Government Assistance Shouldn't Require a Degree in Government
After more than two decades working inside New York City government, I've learned that complicated procedures don't necessarily produce better accountability. Sometimes they simply make it harder for people to receive the services their government was established to provide.
By Scott Webber, DrPH, MBA, MPA, MPH
I've spent more than two decades working in New York City government, including approximately 15 years at the Department of Correction.
Over that time, I've held positions involving budgeting, procurement, capital planning, public health administration, and technology management.
I've also earned several graduate degrees, including a Master of Public Administration, a Master of Public Health, and a Doctor of Public Health.
Yet even with that background, I occasionally find government processes unnecessarily complicated.
That raises a question I've thought about more and more throughout my career.
If someone who has spent decades working inside government sometimes struggles to navigate its procedures, what should we expect from someone who has never worked in government?
Consider a parent trying to obtain childcare assistance.
Or an older adult applying for food benefits.
Or someone who has lost a job and needs temporary assistance while searching for employment.
These individuals may be dealing with significant financial and personal pressures.
They shouldn't also need to become experts in administrative procedures, eligibility rules, and agency organizational structures.
Government has a responsibility to ensure that public funds are spent appropriately.
But it also has a responsibility to make legally available services reasonably accessible.
I don't believe those objectives are mutually exclusive.
I've Seen Why Government Procedures Become Complicated
Working in public procurement and budgeting has given me considerable appreciation for the importance of rules.
Government agencies must comply with legal requirements, maintain financial controls, document expenditures, and ensure that public resources are used for authorized purposes.
Those obligations are legitimate.
In my current role overseeing technology procurement and budget activities at the Department of Correction, I regularly deal with contract requirements, funding approvals, technical specifications, vendor documentation, and multiple layers of review.
Each requirement may have a reasonable explanation.
But I've also learned that when individual procedures are assembled into a larger process, the result can become unnecessarily difficult to navigate.
One office may require information in a particular format.
Another may request substantially the same information through a different system.
A third may need an additional approval before the transaction can proceed.
The underlying objective may be straightforward.
The administrative process is anything but.
Now imagine encountering a similar level of complexity when applying for food assistance or trying to maintain health coverage.
The stakes may be considerably higher for the person seeking help.
Government should never mistake the number of steps in a process for the quality of its oversight.
My Public Health Background Makes This More Than an Administrative Concern
Before my current responsibilities at the Department of Correction, I worked in budgeting and capital planning at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
My public health education has also shaped how I evaluate government programs.
Public health isn't simply about hospitals, medical treatment, or responding to disease.
It also involves the conditions that influence whether people can remain healthy.
Access to nutritious food, stable housing, healthcare, and financial security all matter.
A government benefit that exists on paper but is difficult to obtain may fail to achieve its intended public health purpose.
Consider a family eligible for nutritional assistance.
If obtaining that assistance requires repeated appointments, extensive documentation, and navigating confusing instructions, the administrative burden may discourage participation or delay access.
Those delays can have consequences beyond the agency's processing statistics.
The family still needs food.
The rent still needs to be paid.
Children still need stable living conditions.
From a public health perspective, reducing unnecessary administrative barriers can be a meaningful intervention.
It may not attract the attention associated with a major new government program.
But making an existing program easier to access can improve its effectiveness without necessarily expanding eligibility or increasing benefit amounts.
New York City Has Made Progress, but the Problems Remain
New York City has invested in digital tools intended to simplify access to assistance.
ACCESS NYC helps residents identify programs they may qualify for, while ACCESS HRA supports applications and case management for various benefits.
These are important improvements.
ACCESS NYC lets residents ask questions about their circumstances and learn whether they may be eligible for many government programs.
But eligibility screening isn't the same as receiving a benefit.
Applicants may still need to complete separate applications, provide documentation, participate in interviews, or interact with the agency that administers the program.
The City Council's December 2025 investigation into HRA Benefits Access Centers illustrates the difference between offering digital services and ensuring that those services work effectively.
Investigators identified problems involving software functionality, duplicate applications, staff training, and processing delays.
Among the concerns was that limitations in the ACCESS HRA application process could contribute to duplicate submissions and rejections.
That's an important finding.
A technology system designed to simplify government services should not inadvertently create additional work for applicants and agency personnel.
The City's own performance reporting also demonstrates both the challenges and opportunities.
According to the Fiscal Year 2025 Mayor's Management Report, HRA's cash assistance application timeliness rate improved by 21 percentage points, reaching 63.2%.
That's meaningful progress.
But it also indicates that more than one-third of applications were not processed within the applicable timeliness measure.
