Tag: proposed

  • McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    McMahon defends $12B proposed cut to the Education Department

    During a hearing Wednesday, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s proposal to heavily cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education during the 2026 fiscal year, arguing the reductions were a key step toward winding down the agency. 

    “We seek to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money and empower states who best know their local needs to manage education in this country,” McMahon said before lawmakers on the House Committee on Appropriations’s education subcommittee. 

    President Donald Trump’s budget request, released at the beginning of the month, would slash funding to the Education Department by 15.3%, or about $12 billion. 

    The plan calls for eliminating two federal programs aimed at improving college access for disadvantaged and low-income students — TRIO and Gear Up — as well as shifting the responsibility of the Federal Work-Study program to the states. And it would eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which provide need-based aid to undergraduate students. 

    It also would reduce funding for the already-diminished Office for Civil Rights, which investigates harassment and discrimination on college campuses and in K-12 schools, by about $49 million, a 35% cut from the previous year. 

    Republicans on the panel largely lauded the proposal, with many praising the Trump administration’s support for charter schools, which would receive a $60 million funding bump in the budget. 

    Democrats, however, slammed the budget, arguing the cuts would undermine student success and restrict pathways to higher education. 

    “Your visions for students aspiring to access and pay for college is particularly grim,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, said during the hearing. “Some families do not need financial assistance to go to college, but that’s not true for the rest.” 

    ‘You will not have the partnership of Congress’

    Trump signed an executive order in March directing McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” 

    His administration has shared plans to move its key functions to other agencies. In one instance, Trump suggested that operating the student loan portfolio should be the responsibility of the newly-downsized Small Business Administration.

    Some Republicans on the panel voiced support for this plan Wednesday. Rep. Jake Ellzey, from Texas, suggested the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services could take over mental health support provided by the Education Department. He also proposed that the U.S. Department of Justice could oversee civil rights matters — an option McMahon floated during her confirmation hearing in February. 

    On Wednesday, McMahon described the Education Department as a federal funding “pass-through mechanism” and said other agencies could take over the job of distributing allocations from Congress. 

    “Whether the channels of that funding are through HHS, or whether they’re funneled through the DOJ, or whether they’re funneled through the Treasury or SBA or other departments, the work is going to continue to get done,” McMahon said. 

    However, Democrats indicated they would not support those efforts. 

    “You will not have the partnership of Congress in your efforts to destroy the Department of Education,” DeLauro said. “Not on our watch.” 

    DeLauro also slammed McMahon over recent cuts to the Education Department, which has eliminated about half of its staff and canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants. 

    “By recklessly incapacitating the department you lead, you are usurping Congress’ authority and infringing on Congress’ power of the purse,” she said. 

    Democrats also took issue with the budget’s proposal to shift the responsibility of funding programs to states. 

    Along with Federal Work-Study, the 2026 proposal would cut funding for other higher education programs, including the Strengthening Institutions Program, which provides grants to help colleges become more financially stable, improve their academic quality and ability to serve low-income students. 

    Source link

  • Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    Proposed Budget Cuts Could End Fulbright Program

    The Trump administration is looking to cut the State Department’s budget by almost half, and educational and cultural exchange programs, like the Fulbright scholarship, could be fully eliminated as a result, The Washington Post reported Monday.

    An internal memo, obtained by the Post, suggested that the department may only have $28.4 billion to spend next fiscal year to cover all of its staffing and operations and to share with the U.S. Agency for International Development, an independent agency that Trump has already tried to eliminate. That’s $27 billion, or 48 percent, less funding than the two groups received in fiscal year 2025.

    The proposed budget cuts would terminate the Fulbright scholarship, a highly selective cultural exchange program established by Congress in 1946, along with the State Department’s other educational and cultural programs. The president has yet to propose his budget for fiscal year 2026 to Congress, though he’s expected to do so later this month, the Post reported. Congress, by law, has the final say about which programs get funding.

    Fulbright funding and operations have already been in flux during the early days of the Trump administration as some participants have struggled to obtain their visas for next academic year and others are waiting on stipend funds that had been promised to get them through the current term, Inside Higher Ed has reported.

    The State Department did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

    Source link

  • Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Search for Higher Ed Legislation Proposed in Congress

    Welcome Inside Higher Ed‘s legislation tracker, a database of the key higher-ed related bills lawmakers have proposed in Congress. Few will likely become law, but the proposals offer insights into how Republicans and Democrats want to reshape the sector.

    So far, lawmakers have proposed 31 bills that would directly impact colleges and universities.

