Why Aren’t More People Accessing Support? Rethinking ‘Take-Up’ with Behavioral Science
- by Buoyancy Works
- |
- - 5 min read
Overview
Many community programs offer life-changing support—ranging from help with groceries and job applications to budgeting assistance, housing navigation, and financial aid. Yet, despite the clear value of these programs, nonprofit leaders and frontline staff often encounter a persistent and troubling pattern: some of the individuals most in need of support are the least likely to access it.
This gap between eligibility and participation is often referred to as “take-up.” Simply put, it’s the number of people who could receive a benefit or service compared to the number who actually do. And across sectors—from employment services to income supports—take-up rates are consistently lower than expected, even when programs are free and highly beneficial (Bearson & Sunstein, 2023).
So why is take-up so often incomplete? And what can we do about it?
In This Article:
The Hidden Costs of Engagement
A traditional economic view might assume that people act in their best interest—that if something improves their situation, they’ll pursue it. But behavioral science and human services experience tell a more complex story.
According to Bearson and Sunstein (2023), the barriers to take-up often fall into three overlapping categories:
- Learning Costs: The effort it takes to find, understand, and make sense of available services, eligibility rules, and how to apply.
- Compliance Costs: The time, documentation, forms, interviews, or digital tools required to prove eligibility or maintain access.
- Psychological Costs: Emotional burdens such as shame, mistrust, frustration, or fear of judgment—often rooted in past interactions with systems.
When layered onto the stress of living in poverty or instability, these costs compound. Individuals facing housing insecurity, caregiving responsibilities, trauma, or discrimination are already navigating chronic cognitive overload—a state in which mental bandwidth is depleted. This depletion makes planning, follow-through, and decision-making significantly harder (Mullainathan & Shafir, 2013).
In short, it’s not that people don’t care. It’s that the system is harder to navigate than we often acknowledge.
What This Looks Like in Real Life
Imagine a mother of two staying with a cousin after fleeing an unsafe relationship. She’s been referred to a stabilization program that can help her with income assistance, housing applications, and food support. But the intake form alone is six pages long. The eligibility criteria include documents she left behind. She doesn’t have consistent phone access, is worried about judgment, and isn’t sure who she’ll talk to if she shows up. She knows she needs help—but every step feels risky, confusing, or exhausting.
Or consider an immigrant father working gig jobs, trying to stretch each paycheck to meet rent and remittance needs. He qualifies for training subsidies and tax credits but is reluctant to apply. In his home country, accepting help carried heavy stigma. The forms are technical, and his last visit to a service agency ended with a rejection he didn’t understand. He tells himself, “Maybe later,” while continuing to shoulder the weight alone.
In another case, a young adult recently aged out of care is introduced to a coach who can help them plan for employment, housing, and long-term goals. But they’ve bounced between caseworkers for years. They associate “services” with disappointment, not support. They smile, say thanks, and disappear after the first meeting.
These are not failures of personal motivation. They are the predictable outcomes of a system that requires too much from those already stretched too thin.
A Better Path: Behavioral Design for Take-Up
Fortunately, the same behavioral science that helps us understand these barriers also points to solutions. Here are five strategies that organizations can use to design programs and services that lower barriers and support engagement:
Make the Path Easier to See and Follow
Programs often underestimate how much cognitive effort it takes just to start. Use plain language. Clarify next steps. Offer timely, concrete choices. Instead of “Apply for support,” say, “Book a 15-minute call this week or next to talk through your options.”
Even well-intended programs become inaccessible when instructions are vague, long, or dense.
Reduce Unnecessary Burdens
Lengthy forms, repeated documentation requests, or unclear processes erode motivation. Ask only for what you need. Where possible, pre-fill or pre-schedule. Reserve effort for where it truly matters.
Research shows that administrative burden (or “sludge”) reduces participation, particularly among marginalized groups (Sunstein, 2021).
Frame Services with Dignity and Belonging
Avoid language that implies conditionality or worthiness. Emphasize that these programs are common, normal, and supportive—not punitive or rare.
For example, “Most people in your area use this benefit to make ends meet” is more welcoming than “You may qualify.”
Build on Trusted Relationships
People are more likely to act on recommendations from someone they already trust—whether a faith leader, cultural broker, community advocate, or peer. Designing outreach through existing networks can increase relevance and reduce skepticism.
Engagement is relational, not just transactional.
Support Follow-Through, Not Just Interest
Even when someone says yes, life can get in the way. Use reminders, check-ins, and simple planning prompts (e.g., “When you get the text reminder, open the link right then”). These small nudges help transform intention into action.
“If–then” planning (implementation intentions) can significantly increase follow-through in real-world settings (Milkman et al., 2011).
Redesigning for Equity, Trust, and Action
Improving take-up is not about blaming clients for disengagement. It’s about recognizing the systemic and cognitive barriers that shape human behavior—especially under stress. When we reframe the challenge from “How do we make people participate?” to “How do we make participation feel doable and safe?” we shift from compliance to connection.
This shift requires collaboration across roles. It involves directors willing to streamline processes, coaches who center relationships, and designers who prioritize clarity and respect. When take-up is low, it’s not a failure of the client. It’s a design signal.
We can do better—and behavioral science can help us get there.
Buoyancy Works is a Calgary-based social purpose company dedicated to empowering individuals through behavioral science and technology. We help frontline organizations, coaches, and advocates better support their clients—whether they’re working toward greater stability, seeking employment, or building financial resilience. Our platform is designed to make everyone’s life easier: it streamlines the work of staff by reducing administrative burden and offering evidence-backed tools they can use in real time, while providing clients with personalized guidance and structure that feels clear, encouraging, and accessible. By making it easier for coaches to do what they do best—build trust, provide support, and guide progress—Buoyancy Works strengthens outcomes across stabilization and economic empowerment domains, while improving the experience for everyone involved. The platform aligns with tools like the Sustainable Livelihoods framework and Resiliency Matrix by supporting holistic, client-centered approaches that recognize the complex interplay of assets, challenges, and progress across multiple life domains. Learn more at buoyancy.works.
References
Bearson, D. F., & Sunstein, C. R. (2023). Take Up. Behavioural Public Policy, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.21
Currie, J. M., & Grogger, J. (2001). Explaining Recent Declines in Food Stamp Program Participation. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2001(1), 203–244. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2001_brookingswharton.pdf
Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090117
Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D., & Madrian, B. C. (2011). Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(26), 10415–10420. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1103170108
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much. Times Books. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/309190/scarcity-by-sendhil-mullainathan-and-eldar-shafir/
Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Sludge: What Stops Us from Getting Things Done and What to Do About It. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262046026/sludge/
Recommended for you
