Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(170,762 posts) Mon Apr 20, 2026, 10:20 AM 15 hrs ago

Food stamp work rules don't increase employment, researchers say

Source: CBS News

April 20, 2026 / 5:00 AM EDT

DELBARTON, W.Va. — A half-dozen cars had been in the queue for nearly four hours by the time the House of Hope mobile food pantry line began to move. Seventy or so more idled behind them by 11:30 a.m., when the food distribution began. The plan was to begin handing out boxes of groceries at 11, but the Facing Hunger Foodbank truck delivering the food blew a tire en route. No one complained.

Perry Hall was among those waiting. His wife, Lilly Hall, volunteers with the distribution team. Perry has been dealing with a form of cancer called multiple myeloma. The Halls get by on around $1,500 a month from his Social Security benefits, plus assistance from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But because of her age, Lilly, 59, recently became subject to new SNAP work requirements and at risk of losing her benefits.

As part of the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, all "able-bodied adults" 64 or younger who don't have dependents and don't work, volunteer, or participate in job training at least 80 hours a month are now restricted to three months of benefits every three years from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. Previously, the federal requirement applied to those 54 or younger. The new rule, which went into effect in November, also applies to parents of children 14 or older. And it removed exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young adults who've aged out of foster care.

Proponents of work requirements argue that they incentivize people who are "work-ready" to seek and keep jobs, reducing dependence on government assistance and upholding the "dignity of work." Rhonda Rogombé serves as health and safety net policy analyst for the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. She and her colleagues have studied the effects of SNAP work rules and found that requiring recipients to work does not lower an area's unemployment rate.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/snap-food-stamp-work-rules-employment/

Link to referenced USDA 2018 REPORT site - The Food Assistance Landscape: FY 2018 Annual Report

Link to referenced USDA 2018 REPORT (PDF) - https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/92896/EIB-207.pdf?v=98980

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Food stamp work rules don't increase employment, researchers say (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 15 hrs ago OP

That Republicans are wrong again as usual comes as no surprise. J_William_Ryan 14 hrs ago #1

Anyone else notice this: Alice B. 14 hrs ago #2

She might receive tips TexasBushwhacker 12 hrs ago #3

That makes sense. Alice B. 7 hrs ago #10

They weren't supposed to. They were supposed to cut spending on helping the poor. period. ChicagoTeamster 12 hrs ago #4

I know people who can't work period Marthe48 11 hrs ago #5

Work requirements are an insidious reframing of the communitarian values such public investment represents. pat_k 9 hrs ago #8

Demonstrated over and over. Not to mention the many insidious effects of such requirements. pat_k 9 hrs ago #6

From about 600 B.C. tithing was practiced by different cultures Marthe48 8 hrs ago #9

well of course not Skittles 9 hrs ago #7

J_William_Ryan

(3,530 posts)

1. That Republicans are wrong again as usual comes as no surprise.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 10:30 AM

14 hrs ago

For conservatives work requirements were never about reducing unemployment, they are punitive measures intended to punish low income Americans and express the right’s unwarranted distain for public assistance programs – programs that are both necessary and proper in a free market system where poverty is an inevitable byproduct, poverty that is not the fault of the poor.

Alice B.

(741 posts)

2. Anyone else notice this:

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 11:19 AM

14 hrs ago

“Lilly Hall found work at a Delbarton restaurant. But it's unpaid until a waitress position opens — enough to preserve her benefits, but far from ideal.”

I’m not saying a restaurant in Mingo County is flush with cash but the idea of people “volunteering” this way sets off alarm bells for me.

TexasBushwhacker

(21,245 posts)

3. She might receive tips

Reply to Alice B. (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 01:14 PM

12 hrs ago

That's wrong, but I've known young women who waitressed at strip clubs for tips only.

Alice B.

(741 posts)

10. That makes sense.

Reply to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 06:23 PM

7 hrs ago

I can’t imagine the tips are much in comparison, though.

There’s a whole lot of policy makers I’m wishing a very specific afterlife on.

ChicagoTeamster

(1,078 posts)

4. They weren't supposed to. They were supposed to cut spending on helping the poor. period.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 01:15 PM

12 hrs ago

Marthe48

(23,271 posts)

5. I know people who can't work period

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 01:42 PM

11 hrs ago

Thinking of one who has MS, single, can't drive, can't walk far, has trouble on their own home entry, not good with computers. Getting benefits, but faces a $400.00 shortfall monthly. What are people to do?

