Work requirement don't just fail, they do harm.
https://www.epi.org/publication/snap-medicaid-work-requirements
Work requirements for safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid
A punitive solution that solves no real problem
By Hilary Wething • January 24, 2025
Overview • Read the Report
Summary: Proponents claim that adding more work requirements for programs like food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid will lead to higher levels of employment among low-income adults. But EPI’s research shows that this will not address the underlying challenges these adults face in seeking employment. Such requirements will only curb access to food and health care for many benefit recipients
Work requirement not only fail to boost employment and serve as a barrier to benefits for those qualified, they are an insidious reframing of the communitarian values that public investments in people represent.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/congress-is-debating-stricter-snap-and-medicaid-work-requirements-but-research-shows-they-dont-work
From a policy perspective, work requirements encourage a punitive view of welfare—framing it as a liability rather than an integral investment in economic support for low-income communities. This piece examines recent economic research studying the efficacy of work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid on labor market outcomes and program participation rates.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-economic-case-against-work-requirements
The Economic Case against Work Requirements
February 29, 2024
Work requirements for public benefits programs have roots in the long history of slavery and its afterlife in the United States. But they are not just racist—they are ineffective and bad for the economy. Modern work requirements imposed through welfare reform in 1996 have now been around long enough to bear out what many critics feared: these policies do not increase long-term employment in high-quality jobs, provide stability, or improve economic outcomes. Instead, they harm people who need the support of public benefits programs, increase poverty, and have negative macroeconomic impacts.
Ending work requirements would improve the US economy—not hurt it
....
It’s a vicious circle: losing benefits only makes it harder to find and sustain employment.
...In most cases, the main result of work requirements for public benefits programs is a loss of those benefits. Empirical studies of imposed work requirements for some SNAP recipients confirm that the measures led to a 53 percent decline in program participation. In other words, work requirements didn’t increase economic self-sufficiency, and often caused people to exit the programs for other reasons.
Proponents of work requirements argue that recipients who lose benefits only do so because their earned income puts them over the threshold of safety net programs. Not only is there little evidence to support this idea, but there is plenty pointing to the opposite. For example, one analysis found that most people losing SNAP benefits due to work requirements are those facing the largest barriers to work—such as homelessness or disability—and, therefore, the least likely to be able to earn enough to exceed the income limits.
To make matters worse, work requirements actively punish working people and create conditions where they are less likely to be (continually) employed. Many working people with unpredictable schedules or those temporarily between jobs lose their benefits due to the strict demands of these work requirements. For example, retail workers may have their schedules reduced due to poor sales or other reasons beyond their control. Even though they are employed, they might lose their benefits because their new hours fall short of the relevant work-hour requirements. This increases anxiety, stress, and depression, all conditions that pose barriers to maintaining a job—let alone finding one. It’s a vicious circle: losing benefits only makes it harder to find and sustain employment.
...
= new reply since forum marked as read