Thread by @mattunrath

**new research**

Using enrollment histories for 14m #SNAP recipients in CA between 2005-2020, I show:

• Periodic paperwork burdens lower participation, but improve targeting.

• For every one ineligible household screened out, three eligible households also leave.

1/N

Most SNAP recipients in CA must verify their eligibility every 6 months. This entails filling out a multi-page form, providing proof of income, identifying household members, reporting how much you spend on certain expenses, and in some cases, completing an interview.

2/N

Recipients are six times more likely to leave the program in these reporting months than in non-reporting months.

Almost half of new SNAP recipients in CA don't remain enrolled past their first eligibility screen.

3/N

Before 2014, recipients had to reverify their eligibility every 3 months.

Moving these paperwork burdens to every six months had a huge impact on retention.

4/N

Do exits coincide with reporting months bc these processes screen out no-longer-eligible cases, or are they so burdensome, they deter both eligible and ineligible households from participating?

I show that the majority of households who leave are still income eligible.

5/N

About 1m California families leave SNAP every year. That means 500k+ still-eligible households drop out the program each year.

Whether these households re-enroll within 3 months or they never return, either way, that's a lot of forgone assistance.

6/N

I also show that, on average, household earnings tend to rebound to pre-enrollment averages before families leave SNAP.

In other words, the program helps families through periods of acute financial distress, but when their earnings bounce back enough, families leave.

7/N

How can both facts be true -- that most exiters are still eligible, while on average, their earnings recovered to their pre-enrollment levels before they left?

Many were eligible long before they enrolled!

8/N

It's also true that, even though they're still eligible, those higher earnings would mean lower benefits amounts. Households might decide that stigma and compliance costs outweigh the benefits of remaining enrolled.

9/N

Finally, who’s more likely to leave in these reporting months? Households with higher incomes and lower predicted food insecurity.

These administrative burdens appear to improve targeting.

10/N

What’s the takeaway?

Periodic eligibility checks are a necessary feature of means-tested programs. In this context, they serve a useful targeting purpose.

But improved targeting comes at the cost of widespread Type 1 errors.

What's a policymaker to do?

11/N

Better processes could improve retention without worsening targeting.

Send more reminders, ask for less information, allow households to choose what time they're interviewed.

See these other great papers on this issue:
sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
wagner.nyu.edu/files/faculty/…

12/14

Since these verifications are so costly (both for recipients and the gov't), simply administering them less frequently might also be an efficient way to increase participation and ensure eligible families realize the benefits associated with receiving SNAP.

13/14

That's all.

You can read the paper and the policy brief here: bit.ly/LeavingCalFresh

Thanks to @CAPolicyLab, @CaliforniaDSS, and @IRP_UW for making this work possible.

13/end