    You can search the database below to learn more about each proposal. The current session of Congress runs through the end of 2026 which means this list will grow. We’ll update the database regularly, so please check back for updates.

    Questions, comments or think we’re missing a bill? Email jessica.blake@insidehighered.com.

    The database was last updated March 20.

    More Coverage of Higher Ed and Congress:

    Source link

  • FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    FIRE opposes Virginia’s proposed regulation of candidate deepfakes

    Last year, California passed restrictions on sharing AI-generated deepfakes of candidates, which a court then promptly blocked for violating the First Amendment. Virginia now looks to be going down a similar road with a new bill to penalize people for merely sharing certain AI-generated media of political candidates.

    This legislation, which has been in SB 775 and HB 2479, would make it illegal to share artificially generated, realistic-looking images, video, or audio of a candidate to “influence an election,” if the person knew or should have known that the content is “deceptive or misleading.” There is a civil penalty or, if the sharing occurred within 90 days before an election, up to one year in jail. Only if a person adds a conspicuous disclaimer to the media can they avoid these penalties.

    The practical effects of this ban are alarming. Say a person in Virginia encounters a deepfaked viral video of a candidate on Facebook within 90 days of an election. They know it’s not a real image of the candidate, but they think it’s amusing and captures a message they want to share with other Virginians. It doesn’t have a disclaimer, but the person doesn’t know it’s supposed to, and doesn’t know how to edit the video anyway. They decide to repost it to their feed.

    That person could now face jailtime.

    The ban would also impact the media. Say a journalist shares a deepfake that is directly relevant to an important news story. The candidate depicted decides that the journalist didn’t adequately acknowledge “in a manner that can easily be heard and understood by the average listener or viewer, that there are questions about the authenticity of the media,” as the bill requires. That candidate could sue to block further sharing of the news story.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    These illustrate the startling breadth of SB 775/HB 2479’s regulation of core political speech, which makes it unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. Laws targeting core political speech have serious difficulty passing constitutional muster, even when they involve false or misleading speech. That’s because there’s no general First Amendment exception for misinformation, disinformation, or other false speech. That’s for good reason: A general exception would be easily abused to suppress dissent and criticism.

    Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems

    News

    There’s no ‘artificial intelligence’ exception to the First Amendment.


    Read More

    There are narrow, well-defined categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment — such as fraud and defamation — that Virginia can and does already restrict. But SB 775/HB 2479 is not limited to fraudulent or defamatory speech.

    For laws that burden protected speech related to elections, it is a very high bar to pass constitutional muster. This bill doesn’t meet that bar. It restricts far more speech than necessary to prevent voters from being deceived in ways that would have any effect on an election, and there are other ways to address deepfakes that would burden much less speech. For one, other speakers or candidates can (and do) simply point them out, eroding their potential to deceive.

    The First Amendment safeguards expressive tools like AI, allowing them to enhance our ability to communicate with one another without facing undue government restrictions.

    We urge the Virginia General Assembly to oppose this legislation. If it gets to his desk, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin should veto.

    Source link

  • Federal Agencies Issue Proposed Rule on Pay Equity and Transparency for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    Federal Agencies Issue Proposed Rule on Pay Equity and Transparency for Federal Contractors – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 14, 2024

    On January 30, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and NASA issued a proposed rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to create a salary history ban and require pay transparency during the hiring process for federal contractors and subcontractors. The proposed rule aligns with the Biden administration’s 2022 Executive Order, “Advancing Economy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness in Federal Contracting by Promoting Pay Equity and Transparency.”

    According to the proposed rule, the FAR would be amended to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”); and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose on job announcements the compensation to be offered (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    The proposed rule comes as many states and localities have recently implemented salary history bans and pay transparency laws. As the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking notes, 21 states, 22 localities, and Washington, D.C., have put bans into place that prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary, and 10 states have pay transparency laws in place, with several other states working toward implementing such laws.

    The agencies have provided a 70-day comment period for the proposed rule, closing on April 1. Stakeholders are invited to submit comments on their support for or opposition to the provisions of the proposed rule. CUPA-HR will monitor for additional updates on this proposed rule and other policy initiatives at the federal level as they relate to pay transparency and salary history bans.



    Source link

  • Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    Proposed Changes to the H-1B Visa Program – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | November 9, 2023

    On October 23, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule that aims to improve the H-1B program by simplifying the application process, increasing the program’s efficiency, offering more advantages and flexibilities to both petitioners and beneficiaries, and strengthening the program’s integrity measures.

