Food stamps program a top opportunity for increasing access to work and savings for taxpayers

by David Bass | Feb 4, 2025

Reforming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program can help families get short-term help without discouraging long-term goals for work and financial independence.

Food stamps program a top opportunity for increasing access to work and savings for taxpayers

Key Points

SNAP’s benefit cliffs discourage work and career growth by abruptly cutting off assistance when recipients earn even modest income increases, trapping families in financial instability and reducing workforce participation.
Proposed reforms aim to eliminate benefit cliffs through gradual benefit reductions, clear exit points, and adjusted benefit levels, encouraging financial independence without penalizing career advancement.
Comprehensive SNAP reform benefits all stakeholders, empowering workers, stabilizing families, addressing labor shortages for businesses, and potentially reducing program costs by $30 billion annually.

Benefit cliffs discourage work and trap families in long-term financial struggles. A new policy solution offers a way out.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the largest anti-poverty programs in the U.S., providing over 41 million Americans with critical food assistance in 2024. But for many recipients, a system designed to support often ends up trapping—with significant barriers known as benefit cliffs.

These cliffs occur when small increases in income result in recipients suddenly losing their SNAP assistance, leaving them in a worse financial position for working more hours or earning an income boost. For example, a single parent’s modest hourly raise might lead to a benefit cut that completely offsets their increased take-home pay.

The negative ripple effects extend far beyond individuals and households. Benefit cliffs reduce workforce participation and make it harder for plenty of small businesses and industries to find the workers they need to grow and serve customers.

A new proposal for reform, developed with research by Erik Randolph at the Georgia Center for Opportunity in collaboration with Angela Rachidi of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), offers a way to dismantle SNAP benefit cliffs and restore the program’s original mission—helping families achieve financial independence and stability.

A new SNAP reform report from American Enterprise Institute and Georgia Center for Opportunity shows how improve access to work and reduce costs to taxpayers.

SNAP’s design discourages career growth among recipients

SNAP is meant to help low-income families put food on the table. But the system unintentionally penalizes those who pursue better wages or career opportunities.

For many recipients, earning extra income—not just large raises but even modest increases as one gains skills or works more hours—means abruptly losing SNAP benefits altogether. Instead of slowly tapering down, benefits “fall off a cliff” as income rises.

This financial disincentive creates a dilemma for households relying on SNAP. While accepting additional shifts or applying for a higher-paying position could signify career growth, it may financially set them back without SNAP assistance offsetting basic expenses.

The economic impact is widespread. With fewer prime-age workers, employers encounter labor shortages, and their ability to operate efficiently is compromised. Workforce productivity also declines when workers are stuck in part-time, lower-skilled jobs rather than advancing to higher economic opportunities. The result is a cycle that makes it harder for families to break free from reliance on public assistance programs.

New SNAP reform proposals offer a way forward

Research by AEI and GCO outlines actionable steps to eliminate benefit cliffs while maintaining SNAP costs close to historical levels. These recommendations include changes to critical factors within the program’s structure to allow for a smoother, gradual reduction in benefits as income rises.

Key reforms involve adjusting the following elements of SNAP’s benefit system:

Adjust participants’ cost-sharing responsibilities. The proposed plan would reduce the benefit reduction rate from 30% to 18%, making it easier for families to transition off benefits.
Cost-sharing should begin as soon as income increases. Right now, deductions delay cost-sharing, which creates benefits cliffs when income limits run out. The new plan is a middle ground, starting benefit reductions earlier but at a lower rate. While it might lower benefits for many families, benefit cliffs are eliminated or reduced.

These structural adjustments effectively close the gap between earned income and benefit loss, removing financial penalties for participants who work more hours or accept higher-paying opportunities.

A win for workers, families, small businesses, and taxpayers

Simplifying and improving SNAP’s benefit structure solves major labor market challenges. For recipients, reforms encourage workforce participation and career advancement, empowering them to climb the economic ladder without fear of a financial setback.

For employers, these changes help restore a steady supply of available workers, addressing hiring difficulties in industries that rely on hourly, shift-based, or entry-level staff. Additionally, SNAP reform creates fiscal balance while allowing the government to save money long term—potentially reducing program expenses by 27% or $30 billion annually.

GCO continues to investigate ways to improve safety-net programs to help families escape poverty, and these recommendations for SNAP are an important piece of those efforts. Employment is one of the most reliable ways to break cycles of poverty, yet benefit cliffs trap too many families in stagnant economic conditions. Eliminating these barriers will strengthen the workforce, stabilize families, and create economic momentum that benefits us all.

Download the full report from American Enterprise Institute and Georgia Center for Opportunity here.

Report: Welfare a barrier to economic mobility for low-income workers

by David Bass | Sep 18, 2024

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

Report: Welfare a barrier to economic mobility for low-income workers

At a campaign stop in North Carolina last month, Vice President Kamala Harris suggested that efforts to combat price gouging are needed to help poor and middle-class households. But a new research report shows that government transfer benefits are contributing to the financial burdens and limitations of low-income households.

The report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity highlights how social safety-net programs, while providing a baseline of support, may inadvertently deter low-income workers from seeking higher-paying jobs due to the “benefits cliff.”

The report, titled “Workforce Engagement: A Missing Link in Understanding Income Inequality,” examines how programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and housing subsidies create barriers to long-term financial independence.

The benefits cliff occurs when a small increase in wages results in a significant reduction or loss of government benefits, leaving workers with a net loss in income. This phenomenon discourages individuals from pursuing career advancements and higher-paying jobs.

The report emphasizes that these safety-net benefits can create disincentives for the lowest-paid workers to move up the economic ladder. After adjusting for taxes and transfer payments, the bottom quintile has nearly the same net income as the second quintile, despite earning almost four times less. This is primarily due to the higher level of government support received by the former group.

Read the full article here

Why Focus More on Public Safety and Order? Kids Need More of It.

by David Bass | Sep 17, 2024

A new book, Doing Right by Kids, explores the impact that community violence has on children's opportunities for economic and social mobility.

Why Focus More on Public Safety and Order? Kids Need More of It.

Key Points

Community violence is one of the factors examined in a new book called “Doing Right by Kids,” which examines how we can improve relationships, institutions, and community environments to expand upward mobility among kids.
The book features a chapter from GCO’s director of criminal justice initatives, Josh Crawford, explaining how community violence affects kids and their futures. See an excerpt below.
“Doing Right by Kids” is a thoughtful, accessible guide to improving opportunities in the communities where children’s lives are formed. Get a copy of the book here.

Public safety and community violence are more critical now than they have ever been. With increasing societal tensions and the lingering effects of the pandemic, Americans—including Georgians—want to feel secure in their neighborhoods. The path to achieving this sense of security is clear: fund the police, hold violent offenders accountable, and ensure a fair and just system that doesn’t allow fear and lawlessness to prevail.

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, we believe that addressing public safety and community violence is essential for creating thriving communities. This belief is echoed in a new book, “Doing Right by Kids: Leveraging Social Capital and Innovation to Increase Opportunity,” which features a pivotal chapter by our very own Josh Crawford, GCO’s director of criminal justice initiatives.

In his chapter, Josh explores the significant impact of public safety and community violence on children and provides insightful solutions for rebuilding social capital and fostering safe environments.

Below is an excerpt from Josh’s chapter, “Kids and Community Violence: Costs, Consequences, and Solutions.” You can also read the full chapter here.

A new book, Doing Right by Kids, offers new ideas for improving upward mobility for disadvantaged kids.

When it comes to improving opportunities for kids, we need better ideas. Now they’re here.

Get your copy of Doing Right by Kids

A new book, Doing Right by Kids, offers new ideas for improving upward mobility for disadvantaged kids in America.

When it comes to improving opportunities for kids, we need better ideas. Now they’re here.
Get your copy of “Doing Right by Kids” today.

“Doing Right by Kids” Excerpt: Why Focus More on Public Safety and Public Order?

Walk into any suburban coffee shop in a low-crime neighborhood and look around. You’ll quickly notice the tables are populated by tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of laptops and smartphones, and designer purses sit on the floor. These items often go unguarded when patrons pick up their coffees or go to the bathroom. It’s the normal course of business in these establishments. No one fears these items will be stolen. There is an unconscious presupposition of public safety. This is what happens when the public order is upheld.

When this presumption of safety falls apart, however, people change their behavior. Following the expansion of remote work during the coronavirus pandemic, workers in New York City cited violence and crime as the primary reasons for not wanting to return to the office. Research on crime avoidance also finds that households will pay a premium to avoid violence. One 2011 study of families in the San Francisco Bay Area in California found that the average household was willing to pay $472 per year to avoid a 10 percent increase in violent crime.

The United States has had varying degrees of success in public safety over the years. In the modern context, violent crime peaked in the United States in 1991 with 758.1 instances per 100,000 people, an increase of more than 470 percent from 1960. Homicide, the most destructive and permanent of the violent offenses, peaked in 1980 at a rate of 10.2 per 100,000 residents and in 1991 with a rate of 9.8 per 100,000 residents; in 1960 the murder rate had been almost half that at 5.1 per 100,000 residents.

After 1991, as a result of a number of changes in policing, sentencing, and a wide array of other hotly debated factors, homicide and violent crime declined significantly in cities across the country (Figures 1 and 2). This decline continued until 2014, when the homicide rate reached 4.4 per 100,000 and the violent-crime rate was 379.4 per 100,000. While this was a huge improvement from the highs of 1991, the violent-crime rate in 2014 was still more than double the rate in 1960. It has trended in the wrong direction in recent years, with a jump in homicides in 2020.

Figure 1. US Homicide Rate per 100,000, 1960-2022

As of 2014, the violent crime rate was still more than double the rate in 1960.

Figure 2. US Violent-Crime Rate per 100,000, 1960-2022

US Violent Crime Rate Trend per 100,000 from 1960-2022.

While the long-run decline in crime is important, it is ultimately too reassuring because no one lives in “the nation.” Aggregated data erase important variations from state to state, city to city, and neighborhood to neighborhood. People live in communities, not the whole nation.

Despite these declines in violent crime often being disproportionately experienced in disadvantaged neighborhoods, violence continues to concentrate at the sub-city level. One study of gun violence in Boston, for example, found that these crimes were concentrated in less than five percent of one-block street segments and intersections. The “law of crime concentration” generally states that in large cities, about 50 percent of crime occurs in about five percent of street segments. Crime is even more concentrated in smaller cities, where, on average, between two and four percent of street segments are responsible for 50 percent of violence. These micro-communities lack the minimum levels of safety and order that are precursors for human flourishing, and the effects of their violence propagate beyond these few hot zones.

Philosopher and political theorist James Burnham observed:

Human beings must have at least a minimum security in life and property, must be able to move through the streets and between the cities, must accept certain common rules in their mutual intercourse, or civilization does not exist. If this necessary order is subverted, the civilization is destroyed, whether the subversion takes place from the best or worst of motives, whether or not it is in some supposedly moral sense justified, whether it is carried out by saints or devils. At some point the guardians of a civilization must be prepared to draw the line.

For far too many children, this kind of order has been inconsistent at best and nonexistent at worst. For children in these neighborhoods, violence is pervasive and affects them both directly and indirectly. Those directly affected are the youth that join criminal street gangs and become perpetrators, as well as those who are either victimized themselves or kin to victims. Those indirectly affected are those who neither become perpetrators nor victims but who contend with the persistent fear, stress, and isolation that comes with growing up in a community with high rates of violence.

Bridging the gap for America’s kids

Overall, “Doing Right By Kids” explores the truth that, while material hardship among American children is at an all-time low, upward mobility is still difficult for children in poor households and neighborhoods. Despite reduced hardship, children born to disadvantaged parents are still likely to grow up disadvantaged due to counterproductive policies within our safety net.

The belief that increased financial support alone will advance poor children is inadequate. While progressive strategies have fallen short, conservative skepticism towards government intervention has also neglected the needs of these children.

Truly supporting America’s kids requires focusing on the building blocks of healthy and fulfilling lives—from neighborhood environments to family life to educational opportunities. “Doing Right By Kids” offers innovative proposals to rebuild social capital by strengthening relationships and institutions for children and adolescents, advocating for experimental approaches to identify effective, scalable policies.

For policymakers, community leaders, parents, and concerned citizens, “Doing Right by Kids” is a thoughtful, accessible guide to learning more about what kids really need from us and our society in order to thrive.

Go here to get a copy and to share the book with neighbors and colleagues.

How safety-net benefits discourage low-income workers from escaping poverty

by David Bass | Aug 8, 2024

The proven building blocks of child development can empower communities to get involved in helping parents raise highly capable kids.

How safety-net benefits discourage low-income workers from escaping poverty

Key Points

A new research paper from GCO shows the ways social safety-net programs like food stamps and Medicaid provide critical support but also discourage career advancement.
The “benefits cliff” is a significant barrier, where earning more can mean losing benefits, deterring workers from seeking higher-paying jobs.
Government benefits can blur the true income disparity between low-income and middle-income households.
Policy reforms are needed to remove these barriers and encourage upward mobility.

At a time when income inequality and lack of economic mobility are hot topics, a report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity (GCO) sheds light on how our social safety-net system could be contributing to these trends.

Entitled “Workforce Engagement: A Missing Link in Understanding Income Inequality,” the report explores how government support unintentionally discourages low-income workers from escaping poverty. The report also presents actionable policy solutions to avoid that trap.

