Thanks, Prof. Herd, for this mini-tutorial and terrific example of how "administrative burdens" can be used as a weapon in a partisan attack on government assistance. These requirements might be described as "toxic federalism".
Your rule of thumb is exactly correct: to reduce errors administrative procedures need to be no more complex than necessary — and need never be confusing. The error rates appear to be a judgement on the statutory requirements not the performance of the states. (Thanks for the link to the report on the causes of variation in costs.)
These changes will also increase the use of food pantries as people who are food insecure are not able to use SNAP benefits. I think this is also part of Republican thinking to push charitable giving and reduce government funding. Food pantries, churches and other institutions are already seeing decreased government grants, including food grown locally by farmers (and who can't harvest their crops due to ICE raids). As people grapple with the increased costs of groceries and every day living, the problem will only get worse. I've always been disheartened by such complex rules to help low-income people have access to food. This is a classic Type I and Type II error situation. Politicians are so worried about someone who's "not worthy" getting "free" food that they're willing to harm the people who need help the most.
I tend to look at three things when I think about SNAP errors. 1. What is the state's enrollment rate? If it is low, it might indicate that they have prioritized avoidance of errors over program enrollment. Incorrectly/unfairly denying someone when they apply won't result in a payment error. 2. Does the state have a lot on non-English speakers? Even with translation, it adds a big element for confusion that can lead to errors. 3. How big is the state? Small states can be more nimble and tend to be less complex because of their size. The distance between a line worker and the SNAP director is much smaller.
A number of states with the best payment error rates are states with low enrollment rates, are small and I'm guessing have a lower number of non-English speakers (South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming). New Jersey has a middling enrollment rate, is a mid sized state and I assume a fair number of non-English speakers.
The interesting state is Wisconsin. It has a high enrollment rate and I assume a fair number of non-English speakers. Also, it is a mid-sized state. These factors would make findings from Wisconsin's success easier to translate to other states. Someone should definitely study them.
Thanks, Prof. Herd, for this mini-tutorial and terrific example of how "administrative burdens" can be used as a weapon in a partisan attack on government assistance. These requirements might be described as "toxic federalism".
Your rule of thumb is exactly correct: to reduce errors administrative procedures need to be no more complex than necessary — and need never be confusing. The error rates appear to be a judgement on the statutory requirements not the performance of the states. (Thanks for the link to the report on the causes of variation in costs.)
These changes will also increase the use of food pantries as people who are food insecure are not able to use SNAP benefits. I think this is also part of Republican thinking to push charitable giving and reduce government funding. Food pantries, churches and other institutions are already seeing decreased government grants, including food grown locally by farmers (and who can't harvest their crops due to ICE raids). As people grapple with the increased costs of groceries and every day living, the problem will only get worse. I've always been disheartened by such complex rules to help low-income people have access to food. This is a classic Type I and Type II error situation. Politicians are so worried about someone who's "not worthy" getting "free" food that they're willing to harm the people who need help the most.
What's the difference between New Jersey and other large, blue, diverse population states? Seems a curiously low "error" rate.
I tend to look at three things when I think about SNAP errors. 1. What is the state's enrollment rate? If it is low, it might indicate that they have prioritized avoidance of errors over program enrollment. Incorrectly/unfairly denying someone when they apply won't result in a payment error. 2. Does the state have a lot on non-English speakers? Even with translation, it adds a big element for confusion that can lead to errors. 3. How big is the state? Small states can be more nimble and tend to be less complex because of their size. The distance between a line worker and the SNAP director is much smaller.
A number of states with the best payment error rates are states with low enrollment rates, are small and I'm guessing have a lower number of non-English speakers (South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming). New Jersey has a middling enrollment rate, is a mid sized state and I assume a fair number of non-English speakers.
The interesting state is Wisconsin. It has a high enrollment rate and I assume a fair number of non-English speakers. Also, it is a mid-sized state. These factors would make findings from Wisconsin's success easier to translate to other states. Someone should definitely study them.
https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/ear-snap-Reaching-Those-in-Need-2022.pdf