Safety Net v. Safety Web: Untangling Ourselves Out of Inefficiency

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Troy Chavez
July 28, 2025

Government is roiled with inefficiencies. It’s an open secret—and one openly being discussed, slashed and burned… In a rational process, a reasonable place to begin would be with safety nets versus safety webs.

Government designs programs for people and society to move forward and stabilize communities. This intervention is often serialized in outlandish debates about communism and capitalism and formulates our understanding of what, who, why, where and when government should intercede. Nevertheless, programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) can be elevated to service citizens better, faster and diligently. I am not here to debate whether these programs should exist or not; I am here to provide a framework for effective business practices in public services.

Ultimately, these are services. While we know agencies like the DMV (I don’t even need to spell out the agency, its infamy crosses state lines!) are slow and frustrating, we never delve into ways we can improve and enhance them. This is how we can run government “like a business.” By helping deliver services offered effectively and uprooting inefficiencies embedded in the system.

Safety Net v. Safety Web

When we are falling, we’d like to be caught in netting or parachute and land safely…not caught and eaten and ensnared in a spider’s trap… right?

A safety net—or government program—should lift you up and launch you back onto your feet. A safety web—or government dependency—weighs you down and sucks you dry.

“The system isn’t broken,” said Marilyn Waring. “It was built this way.”

While being said by a former New Zealand MP, her sentiment remains poignant for American governance. Via our war on government programs or superseding belief that government should encompass everything and anything, we forgot the plot: provide vital government services effectively and efficiently. Our fixation on entitlements vs deserving recipients has brought us to where we are today.

So, how do we make way for an effective safety “net,” not “web”?

“Churn”: The Hidden Cost of Red Tape

Donald Moynihan, professor at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and co-director of the Better Government Lab—which is co-housed between the Ford School and Georgetown University’s McCourt School—provides us with the perfect segue into the world of practical applications and business services. “We made welfare difficult so people wouldn’t take advantage of it. But the people it hurts most are the ones who need it most,” Moynihan said. What he is touching on is called “churn.”

Pamela Herd, also a professor at the Gerald R. Ford School and co-author of Administrative Burden, written alongside Moynihan, states this point further: “Administrative burdens don’t just reduce access. They change people’s relationship with the state—creating distrust, frustration and alienation.”

Our relationship with government is often molded by the media, personal, secondhand or thirdhand experiences and so on. The least the government can do is better its person-to-person experience. Administrative burdens are where to begin.

Churn, in government-speak, refers to short-windowed renewal periods, confusing deadlines and eligibility requirements. Someone can be continuously eligible for Medicaid or SNAP yet kicked off due to unmet, confusing deadlines and application periods. This causes disruption in both services and for processing administrators.

This dual burden envelopes a dreary experience. Which is why many hold onto their benefits for dear life simply because getting pennies took hundreds of dollars of their time lost in the process.

Alternatively, administrators focus less on service delivery and more on paperwork, intricate deadlines and redundant renewals.

Continuous Eligibility: Smoother Sailing

Continuous eligibility means an enrollee is renewed for at least a year without administrative renewals. Once enrolled, that person does not need to go through strenuous periods of renewals. According to a 2023 report from the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, states that adopted continuous eligibility saw churn events drop by approximately 30%.

Moreover, policy fluctuations aside, since 2024, federal policy mandates 12-month continuous coverage for all children on Medicaid and CHIP, regardless of income changes during that time. This method could extend beyond specified demographics. Lastly, a study in Health Affairs estimated administrative cost savings between $400 and $600 per case when churn is avoided through stable eligibility periods.

Ex Parte Renewals: Data is Just Sitting There!

Coupling continuous with “Ex Parte” renewals means allowing for data-sharing and usage of information embedded in readily available databases: from state wage data to SNAP eligibility files and even Social Security records. Ex Parte subtly sweeps away much of the red tape by verifying income, employment and residency alongside the databases above.

In states like Oregon and Louisiana, more than 70% of renewals were processed through automated data matching, cutting administrative workload and minimizing delays in care.

Tiered Renewals & Smart Sunsets: A Fair Business Model

Multi-year waivers (12–24 months) are already in place in states like NY, MT, OR and MA, but a business format for this can be orchestrated in a tiered system coupled with sunset options:

• Tier 1: Continuous eligibility, minimal checks
• Tier 2: Extended coverage with defined renewal intervals
• Tier 3: Sunset after short-term aid; documented reapplication required
• Addendum: Caseworker discretion and data triggers can flex assignments, maintaining both trust and system integrity

Cuts and balanced budgets are important but so are methods and procedures and processes. Both can orbit our minds. It takes common sense, not wonky, misunderstood political ideals. Withstanding, these ideas are nothing without the political will to adhere and implement them. This, a public administrator can only lobby from behind the scenes for.

---

Author: Troy Chavez, M.P.A. is a PhD candidate at Liberty University with a masters in public administration and works in government doing community relations. He can be reached at [email protected].

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...