Appendix I Ten Case Studies *This table shows the ten largest changes in burden resulting from individual actions on information collection requests between April 1985 and December 1987. "Burden hours are reported in millions of hours Hours vary on different action dates if they have prior or subsequent record. This is the collection that brought the case into the sample, so events are taken as before or after this point in time. Additions to burden hours are indicated by "+reductions by "-" "A" is for accounting changes. R is for real burden changes. "Populations affected for this action date. Abbreviations are individuals, B = business, SLG = state and local governments, NP = nonprofits F = farms Changes are explained in footnotes 'Type and purpose for this action date, as recorded in Reports Management System data 9in 1986, the population affected changed to business only "In 1987, the purpose changed to regulatory or compliance 'In 1987, the population affected changed to business only. In 1983, the purpose was coded as an evaluation In 1987, the purpose changed to regulatory or compliance *In 1984-85, the population affected was individuals, businesses, and state and local governments The collection was not in the Reports Management System June 30-October 6, 1986 When it went back into the system on October 7, 1986, the population affected was business only In 1986, the purpose changed to regulatory or compliance "Of the 34 million additional hours, 29 million were real burden changes and 6 were accounting changes "Nonprofits were added to the list of affected populations In 1984 only, farms were also listed "The population affected has changed almost every year. In 1982 it was individuals, businesses, and farms One submission in 1983 dropped farms, the next two submissions in 1983 listed only individuals In 1984, it added businesses and farms, which were dropped again for this submission Later in 1986, businesses and nonprofits were added, and in 1987 it went back to individuals only "The purpose is coded as regulatory or compliance, but it was coded as a benefit from August to October 1983 "The population affected changed earlier in 1987 to individuals only, dropping businesses, state and local governments, and nonprofits. Appendix II Major Contributors to This Fact Sheet Program Evaluation and Methodology Division David Cordray, Assistant Director Penny Pickett, Reports Analyst Angela Smith-Bourciquot, Information Processing Assistant In response to a request from your committee, we are submitting this report on federal efforts to control the amount of information that is gathered from the public. In particular, this report examines (1) how and how well data collection requests are handled within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), (2) the influence of the OMB review process on agencies' decisions to collect information, and (3) the likely consequences of OMB and agency actions on the availability of data. This report contains recommendations for achieving a better balance between the need to collect data and the need to control the paperwork burden on the public. As we arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days from the date of the report. At that time, we will send copies to the Office of Management and Budget and all departments and agencies covered by our review, and we will make copies available to others upon request. Please call me on 202-275-1854 if you need further information. This report was prepared under the direction of Lois-ellin Datta, Director of Program Evaluation in Human Services Areas (202-275-1370). Major contributors are listed in appendix V. Executive Summary Purpose Background Results in Brief Last year, Americans devoted nearly 2 billion hours to complying with Over the past four decades, the Congress has enacted a number of laws OMB has developed a formal process for reviewing a large volume of Agencies' decisions about information collection requests have been influenced by OMB's policies and practices. The submissions of a substantial fraction were almost always approved by OMB; in large measure, these agencies have established systematic review procedures. For such Page 2 GAO/PEMD-89-20 Paperwork Reduction |