In social services, the framework’s claim becomes: systems fail legitimacy when eligibility exists but continuity depends on recipients surviving repeated administrative exhaustion.
Track how people fall out through process maintenance burden, not only through formal denials.
Common misdescription in this field
Nonresponse = disinterest
Missed calls/forms are read as disengagement rather than a sign of overload.
- Communication channels are unstable or inaccessible.
- Case continuity depends on user vigilance.
- System assumes infinite administrative bandwidth.
Ineligibility = objective outcome
Procedural attrition is counted as substantive ineligibility.
- Verification loops exceed household capacity.
- Narrow windows create predictable terminations.
- Fragmented case ownership obscures responsibility.
What to measure instead
Measure the work it takes to stay visible to the state.
Visibility burden: how much work keeps a case alive?
Count recertification frequency, re-documentation, and contact volatility.
Dropout visibility: where does the pipeline lose people?
Track abandonment by step, not only final denial categories.
Time-to-relief: what happens during pending status?
Measure deterioration during wait periods as core harm.
Typical failure pathway (how people fall out)
Intake accepted
Initial eligibility appears plausible.
Maintenance overload
Recertification, callback churn, and document mismatch accumulate.
Administrative disappearance
Case closes as nonresponse or incomplete, masking structural exclusion.
Design/legal/operational fixes
Fixes must reduce fatigue as a gatekeeping mechanism.
Design fix: continuity by default
Replace frequent re-proof with risk-based audits, and keep benefits running by default.
Operational fix: single accountable case owner
Reduce handoffs and require warm transfers across agencies.
Legal fix: anti-attrition safeguards
Require several outreach attempts and a grace period to fix problems before a case is closed.