Fewer Burdens but Greater Inequality? Reevaluating the Safety Net through the Lens of Administrative Burden

Abstract

We examine changes in administrative burden in U.S. social safety net programs, or the negative encounters with the state that people experience when trying to access and use the benefits for which they are eligible. Existing theories equate targeted safety net policies, which sharply limit eligibility, as compared to universal policies, which have more expansive eligibility, with increased administrative burden. The past 30 years, however, tell a more complicated story. While overall burdens have declined in most targeted programs, there is evidence of increasing inequality regarding who faces these burdens. We trace the cause to three factors: (1) expansions in targeted programs, like Medicaid, gave states more administrative control, which increased both geographic and racial disparities in administrative burden; (2) delivering benefits through the tax system created more burdens for low-income populations compared to high-income populations; and (3) a growing reliance on private providers to deliver benefits and services created higher burdens for low-income populations to navigate.