Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-3
“I Can’t Get Ahold of Them”: Perceptions of Administrative Burden and Administrative Exclusion across SNAP,WIC,and Medicaid during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Using data from 113 in-depth interviews with beneficiaries of social welfare programs, I examine the ease of access to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); and Medicaid during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy changes that were enacted in response to COVID-19 were explicitly designed to reduce the administrative burden of program participation. I find that while WIC and Medicaid participants reported easier access to benefits, SNAP saw high demand and bureaucratic constraints that undermined access. SNAP participants encountered difficulties that they attributed to burdensome experiences to administrative exclusion. I show how applicants perceived organizational practices as excluding eligible populations from participation in government programs and undermining policies that were designed to reduce administrative burdens.
AizerAnnaCurrieJanet. 2004. Networks or neighborhoods? Correlations in the use of publicly-funded maternity care in California. Journal of Public Economics88 (12): 2573–85.
3.
BaekgaardMartinMikkelsenKim SassMadsenJonas KroghChristensenJulian. 2021. Reducing compliance demands in government benefit programs improves the psychological well-being of target group members. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31 (4): 806–21.
4.
BarnesCarolyn. 2020. State of empowerment: Low-income families and the new welfare state. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5.
BarnesCarolyn. 2021. “It takes a while to get used to”: The costs of redeeming public benefits. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31 (2): 295–310.
6.
BarnesCarolynHenlyJulia R.. 2018. “They are underpaid and understaffed”: How clients interpret encounters with street-level bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28 (2): 165–81.
7.
BarnesCarolynMichenerJamilaRainsEmily. 2023. “It’s like night and day”: How bureaucratic encounters vary across WIC, SNAP, and Medicaid. Social Service Review97 (1): 3–42.
8.
BarnesCarolynPetrySarah. 2021. “It was actually pretty easy”: COVID-19 compliance cost reductions in the WIC program. Public Administration Review81 (6): 1147–56.
9.
BarnesCarolynRielVirginia. 2022. “I don’t know nothing about that”: How “learning costs” undermine COVID-related efforts to make SNAP and WIC more accessible. Administration & Society54 (10): 1902–30.
10.
BartlettSusanBurnsteinNancyHamiltonWilliam. 2004. Food stamp program access study: Final report. Report to the USDA. Economic Research Service (E-FAN-03-013-3). Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
11.
BertrandMarianneLuttmerErzo F. P.MullainathanSendhil. 2000. Network effects and welfare cultures. Quarterly Journal of Economics115 (3): 1019–55.
12.
BhanotSyon P.2021. Good for you or good for us? A field experiment on motivating citizen behavior change. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration4 (1): 1–14.
13.
BhargavaSaurabhManoliDayanand. 2015. Psychological frictions and the incomplete take-up of social benefits: Evidence from an IRS field experiment. American Economic Review105 (11): 3489–3529.
14.
BrodkinEvelyn Z.MajmundarMalay. 2010. Administrative exclusion: Organizations and the hidden costs of welfare claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory20 (4): 827–48.
15.
BurdenBarry C.CanonDavid T.MayerKenneth R.MoynihanDonald P.. 2012. The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review72 (5): 741–51.
16.
CampbellAndrea Louise. 2014. Trapped in America’s safety net: One family’s struggle. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
ChristensenJulianAarøeLeneBaekgaardMartinHerdPamelaMoynihanDonald P.. 2020. Human capital and administrative burden: The role of cognitive resources in citizen-state interactions. Public Administration Review80 (1): 127–36.
23.
ChudnovskyMarianaPeetersRik. 2020. The unequal distribution of administrative burden: A framework and an illustrative case study for understanding variation in people’s experience of burdens. Social Policy & Administration55 (4): 527–42. doi:10.1111/spol.12639.
24.
DagueLauraBadaraccoNicolásDeLeireThomasSydnorJustinTilhouAlyssa ShellFriedsamDonna. 2022. Trends in Medicaid enrollment and disenrollment during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin. JAMA Health Forum3 (2): e214752.
