Anyone who reads Risk & Progress will know that I am generally skeptical of welfare programs like SNAP, which I also recognize are well-intentioned.
I’ve read a number of pieces like this that make the case that work requirements for able-bodied individuals to obtain SNAP benefits are not found to raise employment, but only serve to reduce SNAP enrollment.
This finding is cited as evidence against work requirements, that SNAP benefits should come with fewer strings attached, but, playing devil’s advocate, isn’t that conclusion backward?
People still have to eat. If adding work requirements reduces SNAP enrollment, does that not indicate that SNAP wasn’t needed in the first place?
It's a valid hypothesis to look into. Naturally, there's probably no perfect way to address this question. Some of the studies in the article showed that it was actually the lower income people that dropped out of the program, while higher income remained, suggesting need wasn't the reason for staying.
Other studies have looked at other unique elements of SNAP re-certification like what date of the month the interview is scheduled:
"Perhaps the most closely related paper is Homonoff and Somerville (2019), who show that recertification rates are substantially lower when recertification interviews are scheduled for dates later in the calendar month. This leaves less time for beneficiaries to reschedule a missed interview before benefits expire at the end of the calendar month, leading to substantial short-term churn from the program."
Specific interviews suggest being unaware of programs or unaware of changes is an issue. Stigma as well:
"There have also been reports of stigma from others for participating in a “welfare program,” which decreases a potential participant’s desire to enroll.Families may also worry about becoming dependent on welfare programs such as SNAP.Awareness of eligibility for the program and the process of providing the necessary financial information have also been cited as reasons for nonparticipation.Many families are unaware that they are eligible or assume that they could not receive benefits based on their income or assets.,Even if they are aware of meeting the standards for eligibility, the process of calculating and providing necessary financial information is often a deterrent to further pursuing SNAP participation."
Overall, I see that programs like SNAP are more likely to be under-delivered than over-delivered. Removing stigma and raising awareness about such programs is probably one of the less costly policy interventions that can have tangible impacts (compared to implementing new programs for example). Community outreach by local governments (another topic I wrote about) would be a very effective policy, in my opinion.
It's an interesting thought that work requirements are costlier than just decreasing benefits, and both effectively do the same thing to those eligible. I wonder if there is any analysis on the government burden of work requirements.
Potentially even worse that just cutting because it actually removes the people who needed it the most. So you're cutting from the bottom of the distribution.
I haven't seen rigorous research but have seen budgetary allocations like this one from Iowa:
"New research from Iowa’s Legislative Services Agency, a nonpartisan staff agency that serves the Iowa Legislature, indicates that these changes will cost the state $17 million over the first three years—more than 2 1/2 times the amount Iowa would otherwise have spent on SNAP during that period. These administrative costs include 218 additional state government hires to administer new checks on Iowans’ eligibility for SNAP benefits."
Allow me to comment on any welfare subsidy. We, as Americans are inclined to help those who absolutely cannot help themselves and if a large enough population were polled, I seriously doubt there would be a statistically significant negative response contrary to my assertion. I also posit were the same size population polled asking should those who could, in any significant way, contribute to their own care without inducing physical misery or mental anguish be required to do so, I posit the positive response would significantly outweigh the negative. Especially if a decision to provide or not provide included a reasonable cost:benefit analysis that also considered social costs.
Is society better off with a single mom at home caring for her children or forced to work at some menial job to satisfy a work requirement. Should a partially disabled individual capable of productive work consistent with their abilities be required to do so even if that contribution is insufficient to sustain a reasonable quality of life? I think yes. The advantages of gainful employment and contribution to one's own care usually provide significant improvement to mental health. Never underestimate the power of self esteem and the gratification that comes from a simple work and reward arrangement. Further, if governance really wants to do its job, perhaps it should make it worth while for business to hire the disabled who will pull at least some of their own weight. Like maybe a tax exemption for being socially responsible corporate citizens among other things.
I believe most of us will help if asked, and most of us bristle at the thought of being taken advantage of by anyone. Just consider our collective attitude about taxation; we all know taxes are a necessary evil and it just chaps our ass no end when governance is so damn lax in controlling its spending---on any thing, anywhere.
Nobody likes the waste not to mention more than half of us simply can't afford it. So we are pissed when disrespected by those to whom we have given power. I believe there is a way to effectively means and capacity test any welfare applicant before handing out the taxpayer's hard earned money by way of any kind of subsistence. We demand an ROI of some sort; not the constant loss usually suffered as a result of apathetic and non competent governance interested in aggrandizing personal and party wealth, status and power over doing its job.
I think you're making some inappropriate assumptions.
