Ford School professors Pamela Herd and Don Moynihan coauthored an article with Amy Widman for The Regulatory Review on why people are often unable to access what they are entitled to from the government and how to solve this problem. "Tens of billions of dollars in resources are left on the table each year, often by people who desperately need such support," they explain.
The problem is even more extensive; they write that the burden of these harmful processes "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 Biden Administration has been making attempts to reduce this burden through "an executive order on customer experience and a revised guidance on the Paperwork Reduction Act."
Herd, Moynihan, and Widman say the report they produced "offers an early assessment of what a practical burden reduction agenda looks like when put into practice." To put together this report, they "interviewed agency leaders and staff, including people working in particular program areas, customer experience, data management, and general counsel’s offices," took "public comment on individuals’ experiences" on many different public programs, and "reviewed legal and social science research that has examined the psychological impacts of burdensome processes"
They find 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." Within these agencies, the holistic approach is helping with "breaking down internal silos and encouraging cross-department collaborations that allow the agency to embed human-centered design thinking." They write that these agencies are "elevating the experiences of front-line staff. And they are learning from the people who use the government services they provide."
The focus on life experiences, "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 institutionalize a more collaborative, human-centered approach." This approach can "also lead to federal and state partnerships."
"Progress is being made on all fronts," they write. They go on to focus on the legal departments of many agencies, saying some are "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." These agencies have also been "expanding legal assistance and representation for people through various models" which is a "promising practice that can help people navigate lengthy or complex administrative processes."
They conclude with three general suggestions of improvements that these agencies are making and can improve on, Better measurement, Standardized definitions, and Data sharing. They write that the agencies "are being asked to identify administrative burdens, including learning, compliance, and psychological costs, they need more measurement tools to help them do so." Also, they say that these agencies often "have a confusing array of definitions and requirements that make little sense to members of the public." Lastly, they write that "Agencies can improve data sharing" and while there can be constraints on this, "agencies still have some opportunities that are not being leveraged."
Read their whole article here.
