Here's why delivery of social services is so complicated
Photo illustration by Getty Images.
A few months ago, I was having coffee with a friend who was helping a relative apply for Medical Assistance.
He looked at me, astonished, and maybe a little outraged, and said, 'You have to mail a piece of paper to change an address.'
I nodded, looking down at my coffee.
Anyone who has worked in human services braces themselves for these stories. They range from headache-inducing bureaucratic annoyances all the way to horror stories of people so caught up in red tape nightmares that they can't access life-saving care or treatment.
Why is this? Why are human services so complicated?
The answer starts with us — the attitudes of the American people — and is reinforced through all other levels of the policy process, from budgeting to service delivery.
America's attitude toward poverty is shaped by 16th century English Poor Laws, particularly the idea of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor.
This manifests itself in our nation's reliance on means-tested programs. Means-testing means only low-income people qualify for a service. Other rich democracies rely more on services that are available to everyone.
Means-tested programs rely on complex eligibility processes — both for initial application and to prove continued eligibility. Sometimes, people must report various information on a monthly basis to remain eligible for benefits or services.
It's a continuous requirement to prove that you really need help.
While some process is necessary, the number of rules and the degree of complexity to follow them reflects the public ambivalence toward these services.
These values can get muddled in the largest U.S. means-tested program, Medicaid (called Medical Assistance in Minnesota).
Medicaid is largely thought of as a health care program for low-income families. It is means-tested. At times over the past two decades, Republicans have referred to Medicaid as 'welfare health care' to justify budget cuts.
At the same time, Medicaid provides health care and long-term care for low-income seniors and people with disabilities. Health care for seniors and people with disabilities has broad public support, and many believe this basic dignity is a right, not a privilege.
Yet the process of getting grandma into the nursing home or helping a person with disabilities live and work in the community is complicated by the fact that these services are paid for by Medicaid, a means-tested program. As a result, families trying to help a grandparent or another relative often find themselves caught in a morass of rules and red tape.
All because the best our nation could do for vulnerable people needing long-term care was to cobble some services onto Medicaid.
This ambivalence about helping poor people also plays into another facet of the policy process: budget cutting.
Human services are some of the largest and fastest growing programs: Medicaid and SNAP are two of the larger programs in the federal budget, and Medicaid is the largest program in many states' budgets.
Whether reductions are made for political reasons or to address budget deficits doesn't matter: Human services programs will be at the center, because that's where the money is.
But few politicians really want to cut low-income people off benefits, especially not health care for people in their districts, and especially not elderly people in nursing homes or people with disabilities.
So, instead of simple changes that would reduce benefits or coverage, the budget cutting solutions are often more complex policy changes wrapped in messaging about 'work' or 'fraud and abuse.'
We see this happening right now at the federal level with Medicaid and SNAP. A skittish Congress has backed off from direct cuts to Medicaid, opting instead for work requirements and other eligibility changes — under the guise of weeding out the people who don't deserve health care.
In other words, Congress is intentionally creating complex hoops designed to cause people to lose health care, all in order to cut the budget to pay for tax cuts.
Once these policies are passed by Congress, federal agencies create regulations to further detail how policies must be implemented by states. At the state level, additional legislation may be required to sort out any areas of state discretion under the new federal laws. And then state agencies develop rules or guidance for counties, tribes or private entities that deliver the services.
Each step adds more specificity — and more complexity.
And the constant changes in policy from year to year compounds the problem.
It all lands on people trying to get necessities like health care and groceries — and the frontline workers who are just trying to help their clients obtain these simple human needs.
I've focused on eligibility policies, but this complexity has infected other policies as well. The decisions regarding who gets into a nursing home or what services a person with disabilities can get in the community had, in the past, relied partly on discretion by a local social worker. Now these decision factors are fixed in law and supported by structured, mandatory assessment tools.
This ensures consistency, but when people are denied services, it can feel like the decision was made in a black box.
I'm not sure it is possible to undo this cycle. There are never enough resources to meet all the needs. Combine that with our ambivalence about who deserves help, and it's a self-perpetuating mess.
The best hope for fixing this problem — to make it simpler for people to get the services they need — is at the point of service delivery.
Of course, as I wrote here in 2023, that requires us to overcome another challenge: We focus a lot on public policy and not enough on the the operational mechanics of programs and how they work (or don't) for the person who needs it.
Yet I have some optimism for this solution for two reasons: It is in the control of state and local officials who care about human services, and digital tools offer real opportunities for simplifying the consumer experience.
