Apply the framework here
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.
Recognition
Common misdescription in this field
Misdescriptions that hide governance by exhaustion.
Missed calls/forms are interpreted as disengagement rather than overload signal.
- Communication channels are unstable or inaccessible.
- Case continuity depends on user vigilance.
- System assumes infinite administrative bandwidth.
Procedural attrition is counted as substantive ineligibility.
- Verification loops exceed household capacity.
- Narrow windows create predictable terminations.
- Fragmented case ownership obscures responsibility.
Operational diagnostics
What to measure instead
Measure maintenance labor needed to remain 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.
Failure dynamics
Typical failure pathway (how people fall out)
Typical pathway by which people fall out of social support systems.
Interventions
Design/legal/operational fixes
Fixes should reduce fatigue as a gatekeeping mechanism.