and the submission process could further discourage or limit effective stakeholder engagement.
In summary, while FEMA's initiative to collect qualitative feedback is a step in the right direction toward improving service delivery, the document itself raises a series of concerns and potential barriers to public and stakeholder participation. More clarity and a user-friendly approach could enhance engagement and the resultant feedback's utility.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing the document concerning the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) request for public comment on a collection of feedback related to agency service delivery, there are several notable financial references that warrant closer examination.
Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost
The document highlights an estimated total annual respondent cost of $12,269,944. This substantial figure seems to indicate the financial burden placed on individuals or households that participate in the feedback process. However, the document does not provide a detailed breakdown or justification of this cost, which raises questions of potential inefficiency or wasteful spending. Without a clear rationale or itemization, it is challenging to understand why respondents face such high costs and whether this amount reflects necessary or excessive expenditures.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Interestingly, the document also notes that the estimated respondents' operation and maintenance costs are $0. This suggests that while respondents bear a significant cost, there are no additional funds allocated for operation or maintenance related to this feedback process. This might imply that all costs are expected to derive from respondents' efforts rather than infrastructural or logistical expenses.
Capital and Start-Up Costs
Similarly, FEMA anticipates no capital and start-up costs for respondents. This suggests that the initial implementation of this feedback collection process does not require substantive new investments from participants. Again, this raises concerns about how costs have since been calculated and justified, yielding the respondent cost noted earlier with seemingly no additional financial requirements in these areas.
Annual Cost to the Federal Government
Finally, the Federal Government itself incurs an estimated total annual cost of $2,349,900 to support this information collection activity. This amount represents the financial commitment necessary to manage and oversee the process of collecting qualitative feedback. However, this cost, combined with the high respondent costs, might be indicative of certain inefficiencies or duplication of effort.
Overall, the financial references in this document point to significant expenses on the part of both respondents and the government, potentially hinting at ambiguous allocation without adequate transparency. The absence of specific programs or services targeted in the feedback process further complicates evaluating the effectiveness and necessity of these financial expenditures. Without more information, stakeholders and the general public may find it difficult to assess the value returned from these investments or to suggest improvements or efficiencies.
Issues
• The estimated total annual respondent cost of $12,269,944 seems high without clear justification or breakdown in the document, potentially indicating wasteful spending.
• The document does not specify which specific programs or aspects of service delivery the feedback will focus on, leading to a lack of clarity in objectives.
• The term 'qualitative feedback' is used without a precise explanation of what methods will be used to collect this feedback, potentially leading to ambiguous interpretation.
• The document uses technical and bureaucratic language that may not be easily understood by the general public, such as terms like 'OMB approval of a generic clearance' and 'Paperwork Reduction Act compliance'.
• The document states that there are no FEMA forms, which may raise questions about how feedback will be systematically collected and recorded.
• The description of the feedback collection process as one that 'will not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population' suggests limitations in the practical utility of the information collected.
• The submission process for comments via *www.reginfo.gov* may not be accessible or user-friendly for all potential respondents, potentially impacting participation.