Identifying and Reducing Burdens in Administrative Processes

A new report summarizes the emerging burden reduction framework

If you are a regular reader of Can We Still Govern? you will know we spend a lot of time focusing on what governments can do to identify and reduce administrative burdens. The good news is that policymakers are doing something about it. We recently co-authored a report for the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) that summarizes the emerging policy framework on burden reduction in the federal government, while offering suggestions for what else can be done. ACUS is a small federal agency that provides recommendations for how to improve administrative practices to the rest of the government, and in that fashion changes how administrative procedures work on a permanent basis. You can read the full report here if you are looking for a detailed primer on the topic. If you want something shorter, we also wrote a summary for The Regulatory Review, from the excellent Penn Program on Regulation. I am reposting the text below, followed by a summary of the recommendations that ACUS adopted.

People are not always able to access the federal benefits, grants, and programs to which they are entitled. Tens of billions of dollars in resources are left on the table each year, often by people who desperately need such support. Why? One reason is that applicants face numerous burdensome forms and procedures, and they lack assistance in navigating complex program requirements.  

Decisions to grant or deny benefits, for example, are often made on the basis of form applications that can be redundant, confusing, and inaccessible. Recent research highlights how inefficient and harmful such processes can be when agencies fail to identify and reduce administrative burdens. Such burdens not only affect people’s ability to access the public resources to which they are entitled, but they also generate psychological costs, which can do lasting damage to trust in democratic governance. 

The good news is that policymakers are paying more attention to administrative burdens. During the Biden Administration, an executive order on customer experience and a revised guidance on the Paperwork Reduction Act have embedded the language of burden reduction into policy and administrative processes. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has made burden reduction a central aspect of its effort to improve customer experience.  

How are these efforts going? The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) commissioned us to study how agencies identify and reduce administrative burdens—what is working and what still needs to be done. The report we produced offers an early assessment of what a practical burden reduction agenda looks like when put into practice.  

In our study, we interviewed agency leaders and staff, including people working in particular program areas, customer experience, data management, and general counsel’s offices. We sought to understand how agencies are addressing burdensome processes, what stumbling blocks they are encountering, and where there is room to expand assistance in administrative proceedings.  

We invited public comment on individuals’ experiences with burdens as well as their views about particular areas that need reform and the effectiveness of various burden reduction efforts to date. We received comments, for example, from legal aid organizations with clients navigating various federal benefit programs, such as Social Security, SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid. We also reviewed legal and social science research that has examined the psychological impacts of burdensome processes, and we brought our own professional areas of expertise to bear on the complexities and interdisciplinary nature at the heart of burden reduction. 

In our report to ACUS, we reviewed existing agency practices, drawing out specific types of innovations. We then mapped out a series of proposals on internal agency structure and culture changes: improving burden measurement and its role in cost-benefit analysis, modernizing data-sharing practices, and encouraging more robust user-focused research to guide agencies in these processes. ACUS adopted a recommendation in December 2023, in which it incorporated many of these proposals.  

We found that the agencies that are really embracing burden identification and reduction are doing so based on a holistic approach that changes the culture within the agency. Agencies that take this holistic approach are breaking down internal silos and encouraging cross-department collaborations that allow the agency to embed human-centered design thinking. They are listening to and elevating the experiences of front-line staff. And they are learning from the people who use the government services they provide.  

Important leadership from OMB has helped spur holistic thinking about how someone navigates government benefits and services across agencies. Approaching burden identification and reduction from a life experiences view—which considers the life events that lead people to seek benefits, such as retirement, transitioning from the military to civilian life, or facing a financial shock—helps to de-silo particular agencies. This approach helps institutionalize a more collaborative, human-centered approach. Such an approach can also lead to federal and state partnerships that facilitate burden reduction. For example, we heard from agencies developing more team-focused approaches with their state partners around the goal of burden reduction, rather than maintaining a purely compliance-focused enforcement relationship. 

The idea of “putting people first” is a perennial topic in structuring the delivery of governmental services. But for that rhetoric to matter, some basic things are required: an analytical framework that centers on how the public experiences government, a set of tools that puts that framework into action, and leadership support and a welcoming culture. Progress is being made on all fronts. Agencies have adopted this framework throughout all units of their organizations, including in their legal departments. Examples of internal design changes include bringing the general counsel’s office into program design early, building collaboration within various internal departments to streamline inevitable delays and false starts, and having a dedicated in-house customer service team with senior staff and authority. 

