About this episode

We are joined by Heather Hahn, associate vice president for the Urban Institute Center on Labor, Human Services and Population, to discuss the complexities and challenges of safety net programs in the US. Heather helps us probe into the history of these programs and the influence of traditional American values on their design. We look at the barriers that individuals, particularly those from communities of color, face in accessing these programs, as we reveal the inadequate nature of certain support systems like Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF and how they affect the needs of those they aim to serve.
 

Interviewer

Sarah Rosen Wartell, President, Urban Institute

Guest

Heather Hahn, Associate Vice President, Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population, Urban Institute

Transcript

Sarah Rosen Wartell, cohost:
Welcome to Evidence in Action, a podcast from the Urban Institute. I’m your cohost, Sarah Rosen Wartell. I have the honor of being Urban’s president.

Kimberlyn Leary, cohost:
And I’m your cohost, Kimberlyn Leary. I’m executive vice president of the Urban Institute.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
In this podcast, Kim and I are going to explore the role of evidence: what it is, who makes it, who can use it, who should be using it, and how it can help us to shape policy and achieve better social, economic, and environmental outcomes.

Kimberlyn Leary:
And on every episode, we’ll be joined by a brilliant guest ranging from federal policymakers, local leaders, philanthropists, social entrepreneurs, and those who meet community needs.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
We’ll be asking them how they use facts, data, and evidence to improve lives and strengthen communities and also about the limits of these tools in today’s complicated world. We’re joined today by Heather Hahn, associate vice president for the Urban Institute’s Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Heather’s a national expert on TANF, otherwise known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, with two decades of experience conducting nonpartisan research on policies that affect the well-being of children and their families. Her research also covers SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as well as child care subsidies, child support, and other programs that support families with low incomes. Thank you so much for joining me, Heather.

Heather Hahn, guest:
Thank you for having me.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So let’s get started. Can you explain to listeners what we mean when we talk about the safety net? What is the safety net? What was it designed to do, and who generally are those who benefit from its programs?

Heather Hahn:
When we talk about safety net programs, we’re usually referring to means-tested supports, which are government supports that are only available to people with low income. And there’s a large number of individual programs. I wouldn’t say they are a single system. They are individual programs generated by different laws with different rules and eligibility criteria.

The largest safety net program is Medicaid, which provides access to health care. And I want to contrast Medicaid to Medicare. Medicare is the program that’s available to older people regardless of their income. So I think that’s just a good starting point illustration of the difference between what we might consider a safety net program and not.

So among the safety net programs, Medicaid is the largest, providing access to health care. Next is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that provides food assistance. There’s also cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, program. That’s only available to families with children younger than 18. There’s also child care assistance; housing assistance; Low Income Home Energy Assistance, also known as LIHEAP; Supplemental Security Income for people with disabilities. And this may sound like a great set of supports for people facing financial insecurity, but as I know we’re going to get into shortly, these are not supports that are always available to everyone who is struggling to make ends meet, and there’s not always enough assistance to meet that need.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
And I think, Heather, that many of these programs have different eligibility rules. And some of them are administered at the states, which means that there can be a lot of variation in who they cover and how.

Heather Hahn:
That’s exactly right. Each has different federal rules that affect eligibility, but many of them also have a lot of state flexibility. So if you’re eligible for it in one state, you might not be eligible in another state.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So over the last few years, we’ve seen a lot of changes in these programs. Really, over the last couple decades we’ve seen a lot of changes in the programs. In many ways, the, the shift has been towards what some would describe as a more punitive approach to safety net assistance. Eligibility requirements have changed, the way that these programs are funded has changed, et cetera. And many of these changes reflect a persistent belief that poverty is primarily the result of an individual’s sets of choice and, in some cases, their own failures to be successful on their own. So can you talk about the origins of this approach and what some of the ways it’s been demonstrated and expressed itself and what you think about, at least preliminarily, some of the impacts have been?

