This document outlines the United States Department of Education's preliminary plan for retrospectively analyzing existing rules as required by Executive Order 13563. The plan establishes a process and schedule for identifying significant rules that may be outdated, ineffective, excessively burdensome, or in need of strengthening. All offices within the Department of Education will participate in implementing retrospective reviews of regulations based on prioritization of factors such as regulatory burden, statutory changes, and audit findings. The goal is to facilitate identification and modification of regulations to minimize costs and maximize benefits.
Department of Transportation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Transportation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Veteans Affairs Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Veterans Affairs has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Federal Acquistion Regulation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Federal Acquisition Regulation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
The Open Government Directive, sent to the head of every federal department and agency, instructs the agencies to take specific actions to open their operations to the public.
Department of Health and Human Services Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
.
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, [agency] has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Transportation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Transportation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Veteans Affairs Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Veterans Affairs has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Federal Acquistion Regulation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Federal Acquisition Regulation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
The Open Government Directive, sent to the head of every federal department and agency, instructs the agencies to take specific actions to open their operations to the public.
Department of Health and Human Services Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
.
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, [agency] has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Energy has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn
General Services Administration Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the General Services Administration has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Labor Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Labor has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of State Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of State has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of the Interior Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of the Interior has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Health & Human Services - Regulatory Reform - January 2012 UpdateObama White House
In January 2011, President Obama outlined his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system – one that protects public health and welfare while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Among other things, his Executive Order on Regulation said the following: Always consider costs and reduce burdens for American businesses and consumers when developing rules; expand opportunities for public participation and public comment; simplify rules; promote freedom of choice; and ensure that regulations are driven by real science. this is the January 2012 update from the Department of Health and Human Services, go here for more information:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Energy has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn
General Services Administration Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the General Services Administration has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Labor Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Labor has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of State Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of State has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of the Interior Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of the Interior has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Health & Human Services - Regulatory Reform - January 2012 UpdateObama White House
In January 2011, President Obama outlined his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system – one that protects public health and welfare while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Among other things, his Executive Order on Regulation said the following: Always consider costs and reduce burdens for American businesses and consumers when developing rules; expand opportunities for public participation and public comment; simplify rules; promote freedom of choice; and ensure that regulations are driven by real science. this is the January 2012 update from the Department of Health and Human Services, go here for more information:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
When President Obama unveiled his plan to create a 21st-century regulatory system that protects the health and safety of Americans in a cost-effective way, he called for an unprecedented government-wide review of rules already on the books. As a result of that review, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has identified initiatives to reduce burdens and save money. Read the agency plan and share your comments, feedback and questions.
Visit WhiteHouse.gov/RegulatoryReform to view all the plans and learn more.
Award-winning preview of the new Graphic Novel adventure about a boy who discovers his biracial heritage in Africa.
He learns from the great warrior Shaka Zulu who somehow invented African feminism and inspired Gandhi's passive resistance.
Based on a true story. Winner of the 2009 Fuze Multimedia Storytelling contest.
For more visit http://www.whiteshaka.com
Created and storyboarded by Alan Brody
Graphics by Revo Yanson
Music: Yeah, Yeah by Draztik from the Zulu-language album Imbube
This draft paper outlines key issues and provides insights on implementing cross agency initiatives.
Delegates are invited to comment on the draft paper and reflect on the concluding questions for
discussion.
Choose one of the evolutions of CIT and discuss how it may have made.pdffathimaoptical
canvas.northseattle.edu Microeconomics Midterm Chapter 2 Flashcards | Qui.. economics
assignment canvas exam - Google Sea. O Increasing the amount of resources devoted to the
production of military goods Increasing the human capital of its labor force Question 16 0.1 pts
Productive efficiency O is represented by the points outside and to the right of the Production
Possibilities Frontier. O means that all the economy\'s resources are fully employed using the
current technology O requires developing new technology and better human capital in the
Production Possibilities Frontier model. O applies to points inside the Production Possibilities
Frontier as well as points along the frontier O means there is no opportunity cost to increasing
production. 0.1 pts D Question 17 The concave shape of the Production Possibilities Frontier
indicates
Solution
Answer 16 : Production efficiency means that all the economic resources are fully employed
using the current technology. It is used to show that various possible combination of goods and
services produced within a particular period of time within a given technology and resources.
Answer 17 : The concave shape of the production possibility frontier indicated the law of
increasing oppournity cost. As the production possibility curve is downward sloping it means
that one more unit of production increases the sacrificing of more another units.
Answer 18 : The statement is True that when the firm has an absolute advantage when it can
produced a product it is not necessary to have comparative advantages also. A nation might have
an absolute advantage but not a comparative advantage in the production of a given product.A
country enjoyed an absolute advantage over another country when they used fewer resources to
produce that product from another country..
Myanmar Strategic Purchasing 5: Continuous Learning and Problem SolvingHFG Project
This is the fifth in a series of briefs examining practical considerations in the design and implementation of a strategic purchasing pilot project among private general practitioners (GPs) in Myanmar. This pilot aims to start developing the important functions of, and provide valuable lessons around, contracting of health providers and purchasing that will contribute to the broader health financing agenda. More specifically, it is introducing a blended payment system that mixes capitation payments and performance-based incentives to reduce households’ out-of-pocket spending and incentivize providers to deliver an essential package of primary care services.
