Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Arguments in favor of work requirements for public assistance programs
From Ballotpedia
Work requirements for public assistance refer to conditions that require participation in employment-related activities to qualify for the assistance. These activities may include job searching, engaging in job training, volunteering, or working a specified number of hours each week.
Ballotpedia has tracked policies, legislation, arguments, and reform proposals for work requirements related to the following four public assistance programs:
- Medicaid,
- the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps,
- child care subsidies, and
- public housing.
This page features the main categories of arguments related to work requirements for public assistance programs:
- Legal arguments about work requirements
- Operational arguments about work requirements
- Economic arguments about work requirements
- Arguments about the effects of work requirements on recipients
Legal arguments about work requirements
Argument: Work requirements are lawful
This argument suggests that work requirements for public assistance programs are lawful under existing statutes and align with federalism principles.
- Madeline Guth, a senior policy analyst with the Kaiser Family Foundation, wrote in a 2022 issue brief, "Adults who receive TANF cash assistance generally are required to participate in work, as one of the express purposes of TANF enumerated in statute is to 'end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.'"[1]
- Plaintiffs in Bevin v. Stewart, a 2018 case challenging work requirements for Medicaid, argued that federalism grants states the flexibility to waive certain Medicaid requirements and experiment with different program approaches, such as work requirements, at the state level. The plaintiffs argued, "Under our system of federalism, the states have traditionally been viewed as laboratories of democracy, where innovative ideas can be tested on a smaller scale and, if successful, can be adopted more broadly. In recognition of that end, Section 1115 of the Social Security Act provides the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the 'HHS Secretary') with broad authority to waive Medicaid requirements. More specifically, the HHS Secretary can waive Medicaid requirements for a state '[i]n the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of . . . [Medicaid].' 42 U.S.C. § 1315(a)(1). Such a waiver is commonly referred to as a Section 1115 waiver."[2]
Operational arguments about work requirements
Argument: Work requirements improve program efficiency
This argument suggests that work requirements can help reduce waste in federal public assistance programs by ensuring that resources are given to individuals in need of assistance rather than to able-bodied adults without dependents.
Claim: Work requirements reduce waste in public assistance programs by helping able-bodied individuals move out of poverty
This claim suggests that work requirements help able-bodied adults without dependents move out of poverty by supplementing public benefits with earnings.
- Akash Chougule and Nathan Nascimento, policy analysts with Americans for Prosperity, wrote in a 2018 policy memo, "Federal and state research shows that work requirements are one of the most effective ways to lift people out of poverty and reduce government dependence, while also ensuring the safety net exists for those who truly need it. ... From 1995 to 2013, the number of welfare recipients in New York City shrank from almost 1.1 million to less than 347,000 — a drop of more than 700,000 men, women and children. On top of that, employment rates for single mothers increased from 43 percent in 1994 to 63 percent in 2009. New York City also saw a steep decline in the number of children living under poverty – from 42 percent in 1994 to 28.3 percent in 2008."[3]
Claim: Work requirements make public assistance programs more sustainable
This claim suggests that work requirements reduce the cost of public assistance programs and make them more sustainable by moving able-bodied adults without dependents out of poverty.
- Former White House advisor on welfare issues and Brookings Institution analyst Ron Haskins in his 2007 book Work over Welfare argued, "If the 1996 reforms had their intended effect of reducing welfare dependency, a leading indicator of success would be a declining welfare caseload. TANF administrative data reported by states to the federal government show that caseloads began declining in the spring of 1994 and declined more rapidly after the federal legislation was enacted. Between 1994 and 2004, the caseload declined about 60 percent. The number of families receiving cash welfare is now the lowest it has been since 1969, and the percentage of children on welfare is lower than it has been since 1966. Although it is often reported in the media that cash welfare caseloads increase during economic recessions and decline during recoveries, this claim is mostly false. In the forty-one years between 1953 and 1994, the number of families on AFDC declined to only five. Only once–between 1977 and 1979–did the caseload decline (by about 2 percent) two years in a row. By contrast, 2005 was the eleventh year in a row that the caseload declined. Clearly, we are in a new era of welfare use."[4]
- A survey conducted by the physician recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins found that a "large majority of physicians support adding work requirements as a condition for Medicaid coverage ... The single-question survey found that 56.6 percent of doctors feel very favorably about work requirements, while 17.8 percent feel somewhat favorably about them. In contrast, 9.2 percent reported feeling very unfavorably, and 8.4 percent said they feel somewhat unfavorably." Merrit Hawkins "said the results may indicate general frustration with Medicaid and a desire by doctors for any change to the status quo" of the Medicaid fee structure, which can result in doctors paying more to provide care to Medicaid patients than they receive in reimbursement, according to 2018 article in Inside CMS.[5]
Economic arguments about work requirements
Argument: Work requirements strengthen the economy
This argument suggests that work requirements will positively affect the economy by incentivizing participation in the workforce.