Heather Hahn:
To answer this question, we need to go way back. Our safety net in the United States is built on assumptions, as you say, assumptions of individual agency and individual responsibility. Our modern safety net rules trace their roots all the way back to England’s Elizabethan Poor Laws of the 1600s, which are firmly rooted in the Protestant work ethic which, of course, also form the foundation of the American dream. So the American dream says, “If you work hard and are morally upstanding, you will be rewarded.” And in that context, it’s suspicious when somebody’s not financially secure. It leads us to question what did they do, or what didn’t they do, to contribute to the situation they’re in, and it leads us to be reluctant to financially reward people who might be undeserving.

So this very old concept shows up very concretely in our policies today. The people with the least resources undergo the greatest scrutiny to access supports—so food, housing, cash—need to prove that they are deserving of that.

Now, to some extent, this is necessary to ensure against the inappropriate uses of public resources. You know, we do need to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse, so I want to acknowledge that. But the focus on potential fraud in safety net programs is way out of proportion to the amount of money that is in the system.

And then if they are, they need to navigate the complicated administrative processes of applying for benefits. There are often really long, complicated forms. A recent Urban Institute survey found 30 to 40 percent of the people who were seeking benefits reported enrollment difficulties, whether that was trouble determining if they were eligible, difficulty providing the required documents, or just getting the, the benefits that they need.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So Heather, I think it’s helpful to ground this in a conversation thinking about the many different circumstances people may be in when they come to seek support through the safety net. We could be talking about individuals who, for example, have lost employment during a downturn. We may be looking at someone who had to move for family reasons into a new area before they’re able to find a way to support themselves. But we also could be talking about individuals who may have physical or cognitive or other limitations or disabilities that make it harder for them to navigate life in general. And we as a society have tried to provide support to people in those circumstances as well, but people who in some ways most need our help face many of the burdens that you’re talking about.

So you started to talk about, the sort of mindset that people need to be deserving of public assistance and how that’s reflected in the way that we administer these programs. One of the ways that approach has been reflected has been with the implementation of work requirements, the requirement that an individual demonstrate that they are either seeking or working in order to be able to receive the benefit. Can you talk a little bit about the history of those and how that’s been adopted recently and what we know about them? What is a work requirement, and how do they work in practice?

Heather Hahn:
Work requirements are different in different programs. They are defined differently. But the idea is that as a condition of receiving assistance, someone needs to demonstrate that they are working or engaged in allowable work activities, which might include looking for work.

In more than 80 percent of SNAP households that have a nondisabled, nonelderly adult, at least one of those people is working the year before or after they were receiving SNAP, which indicates they used SNAP while they were between jobs. Similarly, there’s research from Minnesota and their TANF cash assistance program that found 80 percent of TANF applicants had worked in the recent past or immediately before applying for benefits. So again, it’s they turn to TANF because they left or lost a job.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
Heather, a lot of your own research has focused on what I think of as a kind of customer service experience. Every individual who wants and needs to gain access to these programs has to go through an enrollment process and a process to maintain their eligibility. Can you talk a little bit about what you’ve learned about how easy or difficult it is for these families?

Heather Hahn:
There are difficulties on, on many levels, and the first is not everyone who is struggling to make ends meet is going to be eligible for these programs. So for example, adults without children are not eligible for most cash assistance, and they have a lower priority for housing. Our research on young people and the safety net found gaps especially for that, that group of young people who are not living with their parents or are not parents themselves.

And then some people who are experiencing need won’t meet the official income eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria differ for each program, but for example, in the TANF cash assistance program, a family of three who’s applying can earn no more than $900 a month in the median state, which is about half the federal poverty guideline. Any more than that and they aren’t eligible. In Alabama, a family of three earning $270 a month would be earning too much to be eligible for TANF. Not all these programs are entitlements. Housing assistance is not an entitlement and in general, serves only about 25 percent of eligible households. And waiting lists are years long.