Florida Department of Corrections- Suggested Action or Change Outlin.docxclydes2
Florida Department of Corrections- Suggested Action or Change OutlineAndersen Dupiton, Lawrence Yarbrough, Patricia Sanchez, Grace Acevedo, Wendi Boyd
CJA 475
May 13, 2019Dr. Jacquelyn Bradway
Florida Department of Corrections- Suggested Action or Change
The Strategy Change Cycle develops into a strategic management procedure. Not just a strategic planning process, to the degree that it is used to connect preparation and implementation and to achieve a business in a strategic method on a continuing basis. The total reason and point of strategic management are to grow a ongoing pledge to the task and vision of the company together within and in the sanctioning atmosphere, cultivate a philosophy that recognizes and supports the task and vision, and will uphold a strong attention of the establishment’s strategic outline during all its conclusionary developments and actions.
Florida Department of corrections has 143 facilities statewide, including 50 major institutions, 17 annexes, seven private prisons that are over seen by the Florida Department of Management Services, 34 work camps, three re-entry centers, two road prisons, two road prisons one forestry camp, one basic training camp, 12 FDC operated work release centers and 16 more work release centers that are operated by different vendors. Institutions are geographically grouped in four regions. The Florida Department of corrections is dedicated to transforming lives one at a time and to do this they must continue to change.
1) Changes in management
2) increase in pay and benefits
3) Job Security and advancement
4) Stressful and under appreciated
5) Develop a better workplace culture
6) Innovation
Working with inmates daily can be a difficult and developing a positive work environment, changing the organization culture and promoting healthy relationships between co- workers, can help change the face of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Chief of Staff
· To reinforce partnerships with Florida’s colleges and universities for the provision of research in the area of corrections.
· To continue to host our Community Partnership meetings to strengthen ties to local stakeholders and community organizations
· Enhance internal Department communications
Director of Legislative Affairs
· To continue to encourage the development of local criminal justice partnerships.
Regional Directors (Institutions and Community Corrections)
· To ensure partnerships with Florida’s colleges and universities for the utilization of interns for the State correctional system
· To establish collaborative partnerships with local law enforcement, community service providers, businesses, and other appropriate entities.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Institutions
· To comply with Department audit standards addressing Public and staff safety.
· Maintain an effective emergency management system and resources to respond to institutional emergencies.
· Ensure safety equipment is available for all institutional c.
Topic 1 How Does Transcultural Nursing Theory FitTranscultural n.docxherthaweston
Topic 1: How Does Transcultural Nursing Theory Fit?
Transcultural nursing theory is also called the culture care theory. With this in mind, explain how you plan to incorporate the culture care theory in your Unit 7 presentation Assignment that is due on Friday, Day 3 of class, and how the theory relates to your proposed policy change in your policy change proposal.please 300 words and it needs to include this policy proposal for change......
There must be at least 3 references APA
Policy Change Proposal Section II
Introduction
The proposed policy change is meant to improve the effectiveness of public laws and regulations and even give information on the public use of funds. Further, it will address the practices of the private sector employment that affects the ability of people to work and make their living above the poverty line and this mostly applies to the youths, unmarried dependent adults. The proposal is meant to make the public policy more inclusive, collaborative and responsive to the interests of the ordinary citizen so as to prepare them for their future life.
From the proposed amendment, there are measurable goals that will determine the level of success of the policy change proposal and this will include: First, by the end of the year we expect 60% of unmarried adult children to be independent and live an economically viable lifestyle. Second, by the end of 2018, the rate of poverty to reduce by 19% since the country will be composed of economically productive youths. Lastly, we expect the employment rate in the country to increase by 26% thereby increasing the economy of the country (Dillon, Erin & Rotherham 2009).
Policy change options
“Do nothing option” is when one does offer no initiative for change characterized by unwillingness and inability to take responsibility or work towards an achievement. Incremental change option is the step of making small adjustments to the expected end results, and mostly it does not alter or threaten the existing structure of the youthful age or alter the current methods of family management in this case of the change proposal. A major change option is the one that will alter the content, structure, the scheme of assessment and the mode of provision of the programs in question i.e. it will entail deletion, addition and replacement to a substantial part of the program or the act of law (Detixhe 2011).
Financial criteria
Substantive funding stream is the amount of money that is existing independently of others and is in large quantity. Likelihood of ongoing funding is the amount of money that is required to fund the ongoing operation of future developments of a project that is not currently provided for in terms of cash, debt or equity. Ability to meet current and future demands of the proposal is all about sustainability of our society as per the future and the current needs and makes appropriate changes in the way we live (Center on Education Policy 2007).Political feasibility is t.
Public Policy Formulation and Analysis-2:Features of Good Public PolicyShahid Hussain Raja
This is part 2 of the 4-part Course on Public Policy Formulation. This course explains the way policies are formulated, the steps involved and the activities to be performed in the various steps. It also explains the main features of a good public policy and discusses it with reference to policy formulation in Pakistan
In this presentation, we will be discussing the features of a good public policy
CHAPTER 3Understanding Regulations, Accreditation Criteria, and .docxtiffanyd4
CHAPTER 3
Understanding Regulations, Accreditation Criteria, and Other Standards ofPractice
NAEYC Administrator Competencies Addressed in This Chapter:
Management Knowledge and Skills
2. Legal and Fiscal Management
· Knowledge and application of the advantages and disadvantages of different legal structures
· Knowledge of different codes and regulations as they relate to the delivery of early childhood program services
· Knowledge of child custody, child abuse, special education, confidentiality, anti-discrimination, insurance liability, contract, and laborlaws pertaining to program management
5. Program Operations and Facilities Management
· Knowledge and application of policies and procedures that meet state/local regulations and professional standards pertaining to thehealth and safety of young children
7. Marketing and public relations
· Skill in developing a business plan and effective promotional literature, handbooks, newsletters, and press releases
Early Childhood Knowledge and Skills
5. Children with Special Needs
· Knowledge of licensing standards, state and federal laws (e.g., ADA, IDEA) as they relate to services and accommodations for childrenwith special needs
10. Professionalism
· Knowledge of laws, regulations, and policies that impact professional conduct with children and families
· Knowledge of center accreditation criteria
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter, you will be able to:
1. Describe the purpose of regulations that apply to programs of early care and education and list several topics they address.