But we need the will to do it — to put the needed focus on efforts to improve service delivery, while still managing the unstoppable policy machine.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

14 minutes ago
China's exports climb 4.8% in May as shipments to the US fall nearly 10%
China's exports rose 4.8% in May from a year earlier, a bit lower than expected, as shipments to the United States fell nearly 10%, according to data released Monday just hours ahead of another round of trade talks between the U.S. and China. Imports declined 3.4% year-on-year, leaving a trade surplus of $103.2 billion. China exported $28.8 billion to the United States in May, while its imports from the U.S. fell 7.4% to $10.8 billion, the report said. Still, exports to Southeast Asia and the European Union remained robust, growing 14.8% and 12%, year-on-year. 'The acceleration of exports to other economies has helped China's exports remain relatively buoyant in the face of the trade war,' Lynne Song of ING Economics said in a commentary. Still, trade slowed in May from an 8.1% jump in China's global exports in April. Many businesses had rushed orders to try to beat higher tariffs, even as some new import duties took effect or remained in place. Exports will likely rebound somewhat in June thanks to a 90-day suspension of most of the tariffs China and the U.S. imposed on each other in their escalating trade war. 'But with tariffs likely to remain elevated and Chinese manufacturers facing broader constraints on their ability to sustain rapid gains in global market share, we think export growth will slow further by year-end,' Zichun Huang of Capital Economics said in a report. Despite the tariffs truce, the rancor between Beijing and Washington has persisted, with angry exchanges over advanced semiconductors, 'rare earths' that are vital to many industries and visas for Chinese students at American universities. The next round of negotiations was due to take place later Monday in London, following a phone call last week between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Other data released Monday highlight the pressure on the world's second largest economy from slowing exports, since China imports many of the components and materials needed for the goods it assembles for the world. But at the same time, China's own domestic markets are suffering. The government reported that consumer prices fell 0.1% in May, evidence of sluggish demand. The persisting deflation partly reflects lower food prices, economists said. Producer price deflation was worse, contracting 3.3% in May, its lowest level in almost two years, after falling 2.7% in April.


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Chad announces suspension of visas to US citizens in response to Trump travel ban
N'DJAMENA, Chad (AP) — Chad's President Mahamat Idriss Deby has announced that his country will suspend the issuing of visas to U.S. citizens in response to the Trump administration's decision to ban Chadians from visiting the United States. President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term when he announced the visa ban on 12 countries including Chad, accusing them of having 'deficient' screening and vetting, and historically refusing to take back their own citizens who overstay in the United States. The new ban targets Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. There will also be heightened restrictions on visitors from seven others in the new travel policy, which takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m. In a Facebook post, Chad's president on Thursday said he is directing his government to suspend visas to U.S. citizens 'in accordance with the principles of reciprocity.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride,' Deby said, referring to the $400 million luxury plane offered to his administration as a gift by the ruling family of Qatar. Republic of Congo calls the ban a mistake The new travel policy has triggered varied reactions from Africa, whose countries make up seven of the 12 countries affected by Trump's outright visa ban with some exemptions. In the Republic of Congo, government spokesperson Thierry Moungalla said he believes the country was among those affected because of a 'misunderstanding' over an armed attack in the U.S. with the perpetrators 'mistaken' to be from the Republic of Congo. 'Obviously, Congo is not a terrorist country, is not home to any terrorist, is not known to have a terrorist vocation. So we think that this is a misunderstanding and I believe that in the coming hours, the competent diplomatic services of the government will contact the American authorities here,' he said in the capital of Brazzaville. In Sierra Leone, among countries with heightened travel restrictions, Information Minister Chernor Bah said the country is committed to addressing the concerns that prompted the ban.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
‘60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley warns a CBS settlement with Trump would be ‘very damaging'
'60 Minutes' correspondent Scott Pelley spoke out about President Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS and its parent company on Saturday, arguing that a settlement would be 'very damaging.' 'Well, it'd be very damaging to CBS, to Paramount, to the reputation of those companies,' Pelley said during a conversation with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Saturday, who asked how harmful a settlement and potential apology would be to the network. Trump filed a lawsuit against Paramount Global, CBS News' parent company, over a '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris in October 2024. Fox News Digital confirmed that Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to a source familiar with the matter, as the president's legal team is also demanding at least $25 million and an apology from CBS News. Cooper, who is also a correspondent on '60 Minutes,' also asked Pelley about former show producer Bill Owens resigning from the program in April. 'Bill's decision to resign may not have been much of a decision for him because he was always the first person to defend the independence of '60 minutes.' Bill didn't work for Paramount. Bill worked for our viewers, and he felt very keenly about that. And so I'm not sure Bill had any choice, once the corporation began to meddle in Bill's decisions about the editorial content, or just place pressure in that area, Bill felt that he didn't have the independence that honest journalism requires,' Pelley said. 4 Scott Pelley warned that a settlement between President Trump and CBS would be 'very damaging.' 4 President Trump rejected a $15 million offer to settle his lawsuit, according to Fox News Digital. AP Pelley also said he wished he had the public backing of CBS News, but added that his work was still making it onto the program. 'You really wish the company was behind you 100%, right? You really wish the top echelons of the company would come out publicly and say '60 Minutes', for example, is a crown jewel of American journalism, and we stand behind it 100%. I haven't heard that. On the other hand, my work is getting on the air, and I have not had anyone outside '60 Minutes' put their thumb on the scale and say, 'you can't say that. You should say this. You have to edit the story in this way. You should interview this person.' None of that has happened. So while I would like to have that public backing, maybe the more important thing is the work is still getting on the air,' Pelley said. 4 The Federal Communications Commission accused '60 Minutes' of heavily editing an interview with Kamala Harris in 2024. 60 Minutes / CBS 4 Former show producer Bill Owens resigned from the program in April. The '60 Minutes' correspondent recently went viral for calling out Trump during a commencement address. 'In this moment, this moment, this morning, our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack,' Pelley said during his commencement speech at Wake Forest University. 'And insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts, the fear to speak in America. If our government is, in Lincoln's phrase, 'Of the people, by the people, for the people,' then why are we afraid to speak?' Pelley addressed the remarks during the CNN interview and told Cooper that he felt 'strongly' it needed to be said. 'I don't refer to him or the president or the White House or the administration. But I was talking about actions that have been taken by the government over these last many months. But, there was a little bit of hysteria among some about this speech, and I simply ask you, what does it say about our country when there's hysteria about a speech that's about freedom of speech?' the CBS correspondent added.