logo
Here's why delivery of social services is so complicated

Here's why delivery of social services is so complicated

Yahoo27-05-2025

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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump vows to 'HIT' any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6

time43 minutes ago

Trump vows to 'HIT' any protester who spits on police. He pardoned those who did far worse on Jan. 6

In one of his first acts of his second term as president, Donald Trump pardoned hundreds of people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to try to keep him in office, including those who beat police officers. On Monday, Trump posted a warning on social media to those demonstrating in Los Angeles against his immigration crackdown and confronting police and members of the National Guard he had deployed: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' The discrepancy of Trump's response to the two disturbances — pardoning rioters who beat police on Jan. 6, which he called 'a beautiful day,' while condemning violence against law enforcement in Los Angeles — illustrates how the president expects his enemies to be held to different standards than his supporters. 'Trump's behavior makes clear that he only values the rule of law and the people who enforce it when it's to his political advantage,' said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College. Trump pardoned more than 1,000 people who tried to halt the transfer of power on that day in 2021, when about 140 officers were injured. The former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, called it 'likely the largest single day mass assault of law enforcement ' in American history. Trump's pardon covered people convicted of attacking police with flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch. Many of the assaults were captured on surveillance or body camera footage that showed rioters engaging in hand-to-hand combat with police as officers desperately fought to beat back the angry crowd. While some who were pardoned were convicted of nonviolent crimes, Trump pardoned at least 276 defendants who were convicted of assault charges, according to an Associated Press review of court records. Nearly 300 others had their pending charges dismissed as a result of Trump's sweeping act of clemency. Roughly 180 of the defendants were charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding law enforcement or obstructing officers during a civil disorder. 'They were extremely violent, and they have been treated as if their crimes were nothing, and now the president is trying to use the perception of violence by some protesters as an excuse to crack some heads,' said Mike Romano, who was a deputy chief of the section of the U.S. Attorney's office that prosecuted those involved in the Capitol siege. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, defended the president's response: 'President Trump was elected to secure the border, equip federal officials with the tools to execute this plan, and restore law and order.' Trump has long planned to use civil unrest as an opportunity to invoke broad presidential powers, and he seemed poised to do just that on Monday as he activated a battalion of U.S. Marines to support the presence of the National Guard. He mobilized the Guard on Saturday over the opposition of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. The Guard was last sent to Los Angeles by a president during the Rodney King riots in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act. Those riots were significantly more violent and widespread than the current protests in Los Angeles, which were largely confined to a stretch of downtown, a relatively small patch in a city of 469 square miles and nearly 4 million people. The current demonstrations were sparked by a confrontation Saturday in the city of Paramount, southeast of downtown Los Angeles, where federal agents were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office. California officials, who are largely Democrats, argued that Trump is trying to create more chaos to expand his power. Newsom, whom Trump suggested should be arrested, called the president's acts 'authoritarian.' But even Rick Caruso, a prominent Los Angeles Republican and former mayoral candidate, posted on the social media site X that the president should not have called in the National Guard. Protests escalated after the Guard arrived, with demonstrators blockading a downtown freeway. Some some set multiple self-driving cars on fire and pelted Los Angeles police with debris and fireworks. Romano said he worried that Trump's double standard on how demonstrators should treat law enforcement will weaken the position of police in American society. He recalled that, during the Capitol attack, many rioters thought police should let them into the building because they had supported law enforcement's crackdown on anti-police demonstrations after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. That sort of 'transactional' approach Trump advocates is toxic, Romano said. 'We need to expect law enforcement are doing their jobs properly,' he said. Believing they just cater to the president 'is going to undermine public trust in law enforcement.'

Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles

timean hour ago

Hegseth faces Congress for first time since Signal leaks and Marine deployment to Los Angeles

