Chutes and Ladders: Disparities and Administrative Burden Among U.S. Safety Net Programs

Research shows that participation in the federal safety net programs, such as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), is associated with higher educational attainment, better health outcomes, and improved social and behavioral skills among those living in income poverty. However, not all eligible families and individuals have the same experience when interacting with these programs. Program access, services, and outcomes may look different along many different dimensions such as gender, race, rural status, and else. In order to better serve all eligible families, it is important to understand what these differences look like, the mechanisms through which these differences may arise, and ways in which both policy and implementation may be improved. For this to happen in an equitable way, it is necessary to capture the perspectives of both clients and practitioners. One of the theories as to why these differences may arise points at administrative burdens placed on the applicant in order to receive benefits, but given the complexity of these programs, burden may manifest in a variety of ways for different groups of individuals.   The papers in this session catalogue exactly this. The first paper focuses on differences in TANF participation rates by race and ethnicity, within a conceptual framework that highlights the importance of considering families’ financial needs in assessing whether differences constitute disparities. The second paper then turns to one of the mechanisms through which SNAP applicants deal with administrative burden, in this case eligibility interviews, and finds an alternative intake process that increases participation rates during a field experiment. Finally, the third paper captures on-the-ground implementation practices from the perspective of practitioners delivering TANF and helps inform observed differences in uptake by race and ethnicity of income-eligible applicants.   Together, these studies shed light on the ways in which administrative burden may present itself and how it may impact different groups resulting in disparities. It also highlights the importance of cataloguing experiences from different stakeholders. These results have important implications for policy design and implementation across a variety of means-tested programs and may help propel families towards the economic stability and mobility that they seek.