For a family awaiting assistance, the difference between a promptly processed application and a delayed one can be substantial.
Sources:
https://council.nyc.gov/press/2025/12/11/3026/
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/mmr2025/hra.pdf
Technology Should Eliminate Complexity, Not Digitize It
My experience managing government technology investments has made me skeptical of the assumption that purchasing a new system automatically improves a business process.
Technology can be transformative.
But a poorly designed process doesn't become efficient simply because it moves online.
Sometimes it becomes a poorly designed digital process.
An agency may replace paper applications with electronic forms while retaining unnecessary questions, duplicate verification requirements, and confusing approval procedures.
The applicant may no longer need to visit an office.
But the underlying administrative burden remains.
When government invests in technology, I believe agencies should begin by examining the process itself.
What information is actually necessary?
Which requirements are mandated by law?
Which exist because of longstanding agency practices?
Can existing information be reused legally and securely?
Can applicants receive clear status updates?
And what happens when someone cannot complete the process online?
Answer these questions before selecting software or awarding a contract.
In procurement, we often emphasize technical specifications and contract deliverables.
Those are important.
But for a public-facing benefits system, the most important deliverable is whether eligible residents can successfully obtain assistance.
The measure of a government technology investment should be the improvement it produces for the people who use it—not simply whether the system was implemented.
Government Should Stop Asking the Same Questions Repeatedly
One of the most frustrating aspects of dealing with large organizations is being asked to provide information already submitted.
Government agencies have legitimate reasons to verify eligibility.
Income may change.
Household composition may change.
Residency may change.
And different programs may operate under different federal or state requirements.
But government should still examine opportunities to reduce duplicative documentation.
Where legally permitted, secure information-sharing arrangements could allow agencies to verify facts without repeatedly requiring applicants to submit the same records.
This would require appropriate privacy safeguards, access controls and clear rules governing data use.
I wouldn't support indiscriminate sharing of sensitive personal information.
My experience with government technology and procurement has reinforced the importance of cybersecurity, confidentiality and accountability.
But privacy protections and administrative efficiency shouldn't automatically be viewed as competing objectives.
Well-designed systems can support both.
The goal should be to verify what government needs to know while minimizing unnecessary demands on residents.
As a Parent, I See How Easily Families Can Become Overwhelmed
Having two young children has given me a different perspective on the practical realities families face.
School enrollment, childcare, healthcare appointments, and other family responsibilities already involve substantial coordination.
Even when a household has reliable transportation, flexible employment arrangements, and the resources to manage unexpected expenses, navigating multiple institutions can be time-consuming.
For families with fewer resources, those challenges can become much more serious.
A parent working hourly shifts may lose wages to attend an appointment.
Someone without reliable transportation may need to spend hours traveling to an agency office.
A person with limited English proficiency may struggle to understand documentation requirements.
An older adult may be uncomfortable using online systems.
And a person with a disability may encounter accessibility barriers that government should have anticipated.
I believe agencies should design services around these realities.
That means offering multiple ways to apply, understandable instructions, accessible websites, language assistance, and meaningful human support.
Digital services are important.
But digital-only services can exclude people who lack reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or the ability to navigate complex online processes.
A government program isn't truly accessible simply because it has a website.
Administrative Burdens Have Financial Costs Too
My background in government budgeting raises another concern.
Complicated processes aren't necessarily inexpensive.
Every unnecessary document request consumes employee time.
Every duplicate application requires processing.
Every preventable error may generate additional correspondence, calls, or appeals.
And every poorly designed system can create recurring support and maintenance expenses.
In October 2024, the New York City Independent Budget Office reported that increased benefits caseloads, staffing challenges, and a relatively inexperienced workforce were contributing to processing pressures at HRA.
That finding highlights the relationship between workload, staffing, and service quality.
When an agency is already struggling with capacity, unnecessary administrative steps become especially costly.
From a management perspective, simplifying a process can potentially benefit both applicants and taxpayers.
Fewer avoidable transactions can reduce staff workload.
Clearer instructions can reduce errors.
Better system design can improve processing accuracy.
And faster decisions can help eligible residents obtain assistance sooner.
I would rather see government invest in improving these underlying processes than continually add staff or technology to compensate for avoidable complexity.
Source:
https://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/pressreleases/HRA-benefits-staffing-press-release-10-21-2024.pdf
Fraud Prevention and Accessibility Are Not Opposites
Whenever government assistance is discussed, concerns about fraud and improper payments deserve attention.
Taxpayers have a legitimate expectation that public resources will be distributed according to law.
I share that expectation.
My professional responsibilities require careful attention to financial controls, documentation, and compliance.