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is expected to field sharp questions from members of Congress about his tumultuous start as Pentagon chief, including his sharing of sensitive military details over a Signal chat, in three separate Capitol Hill hearings beginning Tuesday. Lawmakers also have made it clear they are unhappy that Hegseth has not provided details on the administration's first proposed defense budget, which President Donald Trump has said would total $1 trillion, a significant increase over the current spending level of more than $800 billion. It will be lawmakers' first chance to ask Hegseth about a myriad of other controversial spending by the Pentagon, including plans to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on security upgrades to turn a Qatari jet into Air Force One and to pour as much as $45 million into a parade recently added to the Army's 250th birthday bash, which happens to coincide with Trump's birthday on Saturday. Lawmakers may quiz Hegseth on the latest searing images coming out of the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. Hegseth has deployed about 700 active-duty Marines to assist more than 4,100 National Guard troops in protecting federal buildings and personnel. But there are questions about what the troops will have to do and how much it will all cost. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, troops are prohibited from policing U.S. citizens on American soil. Invoking the Insurrection Act, which allows troops to do that, is incredibly rare, and it's not clear if Trump plans to do it. The commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. Eric Smith, will be on Capitol Hill testifying at a separate budget hearing at the same time as Hegseth and is likely to face similar questions. Hegseth has spent vast amounts of time during his first five months in office promoting the social changes he's making at the Pentagon. He's been far less visible in the administration's more critical international security crises and negotiations involving Russia, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and Iran. Most recently, Hegseth directed the renaming of a Navy ship that had honored Harvey Milk, a slain gay rights activist who served as a sailor during the Korean War. His spokesman, Sean Parnell, said the renaming was needed to ensure "the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the commander-in-chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos.' Hegseth has posted numerous videos of his morning workouts with troops or of himself signing directives to purge diversity and equity programs and online content from the military. He has boasted of removing transgender service members from the force and firing so-called woke generals, many of whom were women. He was on the international stage about a week ago, addressing an annual national security conference in Asia about threats from China. But a trip to NATO headquarters last week was quick and quiet, and he deliberately skipped a gathering of about 50 allies and partners where they discussed ongoing support for Ukraine. Hegseth's hearing Tuesday before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will be his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since he squeaked through his Senate confirmation with a tie-breaking vote. It was the closest vote of any Cabinet member. While he has talked a lot about making the military more lethal, it was his use of the unclassified, unsecured Signal messaging app that quickly caught public attention. Set up by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz, a group chat included Hegseth and other senior administration leaders and was used to share information about upcoming military strikes in Yemen. The chat became a public embarrassment because the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, was inadvertently added to it. Waltz took responsibility for the gaffe, but Hegseth was roundly criticized for sharing details about the military strikes in this chat and in another one that included his wife and brother. Multiple investigations are looking into his use of Signal. The Defense Department's acting inspector general has been looking into the initial chat at the request of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Pentagon's watchdog also is reviewing whether any of Hegseth's aides were asked to delete any Signal messages. While any number of those issues could come up at the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday, money issues are more likely to be the focus of the hearings Tuesday in the House and Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. Already defense leaders have been grilled in other hearings on the plans to retrofit the Qatari jet and the costs of the military parade. Trump has long wanted a parade, and Army leaders defended it as a good way to attract new recruits. Other questions may involve the costs of expanding the use of military forces to secure the southern border, the plans for the Golden Dome missile defense program, and how the department intends to fund modernization programs for drones and other critical weapons systems.

Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests

time2 hours ago

Pentagon draws up rules on possible use of force by Marines deployed to LA protests

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon was scrambling Monday to establish rules to guide U.S. Marines who could be faced with the rare and difficult prospect of using force against citizens on American soil, now that the Trump administration is deploying active duty troops to the immigration raid protests in Los Angeles. U.S. Northern Command said it is sending 700 Marines into the Los Angeles area to protect federal property and personnel, including federal immigration agents. The 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines are coming from Twentynine Palms, California, and will augment about 4,100 National Guard members already in LA or authorized to be deployed there to respond to the protests. The forces have been trained in deescalation, crowd control and standing rules for the use of force, Northern Command said. But the use of the active duty forces still raises difficult questions. The Marines are highly trained in combat and crisis response, with time in conflict zones like Syria and Afghanistan. But that is starkly different from the role they will face now: They could potentially be hit by protesters carrying gas canisters and have to quickly decide how to respond or face decisions about protecting an immigration enforcement agent from crowds. According to a U.S. official, troops will be armed with their normal service weapons but will not be carrying tear gas. They also will have protective equipment such as helmets, shields and gas masks. When troops are overseas, how they can respond to threats is outlined by the rules of engagement. At home, they are guided by standing rules for the use of force, which have to be set and agreed to by Northern Command, and then each Marine should receive a card explaining what they can and cannot do, another U.S. official said. For example, warning shots would be prohibited, according to use-of-force draft documents viewed by The Associated Press. Marines are directed to deescalate a situation whenever possible but also are authorized to act in self-defense, the documents say. The AP reviewed documents and interviewed nine U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details not yet public, about the guidance being determined for the Marines. The Pentagon also is working on a memo with clarifying language for the Marines that will lay out the steps they can take to protect federal personnel and property. Those guidelines also will include specifics on the possibility that they could temporarily detain civilians if troops are under assault or to prevent harm, the first U.S. official said. Those measures could involve detaining civilians until they can be turned over to law enforcement. Having the Marines deploy to protect federal buildings allows them to be used without invoking the Insurrection Act, one U.S. official said. The Insurrection Act allows the president to direct federal troops to conduct law enforcement functions in national emergencies. But the use of that act is extremely rare. Officials said that has not yet been done in this case and that it's not clear it will be done. President George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. If their role expands if the violence escalates, it is not clear under what legal authority they would be able to engage, said Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law. 'If in fact those Marines are laying hands on civilians, doing searches, then you have pretty powerful legal concerns,' Goitein said. 'No statutory authority Trump has invoked so far permits this.' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tweeted late Saturday that he was considering deploying the Marines to respond to the unrest after getting advice earlier in the day from Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to one of the U.S. officials. Still, the tweet, which was posted to Hegseth's personal X account and not to his official government account, caught many inside the Pentagon by surprise. As late as Monday, the military's highest offices were still considering the potential ramifications. But the Marine Corps were asking broader questions, too: Do they send more senior, experienced personnel so as not to put newer, less experienced troops at risk of potentially making a judgment call on whether to use force against a civilian? What's lawful under a domestic deployment — where troops may end up in a policing role — is governed by the Fourth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which forbids seizure of persons, including temporarily restraining them, unless it could be considered reasonable under the circumstances.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store