Choosing How to Screen: Frequency and Rigor in Transfer Program Recertification

• In Event: New Research on Administrative Burdens

Abstract

Administrative requirements can screen participants in means-tested transfer programs, but impose costs on both recipients and administrators. While initial applications primarily allow programs to vary the rigor of screening, recertification introduces an additional policy lever: how frequently, and when, households must demonstrate continued eligibility. These instruments need not generate the same targeting benefits or impose the same costs. We examine how these two levers affect participation and the composition of recipients, exploiting three changes to recertification requirements in Louisiana's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Using administrative records, we find that replacing a full recertification with a simplified report, eliminating a simplified report, and postponing full recertification increase retention at the affected review by 15.9, 29.8, and 49.4 percentage points, respectively. Eliminating or postponing reviews disproportionately increases retention among lower-benefit households, whereas reducing rigor generates relatively uniform gains, primarily through increased recertification attempts. Higher-benefit households are also more likely to re-enter SNAP following an exit. We find higher MVPFs from eliminating the simplified report among lower-benefit households, although assigning greater social welfare weight to higher-need households can reverse this ranking. These findings illustrate how the structure of screening requirements shapes participant composition.

Authors

• Swati S Joshi, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  Presenting Author

• Erik James, University of Pennsylvania
  Non-Presenting Co-Author