Event Summary: Removing Red Tape

In collaboration with the Coalition for Access and Opportunity, the Asset Building Program hosted an event this week entitled: Removing Red Tape: New Strategies for Strengthening the Safety Net. You can watch the event in full or check out the coverage on Twitter. Elizabeth Lower-Basch, with the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), introduced and moderated the event. Lower-Basch began by providing some context to the conversation, highlighting in particular the role that public benefits have played in recent years as families cope with hardship brought on by the Great Recession. She also acknowledged the need to improve programs, many of which could more effectively promote family stability and a transition to economic self-sufficiency than they currently do. She noted that many benefits are not as accessible as they could be and some families fall through the cracks due to a dizzying and counterproductive maze of applications and eligibility requirements.

Aleta Sprague, with the Asset Building Program, spoke first about the issue of asset limits in public assistance programs. Her presentation draws from a new policy paper released this week that looks at trends in state asset limit reforms and the implications these changes have for federal public benefits policy. Asset limits impose a cap on the amount of savings a family can have and still qualify for a means-tested benefit, such as SNAP (food stamps) or TANF (welfare). As Sprague explains, asset limits hurt low income families applying for benefits in myriad ways: they require a great deal of paperwork that is both difficult for families to obtain and administratively complex for program case managers to verify. Additionally, asset limits discourage any meaningful saving that could be beneficial to the family in an emergency, thus compelling benefits recipients to live in a vulnerable state of asset poverty. In Aleta Sprague and Rachel Black’s new paper, they rely on interview and survey data to make the case that removing asset limits streamlines benefits administration, resulting in both money and time savings for states. For example, prior to removing its TANF asset limit, Virginia estimated that it would end up spending an extra $127,000 on benefits to 40 new families if it removed the test, but would save $323,000 on administrative costs. Sprague also explained the need for cross-benefit coordination to make asset limit reform truly effective at the state level. She also highlighted the need for states to rectify the often contradictory messages about savings coming from benefits programs (for example, on the one hand, encouraging families to save for a child’s education while on the other, imposing an asset limit for program eligibility).

Dottie Rosenbaum with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities spoke next about the need to support access to SNAP. Overall, Rosenbaum sees SNAP as very accessible and responsive to the eligible population. Data suggest that SNAP is highly responsive to need, which explains its recent expansion during the recession, as well as the leveling-off we’re beginning to see as economic conditions improve. Rosenbaum explained that 72% of eligible people receiving the SNAP benefits they’re qualified for speaks to its administrative efficiency. A transition to online-based applications, telephone communication with case managers, same-day service and other improvements have all helped make SNAP one of the most accessible but least error-prone public benefits. Rosenbaum did caution that the transition to technological-based benefits administration may impede access for those who do not have internet or phone access and may also limit the personal touch of sitting down with a case manager face to face. While people with limited car or transit access might view online or phone services as a value-added, people with pre-paid phones may derive little value from a transition to phone-based service if they are forced to wait on hold, using up their minutes. Rosenbaum stressed that health care reform offers many opportunities for streamlining benefit access but that we do not yet have a one-size-fits-all approach that can be adopted across the board to make this effort successful.

Vince Kilduff, with the State of Maryland’s Department of Human Resources, spoke about the recent efforts Maryland has taken to expand benefit access. He noted that Maryland has been successful in many of these endeavors because it enjoys support from the governor and legislature – other states may not have the same support. In particular, Kilduff noted that Maryland is designing its state health care exchange to serve as a portal to other public benefits. Maryland’s General Assembly convened a “No Wrong Door” work group, which aims to ensure that barriers to benefits access are minimized. Kilduff sees this group as a sign that state legislatures can be successful at bringing community groups and legislators together to make access a priority. He also touched on the challenges and opportunities presented by a transition to online-based applications. For example, online applications serve a valuable role but still need to be designed to capture enough information about the applicant in a timely way. Kilduff’s experience working with Maryland benefits has demonstrated to him that a state can indeed lower costs by simplifying benefits eligibility rules and getting rid of asset limits.

During the discussion period, panelists reflected on the political feasibility of implementing asset limit reform, possible ways that federal legislation, such as that in the forthcoming Farm Bill, might impact asset tests in public assistance programs, and the potential for cost savings from a range of efficiency improvements. Watch the event here, take a look at the accompanying paper or its executive summary and be in touch with any questions or other follow-up.