25.
DaponteBeth OsborneSandersSethTaylorLowell. 1999. Why do low-income households not use food stamps? Evidence from an experiment. Journal of Human Resources34 (3): 612–62.
26.
DöringMatthias. 2021. How-to bureaucracy: A concept of citizens’ administrative literacy. Administration & Society53 (8): 1155–77.
27.
EnriquezDianaGoldsteinAdam. 2020. COVID-19’s socioeconomic impact on low-income benefit recipients: Early evidence from tracking surveys. Socius6:1–17.
28.
FiglioDavid N.HamersmaSarahRothJeffrey. 2015. Information shocks and the take-up of social programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management34 (4): 781–804.
29.
FrenierChrisNikpaySayeh S.GolbersteinEzra. 2020. COVID-19 has increased Medicaid enrollment, but short-term enrollment changes are unrelated to job losses: Study examines influence COVID-19 may have had on Medicaid enrollment covering the period of March 1 through June 1, 2020 for 26 states. Health Affairs39 (10): 1822–31.
HardyBradley L.SamudraRhuchaDavisJourdan A.. 2019. Cash assistance in America: The role of race, politics, and poverty. Review of Black Political Economy46 (4): 306–24.
34.
HarperKaitlynBelarminoEmily H.AcciaiFrancescoBertmannFarrylOhri-VachaspatiPunam. 2022. Patterns of food assistance program participation, food insecurity, and pantry use among U.S. households with children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nutrients14 (5): 988.
35.
HattkeFabianHenselDavidKaluczaJanne. 2020. Emotional responses to bureaucratic red tape. Public Administration Review80 (1): 53–63.
36.
HaverlandMarkusYanowDvora. 2012. A hitchhiker’s guide to the public administration research universe: Surviving conversations on methodologies and methods. Public Administration Review72 (3): 401–8.
37.
HeinrichCarolyn J.2016. The bite of administrative burden: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory26 (3): 403–20.
38.
HerdPamela. 2015. How administrative burdens are preventing access to critical income supports for older adults: The case of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Public Policy & Aging Report25 (2): 52–55.
39.
HerdPamelaDeLeireThomasHarveyHopeMoynihanDonald P.. 2013. Shifting administrative burden to the state: The case of Medicaid take-up. Public Administration Review73 (1): S69–81.
40.
HerdPamelaMoynihanDonald. 2019. Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
41.
HerdPamelaDonaldMoynihan. 2020. The Coronavirus Stimulus Is Playing Hard to Get Why Do We Make It So Difficult for People to Receive Unemployment and Other Forms of Relief?. The New York Times April 13.
42.
HomonoffTatianaSomervilleJason. 2021. Program recertification costs: Evidence from SNAP. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy13 (4): 271–98.
43.
KhorramiPeggahSommersBenjamin D.. 2021. Changes in U.S. Medicaid enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Network Open4 (5): e219463.
KoganVladimir. 2017. Administrative centralization and bureaucratic responsiveness: Evidence from the food stamp program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory27 (4): 629–46.
46.
LaveeEinat. 2021. Who is in charge? The provision of informal personal resources at the street level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31 (1): 4–20.
47.
LinosElizabethQuanLisa T.KirkmanElspeth. 2020. Nudging early reduces administrative burden: Three field experiments to improve code enforcement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management39 (1): 243–65.
48.
LipskyMichael. 1984. Bureaucratic disentitlement in social welfare programs. Social Service Review58 (1): 3–27.
49.
LipskyMichael. 2010. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
50.
LovelessTracy A.2020. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) receipt for households: 2018. Report ACSBR 20-01. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.
51.
MasoodAyeshaNisarMuhammad Azfar. 2021. Administrative capital and citizens’ responses to administrative burden. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31 (1): 56–72.
52.
MichenerJamila. 2018. Fragmented democracy: Medicaid, federalism, and unequal politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
MichenerJamila. 2019. Policy feedback in a racialized polity. Policy Studies Journal47 (2): 423–50.