People usually don't enroll in these programs with pride for taking advantage of the system -- they enroll in these programs with shame for needing help, even if you believe that they don't deserve it. Making it harder with the goal of keeping out anyone who doesn't "need" it will kick out several people who desperately do need it. A little "waste" is acceptable to ensure that everyone who needs support will get it, and there are significant costs in filtering who "should" get the benefits. It's also backwards -- sometimes people need the help to support their efforts to get a job in the first place. A work requirement just puts them farther behind.
And taxes are not a "necessary evil" because there is nothing inherently evil about taxes. It's the cost of living in an advanced society, and the benefits provided by how they are used goes far beyond what individuals could provide on their own.
One thing about work requirements that I did not touch upon here is that they also often make it harder to get a job. I believe the recently passed bill said one could do 20 hours of volunteer work and become eligible for benefits. The problem is that it ends up eating into time used to find work/train for work etc. Thus, work requirements end up pushing people away from work as well.
I'd also add that I think the amount of true 'gamesmanship' of benefits is not high. Even if we think about it in terms of maximizing welfare, it's unlikely a significant amount of people are choosing to go on benefits rather than have a job. Jobs often lead to further opportunities and further income growth, whereas benefits are capped and uncertain. I don't think many are making this calculation.
What I did not say in my last comment was one cannot dismiss the addictive nature of a free anything where humans are concerned. To do so is ruining those who would otherwise not be susceptible to the siren's song in the short term. We need not make dependents where we could otherwise make supporters. The effective amount of direct support is not so important as the indirect support for both the individual and their supporters. It is the effort that so often counts more so than the result plain and simple. Consider the fish and fishing analogy.
Further, let's be clear, in order to be efficacious such a system is most likely going to cost more than it saves on paper; however, eventually as fraud is reduced to optimal levels, the cost to sustain operations plus the amount of fraud still being perpetrated will be the lessor cost on paper and realize more social benefits by way of confidence in governance if nothing else. Yup, thats the hypothesis, but will never advance to theory unless it is becomes policy and given more enforcement than just mouth service. Now I'm done.
As always, great discussion here.
Anyone who reads Risk & Progress will know that I am generally skeptical of welfare programs like SNAP, which I also recognize are well-intentioned.
I’ve read a number of pieces like this that make the case that work requirements for able-bodied individuals to obtain SNAP benefits are not found to raise employment, but only serve to reduce SNAP enrollment.
This finding is cited as evidence against work requirements, that SNAP benefits should come with fewer strings attached, but, playing devil’s advocate, isn’t that conclusion backward?
People still have to eat. If adding work requirements reduces SNAP enrollment, does that not indicate that SNAP wasn’t needed in the first place?
It's a valid hypothesis to look into. Naturally, there's probably no perfect way to address this question. Some of the studies in the article showed that it was actually the lower income people that dropped out of the program, while higher income remained, suggesting need wasn't the reason for staying.
Certain direct research shows that many people eligible for SNAP, but don't participate, in hindsight, should have - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5513186/ (children are more likely to repeat a grade if the family that was eligible for SNAP didn't apply for it). Another study here - https://drexel.edu/hunger-free-center/research/briefs-and-reports/too-many-hurdles/
Other studies have looked at other unique elements of SNAP re-certification like what date of the month the interview is scheduled:
"Perhaps the most closely related paper is Homonoff and Somerville (2019), who show that recertification rates are substantially lower when recertification interviews are scheduled for dates later in the calendar month. This leaves less time for beneficiaries to reschedule a missed interview before benefits expire at the end of the calendar month, leading to substantial short-term churn from the program."
Specific interviews suggest being unaware of programs or unaware of changes is an issue. Stigma as well:
"There have also been reports of stigma from others for participating in a “welfare program,” which decreases a potential participant’s desire to enroll.Families may also worry about becoming dependent on welfare programs such as SNAP.Awareness of eligibility for the program and the process of providing the necessary financial information have also been cited as reasons for nonparticipation.Many families are unaware that they are eligible or assume that they could not receive benefits based on their income or assets.,Even if they are aware of meeting the standards for eligibility, the process of calculating and providing necessary financial information is often a deterrent to further pursuing SNAP participation."
Overall, I see that programs like SNAP are more likely to be under-delivered than over-delivered. Removing stigma and raising awareness about such programs is probably one of the less costly policy interventions that can have tangible impacts (compared to implementing new programs for example). Community outreach by local governments (another topic I wrote about) would be a very effective policy, in my opinion.
Thanks for this thoughtful post. So much to dig into. I appreciate the shoutout to my posts from last week
It's an interesting thought that work requirements are costlier than just decreasing benefits, and both effectively do the same thing to those eligible. I wonder if there is any analysis on the government burden of work requirements.
