ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

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
Harold C. Wallach, Project Manager
Lorin Kusmin, Social Science Analyst
Susan Labin, Social Science Analyst
Robert Jones, Assistant Director

Penny Pickett, Reports Analyst

Angela Smith-Bourciquot, Information Processing Assistant

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

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.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Executive Summary

Purpose

Background

Results in Brief

Last year, Americans devoted nearly 2 billion hours to complying with
federally sponsored requests for information. Substantial concern has
been raised about the effect of efforts by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to minimize the burden these requests place on the public.
The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology asked GAO to
(1) review OMB's handling of agency requests for data collection and the
timeliness and technical adequacy of the reviews; (2) determine how
OMB's policies and practices influence agencies' decisions to gather infor-
mation, particularly nonstatistical agencies; and (3) assess the influence
of agency and OMB actions on the availability of information.

Over the past four decades, the Congress has enacted a number of laws
to control the burden on the public, businesses, and state and local gov-
ernments of complying with federal information requests. In particular,
the last major legislative effort, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(44 U.S.C. 3501), requires approval of all federal data collection involv-
ing 10 or more respondents. The act also instituted the Office of Infor-
mation and Regulatory Affairs within OMB, which reviews all the
information collection requests that federal agencies submit. Although
reducing unnecessary paperwork burden remains a high priority, con-
cern has been expressed about the balance between reducing burden and
ensuring that sufficient information is available to monitor program
operations and to perform other functions such as scientific research.

OMB has developed a formal process for reviewing a large volume of
information collection requests, but GAO found inconsistent application
of its policies by office staff. Despite these inconsistencies, the vast
majority of submissions were approved, and only a small fraction were
formally modified. Nontechnical concerns accounted for the majority of
the reasons given for disapprovals. The great majority of submissions
were reviewed and acted upon within the legal time limits. However, in
recent years, the median time for reviews has increased, and the number
of exceptionally time-consuming reviews has quadrupled. Further, some
submissions that were approved by OMB GAO found technically inade-
quate, and some technically adequate submissions were disapproved.
(See pages 20-40.)

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

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »