Congress is currently considering adding or expanding work requirements in means-tested programs with the stated goal of increasing recipients’ work. The focus is on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP; formerly known as Food Stamps), the two largest direct-expenditure programs for supporting low-income Americans. This legislation includes adding work requirements to Medicaid and expanding the population subject to punitive SNAP work requirements for so-called ABAWDs (able-bodied adults without dependents who are aged 18 to 54) to adults in households with school-age children—aged 7 to 17—and older adults aged 55 to 64.
One stated motivation for applying work requirements to means-tested programs is that poor families, those eligible for basic needs programs, would have more resources if they worked more. It follows, some argue, that requiring adults to regularly meet work-hours targets in order to receive nutrition assistance or health care would increase family earnings and make families better off.
Setting aside convincing evidence that work requirements do not increase work, what’s missing in these conversations is acknowledgement that volatility in employment and hours is endemic in the low-wage labor market and not the choice of these workers. The definition of acceptable work effort imposed by policymakers who do not acknowledge or understand this volatility penalizes working families from benefits for which they would otherwise be eligible.
Read full analysis in Brookings
May 22, 2025