In Short:

This paper explains how we ended up with a statute that perversely undermines its purposes, what goes wrong (and right) in the status quo, and how to design a better Paperwork Reduction Act.

Abstract

The Paperwork Reduction Act was enacted to reduce unnecessary paperwork and improve policymaking. But it fails to effectively realize these goals. This paper explains how we ended up with a statute that perversely undermines its purposes, what goes wrong (and right) in the status quo, and how to design a better Paperwork Reduction Act.

To understand where we should go, it is helpful to understand how we got here. The Paperwork Reduction Act is the descendant of a century of efforts to rein in unnecessary paperwork. From the New Deal to the 1973 oil embargo to today, statutes and regulations have attempted to find the right processes to improve and constrain, but not unduly impair or delay, government collection of information. Recent efforts to improve implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act have clarified existing flexibilities, but could not fix its underlying flaws.

Doing so is necessary, because despite its considerable strengths, the Paperwork Reduction Act is seriously flawed. In particular, the public input process under the Paperwork Reduction Act is rarely effective, yet imposes enormous delays. Agencies therefore defer—or even abandon—efforts to collect critical information that would improve policymaking. At the same time, reviews by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs can yield enormous reductions of unnecessary burden, as well as other improvements. But reviews are only useful for a small fraction of current information collections.

A better Paperwork Reduction Act is possible. The Act should be amended to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative public comment periods, encourage agencies to seek better user feedback in lieu of unused public comments processes, allow for review to be waived for certain collections, and provide that information collections can be approved for longer periods of time. These changes would reduce PRA delays of information collections substantially, provide more useful public feedback, and make PRA reviews more effective, as more resources would be devoted to a smaller number of high-impact collections.

Awareness of the flaws of the Paperwork Reduction Act is growing, but clarity about the right path forward is lacking. Congress has an opportunity to act. By enacting reforms, it can improve policymaking, eliminate wasted efforts and delays in agencies, and better reduce paperwork burdens on the public.

---

About the author