Extant literature has emphasized the role of significant inconveniences for participants as a chief reason for under-enrollment in a variety of social safety net programs. Consequently, a variety of policies have been proposed to address this issue. This paper asserts that the capacity of states, especially of frontline workers, to implement these policies should not be taken for granted. Our analysis of two policies aimed at increasing elderly participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program suggests that policies that increased burdens for frontline workers were implemented less faithfully and more unevenly, possibly leading to more administrative burden on program participants. The article proposes several methods to decrease implementation burden on frontline workers.
AbramovitzM. (2012). Theorising the neoliberal welfare state for social work. In GrayM.MidgleyJ.WebbS. A. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social work (pp. 33–50). SAGE.
2.
AbuSabhaR.ShackmanG.BonkB.SamuelsS. (2011). Food security and senior participation in the commodity supplemental food program. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 6(1), 1–9.
3.
AdamsG. B.LeeJ. S.BhargavaV.SuperD. A. (2017). Offsetting the effects of medical expenses on older adults’ household food budgets: An analysis of the standard medical expense deduction. The Gerontologist, 57(2), 359–366.
4.
AussenbergR. A. (2018). Errors and fraud in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP). CRS Report 7-5700. Congressional Research Service.
5.
AustinM. J.JohnsonM. A.ChowJ. C. C.De MarcoA.KetchV. (2009). Delivering welfare-to-work services in county social service organizations: An exploratory study of staff perspectives. Administration in Social Work, 33(1), 105–126.
6.
BartlettS.BursteinN. (2004). Food stamp program access study: Eligible nonparticipants. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
7.
BlockF.SomersM. (2014). The power of market fundamentalism. Harvard University Press.
8.
BrodkinE. Z. (2011). Policy work: Street-level organizations under new managerialism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl. 2), i253–i277.
9.
BrodkinE. Z. (2013). Commodification, inclusion, or what: Workfare in everyday organizational Life. In BrodkinE. Z.MarstonG. (Eds.), Work and the welfare state: Street-level organizations and workfare politics (pp. 143–166). Georgetown University Press.
10.
BrodkinE. Z. (2015). Street-level organizations and the “real world” of workfare: Lessons from the US. Social Work & Society, 13(1), 1–16.
11.
CodyS.OhlsJ. (2005). Evaluation of the USDA elderly nutrition demonstrations: Volume I, Evaluation findings. Mathematica Policy Research.
12.
CondreyS. E.BattaglioR. P.Jr. (2007). A return to spoils? Revisiting radical civil service reform in the United States. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 425–436.
13.
CorbinJ. M.StraussA. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
14.
ChristensenJ.AarøeL.BaekgaardM.HerdP.MoynihanD.P. (2020) Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1), 127–136.
15.
CurrieJ. (2004). The take up of social benefits (Working Paper No. 10488). National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
DestlerK. N. (2017). A matter of trust: Street level bureaucrats, organizational climate and performance management reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(3), 517–534.
17.
DiefenbachT. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909.
18.
DornS.MintonS.HuberE. (2014). Examples of promising practices for integrating and coordinating eligibility, enrollment and retention: Human services and health programs under the Affordable Care Act. Urban Institute.
19.
ElmoreR. F. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.
20.
GaborV.WilliamsS. S.BellamyH.HardisonB. L. (2002). Seniors’ views of the food stamp program and ways to improve participation–Focus group findings in Washington state. U.S. (Final Report). Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
21.
GanongP.LiebmanJ. B. (2018). The decline, rebound, and further rise in SNAP enrollment: Disentangling business cycle fluctuations and policy changes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(4), 153–176.
22.
HaqueM. S. (2004). New public management: Origins, dimensions, and critical implications. Public Administration and Public Policy, 1(1), 13–27.
23.
HeflinC.MueserP. (2010). Assessing the impact of a modernized application process on Florida’s Food Stamp caseload [Discussion Paper Series, DP2010-01]. University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research.
24.
HeinrichC. J. (2016). The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 403–420.
25.
HerdP.DeLeireT.HarveyH.MoynihanD. P. (2013). Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review, 73(Suppl. 1), S69–S81.
26.
HerdP.MoynihanD. P. (2019). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.
27.
HoodC. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.
28.
JewellC. J.GlaserB. E. (2006). Toward a general analytic framework: Organizational settings, policy goals, and street-level behavior. Administration & Society, 38(3), 335–364.
29.
KaufmanJ. (2020). Intensity, moderation, and the pressures of expectation: Calculation and coercion in the street-level practice of welfare conditionality. Social Policy & Administration, 54(2), 205–218.
30.
KettlD. F. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
KieferT.HartleyJ.ConwayN.BrinerR. B. (2015). Feeling the squeeze: Public employees’ experiences of cutback-and innovation-related organizational changes following a national announcement of budget reductions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1279–1305.
32.
KlermanJ. A.DanielsonC. (2009). Determinants of the food stamp program caseload (Contractor and Cooperator Report No.50). RAND Corporation.
33.
LaveeE.StrierR. (2019). Transferring emotional capital as coerced discretion: Street-level bureaucrats reconciling structural deficiencies. Public Administration, 97(4), 910–925.
34.
LewiskinJ.AbramovitzM.ZelnickJ. (2021). On the Front Lines: The Impact of Managerialism on the New York City Addiction Treatment Workforce. NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 31(3), 259–270.
35.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
MabliJ.MartinE. S.CastnerL. (2009). Effects of economic conditions and program policy on state food stamp program caseloads 2000 to 2006. Mathematica Policy Research.
37.
MoynihanD.HerdP.HarveyH. (2015). Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 43–69.
38.
NegoitaM. (2018). Beyond performance management: A networked production model of public service delivery. Public Performance & Management Review, 41(2), 253–276.
39.
OsborneD.GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Plume.
40.
PollittC.BathgateK.CaulfieldJ.SmullenA.TalbotC. (2001). Agency fever? Analysis of an international policy fashion. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice3(3), 271–290.
41.
RatcliffeC.McKernanS. M.FinegoldK. (2007). The effect of state food stamp and TANF policies on food stamp program participation. Urban Institute.
42.
RosenbaumD. (2014). SNAP is effective and efficient. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
43.
RutledgeM. S.WuA. Y. (2014). Why do SSI and SNAP enrollments rise in good economic times and in bad? (CRR WP 2014-10). Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
44.
SabatierP. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 21–48.
45.
SabatierP. A.MazmanianD. (1979). The conditions of effective implementation: A guide to accomplishing policy objectives. Policy Analysis, 5(4), 481–504.
46.
SabelC. F. (2004). Beyond principal-agent governance: Experimentalist organizations, learning and accountability. In EngelenE. R.HoM. S. D. (Eds.), De staat van de democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat (pp. 173–196). Amsterdam University Press.
47.
SuleimanE. (2003). Dismantling democratic states. Princeton University Press.
48.
ThadenE.Jacobs-PriebeL.EvansS. (2010). Understanding attrition and predicting employment durations of former staff in a public social service organization. Journal of Social Work, 10(4), 407–435.
49.
TummersL. L.BekkersV.VinkE.MushenoM. (2015). Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), 1099–1126.
50.
TummersL. L.SteijnB.BekkersV. (2012). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement public policies: Content, context, and personality characteristics. Public Administration, 90(3), 716–736.
51.
VigilA. (2019). Trends in supplemental nutrition assistance program participation rates: Fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2017. Mathematica Policy Research.
52.
WarnerM. (2008). Reversing privatization, rebalancing government reform: Markets, deliberation and planning. Policy and Society, 27(2), 163–174.