2. Identify several ways accreditation standards are different from child care regulations.
3. State the purpose of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS).
4. List some ways qualifications for administrators and teachers are different for licensure, for accreditation, and in QRIS systems.
5. Identify laws that apply to the childcare workplace, such as those that govern the program’s financial management and employees’well-being.
Marie’s Experience
Marie has been successful over the years in keeping her center in compliance with all licensing regulations. She is proud of her teachers andconfident that the center consistently goes above and beyond licensing provisions designed simply to keep children healthy and safe. She knowsthat the center provides high-quality care to the children it serves, but has never pursued accreditation or participated in her state’s optionalQuality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) because of the time and effort it would require. Her families have confidence in her program anddo not seem to need this additional assurance that it provides high-quality services day in and day out.
Large numbers of families rely on out-of-home care for their infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children during the workday. In2011, there were 312,254 licensed child care facilities with a capacity to serve almost 10.2 million children. About 34% of these facilitieswere child care center.
CHAPTER 3Understanding Regulations, Accreditation Criteria, and .docxmccormicknadine86
CHAPTER 3
Understanding Regulations, Accreditation Criteria, and Other Standards ofPractice
NAEYC Administrator Competencies Addressed in This Chapter:
Management Knowledge and Skills
2. Legal and Fiscal Management
· Knowledge and application of the advantages and disadvantages of different legal structures
· Knowledge of different codes and regulations as they relate to the delivery of early childhood program services
· Knowledge of child custody, child abuse, special education, confidentiality, anti-discrimination, insurance liability, contract, and laborlaws pertaining to program management
5. Program Operations and Facilities Management
· Knowledge and application of policies and procedures that meet state/local regulations and professional standards pertaining to thehealth and safety of young children
7. Marketing and public relations
· Skill in developing a business plan and effective promotional literature, handbooks, newsletters, and press releases
Early Childhood Knowledge and Skills
5. Children with Special Needs
· Knowledge of licensing standards, state and federal laws (e.g., ADA, IDEA) as they relate to services and accommodations for childrenwith special needs
10. Professionalism
· Knowledge of laws, regulations, and policies that impact professional conduct with children and families
· Knowledge of center accreditation criteria
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter, you will be able to:
1. Describe the purpose of regulations that apply to programs of early care and education and list several topics they address.
2. Identify several ways accreditation standards are different from child care regulations.
3. State the purpose of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS).
4. List some ways qualifications for administrators and teachers are different for licensure, for accreditation, and in QRIS systems.
5. Identify laws that apply to the childcare workplace, such as those that govern the program’s financial management and employees’well-being.
Marie’s Experience
Marie has been successful over the years in keeping her center in compliance with all licensing regulations. She is proud of her teachers andconfident that the center consistently goes above and beyond licensing provisions designed simply to keep children healthy and safe. She knowsthat the center provides high-quality care to the children it serves, but has never pursued accreditation or participated in her state’s optionalQuality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) because of the time and effort it would require. Her families have confidence in her program anddo not seem to need this additional assurance that it provides high-quality services day in and day out.
Large numbers of families rely on out-of-home care for their infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children during the workday. In2011, there were 312,254 licensed child care facilities with a capacity to serve almost 10.2 million children. About 34% of these facilitieswere child care center ...
Overview on the Early Intervention [EI]Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation (MDE) Process as well as key legislation regarding the assessment of EI eligibility of young children.
CHAPTER 4The HR Role in Policy, Budget, Performance Management, and .docxchristinemaritza
CHAPTER 4The HR Role in Policy, Budget, Performance Management, and Program Evaluation
The conceptual model in Chapter 3 explains how an organization can remain relevant by responding appropriately to environmental change and uncertainty in ways that reflect strategic thinking about human resources. However, here, as elsewhere, analytical integration comes at the price of operational clarity. Chapter 4 links this conceptual model to the real world by describing the sequential processes by which ideas become programs. These are policy making, budgeting, performance management, and program evaluation.
Issues become part of a public agenda through the policy process. This process is chaotic and unpredictable, for it involves the serendipitous convergence or “coupling” of agendas, alternative solutions, and politics, all leading to government action.1 During this process, problems become public policy issues; these issues are framed by competing political agendas; legislatures authorize and chief executives approve policy solutions as law and fund them through a budgeting process. These policy and budget processes are the headwaters of public personnel management because they all lead eventually to paying people to do things.
Human resource planning (HRP) is that aspect of public HRM that mediates between the political environment and managerial implementation of public programs through core HRM activities such as workforce planning, job analysis, job classification, job evaluation, and compensation. In brief, HRP matches agency managers’ “wish lists” with political realities generated by projected revenues and political philosophies and goals within a much broader context of factors like the supply and demand for labor. For the line manager, the process begins with a request from the budget office: “What kind and how many positions do you need in order to meet program objectives?” In many cases, this request is preceded by some kind of strategic planning process that helps establish priorities and goals. It ends with legislative authorization of programs and appropriation of funds required to implement them.
