|
Over the course of 2018, top scholars will debate on these pages some of the most pressing issues facing low-income Americans today. Policies aimed at reducing poverty and increasing opportunity for low-income Americans will be the focus. Both sides of an issue will be presented in a series of point/counterpoint essays in the hopes of opening minds and advancing discussion. We hope you enjoy it and we welcome respectful feedback in the comments section.
Amidst labor force participation concerns in the United States, work requirements in safety net programs are receiving heightened attention. But what some view as the fulfillment of a reasonable expectation of work in exchange for benefits others view as punitive. In this installment of AEI’s Poverty and Social Policy Debate Series, Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow and Co-Director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution, will debate Heather Hahn, Senior Fellow at the Urban Institute, on the merits of work requirements in safety net programs. This is Part 2 of their exchange. You can find the entirety of their debate here.
Ron Haskins:
One of the most important aspects of the current debate over work requirements is that Republicans want to impose or strengthen work requirements in three major programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and Medicaid. The work requirement in TANF has been strong on paper for two decades, but states have figured out many ways to minimize or avoid the requirements. States have never aggressively implemented the SNAP work requirement and have often been exempted from its stronger pro-work features because of high unemployment rates. There has never, until now, been a Medicaid work requirement or work option. But the Trump administration has now granted four states waivers to require work by some recipients and additional states have requested them.
None of these requirements or options have yet been enacted into law, but we nonetheless need to consider their consequences if they were enacted and implemented. Many Republicans, but relatively few Democrats, would like to see work requirements in all the major welfare programs. If the requirements and options now being considered were enacted, the nation would have the broadest and most sweeping work requirements ever. This might be a good thing, but no one knows because nothing like this has been tried before.
For those who like the requirements, I have four pieces of advice that are responsive to Heather Hahn’s comments. First, go slow. Allow states several years to implement them and make the requirements modest in the beginning and gradually build them up to cover more of the caseload. States have had two decades of experience with TANF, but many are still avoiding the requirements. I would rather see a modest work requirement in terms of the percentage and number of hours that the caseload must work than a strict requirement that drives states to look for loopholes.
Second, provide money to states to implement the requirements; this probably requires investing more than the $30 per person per month currently allotted for workforce training efforts in the failed House version of the farm bill. States should not need more money in TANF, but they will in SNAP and Medicaid. In fact, states that are venturesome in implementing Medicaid work requirements should be financially rewarded. Third, study how the requirements are implemented and help states share lessons in their implementation programs. Finally, conduct rigorous evaluations of whether the requirements lead to permanent work and increased earnings
Heather Hahn:
Ron Haskins wisely advises proponents of work requirements to start with modest and realistic work requirements, provide states with funds for implementation, and carefully study both implementation and outcomes. Because Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and housing programs differ in scope, purpose, and populations served, we do not know how the lessons from TANF and SNAP work requirements would apply to expanded work requirements in other programs. Building on Ron’s advice, I offer additional research questions for implementation and impact evaluations.
Implementation studies should consider the administrative costs of developing and maintaining the infrastructure needed for implementing work requirements, including the costs of developing new systems, adapting technology, training staff, and supporting an increased workload associated with new or expanded requirements.
Rigorous outcome evaluations should not only consider the impacts of specific approaches on work and earnings, but should also evaluate other potential impacts:
How much do caseloads decline because families needing assistance cannot navigate program processes?
What are the implications for school-age children or children with disabilities? Can parents of school-age children and children with disabilities secure affordable child care while they are working or engaged in work activities? What are the consequences for children if their parents fail to meet work requirements?
Do work requirements contribute to disparities across populations? The experience with TANF work requirements and other state TANF policy decisions has been that African American people are disproportionately concentrated in states with less generous and more restrictive policies and that local policy implementation is subject to racial biases. These findings warrant careful consideration in the context of expanding state policy discretion in other programs.
How much do work and community engagement requirements and associated work supports affect beneficiary self-efficacy, sense of dignity, and empowerment? Evaluations of social safety net programs typically have not tracked these outcomes, but they are often cited as a rationale for imposing work requirements.
How would proposed work requirements in Medicaid affect the role Medicaid plays in providing access to needed care for a range of health problems?
We should also consider whether there is a threshold for potential negative outcomes beyond which the program would be ethically bound to reconsider its policy.
Let’s focus on evidence-based solutions to poverty and inequality and not hurl partisan insults from entrenched corners. Our country needs the contributions of all people, and it is imperative that we work together to find solutions so that all of us are empowered to contribute to the best of our abilities.
Ron Haskins is a Senior Fellow and holds the Cabot Family Chair in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he co-directs the Center on Children and Families. Heather Hahn is a senior fellow in the Center for Labor, Human Services, and Population at the Urban Institute.
Ron Haskins and Heather Hahn continue their debate on the merits of work requirements in safety net programs.
|
|
