#SocialCareSeries: Navigating the Maze — The Sequential Barriers in the Help-Seeking Pathway

In our past two , we explored the formal “Bureaucratic Hurdles” that complicate access to social services and the “Invisible Walls” of stigma and isolation that hinder informal support. However, these barriers do not appear all at once. 
Researchers at the Northwestern Network for Social Impact (NNSI) have found that, in addition to identifying formal and informal barriers, these barriers appear in a sequential order within the help-seeking pathway. Identifying when these barriers arise is crucial for designing more effective, human-centered systems of care.

The Initial Gate: Burden of Stigma

Across both formal and informal channels, stigma discourages individuals from seeking help. Deeply rooted in cultural narratives surrounding hard work and personal responsibility, the struggle to meet basic needs is often framed as a personal failure rather than as a manifestation of systemic inequities. Extensive research suggests that stigma significantly hinders people from seeking help early in their pathway, reducing both formal and informal help-seeking behaviors
Reducing stigma in benefit programs could lead to increased participation. However, for some, this wall is insurmountable, diverting their attention from their needs to others’ perceptions. Those who were unable to pass this barrier attempted to “tough it out.” Stigma not only slows help-seeking; it also prevents it altogether.
 
The Missing Map: The Challenge of Identifying Help
For individuals who can overcome the stigma barrier, the next barrier is determining who can provide help. In formal help-seeking channels, many individuals lack knowledge of who and what resources are available to them. It is a daunting task to determine where to go and how to gather necessary information for individuals already experiencing distress. In informal help-seeking channels, social isolation proved a significant obstacle. Participants described feeling isolated, either geographically or emotionally estranged from their networks, or simply lacking existing networks to turn to for support. 
Interestingly, the pathway often diverges here. Individuals who do not know which organizations and resources to contact may rely more heavily on informal help. In contrast, those who experience social isolation are more likely to seek formal support if they can identify where to go.
 
The Narrow Passage: Trapped in Bureaucracy and Eligibility
Even after identifying the right organizations and resources for support, individuals enter spirals of complex eligibility and application requirements. Complex paperwork, confusing requirements, frequent recertification, and confusing eligibility criteria often prevent individuals from receiving assistance for which they may be eligible. 
Already facing stress and instability, individuals already facing stress and instability may be especially discouraged by these bureaucratic hurdles, which often deter them from seeking help again. The result is not just delayed support, but disengagement from the system altogether.
 
The False Exit: When Help Isn’t Enough
Finally, even after overcoming the gates of stigma, identifying who can help, and navigating bureaucratic hurdles, help is not always available or sufficient. Often, organizations or social ties cannot provide the necessary help. Despite long waitlists and limited capacity for social ties, individuals who have followed all the correct steps are still left with their needs unmet. 
 
Looking Forward
Taken together, these barriers present a complex maze, with each turn influencing the next in the help-seeking pathway. Overcoming them requires understanding the emotional, relational, and psychological realities people face at every step of the help-seeking pathway.
A NNSI, we believe that recognizing these sequential barriers is essential to designing effective health and human service networks. A human-centered approach acknowledges that individuals seeking help are not failing; instead, they are navigating complex systems under immense pressure. By listening to their experiences, we can design systems that respond with empathy, dignity, and care at each step of the help-seeking pathway, ensuring that support is accessible not only in theory but in practice