Program implementation leads to performance management and program evaluation. Many interests—political, administrative, and clients are but a few—influence how an agency’s performance is measured, and how those measurements affect program evaluation. While decisions about a program’s continued funding are based on both political and administrative criteria, data-driven decisions are only possible if the agency has a management information system that can provide valid and timely information about program performance. Because pay and benefits typically comprise about 70 percent of an agency’s budget, an HR manager who can provide valued information about the costs and benefits of alternative methods of public service delivery can be a valued member of the leadership team responsible for making these decisions.
By the end of this chapter, y ...
How Inclusive Design and Programming Advances UHCSantita Ngo
With 15 percent of the world's population living with some form of disability, this Technical Learning Sessions discussed how MSH's Universal Health Coverage (UHC) priorities cannot be realized without inclusion and specifically how the LMG Project has engaged in this space. Topics explored: the need for inclusive development, how to consider inclusion throughout the project cycle, and practical resources to use in your current work, regardless of the health area or building block you focus on.
White House State of the Union 2016 - Enhanced GraphicsObama White House
On January 12, 2016, President Obama delivered his final State of the Union address to Congress and the nation.
Check out the slides from the enhanced broadcast of his address, featuring charts, graphs, and images that help explain the policies and issues he discussed.
Learn more at WhiteHouse.gov/SOTU.
President Obama penned a letter to Congressman Nadler of New York outlining how the Iran deal is a key piece of our strategy to help our allies in the Middle East counter Iran's destabilizing activities.
Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865). "Nicolay Copy," Gettysburg Address, 1863. Page 1 and 2. Holograph manuscript. Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Gift of Hay family, 1916 (2.5). Courtesy of the National Archives and Library of Congress.
Message: Commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the White House FellowsObama White House
This is the President's message commemorating the establishment of the White House Fellows, a prestigious program dedicated to giving the nation’s most promising leaders insight into the inner workings of the Federal government. To learn more visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/fellows.
The minimum wage helps support family incomes, reducing inequality and poverty, but as a slide deck from the Council of Economic Advisers shows, as the real value of the minimum wage has been allowed to erode, it has stopped serving this important purpose.
White House State of the Union 2014 Enhanced Graphics PosterObama White House
On January 28, President Obama delivered the 2014 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.
Check out the slides from the enhanced broadcast of his address, featuring charts, graphs, and images that help explain the policies and issues he discussed.
White House State of the Union 2014 Enhanced GraphicsObama White House
On January 28, President Obama delivered the 2014 State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.
Check out the slides from the enhanced broadcast of his address, featuring charts, graphs, and images that help explain the policies and issues he discussed.
See more at WhiteHouse.gov/SOTU.
President Obama's Handwritten Tribute to the Gettysburg AddressObama White House
150 years after President Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address, President Obama penned a handwritten tribute to President Lincoln's historic remarks.
President Obama believes we have a moral obligation to lead the fight against carbon pollution. Share the details of his plan to help make sure people in your community get the facts.
Now Is the Time: President Obama's Plan to Reduce Gun ViolenceObama White House
The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.
Learn More: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence
President Obama is calling on Congress to make sure that taxes don’t go up on 98 percent of American families next year, as they are scheduled to do January 1, 2013. Learn more about his plan in this new infographic.
The Obama Administration recognizes that the interconnected challenges in high-poverty neighborhoods require interconnected solutions. The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative is a community-based approach to help neighborhoods in distress transform themselves into neighborhoods of opportunity.
White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative
Department of Education Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
1. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Preliminary Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules
May 18, 2011
I. Executive Summary of Preliminary Plan and Compliance with Executive Order 13563
Executive Order 13563 (Executive Order) recognizes the importance of maintaining a
consistent culture of retrospective review and analysis throughout the executive branch.
Determining the costs and benefits of a regulation before it is implemented is a challenging task
and it often cannot be accomplished with perfect precision. The U.S. Department of Education’s
(ED) plan is designed to create a defined policy, method, and schedule for identifying certain
significant rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome.
The review processes described in this plan are intended to facilitate the identification of
regulations that warrant repeal or modification, or the strengthening, complementing, or
modernizing of regulations, where necessary or appropriate.
II. Scope of Plan
a. Background: ED supports States, local communities, institutions of higher education,
and others in improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all Americans receive
a quality education. We provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education at all
levels to a wide range of stakeholders and individuals, including State educational agencies,
early childhood programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher education,
career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, members of the public, and many others.
These efforts are helping to ensure that all students will be ready for college and careers, and that
all K-12 students have an open path towards postsecondary education. We also vigorously
monitor and enforce the implementation of Federal civil rights laws in education programs and
activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovation, research, evaluation,
and dissemination of findings to improve the quality of education. Overall, the programs we
administer affect nearly every American during his or her life.
In developing and implementing regulations, guidance, technical assistance, and
approaches to compliance related to our programs, we are guided by the following three
principles. First, we are committed to working closely with affected persons and groups.
Specifically, we work with a broad range of interested parties and the general public, including
parents, students, and educators; State, local, and tribal governments; and neighborhood groups,
schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers, professional associations, advocacy
organizations, businesses, and labor organizations.
Secondly, we are committed to ensuring our regulations are concise and minimize burden
to the greatest extent possible while still helping ensure the achievement of program outcomes.
And finally, we continue to seek greater and more useful public participation in our rulemaking
activities through the use of transparent and interactive rulemaking procedures and new
1
2. technologies. If we determine that it is necessary to develop regulations, we seek public
participation at all key stages in the rulemaking process.
