Do SNAP Work Requirements Work?

Abstract

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act waived Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) work requirements nationally in 2010 and broadened the eligibility for receiving waivers in subsequent years for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD). From 2011 to 2016, many states voluntarily imposed work requirements, while other areas became ineligible for waivers because of improved economic conditions. Did the work requirements increase employment as intended, or did the policy merely remove food assistance for ABAWD whodespite an improving economy-still could not find employment? Using data from the American Community Survey from 2010 to 2016, I analyze the influence of work requirements on employment and SNAP participation for ABAWD. I find that work requirements significantly decreased SNAP participation and marginally increased employment for ABAWD using Difference-in-Difference-in-Differences estimation. This study contributes to the current policy debates on the effectiveness of expanding or instituting work requirements for welfare programs. JEL Classification Codes: J21, J68, H42, H75

Employed in a SNAP? The Impact of Work Requirements on Program Participation and Labor Supply

“…Labor market participation in survey-based populations exceeds that in administrative records. For example, employment rates exceed 70 percent in the control samples of Harris (2021) and Han (2020), which are three to four times higher than in QC data. By contrast, only 17 percent of the Virginia ABAWD SNAP population (and 19 percent of our stock population) is in UI-covered employment when work requirements are reinstated.…”

“…because the empirical design conditions on an outcome, thereby inducing changes in sample composition that frustrates causal estimates (Angrist and Pischke 2009). Finally, a set of papers closely related to our work use microdata and the age 50 cutoff as a source of identification (Stacy et al 2018, Harris 2021, Han 2020, Cuffey et al 2015, Ritter 2018. We summarize the main differences here, and provide further details of findings, strengths, and limitations of these studies in Appendix B.…”

“…They find mixed results, likely due to differences in methods, data, and the potential presence of selection biases and non-treated populations as discussed above. Among these are several papers that use the age 50 eligibility cutoff for identification (Stacy et al 2018, Harris 2021, Han 2020, Cuffey et al 2015, Ritter 2018. These studies primarily rely on cross-sectional survey data, and find mixed results for participation and labor market outcomes.…”

Association of Work Requirements With Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation by Race/Ethnicity and Disability Status, 2013-2017

“…The findings of this study suggest that work requirements substantially reduce SNAP benefits for childless adults, consistent with earlier analyses. [9][10][11][12] We also identified negative associations for a Data are from our analysis of 2012 to 2017 American Community Survey data using linear probability models with area and year fixed effects. Models also control for age, gender, marital status, education, household size, and home ownership.…”

State supervision, punishment and poverty: The case of drug bans on welfare receipt

“…While people involved in the criminal justice system must endure criminal justice supervision or face penalties like incarceration, people in the welfare system can always simply drop out if they are willing to face the economic pains of doing so. In fact, existing research indicates that SNAP participation rates are sensitive to changes in supervisory requirements; participation significantly decreased after some states enacted work requirements (Harris, 2019).…”