But I reject the idea that complicated application procedures are inherently effective at preventing fraud.
An applicant who must submit the same document repeatedly isn't necessarily under stronger oversight.
The agency may simply be operating inefficiently.
Good controls should target meaningful risks.
That may include appropriate identity verification, eligibility checks, audit trails, segregation of duties, and post-payment reviews where authorized.
The objective should be to detect improper payments without imposing unnecessary obstacles on eligible applicants.
Government should measure both sides of the equation.
How effectively are improper payments prevented?
And how many eligible applicants experience avoidable delays, errors, or denials?
Both matter.
An agency that minimizes improper payments but makes benefits practically inaccessible to eligible residents has not necessarily achieved good program administration.
Five Changes I Would Make
If I were responsible for redesigning access to government assistance, I would prioritize five reforms.
First, simplify applications before automating them. Review every question, document request, and procedural step to determine whether it is legally required and operationally necessary.
Second, create a more integrated applicant experience. Residents should be able to identify available programs, understand requirements, submit information, and track applications without repeatedly navigating unrelated systems.
Third, measure the applicant experience. Agencies should track completion rates, processing times, duplicate submissions, preventable rejections, and how often applicants must contact government to resolve a problem.
Fourth, preserve meaningful alternatives to online applications. Telephone assistance, accessible offices, community-based partners and language services remain important.
Fifth, hold technology vendors accountable for outcomes. Contracts should establish measurable requirements for system availability, accessibility, usability, error rates, and support—not merely delivery of software.
These reforms would require coordination across agencies and levels of government.
Some statutory requirements would remain.
Others might require legislative or regulatory changes.
But many improvements could begin with better management of existing programs.
The Public Shouldn't Need to Understand Government's Organizational Chart
After more than two decades in public administration, I've developed considerable respect for the people who keep government functioning.
Many public employees work under difficult conditions, managing complicated rules, heavy caseloads, and limited resources.
I don't believe the solution is simply telling those employees to work harder.
Government should give them better processes, better technology, and clearer responsibilities.
Nor do I believe we should eliminate every eligibility requirement.
Public assistance programs must operate within the law.
But government should accept responsibility for making those requirements understandable and manageable.
Residents shouldn't have to know which agency administers a particular program, why two systems don't communicate, or which internal unit is responsible for correcting an error.
Those are government management problems.
They shouldn't automatically become the applicant's problems.
My career has taught me that effective administration requires balancing accountability, cost, operational capacity, and service quality.
When done correctly, making government easier to navigate advances all four objectives.
The real test of a public assistance program isn't how thoroughly government explains its rules. It's whether eligible people can obtain the help they're entitled to receive without unnecessary hardship.
Government assistance shouldn't require a degree in government.
After earning several degrees and spending most of my professional life in public service, I believe that more strongly than ever.
References and Further Reading
1. New York City Council — Investigation into Benefits Access Centers Finds Technology Upgrades and Enhanced Training Are Needed (December 11, 2025)
https://council.nyc.gov/press/2025/12/11/3026/
Documents findings involving technology limitations, staff training, duplicate applications and processing challenges.
2. NYC Mayor's Management Report — Human Resources Administration, Fiscal Year 2025
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/operations/downloads/pdf/mmr2025/hra.pdf
Official performance information on cash assistance, SNAP, application timeliness and operational improvements.
3. New York City Independent Budget Office — Cash Assistance and SNAP Cases Grow, While HRA Processing Delays Persist (October 21, 2024)
https://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/pressreleases/HRA-benefits-staffing-press-release-10-21-2024.pdf
Analysis of benefits caseloads, staffing, experience levels and processing pressures.
4. NYC Opportunity — ACCESS NYC
https://www.nyc.gov/site/opportunity/portfolio/access-nyc.page
Describes the City's digital benefits screening and program-information platform.
5. ACCESS NYC — Benefits Eligibility Screener
https://access.nyc.gov/eligibility/
Public-facing tool for identifying potential eligibility for City, State and federal assistance programs.
6. NYC Human Resources Administration — SNAP Benefits Application Guide
https://www.nyc.gov/main/services/snap-benefits
Explains application procedures, interviews, document submission and case tracking.
7. New York State — myBenefits
https://mybenefits.ny.gov/
State portal for benefits screening and applications, with program availability depending on residency and eligibility.
8. NYC Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities — 2025 AccessibleNYC Report
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/mopd/downloads/pdf/2025-AccessibleNYC-Report.pdf
Discusses accessibility initiatives and simplified benefits procedures for older adults and people with disabilities.
The views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions of the New York City Department of Correction or the City of New York.
