Op-ed
At the American Enterprise Institute Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility, which I run, we’re…
Commentary
Recent proposals to expand the work requirement in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have…
Op-Ed
New Congressional Budget Office figures last week indicate that the reconciliation bill passed by the House…
Blog Post
The reconciliation bill passed by the United States House of Representatives imposes community engagement requirements…
Multimedia
House Republicans narrowly passed their version of President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” last week, and…
Report
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reduces employment incentives among eligible individuals because benefits provide income support independent of work. Work requirements are intended to counteract these labor supply disincentives by mandating that recipients work or participate in work-related activities to maintain eligibility. Evidence consistently shows the implementation of SNAP work requirements reduces program participation, while findings on employment effects are more mixed. Overall, the evidence suggests that SNAP may discourage work and that work requirements can mitigate these disincentives in some contexts, though employment impacts vary across populations and policy environments.
Commentary
The reconciliation proposal approved by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2025 would impose community engagement requirements on nondisabled, working-age Medicaid recipients without dependent children, requiring at least 80 hours per month of work, training, education, or community service during a specified number of months to maintain eligibility. Analysis using Survey of Income and Program Participation data indicates that, as of December 2022, 44–60 percent of the 18.2 million recipients subject to the requirement would already be in compliance, depending on how many months of participation states require. As a result, 7.3 million–10.3 million recipients would need to increase their work or other qualifying activities to retain Medicaid coverage.
Report
Congress is considering ways to reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $230 billion over 10 years. Reforms will likely include one or more of the following cost-saving elements: reducing the maximum SNAP benefit, reducing deductions, expanding work requirements, and ending broad-based categorical eligibility. I analyze each of these reforms, focusing on the consequences for the SNAP benefit schedule, targeting of benefits to low-income households, and work incentives.
Blog Post
Multiple themes define the massive budget reconciliation bill currently winding its way through the House. Since it extends major…
Blog Post
Congress is considering implementing work requirements for Medicaid. This reform could help Congress achieve its…
Commentary
A 2019 regulation would tighten the criteria states use to waive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. Under existing policy, states can qualify for waivers using several broad criteria and can group contiguous areas together, allowing many counties to receive waivers even when unemployment rates are relatively low. Using county-level data from 1997 to 2023, simulations show that the 2019 rule would substantially reduce waiver eligibility, increase the responsiveness of waivers to changes in local unemployment, and better target waivers to areas with the weakest labor markets.
Working Paper
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program limits benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents unless they work at least 20 hours per week, but states have historically been able to waive this requirement in areas deemed to have weak labor markets. A new county-level dataset of waivers from 1997 to 2023 shows that waivers expanded substantially over time and were somewhat responsive to unemployment changes but were frequently granted in counties with relatively low unemployment. Simulations indicate that specific waiver rules—particularly the 20 percent unemployment rule and the ability to group counties—significantly increased waiver coverage and weakened targeting to areas with the weakest labor markets.