PROJECT OVERVIEW
Administrative Burdens in the Social Safety Net
Highlights
Administrative burdens refer to the learning, compliance, and psychological costs individuals face when interacting with the state. This article provides an overview of the administrative burden approach, compares it to other approaches that investigate frictions in public service, reviews federal efforts to integrate burden reduction processes in government, and identifies its implications for US social safety net programs and relevance to other countries.
Research on administrative burdens shows that (1) even small burdens can have large effects; (2) burdens can reinforce and exacerbate inequality; and (3) burdens can be a way of policymaking by other means.
In ‘policymaking by other means’ the authors explain that burdens can be used to achieve policy goals outside the legislative process such as by limiting access to safety-net programs or channeling resources to favored groups. The article outlines key lessons for policy design in safety net programs such as: avoid adding burdens that are predictably ineffective and have negative effects on benefit recipients, such as work requirements; shift burdens onto the state with methods such as auto-enrollment and informational nudges; and recognize that both technology and individual caseworkers can hinder or improve the experience of burdens for benefit recipients.
Overview
Administrative burden is an approach that provides tools to understand, identify and mitigate frictions when individuals engage with government to receive public services. Research on administrative burdens shows that (1) even small burdens can have large effects; (2) burdens can reinforce and exacerbate inequality; and (3) burdens can be a way of policymaking by other means, serving as a tool to achieve political or programmatic goals. Compared to other frameworks that investigate friction, the administrative burden approach identifies needs for structural changes, reveals when burdens are the result of political ideology or values, and outlines a framework of costs that individuals encounter (see Table 1). In recent years, federal policy has provided a framework for identifying and mitigating administrative burdens through improved customer experience, creating momentum and tools for institutional practices.
Approach
This article provides research findings that demonstrate the impact of burdens on participation in social safety net programs, and provides key lessons for policy design. For example, from 2016-2019, 250,000 children lost Medicaid coverage in Tennessee, with 67% losing coverage due to failure to return forms. This kind of denial, known as a procedural denial, is an indicator that the state created burdensome processes that limited enrollment rather than a reflection of program eligibility.
Key lessons for addressing burden in safety net policy design include:
(1) Avoid imposing predictably ineffective burdens. Some burdens imposed for value-based reasons, such as fraud prevention, are predictably ineffective and have negative effects by reducing program enrollment and increasing compliance costs for benefit recipients. Burdens imposed for these reasons include asset tests and work requirements.
(2) When possible, shift burdens onto the state. This can be achieved by offering third-party navigators and existing administrative data to reduce eligibility barriers. Auto-enrollment has been found to be one of the most effective strategies in burden reduction.
(3) Technology and street-level bureaucrats can reduce or enhance burdens. Technological tools, when designed well, can reduce learning, compliance and psychological costs at scale. However, badly designed systems can increase burdens for recipients and caseworkers, particularly if technological tools are inflexible and deny discretion to caseworkers. Apart from technology, caseworkers can use their discretion to reduce or enhance burdens for clients on an individual level.
Additionally, this article touches on burdens that occur at phases beyond benefit take-up and recertification, noting that burdens likely have downstream effects on health and financial well-being, political beliefs, and trust in government.