logo
Work requirements are better at blocking benefits than helping low-income people find jobs

Work requirements are better at blocking benefits than helping low-income people find jobs

Yahoo7 days ago

Meeting work requirements to receive government benefits can lead to burdensome paperwork. (JackF/iStock via Getty Images Plus)
Republican lawmakers have been battling over a bill that includes massive tax and spending cuts. Much of their disagreement has been over provisions intended to reduce the cost of Medicaid.
The popular health insurance program, which is funded by both the federal and state governments, covers about 78.5 million low-income and disabled people — more than 1 in 5 Americans.
On May 22, 2025, the House of Representatives narrowly approved the tax, spending and immigration bill. The legislation, which passed without any support from Democrats, is designed to reduce federal Medicaid spending by requiring anyone enrolled in the program who appears to be able to get a job to either satisfy work requirements or lose their coverage. It's still unclear, however, whether Senate Republicans would support that provision.
Although there are few precedents for such a mandate for Medicaid, other safety net programs have been enforcing similar rules for nearly three decades. I'm a political scientist who has extensively studied the work requirements of another safety net program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
As I explain in my book, 'Living Off the Government? Race, Gender, and the Politics of Welfare,' work requirements place extra burdens on low-income families but do little to lift them out of poverty.
TANF gives families with very low incomes some cash they can spend on housing, food, clothing or whatever they need most. The Clinton administration launched it as a replacement for a similar program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in 1996. At the time, both political parties were eager to end a welfare system they believed was riddled with abuse. A big goal with TANF was ending the dependence of people getting cash benefits on the government by moving them from welfare to work.
Many people were removed from the welfare rolls, but not because work requirements led to economic prosperity. Instead, they had trouble navigating the bureaucratic demands.
TANF is administered by the states. They can set many rules of their own, but they must comply with an important federal requirement: Adult recipients have to work or engage in an authorized alternative activity for at least 30 hours per week. The number of weekly hours is only 20 if the recipient is caring for a child under the age of 6.
The dozen activities or so that can count toward this quota range from participating in job training programs to engaging in community service.
Some adults enrolled in TANF are exempt from work requirements, depending on their state's own policies. The most common exemptions are for people who are ill, have a disability or are over age 60.
To qualify for TANF, families must have dependent children; in some states pregnant women also qualify. Income limits are set by the state and range from US$307 a month for a family of three in Alabama to $2,935 a month for a family of three in Minnesota.
Adult TANF recipients face a federal five-year lifetime limit on benefits. States can adopt shorter time limits; Arizona's is 12 months.
Complying with these work requirements generally means proving that you're working or making the case that you should be exempt from this mandate. This places what's known as an 'administrative burden' on the people who get cash assistance. It often requires lots of documentation and time. If you have an unpredictable work schedule, inconsistent access to child care or obligations to care for an older relative, this paperwork is hard to deal with.
What counts as work, how many hours must be completed and who is exempt from these requirements often comes down to a caseworker's discretion. Social science research shows that this discretion is not equally applied and is often informed by stereotypes.
The number of people getting cash assistance has fallen sharply since TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In some states caseloads have dropped by more than 50% despite significant population growth.
Some of this decline happened because recipients got jobs that paid them too much to qualify. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office that provides economic research to Congress, attributes, at least in part, an increase in employment among less-educated single mothers in the 1990s to work requirements.
Not everyone who stopped getting cash benefits through TANF wound up employed, however. Other recipients who did not meet requirements fell into deep poverty.
