Does It Sound Like She's Describing Social Security Disability?

      From an interview with Pamela Herd, a public policy professor at Georgetown University and the co-author of Administrative Burdens: Policymaking by Other Means, conducted by Sean Illing for Vox:

... Pamela Herd

... Most of our social welfare policies are designed in such a way where they’re a lot more concerned about preventing people who aren’t eligible from accessing benefits than ensuring that those who are eligible actually receive them. We’re fixated on fraud and abuse, which is extremely low in social welfare programs — something like 1 to 2 percent of cases. And even then, it’s not what people mean when they think of “fraud and abuse.” It’s mostly people making mistakes because they didn’t understand eligibility rules.

The problem with this unjustified obsession with fraud and abuse is that it means 20 to 30 percent of people are unable to access these programs even when they’re clearly eligible for them, because they’ve created all these administrative burdens designed to target people they don’t want on the programs. So it’s a huge disconnect in terms of trying to meet the broader goals of these programs. ...

I want to push a little on this point because I don’t think a lot of people who claim to be concerned about fraud and abuse are really concerned about fraud and abuse. As far as I can tell, this is about trumping us these accusations in order to undermine programs they fundamentally don’t believe in, just as a lot of Republicans disingenuously complain about voting fraud as a cover for depressing voting numbers.

Pamela Herd

You’re right about that. Partly, this is a way conservatives justify the use of administrative burdens. They make these sorts of arguments all the time, whether it’s about voting or social welfare programs. The pretense is always about preventing fraud and abuse. But think about a program like SNAP, or food stamps. The goal of that program was to prevent hunger, was to ensure people had adequate nutrition. If you think about that goal and you realize the way that you’re running that program means that 20 percent of people eligible for that benefit aren’t getting that help that they really need, then you’re fundamentally undermining these programmatic goals. You’re allowing all those people to go hungry. ...

Sean Illing

What are the simplest, most effective things we could do to improve this process right now for people in need?

Pamela Herd

There are technocratic things like requiring state governments and the federal government to quantify how many people who are eligible for benefits aren’t getting them. Right now they’re required to report on fraud and abuse, but they should also be required to report how many people they’re failing to reach. This would be a good start....