Claim: Work requirements incentivize able-bodied adults and parents to enter the workforce
This claim suggests that public assistance programs disincentivize able-bodied adults and parents from entering the workforce. Work requirements, according to this claim, can encourage people to enter the workforce to supplement benefits with earnings or move off of public assistance.
- Falk, McCarty, and Aussenberg wrote, "Work requirements counteract the work disincentives of government benefits by requiring a recipient to engage in a labor market-related activity—rather than nonmarket activity, such as homemaking, child-rearing or leisure—as a condition of receiving government benefits. That is, they create a mandated activity, which may potentially be non-paid (e.g., job search), that affects the decision of individuals to work or accept a job offer. Failure to engage in that mandated activity can result in a reduction or end of the government benefit."[6]
- Rachel Sheffield, a former policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, argued in a 2016 commentary piece, "Work requirements serve as a gatekeeper to ensure that those truly in need receive welfare assistance. Benefits are available to those who need them, but individuals who could otherwise find a job are directed toward work. This policy benefits not only taxpayers but also the individuals who are steered toward the job market, where they can build their resumes, skills and connections."[7]
- Haskins wrote, "modern social science has produced strong and consistent evidence that public welfare does reduce work. A thorough 1981 review of these studies by the prominent social scientists Sheldon Danziger, Robert Haveman, and Robert Plotnick confirms that AFDC reduced the hours of work by single mothers."[4]
- Haskins further wrote, "Census evidence shows historic changes in employment (defined as any earnings during the year) by single mothers, especially low-income single mothers. From 1993 to 2000 the portion of single mothers who were employed grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent."[4]
This claim suggests that the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic led employers to furlough workers, which resulted in a worker shortage. Work requirements, according to this claim, can incentivize able-bodied adults without dependents to rejoin the workforce and help mitigate the post-pandemic labor shortage.
- FGA policy analysts Alli Fick and Scott Centorino argued in a 2021 white paper, "More than 10 million jobs are currently open across America, from food services and hospitality to manufacturing, education, and financial services. Businesses are looking for workers and policymakers are looking for solutions. Federal unemployment and welfare benefits have played an outsized role in driving the current worker shortage. ... Work requirements in food stamps rank among the most effective tools in lifting individuals out of dependency into self-sufficiency. Studies across multiple states have demonstrated how able-bodied adults leaving food stamps after work requirements are implemented find work in thousands of diverse industries and see their incomes more than triple"[8]
Arguments about the effects of work requirements on recipients
Argument: Work requirements encourage self-sufficiency
This argument suggests the work requirements incentivize people to become self-sufficient, reducing the amount of people reliant on public assistance and the number of people living in poverty.
Claim: Work requirements can disincentivize behaviors that lead to dependency
This argument suggests that public assistance programs reduce work incentives, which causes recipients to rely on public assistance programs as their primary source of income. Work requirements, according to this claim, can disincentivize such behavior.
- Kristina Rasmussen, vice president at FGA, wrote in USA Today, "Reinstating work as the bedrock of the welfare system is imperative if we are to reprioritize the truly needy, continue to boost the economy and reduce the dependency crisis in America. Having a job is the single-best indicator of whether someone will fall into dependency. Research has shown time and time again that work requirements for able-bodied adults are the most effective way to quickly move adults from welfare to work and ensure that the safety net is preserved for the truly needy."[9]
Claim: Work requirements promote self-sufficiency
This claim suggests that public assistance programs incentivize people to rely on governmental programs and that work requirements can incentivize able-bodied adults without dependents to join the labor market and earn a liveable wage.
- Vicki A. Lens, professor at Columbia University, wrote in a 2008 journal article, "By requiring recipients to engage in work activities, under threat of financial penalties if they do not, self-sufficiency is encouraged rather than dependency. Although welfare reform legitimizes hassle by requiring sanctions, the welfare system has also been reconfigured to help recipients to become self-sufficient."[10]
- A 2021 FGA policy paper argued, "Every job has dignity and value in promoting self-sufficiency and building communities, but adults who leave welfare after work requirements actually find work in hundreds of different industries. Research shows that many individuals who found immediate work at temp agencies or in lower-wage industries were able to successfully transition into higher-paying, longer-term employment within just a few months."[11]
Argument: Work requirements improve recipient well-being
This argument suggests that work requirements can incentivize public assistance recipients to adopt good behaviors or habits that positively influence their lives.
Claim: Work requirements will ensure that assistance goes to the truly needy (sometimes referred to as the 'screening argument')
This claim suggests that requiring able-bodied adults without dependents to meet work requirements in order to receive public assistance benefits will help ensure that public benefits are directed to the individuals most in need of assistance.