Regardless of why people leave the program, when fewer low-income Americans get TANF benefits, the government spends less money on cash assistance. Federal funding has remained flat at $16.5 billion since 1996. Taking inflation into account, the program receives half as much funding as when it was created. In addition, states have used the flexibility granted them to direct most of their TANF funds to priorities other than cash benefits, such as pre-K education.
Many Americans who get help paying for groceries through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are also subject to work requirements. People the government calls 'able-bodied adults without dependents' can only receive SNAP benefits for three months within a three-year period if they are not employed.
Lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses have debated whether to add work requirements for Medicaid before. More than a dozen states have applied for waivers that would let them give it a try.
When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, during the first Trump administration, it was largely seen as a failure. Some 18,000 people lost their health care coverage, but employment rates did not increase.
After a court order stopped the policy in 2019, most people regained their coverage.
Georgia is currently the only state with Medicaid work requirements in effect, after implementing a waiver in July 2023. The program has experienced technical difficulties and has had trouble verifying work activities.
Other states, including Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky, are already asking the federal government to let them enforce Medicaid work requirements.
Complying with these work requirements generally means proving that you're working or making the case that you should be exempt from this mandate. This places what's known as an 'administrative burden' on the people who get cash assistance. It often requires lots of documentation and time. If you have an unpredictable work schedule, inconsistent access to child care or obligations to care for an older relative, this paperwork is hard to deal with.
What counts as work, how many hours must be completed and who is exempt from these requirements often comes down to a caseworker's discretion. Social science research shows that this discretion is not equally applied and is often informed by stereotypes.
The number of people getting cash assistance has fallen sharply since TANF replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children. In some states caseloads have dropped by more than 50% despite significant population growth.
Some of this decline happened because recipients got jobs that paid them too much to qualify. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan office that provides economic research to Congress, attributes, at least in part, an increase in employment among less-educated single mothers in the 1990s to work requirements.
Not everyone who stopped getting cash benefits through TANF wound up employed, however. Other recipients who did not meet requirements fell into deep poverty.
Regardless of why people leave the program, when fewer low-income Americans get TANF benefits, the government spends less money on cash assistance. Federal funding has remained flat at $16.5 billion since 1996. Taking inflation into account, the program receives half as much funding as when it was created. In addition, states have used the flexibility granted them to direct most of their TANF funds to priorities other than cash benefits, such as pre-K education.
Many Americans who get help paying for groceries through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are also subject to work requirements. People the government calls 'able-bodied adults without dependents' can only receive SNAP benefits for three months within a three-year period if they are not employed.
Lawmakers in Congress and in statehouses have debated whether to add work requirements for Medicaid before. More than a dozen states have applied for waivers that would let them give it a try.
When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, during the first Trump administration, it was largely seen as a failure. Some 18,000 people lost their health care coverage, but employment rates did not increase.
After a court order stopped the policy in 2019, most people regained their coverage.
Georgia is currently the only state with Medicaid work requirements in effect, after implementing a waiver in July 2023. The program has experienced technical difficulties and has had trouble verifying work activities.
Other states, including Idaho, Indiana and Kentucky, are already asking the federal government to let them enforce Medicaid work requirements.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Anne Whitesell is an assistant professor of political science at Miami University. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Looking for an edge, Democrats? Just look around you.
Looking for an edge, Democrats? Just look around you.