Great post!
Potentially even worse that just cutting because it actually removes the people who needed it the most. So you're cutting from the bottom of the distribution.
I haven't seen rigorous research but have seen budgetary allocations like this one from Iowa:
"New research from Iowa’s Legislative Services Agency, a nonpartisan staff agency that serves the Iowa Legislature, indicates that these changes will cost the state $17 million over the first three years—more than 2 1/2 times the amount Iowa would otherwise have spent on SNAP during that period. These administrative costs include 218 additional state government hires to administer new checks on Iowans’ eligibility for SNAP benefits."
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/work-requirements-are-expensive-for-the-government-to-administer-and-dont-lead-to-more-employment/
Allow me to comment on any welfare subsidy. We, as Americans are inclined to help those who absolutely cannot help themselves and if a large enough population were polled, I seriously doubt there would be a statistically significant negative response contrary to my assertion. I also posit were the same size population polled asking should those who could, in any significant way, contribute to their own care without inducing physical misery or mental anguish be required to do so, I posit the positive response would significantly outweigh the negative. Especially if a decision to provide or not provide included a reasonable cost:benefit analysis that also considered social costs.
Is society better off with a single mom at home caring for her children or forced to work at some menial job to satisfy a work requirement. Should a partially disabled individual capable of productive work consistent with their abilities be required to do so even if that contribution is insufficient to sustain a reasonable quality of life? I think yes. The advantages of gainful employment and contribution to one's own care usually provide significant improvement to mental health. Never underestimate the power of self esteem and the gratification that comes from a simple work and reward arrangement. Further, if governance really wants to do its job, perhaps it should make it worth while for business to hire the disabled who will pull at least some of their own weight. Like maybe a tax exemption for being socially responsible corporate citizens among other things.
I believe most of us will help if asked, and most of us bristle at the thought of being taken advantage of by anyone. Just consider our collective attitude about taxation; we all know taxes are a necessary evil and it just chaps our ass no end when governance is so damn lax in controlling its spending---on any thing, anywhere.
Nobody likes the waste not to mention more than half of us simply can't afford it. So we are pissed when disrespected by those to whom we have given power. I believe there is a way to effectively means and capacity test any welfare applicant before handing out the taxpayer's hard earned money by way of any kind of subsistence. We demand an ROI of some sort; not the constant loss usually suffered as a result of apathetic and non competent governance interested in aggrandizing personal and party wealth, status and power over doing its job.
I think you're making some inappropriate assumptions.
People usually don't enroll in these programs with pride for taking advantage of the system -- they enroll in these programs with shame for needing help, even if you believe that they don't deserve it. Making it harder with the goal of keeping out anyone who doesn't "need" it will kick out several people who desperately do need it. A little "waste" is acceptable to ensure that everyone who needs support will get it, and there are significant costs in filtering who "should" get the benefits. It's also backwards -- sometimes people need the help to support their efforts to get a job in the first place. A work requirement just puts them farther behind.
And taxes are not a "necessary evil" because there is nothing inherently evil about taxes. It's the cost of living in an advanced society, and the benefits provided by how they are used goes far beyond what individuals could provide on their own.
One thing about work requirements that I did not touch upon here is that they also often make it harder to get a job. I believe the recently passed bill said one could do 20 hours of volunteer work and become eligible for benefits. The problem is that it ends up eating into time used to find work/train for work etc. Thus, work requirements end up pushing people away from work as well.
I'd also add that I think the amount of true 'gamesmanship' of benefits is not high. Even if we think about it in terms of maximizing welfare, it's unlikely a significant amount of people are choosing to go on benefits rather than have a job. Jobs often lead to further opportunities and further income growth, whereas benefits are capped and uncertain. I don't think many are making this calculation.
What I did not say in my last comment was one cannot dismiss the addictive nature of a free anything where humans are concerned. To do so is ruining those who would otherwise not be susceptible to the siren's song in the short term. We need not make dependents where we could otherwise make supporters. The effective amount of direct support is not so important as the indirect support for both the individual and their supporters. It is the effort that so often counts more so than the result plain and simple. Consider the fish and fishing analogy.
Further, let's be clear, in order to be efficacious such a system is most likely going to cost more than it saves on paper; however, eventually as fraud is reduced to optimal levels, the cost to sustain operations plus the amount of fraud still being perpetrated will be the lessor cost on paper and realize more social benefits by way of confidence in governance if nothing else. Yup, thats the hypothesis, but will never advance to theory unless it is becomes policy and given more enforcement than just mouth service. Now I'm done.