The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) stands as a crucial support system for millions of Americans, with an average of 42.1 million individuals relying on the program monthly in fiscal year 2023. The program aims to ensure access to essential nutrition for vulnerable communities, including children, seniors, and those with disabilities. However, the program’s ability to effectively support these groups is hindered by complex eligibility rules, particularly the controversial work-hours test. This requirement, designed to encourage self-sufficiency, has raised questions about its true impact. Let’s explore the limitations and unintended consequences of this policy and why it’s essential to rethink such work requirements.
Table of Contents
Understanding SNAP and Its Importance
SNAP is designed to help those in need of food assistance, and it predominantly serves households with children under 18, adults aged 60 and older, and individuals with disabilities. According to data from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), over three-quarters of SNAP recipients fall into these categories. In short, SNAP is integral to ensuring that the most vulnerable members of society have access to the food they need to survive and thrive.
The Work-Hours Test: A Barrier to Access
One of the key barriers for adults without children under the age of 18 is the work-hours test. This requirement mandates that non-disabled adults aged 18-54 must work at least 20 hours per week (or 80 hours per month) in paid employment, job training, or workfare programs to remain eligible for benefits. If they fail to meet these requirements, they are restricted to just three months of SNAP benefits within a three-year period.
While the work-hours test was designed to encourage self-sufficiency and reduce dependence on government assistance, research has shown that it may be doing more harm than good. The idea behind the test is that by requiring individuals to work, they will be less reliant on government benefits. However, evidence does not fully support this theory, and in many cases, the test exacerbates food insecurity.
Research Findings: The Work-Hours Test Doesn’t Lead to Greater Employment
A comprehensive 2023 study co-authored by Shawn Fremstad and myself reviewed 19 empirical studies published between 2010 and 2023 that explored the effects of the work-hours test. Out of these studies, only three found that the work-hours requirement led to an increase in employment among SNAP recipients. Conversely, 15 of the 19 studies concluded that the work-hours test led to a reduction in SNAP participation, even among those who should be exempt, such as the disabled and unhoused adults.
These findings challenge the narrative that linking benefits to work leads to greater self-sufficiency. For many SNAP recipients, the conditions necessary to fulfill the work-hours test are unrealistic or unattainable, especially when facing barriers such as lack of affordable child care, insufficient job opportunities, or health limitations. Forcing people into precarious employment situations may not only fail to increase employment but could also worsen their overall well-being.
Administrative Strain: A Costly and Confusing Process
The impact of the work-hours test extends beyond the recipients of SNAP benefits. It also places a significant burden on state agencies tasked with enforcing these rules. A 2016 USDA report by the Office of Inspector General highlighted that state SNAP officials view the work-hours test as a “nightmare” in terms of administrative burden. The test is complicated, and many officials worry about the costs of managing it, both in terms of time and resources.
Moreover, this complexity increases the risk of errors, which can lead to eligible individuals being mistakenly denied benefits. In some cases, the failure to comply with the work-hours requirement has resulted in eligible recipients being removed from the program, leaving them without access to essential nutrition and worsening food insecurity.
The Consequences of Tightening SNAP Eligibility
Despite the evidence indicating that the work-hours test is ineffective at encouraging employment and is burdensome to both recipients and administrators, there are ongoing efforts to tighten eligibility requirements further. These proposals, which would add additional layers to an already complicated process, risk exacerbating food insecurity for those who rely on SNAP for survival. Research suggests that stricter eligibility rules are unlikely to lead to higher employment rates, but they may contribute to greater levels of poverty and malnutrition.
Reassessing the SNAP Work-Hours Test: A Call for Reform
Rather than focusing on punitive work requirements, it’s time to reassess the purpose and design of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Food should be viewed as a basic human right, not a privilege contingent on employment status. The SNAP program should be focused on reducing food insecurity, improving health outcomes, and providing support to those most in need—whether they are employed or not.
Instead of adding more administrative hurdles and work requirements, the government should focus on making the program more accessible and ensuring that benefits reach those who need them most. Research has shown that food assistance programs like SNAP are essential in combating poverty and promoting better health, particularly among children, seniors, and individuals with disabilities.
Columbus Residents Express Frustration Over Delayed SNAP Benefits
Proposal to Cut SNAP Benefits Would Hurt America’s Poor While Enriching the Wealthiest
Who Will Receive $292 in SNAP Food Stamps in the First Week of March?
Conclusion: Strengthening SNAP, Not Weakening It
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a vital component of the U.S. social safety net, helping millions of Americans access the nutrition they need. However, the work-hours test and other eligibility restrictions are creating unnecessary barriers that prevent people from receiving the support they need. Evidence suggests that these requirements do not increase employment, but they do contribute to higher levels of food insecurity.
Rather than tightening restrictions on SNAP eligibility, policymakers should focus on reforming the system to ensure that it continues to serve as an effective tool in combating hunger and poverty. By doing so, we can create a more just and equitable society, where access to food is not contingent upon employment, but a fundamental right for all.