Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-11T23:50:02.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anchor management: a field experiment to encourage families to meet critical programme deadlines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2022

Ryan T. Moore Open the ORCID record for Ryan T. Moore [Opens in a new window] ,
Katherine N. Gan ,
Karissa Minnich  and
David Yokum
Ryan T. Moore*
Affiliation:
American University, Washington, USA The Lab @ DC, Washington, USA
Katherine N. Gan
Affiliation:
The Lab @ DC, Washington, USA
Karissa Minnich
Affiliation:
The Lab @ DC, Washington, USA
David Yokum
Affiliation:
The Lab @ DC and The Policy Lab, Providence, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: rtm@american.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many families, despite need and eligibility, struggle to meet programme deadlines to retain critical benefits. When families fail to complete programme recertification on time, they lose needed support. While scholars have tested behavioural theories like chunking, implementation intention, and loss framing to promote programme uptake, less is known about how well-designed communications can promote continuity through successful recertification, especially where recertification entails a significant administrative burden. Further, scant evidence guides how best to frame recertification deadlines. In a randomised trial with government partners (n = 3,539), we find that sending a reminder letter informed by these behavioural theories increased the number of families maintaining participation by 14 per cent. Further, anchoring people to a deadline month may suffice to thread the motivational needle: overcoming procrastination without lowering self-efficacy by anchoring them to a specific day. Adopting the most effective letter in Washington, DC, would lead 766 more families to participate uninterrupted each year.

Keywords

administrative burdenbehavioural sciencedeadlineseconomic securityfield experimentrecertification