- Gene Falk, Maggie McCarty, and Randy Alison Aussenberg, policy analysts writing for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), wrote in a 2014 CRS report, "Time limit and work requirement or incentive policies that move families out of federal assistance can free up federal resources for other priorities. The requirement to be engaged in an activity imposes a 'time cost' on benefit receipt, and for some individuals, the value of the benefit may not exceed the cost of having to engage in a work or job preparation activity. It has been argued that work requirements 'screen' out those not in true need of benefits, limiting benefits to those who have little alternative."[12]
- Hayden Dublois and Jonathan Ingram, policy analysts at the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), wrote in Real Clear Health, "What happens when you take a program intended for the truly needy, and place millions of able-bodied, working-age adults on it in an instant? We don’t have to speculate to find an answer—because in 2014, that’s exactly what happened when ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion was implemented. As a result, budgets were busted and providers struggled, all while the most vulnerable have had to continue to wait for their care."[13]
Claim: Medicaid work requirements promote better health for recipients
This claim suggests that work requirements positively affect public assistance recipients' health by creating a routine wherein recipients are required to work or participate in work-related activities.
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in a 2018 letter to state Medicaid directors argued in favor of work requirements as a means to improve health outcomes: "CMS recognizes that a broad range of social, economic, and behavioral factors can have a major impact on an individual’s health and wellness, and a growing body of evidence suggests that targeting certain health determinants, including productive work and community engagement, may improve health outcomes. For example, higher earnings are positively correlated with longer lifespan. One comprehensive review of existing studies found strong evidence that unemployment is generally harmful to health, including higher mortality; poorer general health; poorer mental health; and higher medical consultation and hospital admission rates. Another academic analysis found strong evidence for a protective effect of employment on depression and general mental health. A 2013 Gallup poll found that unemployed Americans are more than twice as likely as those with full-time jobs to say they currently have or are being treated for depression. Other community engagement activities such as volunteering are also associated with improved health outcomes, and it can lead to paid employment."[14]
Claim: Work requirements promote better outcomes for parents and children
This claim suggests that work requirements enable parents to model good behavior for their children, which can help children earn better grades in school and break the generational cycle of welfare dependency.
- In a policy paper discussing food stamp work requirements, FGA argued, "Work is the best way to reduce dependency for all able-bodied adults, both those without kids and parents. Work requirements can help parents model good behavior for children, ending the cycle of dependency for children."[15]
- Haskins wrote, "Five results are notable: positive impacts on school achievement were evident among children whose mothers were in certain work programs; impacts were confined to children age five and under at the beginning of the studies; impacts were confined to work programs that increased the family income by providing earnings supplements; impacts faded after three years; and positive impacts on school achievement were related to attendance at center-based child care programs during the preschool years. These results are broadly consistent with the large literature on effects of maternal employment, including the finding that when mothers’ work leads to increased family income, young children often show modest improvement on measures of social and intellectual development."[4]
See also
- Index of articles related to work requirements
- Medicaid work requirements
- Public housing work requirements
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work requirements
- Child care subsidy work requirements
- Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to work requirements for public assistance programs
- Arguments against work requirements for public assistance programs
- Arguments in favor of work requirements for public assistance programs
- Reform proposals related to work requirements for public assistance programs
- Court cases related to work requirements for public assistance programs
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Kaiser Family Foundation, An Overview of Medicaid Work Requirements: What Happened Under the Trump and Biden Administrations? accessed March 20, 2023
- ↑ JUSTIA, Bevin v. Stewart, accessed March 20, 2023
- ↑ Americans for Prosperity, Work requirements help lift people out of poverty, accessed March 9, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Brookings, Work over Welfare, accessed March 9, 2023
- ↑ Inside CMS, Survey, accessed February 24, 2023
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, Work Requirements, Time Limits, and Work Incentives in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, accessed February 22, 2023
- ↑ Heritage Foundation, Welfare reform must include work requirements, accessed March 9, 2023
- ↑ The Foundation for Government Accountability, One tool to unleash economic recovery and solve the labor crisis, accessed February 23, 2023
- ↑ USA Today, Welfare reform immensely popular, accessed March 9, 2023
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedlens - ↑ The Foundation for Government Accountability, Eliminating waivers from work requirements in food stamps, accessed February 23, 2023
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, Work Requirements, Time Limits, and Work Incentives in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance, accessed February 22, 2023
- ↑ Real Clear Health, Setting the Record Straight on Medicaid Work Requirements, accessed February 21, 2023
- ↑ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Letter to state Medicaid directors, January 11, 2018
- ↑ The Foundation for Government Accountability, Discussing Food Stamp Work Requirements, accessed March 3, 2023
