You Think Work Requirements Work? They Don't
Recent research has discovered that states which have implemented work requirements for their respective SNAP programs have little to no impact on employment.
Daniel Zavala Paramo | Prosperity Now
Recently, we had the (mis)fortune of witnessing a uniquely American political crisis with the global economy at stake: the U.S. Debt Ceiling. On the brink of a June 5th deadline, President Joe Biden signed the “Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023,” (FRA), thereby averting a catastrophic default. Still that left social safety net advocates scrambling to understand how this impacts program funding.
One of the many compromises in the deal expanded work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) able-bodied adults without dependents (ABWDs) recipients. Today, folks 50 years old and younger must show proof of employment to receive SNAP benefits for more than 3 months in 36 months. In 2025, the cut off age will have been raised to 55. Veterans, youth exiting the foster care system, and people experiencing homelessness are exempt from these new requirements. But even with these exemptions, the changes still threaten an estimated 750,000 adults aged 50-54 from accessing food assistance, per the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Unsurprisingly, what sounds good on paper for politicians does not work in real life. Research by the Urban Institute has found that states which have implemented work requirements for their respective SNAP programs have little to no impact on employment. Further research from Urban Institute found similar findings, and also highlights the importance of SNAP as a transitory assistance program that helps people move between jobs. Adding bureaucratic barriers to access services only hurts those who are already in greatest need. The worst part is that beneficiaries across the country already work and receive SNAP benefits. In fact, a 2020 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office highlights that almost 70% of beneficiaries work full-time, to say nothing of part-time and underemployed workers.
Nevertheless, the FRA amends the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 — which established SNAP — for the first time in its 15-year history, to include language that makes SNAP a program to promote employment …
That program includes as a purpose to assist low-income adults in obtaining employment and increasing their earnings. Such employment and earnings, along with program benefits, will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation.
It is with these amendments that Congress creates a paradigm shift in SNAP, which Shawn Fremstad and Victoria Coan of the Center for Economic and Policy Research expand upon in their post “What the Fight Over Work Requirements is Really About”, and the ideals that SNAP (and its changes) represent.
We also must acknowledge the racist history of work requirements to qualify for many social programs, and current stereotypes surrounding those who seek aid.
Take for example, the term “welfare queen.” It originated in 1974, when Linda Taylor, a Black mother, was charged with welfare fraud. Fueled by the media and often cited in Ronald Regan’s 1976 presidential campaign, the term became a derogatory stereotype for welfare recipients, especially for Black women. The modern ethos behind work requirements can be traced to Regan’s 1987 address to the nation on welfare reform. Since then, the stigma against government aid recipients — that they are lazy, irresponsible, or a burden on taxpayers — has stubbornly remained. Although welfare fraud is exceedingly rare (less than 1%), work requirements were (and still are) enforced to satisfy that irrational fear; policy guided by emotion rather than reality results in predictable failure. A report from the Center for the Study of Social Policy, “The Racist Roots of Work Requirements,” offers an excellent, in-depth review of race and work requirements for further reading.
Today’s changes to SNAP come at a time when, according to the Food Research & Action Center, 33.8 million Americans lived in households that experienced food insecurity in 2021. While Congress debates the merits of food assistance, we already know SNAP to effectively combat hunger and disrupt intergenerational poverty. At a time of sky-high costs of living, Congress should be working to expand aid, not restrict it. An increase of work requirements isn’t only ineffective policy, it perpetuates a history of racism and structural violence against those near, or in, poverty who are disproportionally BIPOC. How many more people must lose assistance before we remedy these harms? Moving forward, we must strive towards facilitating access to aid for millions of children, families, and workers nationwide.