These three guiding principles will be incorporated fully into our retrospective analyses
of ED regulations.
b. List all subagencies within the Department that are included in this plan:
The following offices within ED are included in this plan:
Office of the Secretary
Office of the Deputy Secretary
Office of the Under Secretary
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Office of Management
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
Office of Federal Student Aid
Office of English Language Acquisition
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, including the Office of
Special Education Programs, the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research, and the Rehabilitation Services Administration
Office of Inspector General
Office of Innovation and Improvement
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Office of Vocational and Adult Education
Office of the General Counsel
Office for Civil Rights
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development
c. The following types of documents are covered under this plan:
Existing regulations
Significant guidance documents (to the extent they are associated with
existing regulations)
Existing information collections (to the extent they are associated with
existing regulations)
Priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria governing
discretionary grant programs that are established through rulemaking but are
not codified in the Code of Federal Regulations1
III. Public Access and Participation
1
When referring to the review of regulations throughout this plan, that review includes review of significant
guidance documents and information collections associated with the regulations under review.
2
3. a. Did the agency publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public input on
developing plans? If yes, please provide a link to the notice.
No. However, ED will soon be publishing a notice requesting public comment on our
preliminary plan in the Federal Register and posting it on our Open Government website.
Through these notices, and pursuant to the President’s Memorandum on Administrative
Flexibility, Lower Costs, and Better Results for State, Local, and Tribal Governments, ED will
solicit feedback (including, when applicable, from students, their parents, and consumer and
taxpayer representatives) on possible administrative flexibilities that ED may be able to provide
to State, local, and tribal governments; non-profit organizations; institutions of higher education;
community-based organizations; and other entities that receive funds under our programs. ED
believes it will receive more meaningful feedback from the public and stakeholders by providing
a specific draft plan for retrospective review and by including in that notice questions on possible
administrative flexibilities that may be accomplished through regulatory revisions as well as
through other methods. ED also intends to solicit this feedback on an ongoing basis through
meetings with stakeholders.
b. Brief summary of public comments to notice seeking input: N/A.
c. Did the agency reach out to the public in addition to the public notice? N/A.
IV. Current Agency Efforts Already Underway Independent of E.O. 13563
a. Summary of pre-existing agency efforts (independent of E.O. 13563) to conduct
retrospective analysis of existing rules:
ED has long been committed to ensuring that its regulations are reviewed and updated as
necessary and appropriate. As outlined each year in ED’s Regulatory Plan,2 and through
consistent application of the key principles outlined below, we have eliminated unnecessary
regulations and identified situations in which major programs could be implemented without
regulations or with limited regulatory action.
In deciding when to regulate, we consider:
Whether regulations are essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity in
education;
Whether a demonstrated problem can be resolved without regulation;
Whether regulations are necessary in order to provide a legally binding interpretation that
resolves ambiguity;
Whether entities or situations subject to regulation are so diverse that a uniform approach
through regulation would do more harm than good; and
Whether regulations are needed to protect the Federal interest; that is, to ensure that
Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and to eliminate fraud, waste, and
abuse.
2
See U.S. Department of Education, Statement of Regulatory Priorities, 75 FR 79509 (Dec. 20, 2010).
3
4. In deciding how to regulate, we are mindful of the following principles:
Regulate no more than necessary;
Minimize burden to the extent possible, and promote multiple approaches to meeting
statutory requirements when possible;
Encourage coordination of federally funded activities with State and local reform
activities;
Ensure that the benefits justify the costs of regulating;
To the extent possible, establish performance objectives rather than specify compliance
behavior; and
Encourage flexibility, to the extent possible, so institutional forces and incentives achieve
desired results.
Additionally, we routinely review the priorities and requirements governing our
discretionary grant competitions following the completion of those competitions to determine
whether changes should be made for future competitions.
Over the past two years, and operating under these principles, we have engaged in
retrospective review of several key regulations that required updating to reflect changes in the
authorizing statute, Administration priorities, or ED policies. We also began the process of
developing a broader plan for a retrospective review of our regulations. Some examples of those
efforts are as follows:
ED recently reviewed and revised its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations to
implement changes made to FOIA in recent years. These amended regulations also took
into account public guidance regarding FOIA issued by the White House and the
Department of Justice. The revised regulations articulate more clearly to the public how
ED processes FOIA requests for publicly available records, thereby promoting equality of
opportunity and decreasing ambiguity.
In 2009 and 2010, ED reviewed and subsequently modified, following notice and public
comment, its Education Department Acquisition Regulations (EDAR) to bring those
regulations into alignment with changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations. These
modifications will increase the efficiency with which ED manages contracts.
Upon reauthorization of the Federal TRIO discretionary grant programs in the Higher
Education Opportunity Act of 2008, ED reviewed its existing TRIO regulations and
conducted negotiated rulemaking in 2009 and 2010 to comprehensively update and
amend the regulations governing these programs. These amended regulations will help
ensure that Federal funds are used for their intended purpose and resolve ambiguity for
potential applicants, thereby ensuring that all eligible applicants have an opportunity to
participate in the program.
4
5. Over the past two years, ED reviewed and revised a number of program integrity
regulatory provisions associated with the Federal student aid programs authorized under
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). ED conducted this
review in recognition of the fact that the student financial aid programs have grown
dramatically in recent years, placing significantly more taxpayer funding at risk. In
response to this dramatic growth in aid, we tightened our regulatory requirements in some
areas (e.g., misrepresentation, State authorization, credit hours, and incentive
compensation) while relaxing them in others (e.g., verification). This balanced approach,
combined with our work on the “gainful employment” issue, will allow for additional
growth in the aid programs while ensuring that we have appropriate safeguards in place
to protect taxpayer funds.
