The Hidden Cost of Making Residents Prove the Same Thing Twice

Why do we make people give us information we already have?

Think about how many times you've filled out a form, submitted documentation, or entered your information into a system, only to be asked for the exact same thing somewhere else.

Name. Address. Phone number. Identification. Supporting documents.

Then you get transferred to another department, and guess what?

You get to do it all over again.

We've become so accustomed to this process that we barely question it anymore.

But maybe we should.

Because every time an organization makes someone repeat work unnecessarily, there's a cost.

And in government, that cost isn't always reflected in the budget.

The Process Makes Sense to the Organization

Here's how these situations often develop.

One department needs information to complete a task, so it creates a form.

Another department has a different responsibility and creates its own form.

A third department uses a separate system and requires its own documentation.

Each process might make perfect sense individually.

But nobody stops to look at the entire experience from the resident's perspective.

Now imagine someone trying to open a small business.

They may need to work with licensing, zoning, permitting, utilities, and other offices depending on the location and type of business.

Different requirements can be necessary. Different departments may have legitimate reasons to verify information.

But does that automatically mean the applicant should have to enter the same basic details five different times?

Not necessarily.

The real question is whether the repetition serves a legitimate purpose or simply exists because that's how the process was built.

Every Extra Step Has a Cost

We usually think about government efficiency in terms of staffing, technology, and budgets.

Those are important.

But there's another expense we don't always discuss.

The time we're asking residents to spend.

Consider a hypothetical application process that requires someone to spend an additional 20 minutes entering information already provided elsewhere.

That might not sound like much.

But if 3,000 applicants complete that process annually, those extra steps represent 1,000 hours of public time.

That's time people could have spent working, managing their businesses, or taking care of their families.

And it doesn't include the time city employees spend reviewing duplicate submissions, correcting errors, or answering questions.

Now imagine applying that same thinking across multiple government services.

Suddenly, small inefficiencies don't seem quite so small.

Technology Isn't Always the Answer

Whenever organizations identify inefficient processes, the conversation often turns toward purchasing new software.

Sometimes that's exactly what's needed.

But I've seen enough systems and workflows to know that technology doesn't automatically fix a bad process.

If you take a complicated paper form and turn it into a complicated digital form, what have you accomplished?

You've made the same frustrating process available online.

That's an improvement in accessibility for some users, but it doesn't necessarily solve the underlying problem.

Before investing in another platform, organizations should ask a few basic questions.

Why are we collecting this information?

Who actually needs it?

Is it already available through an authorized system?

Can we eliminate a step?

Can we simplify the instructions?

Could two departments coordinate their requirements?

Those questions cost very little to ask.

And the answers might save significant time.

Sharing Information Requires Responsibility

Now, there's an important distinction here.

Just because government possesses information doesn't mean every department should automatically have access to it.

Privacy, security, legal restrictions, and records management requirements matter.

Certain information may need to be collected or verified separately.

That's completely reasonable.

But those legitimate requirements shouldn't become an excuse to avoid examining unnecessary duplication.

A better approach starts by identifying what information can appropriately be reused, what requires fresh verification, and what must remain restricted.

Sometimes the solution is a secure integration.

Sometimes it's a resident-authorized document transfer.

Sometimes it's simply coordinating the timing and instructions for related applications.

The goal isn't unrestricted data sharing.

It's reducing unnecessary work while protecting the information residents trust government to handle responsibly.

Follow the Resident Through the Entire Process

One of the simplest ways to find problems is to experience the process from beginning to end.

Not just the portion handled by one department.

The entire process.

Imagine asking a staff member to complete a sample application using the same public-facing instructions a resident receives.

Where do they get confused?

Which information is requested more than once?

Are there unclear instructions?

Do they have to call someone to understand the next step?

Does the system explain what happens after submission?

These questions can reveal problems that don't show up in a department's regular performance report.

And the answers may surprise leadership.

A process can look efficient internally while being incredibly frustrating externally.

Small Improvements Can Make a Big Difference

Not every improvement requires a major technology project.

Maybe two departments can agree on consistent terminology.

Maybe an application can be shortened.

Maybe a website can clearly explain which documents are required before someone begins.

Maybe residents can receive a checklist showing every step of a multi-department process.

Or perhaps the city can establish a single point of contact for complex applications.

None of these changes will solve every administrative challenge.

But they can reduce confusion and prevent unnecessary back-and-forth.

And that matters.

Start Measuring the Work We Create for Others

Here's the question I'd encourage leaders to ask.

How much work does someone have to complete before we can provide the service they're requesting?

Not just how long employees spend processing an application.

How much effort does the resident have to invest?

How many forms?

How many calls?

How many visits?

How many times must the same information be submitted?

Those answers can reveal opportunities that traditional performance metrics miss.

Because efficiency isn't only about how quickly an employee completes a task.

It's also about how much unnecessary work the organization eliminates.

If we're serious about making government more efficient, we should stop measuring only the work happening inside city hall and start paying attention to the work we're asking everyone else to do.

Sometimes the best process improvement is simply asking people to do less.