Expanding legal assistance and representation for people through various models is another emerging and promising practice that can help people navigate lengthy or complex administrative processes. Such efforts can include codifying ethics rules to allow for nonlawyer assistance—as ACUS and others have been working to do—building out more opportunities for accredited representatives and community justice workers, or expanding ombuds programs,. Providing better legal assistance not only can address burdens and increase agency efficiency, but it can reduce the psychological costs to program beneficiaries. For other sets of practices, there are complex statutory landscapes within which agencies must operate. The following sets of proposals are mindful of these constraints yet encourage more innovation within the legal framework. 

Better measurement. As agencies are being asked to identify administrative burdens, including learning, compliance, and psychological costs, they need more measurement tools to help them do so. It is unlikely that any single measure of burden will suffice; rather, a suite of tools can capture user experiences of burdens. Such tools could include objective indicators, such as time spent on processes, as well as sludge audit tools. Better measurement should not crowd out qualitative tools, such as human-centered design, because qualitative data on citizen experiences provides different insights into the source of burdens.  

Standardized definitions. Programs can have a confusing array of definitions and requirements that make little sense to members of the public. We heard about patchworks of definitions related to benefits eligibility across federal and state programs—and even sometimes between different programs within the same agency. For example, an agency might have different methods of calculating income, which can be a burden for someone who is applying for benefits across programs. Agencies can use existing regulatory and statutory frameworks to identify opportunities to standardize definitions or interpretations between different eligibility processes.  

Data sharing. Agencies can improve data sharing. Although statutory constraints can sometimes limit agencies’ ability to share data, agencies still have some opportunities that are not being leveraged to eliminate informational and cultural silos both within and between agencies. Better information sharing can help agencies ensure qualified individuals’ eligibility for various programs. Access to eligibility information can expand outreach to individuals who may not be aware of a particular program or benefit. Better collaboration on information can also reduce burdens by allowing for automatic enrollment or reducing the number of forms required for individuals to access programs. 

All these approaches require user-focused research, which is governed by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Although exempt and fast-track processes are available, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has encouraged agencies to use them liberally, there are still several informal misunderstandings about what the processes allow. In response to the ongoing need to clarify flexibilities, OMB developed materials to try to ease agency PRA submissions. The high-impact service providers are using these materials, with agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Labor, and Department of Education topping the list of users.  

This use of these materials is a great step forward, as they encourage agencies to align survey questions, keep surveys short, and publicly post results. But even so, we continued to hear from agency staff that PRA processes are burdensome and restraining. Agency general counsels can work closely with PRA officers internally to review agency policies to make sure all existing flexibilities under the PRA are widely understood and are used liberally. 

As our report concluded, “in many ways, the stars are aligned for the federal government to significantly commit to burden reduction as an ongoing effort that can deliver dramatic improvements in the quality of government, one that will be directly experienced by members of the public.” Of course, as we also noted, “this outcome is far from guaranteed.” Making real change “requires not just learning and using these new concepts, frameworks, tools and technologies, it also requires sustained investment of leadership attention and resources to the topic, one that values policy implementation, as much as policy design.”

---

ACUS Recommendations

Here are a list of the formal recommendations that ACUS adopted:

Burden Identification and Reduction Principles

1. Federal agencies should seek to identify and reduce administrative burdens that the public faces when interacting with government programs.

2. Agencies’ efforts to identify and reduce burdens should take into account the experiences and perspectives of members of the public who interact with government programs.

3. Because members of the public often interact with multiple government agencies and programs during key life experiences, such as retirement, birth of a child, or unexpected disaster, agency and program officials should collaborate to identify and reduce burdens that would predictably arise during those experiences.

4. When undertaking efforts to identify and reduce burdens, agencies should consider the effects on other important public values, including program integrity.

Burden Identification Strategies

5. Agencies should adopt procedures for consulting with members of the public who interact with government programs to better inform agency officials about the nature of the burdens their processes impose. In seeking to do so, agencies should try to identify and consult with those who may face disproportionate burdens in accessing agency programs. Agencies should employ multiple consultative techniques, including:

   a. Client outreach, such as surveys and focus groups;

   b. Requests for public comment;

   c. Complaint portals available on agency websites;

   d. Consultation with agency staff who work with the public, including agency ombuds or public advocate staff; and

   e. Consultation with nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups, and other members of the private sector (such as representatives, program navigators who help members of the public engage with governmental processes, and social workers) who assist members of the public.

6. To help identify burdens, agencies should use the information obtained through such consultation to identify the procedures members of the public face, and resulting burdens, at each step in the process.

7. To determine agencies’ authority to reduce burdens, agencies should trace the legal or operational source of identified burdens to determine whether they are imposed by statute or by regulation, guidance, or agency practice, at the federal or state level.