In January 2011, ED successfully completed its 2010 Burden Reduction Initiative to
reduce Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) burden by at least five percent.
In fact, ED decreased the FAFSA burden by 5,405,813 hours, or more than 14 percent.
As part of accomplishing this impressive burden reduction, ED also realized the other
goals included as part of the initiative: (a) Consolidation of the FAFSA and SAR into
one ICR to better reflect that the two are part of one business process--applying for
Federal student financial aid; and (b) Simplifying the application experience for student
aid applicants by shortening completion times, primarily through the use of improved
technology such as “skip and assumption logic.”
In preparation for conducting a retrospective review of ED’s regulations, we have
reviewed plans and strategies used by other agencies, journal articles, and Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS) Recommendation 95-3, “Review of Existing
Agency Regulations.” We also began considering methods for determining which
regulations should be reviewed, strategies for engaging senior leadership, and how best to
allocate resources for such a review.
b. What specific rules, if any, were already under consideration for retrospective
analysis?
Prior to issuance of the Executive Order, and in establishing ED’s regulatory priorities for
2011, we identified several specific regulations for retrospective review and determined that,
based on that review, further amendments to these regulations are necessary. These regulations
are as follows:
The Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program regulations in 34 CFR part 682 and
the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program regulations in 34 CFR
part 685. In the SAFRA Act, Title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation
Act of 2010, Congress ended the making of new loans in the FFEL program, effective
July 1, 2010. As a result, the Direct Loan program has expanded to be the single source
of new Federal student loans. ED is evaluating to what extent some of the FFEL program
regulations are no longer needed and what changes are needed within the Direct Loan
program regulations to improve efficiency and modernize the operations of that program.
ED has begun the negotiated rulemaking process for these regulations.
5
6. Regulations in 34 CFR parts 607, 608, 609, 628, and 637, governing the institutional
development programs authorized by Titles III and V of the HEA. These regulations
govern existing discretionary grant programs for minority-serving institutions. The
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and the SAFRA Act created several new
programs for minority-serving institutions; these new programs, however, are not covered
by the existing regulations. We need to review and amend the existing regulations in
order to streamline them across the different programs, to the extent feasible, and to
ensure that they cover the newly authorized programs. Through these amendments, we
plan to simplify the application process, thereby reducing burden on potential applicants.
ED’s regulations governing its direct grant and State-administered grant programs in 34
CFR parts 74 through 99, also known as the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). Over the last several years, we have identified
provisions within these regulations that are obsolete or that require updating to take into
account developments in technology and streamlined application submission processes,
thereby reducing burden on our applicants and grantees. Additionally, in implementing
several new grant programs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA), we have identified key provisions in EDGAR that require substantive changes
to improve transparency and improve the efficiency of our grant-making functions.
Regulations in 34 CFR part 99 regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). On April 8, 2011, ED issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend these
regulations. These proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that ED’s
implementation of FERPA continues to protect the privacy of education records, as
intended by Congress, while allowing for the effective use of data in statewide
longitudinal data systems (SLDS) as envisioned in the America COMPETES Act and
under the ARRA. Improved access to data contained within an SLDS will reduce burden
on States and greatly facilitate States’ efforts to evaluate education programs, to build
upon what works and discard what does not, to increase accountability and transparency,
and to contribute to a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in education.
V. Elements of Preliminary Plan/Compliance with E.O. 13563
a. How does the agency plan to develop a strong, ongoing culture of retrospective
analysis?
This plan, once finalized, will establish ED’s policy for conducting thorough and
meaningful retrospective reviews and analyses of our regulations on an ongoing basis. This plan
will be disseminated to all offices within ED, and all offices will participate in implementing the
plan.
ED has established a retrospective review team that is responsible for developing this
plan and for coordinating the retrospective reviews going forward. This team will regularly
report its progress in implementing the plan and conducting the retrospective reviews to Deputy
Secretary Miller and other senior officials. As indicated below, ED intends to conduct its
6
7. retrospective reviews biennially. Thus, retrospective reviews will become standard operating
procedure in the agency.
b. Prioritization. What factors and processes will the agency use in setting priorities?
The factors ED will use in setting priorities for the retrospective review of its regulations
are:
Have regulated parties expressed confusion about the regulations or requested changes to
the regulations?
Can the regulations be understood and implemented without extensive legal
interpretation, non-regulatory guidance, or technical assistance?
Have regulated parties expressed concern about unwarranted regulatory burden? Do the
regulations create an unnecessary administrative burden?
What is the estimated timeline for reviewing and possibly amending the regulations? For
instance, will ED need to conduct negotiated rulemaking to amend the regulations, and
does ED need amended regulations in place by a certain date?
Has Congress amended the authorizing statute such that prompt review of existing
regulations is necessary?
Does ED anticipate reauthorization of the authorizing statute in the near term such that
prompt review of existing regulations would likely be disrupted or not lead to regulatory
revisions that could be implemented before reauthorization?
Are the regulations outmoded, unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are they impeding the
proper administration of the relevant program?
Are the current regulations sufficient to administer the applicable programs?
Are the regulations necessary to conduct the grant program or can the program be
implemented based entirely on the statutory provisions or through using appropriate
provisions of EDGAR?
Have issues with the regulations been identified in audits (Office of Inspector General
(OIG), Government Accountability Office (GAO), Single Audits)? Are there repeat audit
findings or conflicting views on what the regulations mean?
