The Trump administration has ramped up its efforts this month to get more beneficiaries of safety-net programs into the workforce by issuing an executive order promoting work requirements to “increase self-sufficiency, well-being, and economic mobility.”
While supporters of such requirements think this will generally encourage welfare-program recipients to find employment, several experts say they are worried about the structure of these provisions. They expressed concern about the federal agencies’ abilities to coordinate the implementation of these mandates and say a Republican proposal currently on the table is far too stringent.
Work requirements are not a new concept for public-assistance programs. Welfare was overhauled in 1996 with the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which requires recipients to work. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also requires certain recipients to work or they are limited to three months of benefits out of every three years.
“Unfortunately, many of the programs designed to help families have instead delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds,” states an executive order President Trump signed earlier this month ordering federal agencies to review programs where work requirements could be applied and assess whether current requirements are being enforced consistent with the law.
Supporters of the administration’s plan say a reassessment of public benefits is needed, but they warned that unless the stipulations encourage people to reenter the workforce—rather than just drop out of the programs—the proposal could be a bust.
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said there needs to be coordination among the departments. “We should not have a situation where people have to simultaneously meet the requirements of more than one program,” he said.
“These need to be coordinated. I have not seen any evidence that the administration is doing anything about that. Maybe they are,” Haskins added. “My understanding of the first step is that they are asking all the departments to propose what they will do to strengthen work requirements, and maybe at that point then they will have interdepartmental coordination, which is often thought to be a thing impossible to do.”
The requirements also have to be achievable and provide a way for people to get back into the program should they slip up, said Mimi Teixeira, a welfare-policy fellow at the Heritage Foundation. However, she said that a Republican proposal in the 2018 farm bill does not strike that balance.
The provision, which was passed out of the House Agriculture Committee last week, would lock recipients out of SNAP for 12 months the first time they fail to meet the requirements and then 36 months for subsequent violations.
“That’s only an incentive for them to not get back into training, to not get back into education, to not get back into volunteering, and to just fall into more bad cycles and poor behavior,” Teixeira said. “It’s not the kind of sanction that is going to help people get out of poverty. It’s probably the kind that is going to kick people off of the rolls but not move them to a place where they are getting better.”
Recipients would be able to reenter the program if they obtain employment to meet the requirements or if they are no longer subject to the work requirements.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which estimates that 2 million people would lose their SNAP benefits under the proposed farm bill, described the requirements as unworkable.
“These provisions would force states to develop large new bureaucracies, but research suggests that these requirements would do little to increase employment,” the CBPP reported in a recent analysis. “This expensive and risky approach runs counter to evidence-based policy making, particularly since the results from work pilots established in the 2014 farm bill are not yet available.
“Moreover, experience suggests the proposed work requirements would leave substantial numbers of low-income people with various barriers to employment—such as very limited skills or mental health issues like depression—with neither earnings nor food assistance,” the report added.
Both Haskins and Teixeira think applying work requirements is the right move to get people on welfare programs back to work.
Peter Edelman, professor of law at Georgetown Law Center, vehemently disagrees, calling the administration’s push “a terrible idea.”
“The whole point of this is to knock people off or not get on the rolls—that’s what this is about,” he said. “It’s bureaucratic, and it’s expensive to do it. It’s just—all the way around, it’s absolutely an awful idea.”
Directing recipients toward job training would be a better strategy to help them find employment than relying on work requirements, some experts said.
“The thing that’s heartbreaking about this proposal is that instead of targeting that kind of assistance … to the people who really need it, by having this blanket requirement on everyone they spend a great deal of money on just trying to get states able to administer it and track people’s monthly responses; a very small amount of money is made available for actual training or jobs programs,” said Debbie Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs.
What We're Following See More »
"Saudi Arabia said Saturday that Jamal Khashoggi, the dissident Saudi journalist who disappeared more than two weeks ago, had died after an argument and fistfight with unidentified men inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Eighteen men have been arrested and are being investigated in the case, Saudi state-run media reported without identifying any of them. State media also reported that Maj. Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, the deputy director of Saudi intelligence, and other high-ranking intelligence officials had been dismissed."
"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation is scrutinizing how a collection of activists and pundits intersected with WikiLeaks, the website that U.S. officials say was the primary conduit for publishing materials stolen by Russia, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Mueller’s team has recently questioned witnesses about the activities of longtime Trump confidante Roger Stone, including his contacts with WikiLeaks, and has obtained telephone records, according to the people familiar with the matter."
"Special Counsel Robert Mueller is expected to issue findings on core aspects of his Russia probe soon after the November midterm elections ... Specifically, Mueller is close to rendering judgment on two of the most explosive aspects of his inquiry: whether there were clear incidents of collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, and whether the president took any actions that constitute obstruction of justice." Mueller has faced pressure to wrap up the investigation from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said an official, who would receive the results of the investigation and have "some discretion in deciding what is relayed to Congress and what is publicly released," if he remains at his post.
"The Justice Department on Friday charged a Russian woman for her alleged role in a conspiracy to interfere with the 2018 U.S. election, marking the first criminal case prosecutors have brought against a foreign national for interfering in the upcoming midterms. Elena Khusyaynova, 44, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Prosecutors said she managed the finances of 'Project Lakhta,' a foreign influence operation they said was designed 'to sow discord in the U.S. political system' by pushing arguments and misinformation online about a host of divisive political issues, including immigration, the Confederate flag, gun control and the National Football League national-anthem protests."