Requiring work for government benefits sounds good, but always fails and hurts kids
The thinking seems so sensible: Link federal and state benefits to work. In that way, recipients get the support they need, and taxpayers receive something in return — an assurance the money will not be wasted, and may enhance lives.
The linkage long has been debated in Washington and at the Statehouse. Consider recent events. The crafting of a new two-year state budget saw the Republican majorities approve language seeking approval of a work requirement for those receiving Medicaid coverage.
Republicans in Congress pushed for the same in negotiating a deal to raise the debt-ceiling. The effort failed, thankfully. The agreement between the Biden White House and the House Republican majority did include a small expansion of the work requirement for federal food assistance.
Earlier, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, put the ki-bosh on extending the successful broadening of the Child Tax Credit (child poverty cut in half). He insisted on a work requirement.
Why not add such a logical provision?
Because, in reality, the logic falls apart. As compelling as the benefits-for-work arrangement appears, the evidence reveals work requirements don’t really work. They have a negligible effect on employment and income.
This conclusion derives from experience, work provisions dating, most notably, to the advent of welfare reform nearly three decades ago. Since then, many evaluations have followed. The results show the idea belongs in the category of sounds-good-but-doesn’t-deliver-as wished.
It mirrors the mantra of income tax cuts fuel prosperity, Ohio serving as a clear example. Statehouse Republicans have slashed state income tax rates since 2005, and have once more, yet the state continues to trail the country as a whole in growth and job creation.
An influx of immigrants would help, but in this instance, too, slogans overwhelm the evidence.
In 2018, Arkansas served as a laboratory. The state launched a work requirement for Medicaid. The experiment quickly ended as 18,000 people lost their coverage, and the program failed to increase employment.
Federal courts have intervened in Arkansas and elsewhere, ruling that work requirements run counter to the purpose of Medicaid. The program provides health care, something you need when you are ill, and the requirements have the effect of reducing care.
It says much that the Medicaid expansion actually has increased employment, recipients in a better position to seek and hold a job.
In its evaluation, the Congressional Budget Office found that work requirements may help at the outset, especially for participants in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Then, the effectiveness fades to the point of making little difference. The trouble is that recipients, generally, are not better off financially, and often see less income.
What happens?
For starters, many receiving assistance already work, and those who are not working have a good reason, such as staying home with kids or caring for an ailing family member. With work requirements comes much paperwork. Recipients must track their employment. When that process is confusing and cumbersome, as researchers confirm, people fall through the cracks.
Arkansas learned that 8% to 29% of recipients failed to report their work, while, of that group, just 3% to 4% were not working or failed to qualify for an exception. That suggests a punitive element, chasing a few as many lose their benefits.
No surprise the reporting breaks down. Many recipients hold low-paying jobs with erratic hours. They may face unreliable child care or lack convenient transportation or a steady place to reside.
Early Learning Nation concluded work requirements for welfare have been a “disaster” for children. The negative outcomes from working, including heightened stress at home from juggling priorities, outpaced the positive aspects. Frequently, work came first, children second, leading to lower cognitive and social-emotional test scores.
All this points to why it makes sense to move beyond the sorry option of work requirements. That doesn’t mean abandoning work. Rather, it calls for approaching the challenge in a different way — building a support system that makes work more workable, encouraging more balanced lives.
Such a system might begin with an adequate and sustained Child Tax Credit, households in a better situation to afford high-quality child care. It includes funding to ensure accessible and affordable child care at that level. A sound system also involves effective communication, the eligible aware of what is available and finding things easy to navigate.
More, it is affordable. Ohio counts nearly $11 billion a year in tax breaks. In his new book, “Poverty, by America,” Matthew Desmond notes that in 2021, the country spent $1.8 trillion on tax breaks, most flowing to households at the highest income rungs. Those who need assistance don’t dodge work to live in subsistence. They deserve policy by hard realities, not flawed assumptions.
Douglas was the Beacon Journal editorial page editor from 1999 to 2019. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Akron Beacon Journal: Why requiring work for government benefits always fails
