Can Reducing Administrative Burdens Improve SNAP Enrollment Rates?

This study investigates whether reducing administrative burdens in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) can improve enrollment rates. Using a large-scale field experiment with 65,000 applicants in Los Angeles, researchers tested the impact of flexible, applicant-initiated intake interviews. The findings show that allowing applicants to schedule their own interviews increased approval rates by 6.2 percentage points (13%) and doubled early approvals. Additionally, long-term SNAP participation rose by 2.2 percentage points. The study highlights the importance of administrative flexibility in reducing procedural denials while maintaining program integrity​.

Full Citation and Link to Article

Giannella, Eric, Tatiana Homonoff, Gwen Rino, and Jason Somerville. 2024. "Administrative Burden and Procedural Denials: Experimental Evidence from SNAP." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 16(4): 316–340. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20220701

Extended Summary

Central Research Question

The study examines whether reducing administrative burdens in government programs can improve benefit take-up, specifically within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The researchers identify the intake interview as a key barrier to enrollment, as missing the scheduled interview is a major reason for procedural denials. Through a large-scale randomized control trial (RCT), they test the impact of an alternative interview process that allows applicants to schedule their own interviews. The primary research question is:

"Can reducing administrative burdens through flexible intake interviews increase SNAP enrollment and long-term participation?"

Previous Literature

This research builds on a growing body of work on administrative burden in social welfare programs. Prior studies have found that complex enrollment processes discourage eligible individuals from completing applications, leading to under-enrollment in safety net programs (Currie, 2006; Herd & Moynihan, 2019).

Some research has suggested that administrative burdens can serve as a form of targeting, preventing fraud by deterring ineligible applicants (Nichols & Zeckhauser, 1982). However, others argue that these burdens disproportionately impact the most vulnerable populations, including those with unstable housing, limited education, or demanding work schedules (Deshpande & Li, 2019).

Previous studies have examined ways to reduce learning costs, such as outreach efforts that inform potential beneficiaries of their eligibility (Finkelstein & Notowidigdo, 2019; Bhargava & Manoli, 2015). This paper shifts focus to compliance costs, such as completing required interviews and submitting documentation, which have been shown to impact retention in SNAP and similar programs (Mills et al., 2014; Homonoff & Somerville, 2021). The study uniquely investigates whether providing applicants with greater scheduling flexibility can reduce procedural denials at the initial application stage.

Data

The study leverages a large-scale field experiment conducted in Los Angeles County, the largest SNAP-administering county in the U.S. The dataset includes:

• 65,000 SNAP applicants who applied through GetCalFresh.org, an online application platform.

• Administrative data on application approvals, denials, reapplications, and long-term participation over a five-month period.

• Call records from the newly implemented "end-to-end" (E2E) call line, which allowed applicants to schedule interviews at their convenience.

• Demographic and financial characteristics of applicants, including household size, income, employment status, and housing stability.

Los Angeles County provided a useful case study because one-third of all SNAP denials in 2019 were due to missed interviews—a rate higher than all other reasons for denial combined.

Methods

The researchers conducted a randomized control trial (RCT) in which SNAP applicants were randomly assigned to either:

1. Control Group (25% of applicants): Followed the standard process—an interview was scheduled by the county, and missing it resulted in denial unless rescheduled.

2. Treatment Group (75% of applicants): Received an alternative interview process, where they were given the flexibility to call and complete their interview at a convenient time via the E2E line.

The RCT design allowed the authors to isolate the causal impact of interview flexibility on application outcomes. The primary outcome measures included:

• Approval rates within 30 days

• Speed of approval (early approvals within five days)

• Long-term SNAP participation (over five months)

• Reapplication rates for those initially denied

To test for potential negative spillover effects, they examined whether the introduction of the flexible interview process reduced approval rates for control group applicants. They also leveraged a natural experiment—a sudden increase in applications due to the expected expiration of pandemic unemployment benefits—to assess the scalability of the intervention.

Findings & Size Effects

The study finds strong evidence that reducing administrative burden increases SNAP enrollment:

1. Higher Approval Rates

   • The flexible interview process increased approval rates by 6.2 percentage points (13%), from 48.7% in the control group to 55% in the treatment group.

   • For those who actually used the E2E line, approval rates increased by 11.9 percentage points (19%)compared to the control group.

2. Faster Approvals

   • The intervention doubled early approvals—27% of treatment applicants were approved within five days, compared to only 14% in the control group.

   • On average, applications in the treatment group were processed four days faster than those in the control group.

3. Long-Term Participation Gains

   • Even after five months, 2.2 percentage points more treatment group members remained on SNAPcompared to the control group.

   • The intervention increased SNAP participation by 4.2 percentage points among the most vulnerable applicants—those who qualified for expedited benefits due to extreme financial hardship.

4. Increased Benefit Distribution

   • The policy resulted in an additional $3.9 million in SNAP benefits distributed over five months.

   • Households induced into SNAP participation by the intervention received an average of $375 per month in benefits.

5. No Negative Spillover Effects

   • There was no evidence that increasing flexibility worsened application processing for control group applicants.

   • The intervention remained effective even during a surge in applications, demonstrating its scalability.

6. Targeting and Program Integrity

   • The greatest participation gains were among applicants who qualified for expedited (emergency) benefits, suggesting that reducing administrative burden helped those in greatest need rather than increasing fraud risk.

   • The intervention did not eliminate eligibility verification requirements, preserving program integrity.

   • 
     

Conclusion

This study provides compelling evidence that reducing compliance costs through flexible scheduling can significantly increase access to SNAP benefits. Many applicants, especially those with work or caregiving responsibilities, struggle to attend pre-scheduled interviews. By allowing them to initiate interviews at their convenience, procedural denials were reduced, benefit receipt was accelerated, and long-term participation increased.

The findings have broad policy implications beyond SNAP. Many other safety net programs, such as Medicaid, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and Disability Insurance (DI), also require intake interviews. Introducing flexibility in these programs could similarly reduce unnecessary denials and increase benefit access for eligible individuals.

Moreover, the study challenges the notion that administrative burdens are useful for targeting. The intervention did not increase participation among ineligible applicants—instead, it helped the most vulnerable households, particularly those in urgent financial distress.

From a policy design perspective, this research suggests that administrative rules should be restructured to reduce barriers without compromising program integrity.

Implementing flexible interview models nationwide could help millions of eligible families access essential benefits more efficiently.