Reduce the steps
Simplification
Simplification interventions remove steps, fields, decisions, or cognitive load from a process. Examples include pre-populated tax forms, single-page benefits applications, and one-click renewals. The mechanism is procedural: every removed step removes a point at which the person can drop off.
14
Experiments
6
Policy areas
2000–2024
Year span
14 / 14
Positive
When it works
When the process is one the person wants to complete but is failing to. Simplification turns intention into action by reducing the friction in between. Effects are often large and durable — simplifying a form once changes every subsequent applicant.
Watch out for
Removing steps can also remove information or safeguards (a 30-second loan agreement is simpler, but worse). The right question is which steps add value and which add only burden. Audit the form before testing the message.
Simplification across policy areas
Benefits Enrollment· 4 experiments
- Positive
Flexible SNAP Interview Scheduling
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services · Los Angeles, USA · 2022
Effect: +6 pp approval rate; doubles early approvals; +2 pp long-term participation
- Positive
Streamlined ACA Health Insurance Enrollment
Massachusetts Health Connector · Massachusetts, USA · 2021
Effect: Streamlined: +11 pp; Personalized reminder: +7.9 pp; Generic reminder: +4.5 pp vs. control
- Positive
SNAP Enrollment Information Letters for Seniors
Pennsylvania Department of Human Services · Pennsylvania, USA · 2016
Effect: Control: 6% → Information only: 11% → Information + Assistance: 18%
- Positive
SNAP Enrollment Simplification — Vermont
Vermont Dept. of Children and Families · Vermont, USA · 2014
Effect: Application completion: +19 percentage points; eligible enrollment rate: +12 pp; days to first benefit: 21 → 8
Administrative Process· 3 experiments
- Positive
Online Permit System Implementation
Boone County, Illinois · Boone County, USA · 2021
Effect: +214% permits issued in first quarter post-launch; revenue increased to $140,000
- Positive
Business Permit Processing Streamlining
City of Phoenix, Dept. of Planning and Development · Phoenix, AZ, United States · 2019
Effect: Processing time: 45 days → 12 days; first-submission approval: +18%; compliance violations unchanged
- Positive
Foreclosure Prevention — Administrative Burden Reduction
US mortgage assistance program (HAMP-era evaluation) · United States · 2018
Effect: +23% benefit receipt rate; −7.5% foreclosure rate
Tax & Revenue· 2 experiments
- Positive
IRS Direct File Pilot
Internal Revenue Service / US Digital Service · United States (12 pilot states) · 2024
Effect: 90%+ user-satisfaction rating on post-filing survey; users reported saving an average of $160 in filing fees and approximately 30 minutes vs. commercial alternatives; ~78% completion rate among users who started a return. Independent analysis by the Government Accountability Office estimated annual potential savings of $11 billion if scaled nationally.
- Positive
Simplified Tax Penalty Payment
Indonesia Directorate General of Taxes · Indonesia · 2022
Effect: Simplification arm: +32% timely settlement vs. control; Deterrence: +27%
Libraries· 2 experiments
- Positive
Library Fine Elimination
Chicago Public Library · Chicago, USA · 2019
Effect: +240% returned books in month following elimination; significant increase in new cards from low-income zip codes; no increase in unreturned materials
- Positive
Library Fine Elimination — Return Rate Impact
Salt Lake City Public Library · Salt Lake City, USA · 2019
Effect: Late returns fell from 9% to 4% after fine elimination
Voter Engagement· 2 experiments
- Positive
Colorado Universal Vote-by-Mail
Stanford Healthy Elections Project / University of Colorado Denver · Colorado, USA · 2013
Effect: Estimates from rigorous quasi-experimental studies (Bonica & Grumbach; Pew Charitable Trusts; Stanford's Healthy Elections Project) find approximately +2 to +3.3 percentage point increase in general-election turnout and substantially larger effects (+9 to +14 pp) in low-salience local and primary elections. Effects largest among low-propensity voters and roughly partisan-neutral.
- Positive
Oregon Universal Vote by Mail
Oregon Secretary of State / Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project · Oregon, USA · 2000
Effect: Turnout: +5 to +10 pp overall vs. comparable states; low-propensity voter turnout: +17 pp; elderly and disabled voter turnout: largest gains; no detectable increase in fraud rates