Are the regulations essential for program effectiveness and financial integrity? For
example, does ED or another oversight entity monitor compliance with the regulations?
c. Initial list of candidate rules for review over the next two years:
7
8. In addition to those regulations currently under review, we have preliminarily identified a
number of other regulatory provisions that we believe warrant retrospective review. As indicated
below, program offices will be asked to conduct a retrospective review of these and other
regulatory provisions in the next several months. These are as follows:
Regulations in 34 CFR part 300 under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) and reporting requirements under Part B of IDEA. We have heard
from a number of States about burden associated with some provisions of our current Part
B, IDEA regulations and annual reporting requirements. We intend to conduct a
thorough review of these regulations and requirements to assess their effectiveness and
determine whether burden can be reduced, without diminishing the rights of students with
disabilities.
Regulations in 34 CFR part 350 relating to programs administered by the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). In reviewing these
regulations, ED seeks to identify regulatory changes that could improve the process for
awarding grants and reduce the burden for eligible entities who apply for discretionary
funds under the programs administered by NIDRR.
Regulations in 34 CFR 388.21 for the State Vocational Rehabilitation Unit In-Service
Training Program. The Department is concerned that the current formula may lead to
inequitable or inefficient distribution of funding among eligible entities and is interested
in identifying changes that might increase the effectiveness of this program.
Regulations in 34 CFR parts 400 through 491 governing career and technical education
programs. These regulations have not been updated since the most recent reauthorization
in the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. We
will consider whether regulations are needed to improve the administration and
effectiveness of the program.
Regulations in 34 CFR part 104 implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973. These regulations, which are designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of
handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, have not been
updated since 2000. We will consider whether changes are needed to improve the
administration and implementation of the regulations.
Regulations in 34 CFR parts 655, 656, 657, 658, 660, 661, 662, 663, 664, and 669
governing the postsecondary international education programs. Following
reauthorization of the HEA in 2008, ED made limited technical amendments to these
regulations. However, a more comprehensive review of these regulations is necessary.
Specifically, ED needs to review and amend these regulations to streamline them across
the different programs to reduce burden on potential applicants, to the extent feasible, and
to ensure that they provide the flexibility necessary to address emerging issues in
international education.
8
9. Regulations in 34 CFR parts 673, 674, 675, and 676 governing the campus-based Federal
Student Aid programs. ED has regulations governing these formula grant programs that
require updating and streamlining. We will consider changes that are needed to improve
the administration and efficiency of these programs, while reducing burden on regulated
parties.
Regulations governing discretionary grant programs for which the authorization has been
repealed or for which Congress has not provided funding in some time. These include
regulations for The Endowment Challenge Grant program in 34 CFR part 628, the Urban
Community Service Program in 34 CFR part 636, the Christa McAuliffe Fellowship
Program in 34 CFR part 237, and in the Bilingual Education: Graduation Fellowship
Program 34 CFR part 535. We will repeal the regulations for the programs that are no
longer authorized and consider whether the regulations for authorized but no longer
funded programs are still necessary.
d. Structure and Staffing. High-level agency official responsible for retrospective
review.
Name/Position Title: Tony Miller, Deputy Secretary
Email address: tony.miller@ed.gov
e. How does the agency plan to ensure that the agency’s retrospective team and
process maintain sufficient independence from the offices responsible for writing and
implementing regulations?
The retrospective review team will include representatives of the following offices:
Office of the Deputy Secretary; Office of the Under Secretary; Office of Planning, Evaluation,
and Policy Development; Budget Service; and the Office of the General Counsel. These offices
do not have primary responsibility for drafting or implementing regulations. Additionally, the
team will consult, as appropriate, with other offices that have agency-wide responsibilities, such
as the Office of Inspector General.
f. Describe agency actions, if any, to strengthen internal review expertise. This could
include training staff, regrouping staff, hiring new staff, or other methods.
The review team will be trained on the prioritization factors that ED has identified above
and on our principles for regulating. The principles and the prioritization factors will be used as
the key criteria in conducting the review.
g. How will the agency plan for retrospective analysis over the next two years, and
beyond?
ED will be publishing the preliminary plan for public comment and, following the receipt
of public comment, will revise the plan accordingly. At the same time, the retrospective review
team will be asking program offices, budget analysts, and program attorneys to complete a
9
10. retrospective review survey that requests information on existing regulations (see response to
question VI(c) below). The team will coordinate the retrospective reviews and provide periodic
reports to Deputy Secretary Miller and other senior officials on the progress and results of those
reviews.
Once these reviews have been completed, the retrospective review team will analyze the
results and develop recommendations to senior officials about which regulations should be
amended (or what other actions other than regulation could be taken to reduce burden). Taking
into account the prioritization factors listed above and agency resources, and working with senior
officials, ED will develop a schedule for the amendment of those regulations identified for
revision.
While ED is conducting these reviews, it will analyze the public comments that it
receives on the draft plan and incorporate any changes into the final plan. ED intends to conduct
its retrospective reviews biennially.
h. How will the agency decide what to do with the analysis?
The retrospective review team will use the results of the analysis to develop
recommendations for senior officials regarding whether regulations should be amended and
whether alternatives to regulating, such as updating guidance or modifying reporting
requirements, should instead be used to reduce burden, simplify program implementation, or
improve understanding of the regulations.
i. What are the agency’s plans for revising rules? How will agencies periodically
revisit rules (e.g., though sunset provisions, during regular intervals)?