Our Urban Institute colleagues modeled how many people are not receiving the assistance they’re eligible for. They looked at seven major programs, and overall, families are receiving less than half the total benefits for which they’re eligible. That means there is $227 billion that is not going to people in need and not going into their local economies either. They found that if everyone did receive all the benefits for which they are eligible, the poverty rate, measured by the supplemental poverty measure, would decline by almost a third, and nearly 15 million people, including 5 million children, would be lifted out of poverty. So there’s a big gap between what is available and what people are accessing.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So Heather, think about an individual who may be eligible for child care assistance in order for them to be able to go to work, somebody who’s trying to get housing assistance. Back in the day, and maybe it’s still the way it is today, you can imagine someone who has to go... I kind of imagine this kind of process being somewhat byzantine. Has that gotten better over time with technology, or is this still a major hurdle for people to enroll in these programs?

Heather Hahn:
I think both. (laughs) It has gotten better, and it is a, remains a major hurdle. States are doing lots of things to try to improve access, and there are lot of things that those same states or other states could also do to continue improving their policies, their processes, their technology to improve the access and efficiency. More and more, there are online applications and web portals for applications not only so you can apply but also so you can check your status, report changes, upload documents. You can use electronic verifications. You don’t have to bring that pay stub to the office.

The changes can be challenging and time-consuming. When we were working with several states a while back on making changes like these and we measured the impact on efficiency, we did see it was kind of two steps forward, one step back. It wasn’t always straightforward.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So one of the things that I know has been a focus of your work has been understanding the ways in which these systems have created barriers that impede access for communities of color. Can you talk a little bit about what your research has been showing?

Heather Hahn:
Yeah, it’s... Race has played an important and ugly role in the history of the safety net and the ongoing reality of safety net programs. We know the need for public safety net programs can differ by race because of the racial disparities in financial well-being that are rooted in disparities in access to high-quality jobs, to transportation, to education, to child care, to health care, to housing, all of these items that interact to make it more challenging for people of color to support themselves and their families. We have research showing that Black Americans are disproportionately concentrated in states with less generous TANF benefits, more restrictive requirements, and shorter time limits. And these racial differences in TANF have also been seen in application of sanctions and their ability to access supports like child care, education, and training.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
Over the last few years, we’ve seen a shift to trying different ways of supporting low-income individuals and their families, and those changes were accelerated by the pandemic, when there was sort of a desperate need to try things to reach people who were struggling to support themselves at that time. So there was a lot of experimentation and innovation in how we reach people, from projects like universal basic income that was tested on the local level, some food delivery and online shopping innovations for SNAP recipients, and probably many others. Those approaches reflect something very different than what we were talking about before. Can you talk a little bit about what you’re seeing from those pilots and what looks promising and what worries you?

Heather Hahn:
Right. We did a study a few years ago on innovation for equitable SNAP delivery. We were right in the middle of it when the pandemic started. So SNAP is formerly known as food stamps because there used to be literally little stamps you had at the grocery checkout. And a few decades ago, they switched to using an EBT [electronic benefit transfer] card, which works just like a credit card or a debit card. And in talking to the people who were involved in that transition, they emphasized that, they kept using this term they want to ride the commercial rails, which means that people who are using their food stamps should be able to access food in the same way that everybody else does.

And now, as technology is updating and accelerating, to continue that principle, that means access to online purchases, to using a mobile wallet, mobile apps. And we identified that there’s this overarching equity principle, is that SNAP beneficiaries should have access to the same customer experience as consumers using other forms of payment and an overarching inclusion principle that means that all SNAP beneficiaries should be able to access food without stigma, regardless of where they live. So I think that emphasis on equity and inclusion was really showing up in the SNAP program.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
You know, you can imagine the difference in the old days of somebody who had to open up these paper coupons they would tear off. I remember growing up seeing people who had to pay that way. Let’s stick with this theme of technology and how it may change access to benefits. We’re on a cusp of the AI transformation. How could you see AI being potentially a boon to helping individuals reach and be reached by safety net programs, and what are some of the concerns you might have about its use in this enrollment and recertification process for the various different programs?

Heather Hahn:
States are already starting to use bots, which is a kind of AI. And in some cases, it’s a chatbot like we may be familiar with where a customer’s interacting with the agency through this chatbot. There are also behind-the-scenes bots that they are using. I remember one they were calling was the address-change bot. So there are some of these simple processes that they have to do over and over and over, like, change addresses, where if they can have AI do that, it frees up the caseworkers to have more time interfacing with customers when needed.