8. Agencies should, to the extent feasible, estimate and quantify any learning, compliance, or psychological costs of interacting with their programs. These costs include the time it takes to learn about programs and how to access them, the work it takes to comply with program requirements, and the stress or stigma resulting from engaging with administrative programs, as well as forgone benefits or services.

Burden Reduction Strategies

9. Agencies should periodically review their administrative processes to identify opportunities to simplify them by, as appropriate:

   a. Limiting the number of steps in processes;

   b. Reducing the length of required forms;

   c. Limiting documentation requirements, where possible;

   d. Eliminating notary requirements and substituting unsworn statements under penalty of perjury; and

   e. Expanding access to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities.

10. Agencies should allow the public to interact with government programs using online processes while still retaining in-person processes when necessary to ensure access to benefits and services. In particular, agencies should, when possible:

   a. Create alternatives (such as digital or telephonic signatures) for requirements for “wet” signatures;

   b. Allow members of the public to use universal logins used by government agencies;

   c. Allow members of the public to interact with agencies by telephone or video conference rather than requiring in-person appointments; and

   d. Make agency websites and processes accessible on mobile devices.

11. When permitted by law, agencies should reduce steps members of the public must take to receive benefits or services by using information in the government’s possession to determine program eligibility, prepopulate enrollment forms, or automatically select the most beneficial program options for members of the public unless they decide to opt out.

12. Agencies should make information about their programs as easy as possible to find and understand, proactively provide information to members of the public about their eligibility for benefits and services, and allow members of the public to expeditiously access records pertaining to themselves when required for obtaining benefits and services.

13. Agencies should timely provide information in plain language and, when appropriate and feasible, in multiple languages to ensure members of the public can understand and use the information.

14. Agencies should increase the availability of assistance for members of the public interacting with their programs, beyond continuing to enable members of the public to rely on assistance from other persons such as family or friends, by:

   a. Working with legal aid organizations and others who provide pro bono or “low” bono (below market rate but not free) services to increase availability of representation;

   b. Establishing rules authorizing accredited or qualified nonlawyer representatives to practice before the agency; and

   c. Expanding the use of agency staff, including front-line staff, ombuds, and public advocates, as well as government-sponsored and -supported entities designed to help members of the public navigate government processes.

15. Agencies should identify unnecessary administrative burdens that are required by statutes in their Supporting Statements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and in their annual proposed legislative program submissions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Circular A-19.

Agency Organization

16. Political appointees, senior executives, and other agency leaders should prioritize burden identification strategies and reduction efforts, using their leadership positions to articulate burden reduction goals for agency staff and outline commitments for achieving them, particularly when such commitments require collaboration between agency units. Agencies should connect their burden reduction goals to their strategic planning and reporting goals under the Government Performance and Results Act.

17. Agencies should identify whether they have particular programs or functions that involve interaction with the public. Agencies with such programs should assemble a team devoted to improving the experiences that these members of the public have when interacting with the agency, often referred to as customer experience (CX) teams. CX teams should have thorough knowledge of relevant agency programs. Senior career staff should partner with one or more political appointees to provide CX teams with sufficient authority within the agency to accomplish their goals.

18. Agencies should include their general counsels and other relevant staff with statutory responsibilities related to burden reduction (for example, privacy officers and PRA officers) in such reduction efforts as early as possible in order to facilitate agency efforts to maximize burden reduction.

Agency Collaboration

19. Federal agencies should expand efforts to collaborate with other entities to maximize burden reduction. In particular, program and legal staff should collaborate with their chief data officer and other relevant officials on ways to share data across federal agencies and between federal and state agencies, consistent with the Fair Information Practice Principles and all relevant law and policy, in order to:

   a. Increase outreach to members of the public who may be eligible for administrative programs;

   b. Reduce requirements for forms and documentation; and

   c. Under certain conditions, provide for automatic enrollment and renewal.

20. Agencies should work with their chief data officers and other relevant officials in cross-agency working groups to share information about best practices for reducing burden and using data-sharing agreements.

Roles for OMB and Congress

21. OMB should provide agencies with additional guidance, potentially including models and training, to inform agency:

   a. Measurement and consideration of administrative burden and forgone benefits and services, such as in regulatory impact analyses;

   b. Examination of the potential legal or policy advantages and disadvantages of administrative data sharing, in particular providing additional positive examples of data sharing; and

   c. Use of flexibilities under the PRA to make it easier for agencies to conduct CX research and to improve agency service delivery.

22. When developing legislation that establishes or affects administrative programs, Congress should provide express statutory authority for agencies to share data where doing so would further the goals of the legislation and not cause undue harm to other legislative purposes or critical privacy interests.