    Background

    The H-1B visa program is pivotal for many sectors, particularly higher education. It permits U.S. employers to employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and a bachelor’s degree or higher or its equivalent. The program is subject to an annual limit of 65,000 visas, with an additional allocation of 20,000 visas reserved for foreign nationals who have earned a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Certain workers are exempt from this cap, including those at higher education institutions or affiliated nonprofit entities and nonprofit or governmental research organizations.

    Highlights of the Proposed Rule

    Prompted by challenges with the H-1B visa lottery, USCIS has prioritized a proposed rule to address the system’s integrity. The move comes after a surge in demand for H-1B visas led to the adoption of a lottery for fair distribution. However, with the fiscal year 2024 seeing a historic 758,994 registrations and over half of the candidates being entered multiple times, there was concern over potential exploitation to skew selection chances. This proposed rule is a direct response to strengthen the registration process and prevent fraud.

    Beyond addressing lottery concerns, the proposal makes critical revisions to underlying H-1B regulations. It seeks to formalize policies currently in place through guidance and tweak specific regulatory aspects.

    Amending the Definition of a “Specialty Occupation.” At present, a “specialty occupation” is identified as a job that requires unique, specialized knowledge in fields like engineering, medicine, education, business specialties, the arts, etc., and it typically mandates a bachelor’s degree or higher in a specific area or its equivalent. USCIS is proposing to refine the definition of a “specialty occupation” to ensure that the required degree for such positions is directly related to the job duties. The proposal specifies that general degrees without specialized knowledge do not meet the criteria, and petitioners must prove the connection between the degree field(s) and the occupation’s duties. The rule would allow for different specific degrees to qualify for a position if each degree directly relates to the occupation’s responsibilities. For example, a bachelor’s degree in either education or chemistry could be suitable for a chemistry teacher’s position if both are relevant to the job. The changes emphasize that the mere possibility of qualifying for a position with an unrelated degree is insufficient, and specific degrees must impart highly specialized knowledge pertinent to the role.

    Amending the Criteria for Specialty Occupation Positions. USCIS is proposing updates to the criteria defining a “specialty occupation” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This proposal includes a clarification of the term “normally,” which, in the context of a specialty occupation, indicates that a bachelor’s degree is typically, but not always, necessary for the profession. USCIS is aiming to standardize this term to reflect a type, standard, or regular pattern, reinforcing that the term “normally” does not equate to “always.”

    Extending F-1 Cap-Gap Protection. USCIS is proposing to revise the Cap-Gap provisions, which currently extend employment authorization for F-1 students awaiting H-1B visa approval until October 1 of the fiscal year for which H–1B visa classification has been requested. The Cap-Gap refers to the period between the end of an F-1 student’s Optional Practical Training (OPT) and the start of their H-1B status, which can lead to a gap in lawful status or employment authorization. The new proposal seeks to extend this period until April 1 of the fiscal year for which the H-1B visa is filed, or until the visa is approved, to better address processing delays and reduce the risk of employment authorization interruption. To be eligible, the H-1B petition must be legitimate and filed on time. This change is intended to support the U.S. in attracting and maintaining skilled international workers by providing a more reliable transition from student to professional status.

    Cap-Exempt Organizations. USCIS is redefining which employers are exempt from the H-1B visa cap. The proposed changes involve revising the definition of “nonprofit research organization” and “governmental research organization” from being “primarily engaged” in research to conducting research as a “fundamental activity.” This proposed change would enable organizations that might not focus primarily on research, but still fundamentally engage in such activities, to qualify for the exemption. Additionally, USCIS aims to accommodate beneficiaries not directly employed by a qualifying organization but who still perform essential, mission-critical work.

    Deference. USCIS is proposing to codify a policy of deference to prior adjudications of Form I-129 petitions, as delineated in the USCIS Policy Manual, mandating that officers give precedence to earlier decisions when the same parties and material facts recur. This proposal, however, includes stipulations that such deference is not required if there were material errors in the initial approval, if substantial changes in circumstances or eligibility have occurred, or if new and pertinent information emerges that could negatively influence the eligibility assessment.

    Next Steps

    While this summary captures key elements of the proposed changes, our members should be aware that the rule contains other important provisions that warrant careful review. These additional provisions could also significantly impact the H-1B visa program and its beneficiaries, and it is crucial for all interested parties to examine the proposed rule in its entirety to understand its full implications.