One challenge to keep in mind is that there’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. Not everyone’s going to be comfortable with a chatbot, and so needing to have some people who are available to talk face-to-face as caring humans will always be important.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
I wanted to ask you specifically about the recent changes in policy. In 2021, President Biden issued two executive orders that were very focused on service delivery for safety net programs. Can you walk us through what they were focused on and how they’re working?

Heather Hahn:
These two executive orders were really important for calling attention to the issues and for holding federal agencies accountable. In January 2021, President Biden issued an executive order, quote, “on advancing racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.” That executive order said that the federal government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who’ve been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. So it was really calling on every agency to look at where there might be barriers to equal opportunity and to address those barriers.

The second, it’s an executive order on transforming federal customer experience and service delivery to rebuild trust in government. And this one says, and, and I’m quoting, “Government must be held accountable for designing and delivering services with a focus on the actual experience of the people whom it is meant to serve. Government must also work to deliver services more equitably and effectively, especially for those who have been historically underserved.” So that makes a really important point that you need to have that, that customer focus and think about things from the customer’s perspective.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
And has it made a difference? I mean, these are grand, directional pronouncements that have gotten people rolling up their sleeves and starting to think about how to meet these aspirations. Have we seen progress yet?

Heather Hahn:
I think that this kind of leadership from the top is always important and often takes a long time to be seen on the ground. But I do think that, I have seen agencies engaging in this, really thinking about it. The office that is in charge of approving all of the federal forms is thinking concretely about this and how can they improve their forms to improve the customer experience. So that is really where the rubber meets the road.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
You and I have spent a lot of time with colleagues who’ve demonstrated the degree to which a child growing up in a household under the poverty line has a vastly more difficult chance of becoming a self-sustaining and successful person with a bright future themselves. So we’re really trying to provide not just the safety net, but the springboard to help people through hardship and difficulty in order that they can become participants in our society in a way that helps create success for the future generations as well.

Heather Hahn:
That is a really critical point, and I’m glad we’re talking about that. Improving access is not just about helping people get the assistance they need right now. But having those basic needs met, and even better, having financial security, that’s a huge impact on futures, and especially for children.

We just released a report recently on the return on the investment in children. And evidence shows that increased income in childhood, even as little as a few thousand dollars a year, can have measurable improvements in children’s educational outcomes, their future earnings, and their future avoidance of public assistance. So compared with growing up in poverty, when children have financial security and they have their basic needs met, they have enhanced brain development, better educational outcomes and skills, better health, better employment outcomes. So it goes way beyond just, just getting a meal today.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
So Heather, we like to ask each visitor to this show the same question at the end. So I was wondering if you have an example where you’ve seen high-quality evidence informing choices by decisionmakers that ultimately do result in an impact on the lives of individual families. Can you give me an example of evidence in action?

Heather Hahn:
There was a state that was trying to improve customer access, so they were preparing to invest in an expanded call center. But they looked first at the data on why people were calling the call center, and it turns out it was because they wanted to know the status of their case. They hadn’t received their benefits. They hadn’t heard anything about it. Did it get lost? Where is it? When can I receive it? And so the call centers were just clogged with these calls. And they realized that if they just got people their benefits promptly, ideally the same day, they wouldn’t need to call. So instead of investing in a bigger call center, they invested in helping people get their benefits quickly and communicating clearly and avoiding the need for them to call the call center.

Sarah Rosen Wartell:
It’s a great example. Heather, you’ve devoted your career to understanding how well we as a society are supporting people in need through these programs and try and make them better. And we are grateful not only for the evidence that you have helped to generate but for your service. So thank you very much. It’s a real pleasure for me to be with you today.

So join us next time on Evidence in Action as we have conversations about important ways to drive change with talented and captivating guests. If you’d like to learn more about us, please go to the website at urban.org. And you can follow the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you listen to podcasts.

This has been Evidence in Action, created by the Urban Institute and Pod People. I’m your host, Sarah Rosen Wartell. Thanks for being with us.