Take-Up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP

TLDR

The study investigates how interventions designed to boost take‑up of social safety net programs influence welfare when behavioral biases are present. Using a randomized field experiment with 30,000 elderly eligible for SNAP, the authors calibrate a welfare framework by assigning participants to receive eligibility information only, eligibility information plus application assistance, or no intervention. The intervention increased SNAP enrollment from 6% in the control to 11% with information only and 18% with information plus assistance, but those who enrolled through the interventions had higher net income and were healthier, indicating that optimization frictions are larger for needier individuals and diminish the interventions’ welfare gains.

Abstract

Abstract We develop a framework for welfare analysis of interventions designed to increase take-up of social safety net programs in the presence of potential behavioral biases. We calibrate the key parameters using a randomized field experiment in which 30,000 elderly individuals not enrolled in—but likely eligible for—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are either provided with information that they are likely eligible, provided with this information and offered assistance in applying, or are in a “status quo” control group. Only 6% of the control group enrolls in SNAP over the next nine months, compared to 11% of the Information Only group and 18% of the Information Plus Assistance group. The individuals who apply or enroll in response to either intervention have higher net income and are less sick than the average enrollee in the control group. We present evidence consistent with the existence of optimization frictions that are greater for needier individuals, which suggests that the poor targeting properties of the interventions reduce their welfare benefits.