According to the Bible, people are told to tithe. If every adult American gave 10% of their earnings, to a charity, church, government program, food banks, homeless shelter, community homes, there would be a safety net. But most people won't. The federal programs funded by taxes seemed to be to make sure there was some help for people in need. But greed rules. The ruling rich, in general, don't give a damn about others, just what they can suck out of them. So we have people lining up at food banks, selling their bodies, or body parts, or dying in hospital parking lots.

pat_k

(13,512 posts)

8. Work requirements are an insidious reframing of the communitarian values such public investment represents.

Reply to Marthe48 (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 03:59 PM

9 hrs ago

Work requirement not only fail to boost employment and serve as a barrier to benefits for those qualified, they are an insidious reframing of the communitarian values that public investments in people represent.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/congress-is-debating-stricter-snap-and-medicaid-work-requirements-but-research-shows-they-dont-work

From a policy perspective, work requirements encourage a punitive view of welfare—framing it as a liability rather than an integral investment in economic support for low-income communities. This piece examines recent economic research studying the efficacy of work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid on labor market outcomes and program participation rates.

More of the harms these requirements inflict in my post below:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143653593#post6

pat_k

(13,512 posts)

6. Demonstrated over and over. Not to mention the many insidious effects of such requirements.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 03:29 PM

9 hrs ago

Work requirement don't just fail, they do harm.

https://www.epi.org/publication/snap-medicaid-work-requirements

Work requirements for safety net programs like SNAP and Medicaid
A punitive solution that solves no real problem
By Hilary Wething • January 24, 2025

Overview • Read the Report
Summary: Proponents claim that adding more work requirements for programs like food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid will lead to higher levels of employment among low-income adults. But EPI’s research shows that this will not address the underlying challenges these adults face in seeking employment. Such requirements will only curb access to food and health care for many benefit recipients

From a policy perspective, work requirements encourage a punitive view of welfare—framing it as a liability rather than an integral investment in economic support for low-income communities. This piece examines recent economic research studying the efficacy of work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid on labor market outcomes and program participation rates.

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-economic-case-against-work-requirements

The Economic Case against Work Requirements
February 29, 2024

Work requirements for public benefits programs have roots in the long history of slavery and its afterlife in the United States. But they are not just racist—they are ineffective and bad for the economy. Modern work requirements imposed through welfare reform in 1996 have now been around long enough to bear out what many critics feared: these policies do not increase long-term employment in high-quality jobs, provide stability, or improve economic outcomes. Instead, they harm people who need the support of public benefits programs, increase poverty, and have negative macroeconomic impacts.

Ending work requirements would improve the US economy—not hurt it
....
It’s a vicious circle: losing benefits only makes it harder to find and sustain employment.

...In most cases, the main result of work requirements for public benefits programs is a loss of those benefits. Empirical studies of imposed work requirements for some SNAP recipients confirm that the measures led to a 53 percent decline in program participation. In other words, work requirements didn’t increase economic self-sufficiency, and often caused people to exit the programs for other reasons.
Proponents of work requirements argue that recipients who lose benefits only do so because their earned income puts them over the threshold of safety net programs. Not only is there little evidence to support this idea, but there is plenty pointing to the opposite. For example, one analysis found that most people losing SNAP benefits due to work requirements are those facing the largest barriers to work—such as homelessness or disability—and, therefore, the least likely to be able to earn enough to exceed the income limits.

To make matters worse, work requirements actively punish working people and create conditions where they are less likely to be (continually) employed. Many working people with unpredictable schedules or those temporarily between jobs lose their benefits due to the strict demands of these work requirements. For example, retail workers may have their schedules reduced due to poor sales or other reasons beyond their control. Even though they are employed, they might lose their benefits because their new hours fall short of the relevant work-hour requirements. This increases anxiety, stress, and depression, all conditions that pose barriers to maintaining a job—let alone finding one. It’s a vicious circle: losing benefits only makes it harder to find and sustain employment.
...

Marthe48

(23,271 posts)

9. From about 600 B.C. tithing was practiced by different cultures

Reply to pat_k (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 05:23 PM

8 hrs ago

It was intended as tribute, to support temples and to support the poor. At least partly meant to support the poor. Many cultures adopted tithing. To be, it's a way of sharing resources, whether we do it formally or on our own.

Thank you for all of the information.

Skittles

(172,184 posts)

7. well of course not

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 20, 2026, 03:44 PM

9 hrs ago

because the rules are designed to hurt people, not help them

Reply to this discussion