Part of the negotiations over the debt ceiling focused on including work requirements as part of the certain welfare programs. Do work requirements ‘work’?
"The SNAP work requirements have no economic merit – they do not result in increases in labor participation. They do reduce participation in SNAP, especially among the most vulnerable and in need of this assistance."
Not disagreeing with this, but if people generally don't work and simply drop out of the program instead, doesn't this challenge the notion that this program was needed in the first place?
That's a good question, which touches upon an implicit policy action that is not necessarily clear to voters.
First, regarding who typically drops out - the Gray et al. paper is able to track individuals, so they can also determine who is likely to drop out, once the work requirements were re-instated. From their paper: "We find that work requirements have disproportionately larger impacts on participants who are homeless, participants without earned income, and men. On the other hand, those who have a history of reporting a disability are less likely to be impacted by work requirements. This group may be more likely to be reclassified as exempt from work requirements due to not meeting the definition for able-bodied."
So this tells us that the most vulnerable and most likely to not be able to go through the paperwork drop out.
Now regarding the implicit policy - some people that drop out, might not fall in the category listed above (homeless). If they're making a choice to not follow up to remain in SNAP, it could be because they have another support (from family for example). This brings in implicit policy - the more complex the guidelines and requirements, the more 'costly' it is to enroll. This additional burden might push eligible individuals out of the program since they may find it too costly (too much paperwork, bureaucracy) to fulfill the requirements, especially for individuals that are eligible for part of the benefit. These implicit costs are an indirect policy choice, as it deters participation. And there are example of this - "One field experiment found that providing application assistance led to an almost 80 percent increase in SNAP applications relative to those who were informed they were eligible but given no special assistance." (Policymaking by Other Means")
Lastly, SNAP has a psychological cost - from the same source - "Sixty-four percent of eligible nonparticipants say they do not like to get by on government assistance. SNAP may be especially vulnerable to such stigma, because, as one potential recipient put it, “I don’t have a job but that program is not for me. That is the way I see it. I see it for people with kids and then the elderly.”"
Overall, the actual SNAP benefit can be viewed as the actual dollar value to the individual minus the admin/burden cost the individual has to take. If we were to minimize the admin cost to the individual, we could reduce the income eligibility threshold or benefit amount, and be better at targeting which individuals get the benefit by focusing on something that is quantifiable (income threshold or benefit amount) rather than unquantifiable and very varied (each individual has a different cost of getting the benefit, and often the most vulnerable have the highest cost).
"The SNAP work requirements have no economic merit – they do not result in increases in labor participation. They do reduce participation in SNAP, especially among the most vulnerable and in need of this assistance."
Not disagreeing with this, but if people generally don't work and simply drop out of the program instead, doesn't this challenge the notion that this program was needed in the first place?
That's a good question, which touches upon an implicit policy action that is not necessarily clear to voters.
First, regarding who typically drops out - the Gray et al. paper is able to track individuals, so they can also determine who is likely to drop out, once the work requirements were re-instated. From their paper: "We find that work requirements have disproportionately larger impacts on participants who are homeless, participants without earned income, and men. On the other hand, those who have a history of reporting a disability are less likely to be impacted by work requirements. This group may be more likely to be reclassified as exempt from work requirements due to not meeting the definition for able-bodied."
So this tells us that the most vulnerable and most likely to not be able to go through the paperwork drop out.
Now regarding the implicit policy - some people that drop out, might not fall in the category listed above (homeless). If they're making a choice to not follow up to remain in SNAP, it could be because they have another support (from family for example). This brings in implicit policy - the more complex the guidelines and requirements, the more 'costly' it is to enroll. This additional burden might push eligible individuals out of the program since they may find it too costly (too much paperwork, bureaucracy) to fulfill the requirements, especially for individuals that are eligible for part of the benefit. These implicit costs are an indirect policy choice, as it deters participation. And there are example of this - "One field experiment found that providing application assistance led to an almost 80 percent increase in SNAP applications relative to those who were informed they were eligible but given no special assistance." (Policymaking by Other Means")
Lastly, SNAP has a psychological cost - from the same source - "Sixty-four percent of eligible nonparticipants say they do not like to get by on government assistance. SNAP may be especially vulnerable to such stigma, because, as one potential recipient put it, “I don’t have a job but that program is not for me. That is the way I see it. I see it for people with kids and then the elderly.”"
Overall, the actual SNAP benefit can be viewed as the actual dollar value to the individual minus the admin/burden cost the individual has to take. If we were to minimize the admin cost to the individual, we could reduce the income eligibility threshold or benefit amount, and be better at targeting which individuals get the benefit by focusing on something that is quantifiable (income threshold or benefit amount) rather than unquantifiable and very varied (each individual has a different cost of getting the benefit, and often the most vulnerable have the highest cost).
Thank you for this detailed explanation.