ED will revise regulations based on the results of the retrospective reviews, the
recommendations of the retrospective review team, and the decisions of senior officials. As
indicated above, ED intends to conduct its retrospective reviews biennially.
j. Describe how the agency will coordinate with other Federal agencies that have
jurisdiction or similar interests:
ED will work through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office
of Management and Budget and with its existing contacts at other agencies as it is conducting its
retrospective reviews and any subsequent amendments to our regulations. These agencies
include the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Small Business
Administration. With respect to our discretionary grant programs, we have consulted and will
continue to consult with other Federal agencies engaged in similar activities to assess ways in
which we can reduce overlap and redundancy and share best practices, including in such areas as
pre-award risk assessments and audit reviews.
k. Will the plan be peer reviewed?
10
11. There has been a thorough internal review of the preliminary plan by all offices within
ED and any revisions made as a result of the public comment we receive on the draft plan will
undergo a similarly thorough review.
If yes, please describe those plans:
The preliminary plan has undergone several levels of Departmental review. We have
actively engaged and sought input from ED’s senior leaders in developing the plan. The plan
was presented to ED’s Policy Committee for input and recommendations by senior policy
officials. Based on recommendations from the Policy Committee, changes were made to the
plan, and further changes were made as a result of the review by a larger group of ED staff who
are directly responsible for administering the programs that would be affected by any changes to
the regulations. As necessary, meetings were held to answer questions and reconcile differences.
ED will soon be publishing the preliminary plan for public comment and will seek
informal feedback from stakeholders. Following receipt of public and stakeholder input, ED will
consider further revisions to the plan. The final plan will undergo a similar internal review as the
preliminary plan.
VI. Components of Retrospective Cost-Benefit Analysis
a. What metrics will the agency use to evaluate regulations after they have been
implemented? For example, will the agency use increases in net benefits, increases in cost
effectiveness ratios, or something else?
ED will use several metrics to evaluate regulations after they have been implemented.
These metrics are as follows:
Have there been numerous questions from stakeholders asking for further clarification of,
or further amendment to, the regulations on points it would be feasible or desirable to
address or clarify in the regulations?
What, if any, guidance has ED provided to clarify the regulations following issuance of
the regulations and has the guidance provided the clarification needed?
What does information obtained from ED data collections, including data collected
through evaluations, grantee performance reports, and other sources tell us about changes
in net benefits, cost-effectiveness ratios, or other financial metrics?
With respect specifically to ED’s regulations implementing Parts B and C of IDEA, ED
already publishes a quarterly list of correspondence that it sends in response to requests
from stakeholders. This correspondence provides guidance and interpretations of the
IDEA and its implementing regulations. We will continue to monitor the substance of
this correspondence and the number of inquiries received to assess whether regulatory
changes may be necessary.
11
12. Has implementation of the regulations led to unfair or unequal access to funding?
b. What steps has the agency taken to ensure that it has the data available with which
to conduct a robust retrospective analysis?
The retrospective review team will develop a template for offices to use in collecting data
on the metrics identified above. ED also is exploring using a customer survey on an ongoing
basis to obtain feedback and data from the public on ED regulations.
c. How, if at all, will the agency incorporate experimental designs into retrospective
analyses?
Although ED will not be incorporating experimental designs into its analyses, its
retrospective analysis of a given set of regulations will begin with independent reviews from the
following: (1) program staff who are responsible for overseeing the implementation of the
regulations; (2) the program attorney who advises the program staff on the legal aspects of
administering the program; and (3) budget staff who are knowledgeable about the allowable uses
of program funds. Each individual will independently complete a review survey that requests
information on at least the following questions (which correspond to the prioritization factors
described above):
Have regulated parties identified a lack of clarity or need for changes in the regulations?
If so, what regulatory provisions cause confusion or need change?
Can the regulations be understood and implemented without extensive legal
interpretation, non-regulatory guidance, or technical assistance?
Have regulated parties expressed concern about unwarranted regulatory burden? Do the
regulations create an unnecessary administrative burden? If so, what regulatory
provisions might be unduly burdensome and why?
What is the estimated timeline for reviewing and possibly amending the regulations? For
instance, will ED need to conduct negotiated rulemaking to amend the regulations and
does ED need amended regulations in place by a certain date?
Has Congress amended the authorizing statute such that prompt review of existing
regulations is necessary?
Does ED anticipate reauthorization of the authorizing statute in the near term? If yes,
how will reauthorization affect existing regulations?
Are the regulations outmoded, unnecessary, or out of date? If so, are they impeding the
proper administration of the relevant program? Please identify specific regulatory
provisions that are obsolete or out of date and provide a brief explanation.
12
13. What does the evidence from program evaluations, including those that use experimental
designs, reveal about the efficacy of the regulations and the need for changes?
Are the current regulations sufficient to administer the applicable programs? If not, what
specific changes would you recommend to update the existing regulations?
Are regulations necessary to conduct the grant program or can the program be
implemented based on the statutory provisions? If regulations are necessary, what
specific areas need to be covered in the regulations?
Have issues with the regulations been identified in audits (OIG, GAO, Single Audits)?
Are there repeat audit findings or conflicting views on what the regulations mean?
Are the regulations essential for program effectiveness and financial integrity? For
example, does ED or any other oversight entity monitor compliance with the regulations?
What are the costs and benefits of removing a regulatory requirement, and what would be
the effect on students and program accountability?
VII. Publishing the Agency’s Plan Online
a. Will the agency publish its retrospective review plan and available data on its Open
Government website (www.agency.gov/open). If yes, please provide the name of a technical
staff person who will be charged with updating the plans online.
ED will publish its plan on its Open Government website (www.ed.gov/open). As
indicated above, ED intends to solicit public comment on its plan as well. The technical person
who will be charged with updating the plan online is Kirk Winters, who can be reached at
kirk.winters@ed.gov.
13