One of us (Scott) recently moved and needed to cancel his internet. The service provider required him to either call (which took 30 minutes of waiting and navigating a complicated phone tree) or go in person to an inconveniently located brick-and-mortar storefront. These hassles contrasted sharply with the ease and speed of signing up for the service online in the first place.
This common experience of a process that makes it hard to do what you need is an example of what behavioral scientists call administrative burdens—or more simply, friction.
While Scott was ultimately successful in cancelling his internet, friction isn’t always so mundane. For millions of Americans, it can mean the difference between having access to crucial resources like food assistance or student aid. At its worst, it can be a tool for keeping people from accessing critical lifelines or life-changing public benefit programs like SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid—not because people are ineligible but because frictions like work requirements and unclear jargon overburden those who are already depleted by the demands of living in poverty.
In a world where everyone’s time and energy are stretched thin, friction needlessly adds to the chaos. It’s a problem for program designers (who lose money and time to inefficiencies), and, of course, for the people who miss out on financial support, health services, and educational opportunities because of unnecessary requirements.
It doesn’t have to be this way, and it shouldn’t be this way. When we recognize the pervasiveness of friction and the different ways it can exacerbate poverty, we can bring organizations closer to achieving their mission and ensure that people can access the resources they need.
We All Pay for Friction
A board game demonstrating the friction created by a 2018 Arkansas law that set work requirements for Medicaid eligibility.
Let’s look at an example of friction for rural farmers.
As of 2022, there are about 2.6 million U.S. farmers, many of whom are eligible for financial support through the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Loan Program. But to get those loans, farmers must:
- Navigate the seven loan programs available to find the one(s) for which they’re eligible
- Locate their nearest USDA service center
- Attend an in-person visit with a loan officer
- Complete an application, which requires applicants to submit
That’s at least 25 separate steps to complete, forms to review, or records to track down. After all of that, one out of three applications are still rejected.
This is friction in action—creating requirements that are so laborious and prone to error that farmers are losing out on a benefit they’re eligible for. In some cases, that could be the difference between a farmer being able to buy the equipment they need to plant crops more efficiently and not being able to afford it. Ultimately, this hurts their livelihoods and spikes the prices of groceries across the country.
This friction has many sources. Some friction is incidental, perhaps from sloppy design or old systems that no longer fit people’s current needs. In other cases, program administrators add requirements in a good-faith (but often self-defeating) effort to distribute limited resources to those who need them the most. And in some cases, friction is “policymaking by other means,” because it allows decision makers to hide unpopular (or unethical) policymaking behind other rationales that majorities of people support, such as preventing fraud.
As one example, in 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements to access Medicaid. By the end of the first year of that policy, 17,000 adults had been removed from Medicaid. About 95% of those who lost coverage were in fact working or exempted, but struggled to renew coverage because of reporting and paperwork requirements.
Yet regardless of friction’s source, when policymakers and program designers reduce friction, everyone benefits.
Companies and governments run more efficiently—meaning taxpayer dollars are used better—and their constituents are more confident in their leadership. People also spend less time and effort navigating byzantine systems and can better access resources that make their lives easier. Even the economy at large benefits; research shows that participation in benefits programs promotes economic growth. For example, for every additional dollar distributed through SNAP during recessions, $1.54 extra is spent in the economy, buying things from businesses, and some studies show that rural areas experience greater economic benefits than urban areas. Similarly, unemployment insurance created $1.61 in economic benefit for every dollar spent during the 2009 financial crisis.
How Organizations Can Overcome Friction
Reducing friction is good for everyone—it’s good for the people who directly connect to services; it’s good for organizations providing services because they’re better able to fulfill their goals. It’s good for society at large. So how can organizations and governments do it?
Behavioral science offers crucial insights into why people struggle with these frictions and, more importantly, provides evidence-based solutions. We’ve found that implementing three design principles can reduce administrative friction:
- Cut costs: Simplify processes, remove barriers to entry, reduce complexity, and streamline forms, making it easier for people to understand and complete requirements.
- Create slack: Build in buffers and cushions, such as providing more time to complete an application, sending helpful reminders before benefits end, or offering readily available support like transportation.
- Reframe and empower: For example, a common narrative about navigating administrative burden is that it’s a personal failure (“They didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly”) instead of a system design failure (“The process was too difficult for people to follow”). Shifting the narrative allows us to reframe red tape as a policy choice and foster a sense of dignity and trust for the people who navigate these policies.
Why Now Is the Time for Change
A simpler letter or a more transparent process can transform lives. We know this because we’ve seen it in our work and lives. We’ve talked with a parent working two jobs who can’t take time off to stand in line to recertify benefits, and we’ve seen what it means for their child to lose access to healthcare because of a missed form. We’ve seen loved ones struggle with government systems—facing endless loops of paperwork, waiting on hold, and feeling like they’re to blame. These aren’t edge cases—they’re everyday realities.
But we’ve also seen the inverse: How designing better ways to access resources can unlock peace of mind and ease. As one New York City resident who received a SNAP recertification, an ideas42 team redesigned explained:
If it weren’t for that [redesigned] letter, I would not have done my SNAP recertification in time. Honestly, I would not be able to feed my kids right now.
Normally, you get these letters and it’s like, “I don’t understand this. What am I supposed to do?” But this one was different. I knew what to do, and it just made me think, why can’t it always be that easy?
Now is a critical moment to make our systems more efficient. Millions of people are facing growing needs for healthcare, food assistance, housing, and childcare, yet the systems meant to support them are often hard to access—and it’s getting even harder. At the same time, governments and service providers are under pressure to deliver more with fewer resources.
Friction in our systems—such as lengthy forms, complex websites, excessive documentation, and unclear communication—wastes time, deters access, and exacerbates inequality. We all want our government and workplaces to actually work, and our lives to be easier. A behavioral approach to reducing friction can help us get there.