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 615 - 636
Copyright
© District of Columbia Government, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Angrist, JD, Imbens, GW and Rubin, DB (1996) Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434): 444–455.Google Scholar
Anzelone, C, Timm, J and Kusayeva, Y (2018) Dates and Deadlines: Behavioral Strategies to Increase Engagement in Child Support, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED581586.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Ariely, D and Wertenbroch, K (2002) Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3): 219–224.Google ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, RF, Bratslavsky, E, Muraven, M and Tice, DM (1998) Ego Depletion: Is the Active Self a Limited Resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5): 1252–1265.Google Scholar
Behavioral Insights Team (2016) Behavioral Insights for Cities. What Works Cities Resource, http://38r8om2xjhhl25mw24492dir.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Behavioral-Insights-for-Cities-2.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Bertrand, M, Mullainathan, S and Shafir, E (2004) A Behavioral Economics View of Poverty. American Economic Review, 94(1): 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beshears, J, Choi, J, Laibson, D and Madrian, B (2008) The Importance of Default Options for Retirement Saving Outcomes: Evidence from the United States. In Kay, S. J. and Sinha, T. (eds.), Lessons from Pension Reform in the Americas. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, 59–87.Google Scholar
Bhargava, S and Manoli, D (2015) Psychological Frictions and the Incomplete Take-Up of Social Benefits: Evidence from an IRS Field Experiment. American Economic Review, 105(11): 3489–3529.Google Scholar
Blumenstock, J, Callen, M and Ghani, T (2018) Why Do Defaults Affect Behavior? Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan. American Economic Review, 108(10): 2868–2901.Google Scholar
Brodkin, EZ and Majmundar, M (2010) Administrative Exclusion: Organizations and the Hidden Costs of Welfare Claiming. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4): 827–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burden, BC, Canon, DT, Mayer, KR and Moynihan, DP (2012) The Effect of Administrative Burden on Bureaucratic Perception of Policies: Evidence from Election Administration. Public Administration Review, 72(5): 741–751.Google Scholar
Choi, JJ, Laibson, D and Madrian, BC (2005) $100 Bills on the Sidewalk: Suboptimal Investment in 401(k) Plans. NBER Working Paper 11554, https://www.nber.org/papers/w11554 (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Christensen, J, Aarøe, L, Baekgaard, M, Herd, P and Moynihan, DP (2020) Human Capital and Administrative Burden: The Role of Cognitive Resources in Citizen-State Interactions. Public Administration Review, 80(1): 127–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CONSORT and Transparent Reporting of Trials (2016) CONSORT Transparent Reporting of Trials, http://www.consort-statement.org/consort-2010 (accessed 30 June 2016).Google Scholar
Currie, J (2004) The Take Up of Social Benefits. NBER Working Paper (10488), https://www.nber.org/papers/w10488 (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Damgaard, MT and Gravert, C (2017) Now or Never! The Effect of Deadlines on Charitable Giving: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66: 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DC Action for Children (2016) Policy Snapshot: TANF Reform in DC. Policy Snapshot, https://www.dcactionforchildren.org/sites/default/files/TANF%20Snapshot%20FINAL_APRIL%202016.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
D.C. Department of Human Services and Economic Security Administration (2015) Combined application for DC Food Stamps, Cash Assistance, Medicaid, and Healthcare Alliance/Immigrant Child Program, https://dhs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhs/page_content/attachments/Integrated%20Application%2009092021a%20Final%20.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022). (Formerly https://dhs.dc.gov/publication/combined-application-benefits.)Google Scholar
D.C. Department of Human Services and Economic Security Administration (2017) District of Columbia State Plan for Administration of the Block Grant for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), https://dhs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhs/release_content/attachments/DRAFT%20DC%20State%20Plan%20for%20TANF%2011.06.17.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Dechausay, N and Anzelone, C (2016) Cutting through Complexity: Using Behavioral Science to Improve Indiana’s Child Care Subsidy Program. OPRE Report, https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Cutting_through_Complexity_FR.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S and Linos, E (2022) RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units. Econometrica, 90(1): 81–116.Google Scholar
Falk, G (2017) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Size of the Population Eligible for and Receiving Cash Assistance. Congressional Research Service Report, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44724.pdf.Google Scholar
Farrell, M, Smith, J, Reardon, L and Obara, E (2016) Framing the Message: Using Behavioral Economics to Engage TANF Recipients. OPRE Report 2. Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/framing-message-using-behavioral-economics-engage-tanf-recipients.Google Scholar
Feld, S, Frenzen, H, Krafft, M, Peters, K and Verhoef, P (2013) The Effect of Mailing Design Characteristics on Direct Mail Campaign Performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2): 143–159.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, A, Taubman, S, Wright, B, Bernstein, M, Gruber, J, Newhouse, JP, Allen, H, Baicker, K and Oregon Health Study Group (2012) The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: Evidence from the First Year. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3): 1057–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, A, Hendren, N and Luttmer, EFP (2019) The Value of Medicaid: Interpreting Results from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 127(6): 2836–2874.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkelstein, A and Notowidigdo, MJ (2019) Take-Up and Targeting: Experimental Evidence from SNAP. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 134(3): 1505–1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, AM, Feng, W and Stazyk, EC (2020) Administrative Easing: Rule Reduction and Medicaid Enrollment. Public Administration Review, 80(1): 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furnham, A and Boo, HC (2011) A Literature Review of the Anchoring Effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1): 35–42.Google Scholar