    USCIS is accepting public comment on its proposal through December 22, 2023. CUPA-HR is evaluating the proposed revisions and will be working with other higher education associations to submit comprehensive comments for the agency’s consideration. As USCIS moves towards finalizing the proposals within this rulemaking, potentially through one or more final rules depending on the availability of agency resources, CUPA-HR will keep its members informed of all significant updates and outcomes.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Updated Guidance on Workplace Harassment – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | October 27, 2023

    On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published new proposed guidance for employees and employers on navigating and preventing workplace harassment. “Enforced Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” highlights and upholds existing federal employment discrimination laws and precedence, such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

    The Updated Guidance

    The proposed enforcement guidance provides an overview and examples of situations that would constitute workplace harassment. Of particular interest are provisions included that reflect new and existing protections from harassment under federal laws and precedence, as well as emerging issues surrounding the workforce. The guidance discusses the following notable provisions for consideration:

    • Pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The guidance states that sex-based harassment includes harassment revolving around pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, all of which are protected under federal laws like the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the recently enacted PWFA.
    • Sexual orientation and gender identity. The guidance provides several examples of discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which is considered sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act after the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.
    • Virtual and online harassment. The guidance states that conduct within a virtual work environment can contribute to a hostile environment, providing examples such as harassing comments made during remote calls or discriminatory imagery being visible in an employee’s workspace while in a work-related video call. Additionally, the guidance provides examples of conduct on social media outside of work-related contexts that may contribute to hostile work environments if such conduct impacts the workplace.

    In the proposed guidance, the EEOC reminds stakeholders that the final guidance will “not have the force and effect of law” and that such guidance is “not meant to bind the public in any way.” Instead, the document “is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Commission policies.”

    Looking Ahead

    The proposed guidance is open for public comments through November 1, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the EEOC will review all feedback they received and make changes to address the comments prior to issuing a final rule. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates on this EEOC guidance, as well as new and existing laws falling under the EEOC’s jurisdiction.



    Source link

  • EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Protections – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 28, 2023

    On August 7, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a proposed rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The proposed rule provides a framework for how the EEOC plans to enforce protections granted to pregnant workers under the PWFA.

    In December, the PWFA was signed into law through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The law establishes employer obligations to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees so long as such accommodations do not cause an undue hardship on the business, and makes it unlawful to take adverse action against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The requirements of the law apply only to businesses with 15 or more employees. 

    Purpose and Definitions 

    Under the proposed rule, the EEOC states that employers are required to “provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.” 

    Most definitions included in the EEOC’s proposed regulations follow the definitions provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed rule, however, expands upon the definition of a “qualified employee or applicant” to include an employee or applicant who cannot perform an essential function of the job so long as they meet the following criteria: 

    • Any inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period 
    • The essential function could be performed in the near future 
    • The inability to perform the essential function can be reasonably accommodated 

    The rule continues by defining “temporary” as the need to suspend one or more essential functions if “lasting for a limited time, not permanent, and may extend beyond ‘in the near future.’” Accordingly, “in the near future” is defined to extend to 40 weeks from the start of the temporary suspension of an essential function.  

    Additionally, the terms “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” include a non-exhaustive list of examples of conditions that fall within the statute, including current or past pregnancy, potential pregnancy, lactation, use of birth control, menstruation, infertility and fertility treatments, endometriosis, miscarriage, stillbirth, and having or choosing not to have an abortion. The proposed rule specifies that employees and applicants do not have to specify the condition on the list or use medical terms to describe a condition to receive an accommodation.  

    Reasonable Accommodations 

    The proposed rule states that requests for an accommodation should both identify the limitation and indicate the need for an adjustment or change at work. The rule adopts the interactive process for approving and adopting reasonable accommodations for employees or applicants as implemented under the ADA, meaning employers and the qualified employee or applicant can work together to reach an agreement on an appropriate accommodation. 

    The proposed rule also offers a non-exhaustive list of examples of reasonable accommodations that may be agreed upon during the interactive process. These include frequent breaks, schedule changes, paid and unpaid leave, parking accommodations, modifying the work environment to make existing facilities accessible, job restructuring and other examples.  

    Additionally, the proposed rule introduces “simple modifications,” which are presumed to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue burden in almost all cases. The four simple modifications proposed are: 

    • Allowing employees to carry water and drink, as needed, in the work area 
    • Allowing employees additional restroom breaks 
    • Allowing employees to sit or stand when needed 
    • Allowing employees breaks, as needed, to eat and drink 

    Supporting Documentation 

    The proposed rule states that covered employers are not required to seek documentation to prove the medical condition or approve an accommodation, further stating that the employer can only request documentation if it is reasonable in order to determine whether to grant an accommodation for the employee or applicant in question. Under the regulations, “reasonable documentation” is that which describes or confirms the physical condition; that it is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions; and that a change or adjustment at work is needed for that reason. Examples of situations where requesting documentation may be determined to be unreasonable include when the limitation and need for an accommodation are obvious; when the employee has already provided sufficient documentation; when the accommodation is one of the four “simple modifications”; and when the accommodation is needed for lactation. 