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

Looking for an edge, Democrats? Just look around you.

Here's a simple, cost-effective, noncontroversial, and human response to the chaos: storytelling. Telling stories about the real-life human consequences of this administration's policies and directives could cut through the noise. Run 15-second spots about real people and their stories nationally across multiple platforms from now to the midterms and beyond. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Hear from a mother returning food when the grocery bill is too high, a student dropping out of college because child care is unavailable or too expensive, a pizza shop owner without a dishwasher, or a contractor who cannot find painters. Watch a parent being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with their children watching. Show a grandfather waiting hours to talk to Social Security, or a woman taking her medication every other day because health care costs are too high. All in 15 seconds each. Advertisement By telling people about the results of policy decisions and executive actions in clear, simple ways, the Democratic Party can create a groundswell of informed, engaged citizens ready to advocate for change and hold their leaders accountable. It would be powerful. Advertisement Deborah Heller Boston Democrats shouldn't get lost in words A Washington Post report featured in the Globe ('Debate revives over left-wing buzzwords,' Political Notebook, May 27) suggests that terms like 'Food insecurity' sounds like an anxiety disorder. Children in the depths of poverty are not experiencing food insecurity. They are hungry or starving. The Trump regime is not an oligarchy; rather, it is a dictatorship with one ruler enabled by people like Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson, who are not fellow oligarchs but, rather, bootlickers or, to use the fancy Greek word, sycophants. In 'Politics and the English Language,' George Orwell demonstrates how politicians use vague, sugar-coated, euphemistic terms (like 'food insecurity') to justify behavior, policy, or circumstances that cannot be justified. Such words are lies in disguise. Donald Trump's supporters often say they like him because he speaks his mind. He's upfront. He doesn't talk euphemistically, like other politicians. No disguises. Right. He just lies and lies and lies. The mystery is why so many Trump supporters don't seem to care how often or how blatantly he does so. John R. Nelson Gloucester The writer is a professor emeritus of English at North Shore Community College. The poor get poorer while the Trump family gets richer An article on Page A6 of the May 26 Boston Globe was headlined Advertisement The Democrats certainly have to promote a better path forward, but highlighting Trump's abuses while putting forward a plan for the future would be a foundation on which to build. There's so much at stake for the economy, health, education, the environment, and the rule of law that Democrats can champion in contrast to the utter destruction we're seeing now. John Cotter Melrose If populism thrives on grievance, we need a new brand of populism As Larry Edelman and countless other commentators have pointed out, populism thrives on grievance ( We've seen increasing signs of the human tropism toward divisiveness and an 'us against them' mentality. A 'revenge is sweet' refrain now echoes around the world. It's considered not just sweet but justified. Not just justified but necessary. Populism will always thrive on carefully choosing its targets. And though hurting Harvard or immigrants or health research will improve the lives of no one, that doesn't matter. Revenge is rarely rational or well-reasoned. It's emotionally intoxicating. Therein lies the enduring lure of populism. Until the Democrats figure out how to build their own brand of populism, one that captures the hearts, souls, and imaginations of the populace, we will all be forced to endure life in an 'us against them' society. Advertisement Elaine Mintzer Keene, N.H.

Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts
Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts

New York Post

time2 hours ago

  • New York Post

Nassau DA warns of Albany push to approve early parole for violent convicts

The Democratic-run New York state legislature could rush through a series of bills to give convicts early parole and prevent law enforcement from keeping dangerous criminals off the streets, Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly warned Sunday. In recent years, Democrats clawed back controversial cashless bail and discovery laws after serial criminals were let loose, triggering massive political blowback. 'These bills undercut everything we work for every day — building strong cases, securing convictions, and ensuring justice is served,' Donnelly, a Republican up for re-election this fall, told The Post. Advertisement 3 Nassau County District Attorney Anne Donnelly. Brigitte Stelzer 'When prosecutors do the hard work of putting violent offenders behind bars, we should be backed by laws that protect that progress — not laws that allow those same criminals to return to our communities years before their sentences are complete,' added Donnelly, who is holding a press conference Monday announcing her opposition to the bills. Among the bills drawing concern is the Elder Parole bill — which would require inmates aged 55 and older who have served at least 15 years of their sentence to be considered for early release, regardless of the seriousness of the crime committed. Advertisement The measure is sponsored by Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal (D-Manhattan) and Assemblywoman Maritza Davila (D-Brooklyn). Another bill, the Earned Time Act, would make most violent felons eligible for time allowance credits, potentially slashing their prison sentences in half, Donnelly said. The earned time bill is sponsored by Sen. Jeremy Cooney (D-Rochester) and Assemblywoman Anna Kelles (D-Ithaca). 3 Madeline Brame's son, Hason Correa, was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago. Steven Hirsch Advertisement A third bill — the Second Look Act — would permit prisoners to petition the courts for a sentence reduction after serving 10 years, including inmates convicted of violent crimes. The legislation is promoted by Sen. Julia Salazar (D-Brooklyn) and Assemblywoman Latrice Walker (D-Brooklyn). GOP Long Island lawmakers oppose the early parole bills, including Assemblyman Edward Ra and Sen. Jack Martins. 3 The New York State Capitol building. Hans Pennink for the NY Post Advertisement Crime victims' advocate Madeline Brame, whose Army Sergeant son Hason Correa was murdered in a scuffle outside a Harlem apartment building seven years ago, expressed outrage at the proposals to give violent cons a break. 'These proposals completely disregard the pain and effort that go into holding criminals accountable,' she said. 'We need to help prosecutors put violent offenders behind bars — not give criminals new ways to get out early.' Gov. Kathy Hochul toyed with early release proposals in April as a way to try to alleviate the prison population amid an illegal prison guard strike and a staffing shortage. She was forced to bring in the National Guard to staff the prisons. She proposed opening eligibility for merit time in the state budget, then backed down after it was revealed doing so could lead to people who were in for violent crimes to be released early. Donnelly was among those who raised the alarm. Inmate advocates have pushed for early parole and other reforms after prisoners were allegedly killed at the hands of guards over the past year.

Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana
Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana

Black America Web

time3 hours ago

  • Black America Web

Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana

Source: Mario Tama / Getty One of the most innocuous yet insidious ways voter suppression rears its head is through redistricting, a process by which a state legislature draws up voting maps along political lines. Despite a federal judge finding that their current legislative map violates the Voting Rights Act, Louisiana lawmakers have rejected a new map that would've included eight new, majority Black districts. The Louisiana Illuminator reports that Bill 487 and Bill 488, which would've redrawn the legislative maps for the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, were struck down in a 9-6 and 9-5 vote that fell along party lines. The current maps were drawn in 2022 and utilized census data from 2010, despite the fact that the state's Black population has only increased over the last decade. Black voters make up a third of Louisiana's population, but the current voting maps only have one majority Black district. Rep. Edmond Jordan (D-Baton Rouge), ithe chairman of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus, authored both bills. He explained the changes were necessary to address a ruling by a federal judge last year that found the current map disenfranchised Black voters. 'By us not upholding our obligation and redrawing these maps … I think it sends a signal that we are unwilling to do so,' Jordan told his fellow legislators. 'Rather than wait on the court to come up with a decision, I think it's incumbent upon us to get ahead of that and maybe draw these maps and show the court that we're willing to comply with Section 2' of the Voting Rights Act. The Republican opposition explained that they didn't feel the need to update the maps as the ruling is currently under appeal, and they believe that the courts will rule in their favor. They also brought up concerns that the new district lines would require current elected officials to move in order to still represent their district or possibly have to run against another incumbent to maintain their seat in the legislature. Jordan understood those concerns but stated his priority was giving Black voters an equal voice in determining who represents them. 'What we're trying to do is attempt to unpack and uncrack these districts so that they would comply with Section 2,' Jordan said. Source: Juan Silva / Getty From the Louisiana Illuminator: Packing is a type of gerrymandering that forces a large number of voters from one group into a single or small number of districts to weaken their power in other districts. Cracking dilutes the power of those voters into many districts. Jordan's plan would have added new majority Black House districts in Natchitoches, Lake Charles, Shreveport and Baton Rouge, and Black Senate districts in Baton Rouge, Shreveport and Jefferson Parish. In what can only be described as saying the quiet part out loud, state Republicans added that they found Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be outdated. For clarity, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prevents any voting law or measure 'which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' Considering that they're actively using legislative districts to curb the power of Black votes, it's clear Section 2 is still a necessity to maintain voting rights within majority Black communities. Redistricting is always a partisan affair, with the legislative map being drawn by whatever party has power. Far too often, though, the redistricting efforts by state Republicans are largely built around minimizing Black voting power to keep Republicans in office. This isn't only an issue in Louisiana, as several states have drawn legislative maps that explicitly undermine Black votes. Redistricting plans in the state of Texas are also facing legal challenges due to allegations of racism. There's an ongoing fight in Texas's Tarrant County over redistricting plans that several state legislators believe violate the Voting Rights Act, and there's currently a federal case underway against the Texas state government over its 2021 voting map that was believed to have 'diluted the power of minority voters.' One of the worst offenders is Alabama, whose redistricting efforts have been deemed racist by federal judges several times. State Republicans have said that if they don't receive a favorable ruling in their appeal on the decision, they won't update the voting map until 2030 to avoid federal oversight. There is nothing more on brand for the modern GOP than having a temper tantrum when being told to be less racist. If anything, this is a reminder that in America, the boring, procedural racism is often the worst kind. SEE ALSO: Poll Shows Companies Maintaing DEI Intiatives Have Better Reputations MIT Becomes Latest University To Back Away From DEI Initiatives SEE ALSO Redistricting: Majority Black Voting Maps Rejected In Louisiana was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store