George, B, Pandey, SK, Steijn, B, Decramer, A and Audenaert, M (2021) Red Tape, Organizational Performance, and Employee Outcomes: Meta-analysis, Meta-regression, and Research Agenda. Public Administration Review, 81(4): 638–651.Google Scholar
Gerber, AS and Green, DP (2012) Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P (1999) Implementation Intentions: Strong Effects of Simple Plans. American Psychologist, 54(7): 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Barrera, A, Lopez, HM, Passel, JS and Taylor, P (2013) The Path Not Taken. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/02/Naturalizations_Jan_2013_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
Hattke, F, Hensel, D and Kalucza, J (2020) Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape. Public Administration Review, 80(1): 53–63.Google Scholar
Herd, P, DeLeire, T, Harvey, H and Moynihan, DP (2013). Shifting Administrative Burden to the State: The Case of Medicaid Take-Up. Public Administration Review, 73(s1): S69–S81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, P and Moynihan, DP (2019) Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hernanz, V, Malherbet, F and Pellizzari, M (2004) Take-Up of Welfare Benefits in OECD Countries: A Review of the Evidence. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/525815265414.pdf.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, R, Cam, M-A and Camilleri, AR (2019) Deciding to Invest Responsibly: Choice Architecture and Demographics in an Incentivised Retirement Savings Experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 80: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homonoff, T and Somerville, J (2021) Program Recertification Costs: Evidence from SNAP. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(4): 271–298.Google Scholar
Johnson, EJ, Hassin, R, Baker, T, Bajger, AT and Treuer, G (2013) Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture. PLOS ONE, 8(12): 1–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. New York City, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Lassiter, L (2017) What’s in the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)? DCFiscal Policy Institute, Budget Toolkit, https://www.dcfpi.org/all/whats-approved-fiscal-year-2018-budget-temporary-assistance-needy-families-tanf/ (accessed 20 May 2022). (Formerly https://www.dcfpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/TANFToolkit-FY-2018-Approved.pdf.) Google Scholar
Linos, E and Riesch, N (2020) Thick Red Tape and the Thin Blue Line: A Field Study on Reducing Administrative Burden in Police Recruitment. Public Administration Review, 80(1): 92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopoo, LM, Heflin, C and Boskovski, J (2020) Testing Behavioral Interventions Designed to Improve On-Time Snap Recertification. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(2): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madrian, BC and Shea, DF (2001) The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401 (k) Participation and Savings Behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4): 1149–1187.Google Scholar
McLean, SM, Booth, A, Gee, M, Salway, S, Cobb, M, Bhanbhro, S and Nancarrow, SA (2016) Appointment Reminder Systems are Effective but Not Optimal: Results of a Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis Employing Realist Principles. Patient Preference and Adherence, 10: 479–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, RT (2012) Multivariate Continuous Blocking to Improve Political Science Experiments. Political Analysis, 20(4): 460–479.Google Scholar
Moore, RT, Gan, KN, Minnich, K and Yokum, D (2022) Replication Data for: Anchor Management: A Field Experiment to Encourage Families to Meet Critical Program Deadlines, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5WTSUZ.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, RT and Schnakenberg, K (2016) blockTools: Blocking, Assignment, and Diagnosing Interference in Randomized Experiments. R Package Version 0.6–3, http://www.ryantmoore.org/html/software.blockTools.html (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Moynihan, D, Herd, P and Harvey, H (2015) Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in Citizen-State Interactions. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1): 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullainathan, S and Shafir, E (2014) Scarcity: The New Science of Having Less and How It Defines Our Lives. New York, NY: Picador.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, C, McKernan, S-M and Finegold, K (2008) Effects of Food Stamp and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Receipt. Social Service Review, 82(2): 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, A (2017) “TANF, IDA, GC Renewal Policy.” Internal memorandum to Economic Security Administration Staff.Google Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1981) The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481): 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Services Policy and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2017a) Fiscal Year 2015 TANF Financial Data, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2015 (accessed 1 May 2018).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Services Policy and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2017b) TANF Caseload Data 2016, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource/tanf-financial-data-fy-2015 (accessed 1 May 2018).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Services Policy and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (2017c) Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors. Sixteenth Report to Congress, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files//176416/WelfareIndicators.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Subcommittee on the Social & Behavioral Sciences Team (2015) Social and Behavioral Sciences Team 2015 Annual Report, https://sbst.gov/download/2015%20SBST%20Annual%20Report.pdf (accessed 20 May 2022).Google Scholar
Zamir, E, Lewinsohn-Zamir, D and Ritov, I (2017) It’s Now or Never! Using Deadlines as Nudges. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(3): 769–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Moore et al. Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5WTSUZ
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Moore et al. supplementary material

Moore et al. supplementary material 1

Download Moore et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 9.9 MB
Supplementary material: PDF

Moore et al. supplementary material

Moore et al. supplementary material 2

Download Moore et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 936.2 KB