    Remedies and Enforcement 

    The proposed rule establishes the applicable enforcement mechanisms and remedies available to employees and others covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for qualified employees and applicants covered under the PWFA. The rule also proposes several anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions to the list of protections granted to those covered by the PWFA. 

    Next Steps 

    The EEOC’s proposed rule marks the agency’s first step toward finalizing PWFA regulations. Although the timing is uncertain, the EEOC will likely aim to issue the final regulations by December 29 — the deadline Congress gave the agency to finalize a rulemaking to implement the law. Notably, however, the PWFA went into effect on June 27, meaning the EEOC is now accepting violation charges stemming from PWFA violations without having a final rule implemented. 

    The EEOC invites interested stakeholders to submit comments in response to the proposed rule by October 11. Comments will be considered by the agency before issuing its final rule for the PWFA.  

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any activity relating to the PWFA regulations.



    Source link

  • DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    DHS Announces Proposed Pilot Program for Non-E-Verify Employers to Use Remote I-9 Document Examination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | August 9, 2023

    On August 3, 2023, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice in the Federal Register seeking comments on a potential pilot program to allow employers not enrolled in E-Verify to harness remote examination procedures for the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

    Background

    DHS’s recent actions are built upon a series of moves aimed at modernizing and making more flexible the employment verification process. On July 25, 2023, the DHS rolled out a final rule enabling the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize optional alternative examination practices for employers when inspecting an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents, as mandated by the Form I-9. The rule creates a framework under which DHS may implement permanent flexibilities under specified conditions, start pilot procedures with respect to the examination of documents, or react to crises similar to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Alongside the final rule, DHS published a notice in the Federal Register authorizing a remote document examination procedure for employers who are participants in good standing in E-Verify and announced it would be disclosing details in the near future about a pilot program to a broader category of businesses.

    Key Highlights of the Proposed Non-E-Verify Remote Document Examination Pilot 

    DHS’s proposal primarily revolves around the following points:

    • Purpose: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to gauge the security impact of remote verification compared to traditional in-person examination of the Form I99. This involves evaluating potential consequences like error rates, fraud and discriminatory practices.
    • Pilot Procedure: The new pilot program would mirror the already authorized alternative method for E-Verify employers, including aspects such as remote document inspection, document retention and anti-discrimination measures.
    • Eligibility: The pilot program is open to most employers unless they have more than 500 employees. However, E-Verify employers are excluded since DHS has already greenlit an alternative for them.
    • Application Process: Interested employers must fill out the draft application form, which DHS has made available online. This form captures details like company information, terms of participation, participant obligations, and more.
    • Information Collection: Employers wishing to join the pilot would be required to complete the formal application linked above. ICE would periodically seek data from these employers, such as the number of new hires or how many employees asked for a physical inspection.
    • Documentation: Participating companies must electronically store clear copies of all supporting documents provided by individuals for the Form I-9. They might also be required to undertake mandatory trainings for detecting fraudulent documents and preventing discrimination.
    • Onsite/Hybrid Employees: Companies might face restrictions or a set timeframe for onsite or hybrid employees, dictating when they must physically check the Form I-9 after the initial remote assessment.
    • Audits and Investigations: All employers, including pilot participants, are liable for audits and evaluations. DHS plans to contrast data from these assessments to discern any systemic differences between the new method and the traditional one.

    What’s Next: Seeking Public Comments by October 2 

    DHS is actively seeking feedback from the public regarding the proposed pilot and the draft application form. The department encourages stakeholders to consider and provide insights on the following points:

    • Practical Utility: Assess if the proposed information requirement is vital for the agency’s proper functioning and whether the data collected will be practically useful.
    • Accuracy and Validity: Analyze the agency’s estimation of the information collection’s burden, ensuring the methods and assumptions are valid.
    • Enhance Information Quality: Offer suggestions to improve the clarity, utility and overall quality of the data collected.
    • Minimize Collection Burden: Propose ways to ease the data collection process for respondents, exploring technological solutions such as electronic submissions.

    In light of this, CUPA-HR plans to carefully evaluate the notice and associated application. Based on its review, CUPA-HR is considering submitting comments to provide valuable insights to DHS. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates regarding this proposed pilot program and other changes to Form I-9 alternative examination procedures.



    Source link