54.
MilesMatthew B.HubermanA. Michael. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55.
MorrisEvelyn J.OttenJennifer J.QuinnEmilee L.RoseChelsea M.SpikerMarieO’LearyJean. 2022. Insights from Washington State’s COVID-19 response: A mixed-methods evaluation of WIC remote services and expanded food options using the RE-AIM framework. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics122 (12): 2228–42.
56.
MoynihanDonaldGiannellaEricHerdPamelaSutherlandJulie. 2022. Matching to categories: Learning and compliance costs in administrative processes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory32 (4): 750–64.
57.
MoynihanDonaldHerdPamelaHarveyHope. 2015. Administrative burden: Learning, psychological, and compliance costs in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25 (1): 43–69.
58.
NisarMuhammad Azfar. 2018. Children of a lesser god: Administrative burden and social equity in citizen-state interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28 (1): 104–19.
Ohri-VachaspatiPunamAcciaiFrancescoDeWeeseRobin S.. 2021. SNAP participation among low-income U.S. households stays stagnant while food insecurity escalates in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive Medicine Reports24:101555.
64.
PanzeraAnthony D.BryantCarol A.HawkinsFranGoffRhondaNapierAshleySchneiderTaliKirbyRussell S.CoulterMartha L.SappenfieldWilliam M.BaldwinJulieO’RourkeKathleen. 2017. Mapping a WIC mother’s journey: A preliminary analysis. Social Marketing Quarterly23 (2): 137–54.
65.
ParolinZacharyCrossChristina J.O’BrienRourke. 2023. Administrative burdens and economic insecurity among Black, Latino, and White families. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences9 (5): 56–75.
66.
PeetersRik. 2020. The political economy of administrative burdens: A theoretical framework for analyzing the organizational origins of administrative burdens. Administration & Society52 (4): 566–92.
67.
RayVictorHerdPamelaMoynihanDonald. 2023. Racialized burdens: Applying racialized organization theory to the administrative state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory33 (1): 139–52.
RosenbergTerry J.AlperenJulie K.ChiassonMary Ann. 2003. Why do WIC participants fail to pick up their checks? An urban study in the wake of welfare reform. American Journal of Public Health93 (3): 477–81.
70.
RyanGery W.BernardH. Russell. 2003. Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods15 (1): 85–109.
71.
Schwartz-SheaPeregrineYanowDvora. 2012. Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York, NY: Routledge.
72.
SossJoe. 1999. Welfare application encounters: Subordination, satisfaction, and the puzzle of client evaluations. Administration & Society31 (1): 50–94.
73.
SossJoeFordingRichard C.SchramSanford. 2011. Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
74.
StuberJenniferSchlesingerMark. 2006. Sources of stigma for means-tested government programs. Social Science & Medicine63 (4): 933–45.
75.
ToossiSaiedJonesJordan W.HodgesLeslie. 2021. The food and nutrition assistance landscape: Fiscal year 2020 annual report. EIB-227. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
76.
TummersLars L. G.BekkersVictorVinkEvelienMushenoMichael. 2015. Coping during public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25 (4): 1099–1126.
VenturaAlison K.MartinezCatherine E.WhaleyShannon E.. 2021. WIC participants’ perceptions of COVID-19-related changes to WIC recertification and service delivery. Journal of Community Health47 (2): 1–9.
81.
Watkins-HayesCeleste. 2011. Race, respect, and red tape: Inside the black box of racially representative bureaucracies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21 (2): 233–51.
82.
WoelfelMary LouAbusabhaRayanePruzekRobertStrattonHowardChenShu GuangEdmundsLynn S.. 2004. Barriers to the use of WIC services. Journal of the American Dietetic Association104 (5): 736–43.
83.
WolfeBarbaraScrivnerScott. 2005. The devil may be in the details: How the characteristics of SCHIP programs affect take-up. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management24 (3): 499–522.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
