Anyone seeking an example of government inefficiency need look no further than our current social welfare system, a sprawling mess of more than 50 separate programs administered by a variety of state and local bureaucracies, with conflicting eligibility requirements, work mandates, and other rules. The current system makes it hard on everyone:state governments, taxpayers, and recipients alike.
Aside from Medicaid and a number of poorly designed COVID-era programs, welfare fraud was never as widespread as the headlines suggest. According to the Government Accountability Office, “improper payments” in social welfare programs—which includes both fraud and administrative errors—totaled slightly more than $66 billion in 2024. To put this in perspective, improper payments for Medicare exceeded $54 billion.
Still, any fraud is too much fraud. And, it’s hard to think of a system more open and inviting to fraudsters than our current opaque and fragmented welfare design, with accountability scattered through multiple agencies that don’t talk to each other, incompatible operating systems, and different, often conflicting, rules.
Even without fraud, the complexity and lack of transparency of the current system makes it difficult to measure whether programs are accomplishing their goals. It is difficult to know how to fund programs if policymakers don’t know which ones work and which ones don’t. And, many existing programs have become fiefdoms for special interests, providing a bureaucratic roadblock to reform. As a result, stakeholders tend to measure success by how much money a program receives rather than whether it actually helps lift people out of poverty. The better alternative would be to simply remove them if they don’t meet specified criteria.
Recipients are left to try to navigate a cacophonous labyrinth. If the goal is to simply discourage applicants and get them to drop out, the current system is well-designed. If the goal is to provide for people’s basic needs while helping them to become self-sufficient, it is not.
Fortunately, states have begun experimenting with alternatives to the current system. Among the most promising is the “One Door” approach, which integrates many of today’s fragmented welfare services, job training, and employment programs into a single coordinated system that makes it easier to help recipients transition from welfare to work.
Evidence from Utah, the first state to fully implement One Door, suggests that it offers a realistic opportunity to fix many of the problems besetting our current system.
Take fraud for example. Because the One Door integrated approach allows for better accountability, coordination, and case management, Utah has been able to keep its improper payment rates for programs like SNAP to one of the nation’s lowest.
One Door also makes it easier to transition welfare recipients to work. That’s one reason why Utah’s labor force participation rate is among the highest in the nation. And perhaps even more importantly, the state’s economic mobility gets the nation’s top score from the Archbridge Institute. It accomplishes these important goals without simply cutting recipients off from the help they need.
A system that reduces fraud, encourages work, and is compassionate towards those genuinely in need is an achievable goal. Like any large program, it is not perfect, but One Door can be a critical first step in welfare reform that protects the vulnerable, reduces bureaucracy, and actually creates pathways to flourishing.