Administrative burden as a policy choice.
Benefits programs that eligible households don't receive provide no benefit. Take-up is often far below 100% — not because people don't want the benefits but because application processes create barriers. Simplification experiments consistently find that reducing friction dramatically increases enrollment, often for the households most in need.
8
experiments
5
positive results
1
null or negative
2
replicated
Key Findings
01
Simplifying application processes increases enrollment among the most vulnerable without increasing ineligible take-up.
Pennsylvania's SNAP enrollment simplification — replacing a lengthy in-person interview with a phone interview and pre-populated forms — increased enrollment among eligible households by 24%. LA County's flexible interview scheduling for SNAP produced similar results. The consistent finding across simplification experiments in SNAP, Medicaid, and cash assistance is that reducing procedural burden primarily helps households with the most complex circumstances — those dealing with unstable work, disability, or language barriers — who were least able to navigate complex applications.
02
Outreach and automatic renewal increase program participation more than advertising or awareness campaigns.
Massachusetts ACA enrollment assistance — providing navigators at high-traffic locations during open enrollment — significantly increased plan selection compared to areas without navigators. Medicaid renewal via text message reduced lapse rates substantially. The New Hope Project in Milwaukee, which guaranteed employment and income support through a simplified enrollment process, found high take-up and positive outcomes. The common finding: active, personalized outreach and automatic continuation matter more than passive awareness.
03
Work requirements reduce enrollment more than they increase employment — primarily by adding administrative barriers rather than changing behavior.
The Self-Sufficiency Project in Canada randomly offered welfare recipients a generous income supplement conditional on working full-time. Take-up was substantial and employment increased significantly during the program period — but effects faded after the supplement ended, suggesting the incentive changed behavior temporarily without building durable human capital. UK Troubled Families — a case management and conditionality program — found no significant employment or welfare exit effects in a rigorous evaluation. Conditionality appears to reduce participation among the target population more reliably than it increases employment.
Important Null & Negative Results
Programs that failed to produce expected outcomes under rigorous evaluation.
UK Troubled Families Programme — National Evaluation
England, United Kingdom · 2017
The UK Troubled Families program — a £1.2 billion intensive family support and conditionality program — found no significant effects on employment, benefit receipt, school attendance, or anti-social behavior in a randomized evaluation of 14,000 families. The program's stated success rate of 99% was based on loosely defined administrative targets, not outcomes.
All Experiments in the Registry
SNAP Enrollment Information Letters for Seniors
positivePennsylvania, USA · 2016
Streamlined ACA Health Insurance Enrollment
positiveMassachusetts, USA · 2021
Flexible SNAP Interview Scheduling
positiveLos Angeles, USA · 2022
SNAP Enrollment Simplification — Vermont
positiveVermont, USA · 2014
Automated Medicaid Renewal Reminders
positiveRhode Island, USA · 2016
UK Troubled Families Programme — National Evaluation
nullEngland, United Kingdom · 2017
New Hope Project — Milwaukee Earnings Supplement
mixedMilwaukee, WI, USA · 1994
Self-Sufficiency Project — Canada
mixedBritish Columbia and New Brunswick, Canada · 1992
What the Evidence Cannot Yet Tell Us
What is the take-up rate for SNAP among eligible households who don't apply, and what specifically prevents them from applying — stigma, complexity, documentation requirements, or unawareness?
Do simplification effects persist over time, or do administrative barriers re-accumulate as programs change?
How do automatic enrollment versus opt-out designs compare to simplified opt-in designs for long-term participation and appropriate use?
What is the effect of stigma on take-up, and can it be reduced through program design rather than eligibility changes?