What Are Safety-Net Benefits?

Safety-net systems include programs like food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid, designed to provide financial assistance to those in need. While these programs are essential, they can inadvertently create barriers to long-term financial independence. This phenomenon is known as the “benefits cliff,” where individuals and families turn down career advancement opportunities to avoid losing government benefits.

The Source of Income Disparities

The GCO report reveals that government benefits often obscure the true income disparities between low-income and middle-income households.

When examining work-capable households, the unearned income from government benefits can paint a misleading picture of economic equality. Without these benefits, it’s clear that households in the lowest income quintile earn significantly less than their counterparts in higher income quintiles.

The report also highlights how these safety-net benefits can create disincentives for the lowest-paid workers to move up the economic ladder. For instance, after adjusting for taxes and transfer payments, the net income of households in the lowest quintile is almost equal to those in the second quintile, despite the latter earning nearly four times more.

This equalization is largely driven by government transfers, which provide significantly more support to the bottom quintile compared to the second quintile. This scenario leads to nearly identical average per capita net incomes between these groups.

The cover of the Worker Engagment report

Workforce Engagement

A Missing Link in Understanding Income Inequality

The compelling new report that examines the unintended consequences of our nation’s social safety-net system on low-wage workers.

Download the full report

Policy Recommendations

Understanding the dynamics of income inequality and the unintended consequences of social safety-net systems is crucial for fostering economic mobility and improving the quality of life for low-income workers.

To boost workforce engagement and reduce reliance on social safety nets, the report suggests several policy reforms:

Reducing Benefits Cliffs: Adjust thresholds for benefit eligibility to prevent sudden losses of support as income increases.
Work Incentives: Offer incentives for part-time workers to transition into full-time roles.
Education and Training: Provide better access to educational resources and vocational training programs.

GCO is dedicated to working within underserved communities to understand the realities of poverty and the public policies that perpetuate it. Our previous research, including on intergenerational poverty, underscores that America’s social safety net is designed to address situational poverty rather than systemic poverty.

Marriage Rates in Georgia Are Down. But Marriage Still Matters For Quality of Life and Upward Mobility.

by David Bass | Jun 27, 2024

Marriage rates in Georgia are down, which is a factor to watch for overall well-being.

Marriage Rates in Georgia Are Down. But Marriage Still Matters For Quality of Life and Upward Mobility.

Key Points

Georgia has seen a decline in marriage rates, mirroring a national trend. Only 30% of Georgians have been married at least once, and U.S. marriage rates have fallen by nearly 60% over the past 50 years.
Despite these trends, marriage remains a significant predictor of adult well-being, more so than education, race, age or gender. Married individuals often report higher happiness and satisfaction levels, and benefits include emotional stability, financial security, and social support.
We must address economic, education, and social safety-net barriers to marriage while creating a supporting environment that fosters marriage and family formation.

Recent reports, including a piece from Axios, have highlighted a concerning trend in Georgia—declining marriage rates.

According to data from the American Community Survey, only 30% of Georgians have been married at least once in their lives. This is indicative of a larger national trend: The marriage rate across the U.S. has fallen by nearly 60% over the past 50 years.

While societal pressures to marry have lessened and many young people doubt the benefits of marriage, this decline raises important questions about the impact on individual well-being and societal mobility.

Marriage rates in Georgia are a leading factor in quality of life

Helping people form healthy, committed relationships is a key pillar of the Georgia Center for Opportunity’s mission to help all Georgians flourish. Relationships are essential to well-being in general, but marriage has a particular impact on the quality of life and upward mobility for men, women, and children.

Quality of life

Marital status is one of the strongest predictors of adult well-being, surpassing other factors like education, race, age, and gender. According to the Institute for Family Studies and Gallup, married individuals often report higher levels of happiness and satisfaction compared to their unmarried peers. This isn’t just about companionship—marriage can provide emotional stability, financial security, and social support, all of which contribute to a better quality of life.

Upward mobility

Marriage also plays a critical role in economic mobility. Couples often benefit from dual incomes, shared resources, and consolidated expenses, making it easier to save and invest in the future. This financial stability can lead to better opportunities in terms of education, homeownership, and overall wealth accumulation. Essentially, marriage can act as a catalyst for achieving a higher economic status and breaking free from cycles of poverty.

Benefits for children

Children raised in two-parent, married families often experience greater stability and economic advantages, contributing significantly to their overall well-being. Additional research from the Institute for Family Studies shows that children who live in households with married parents experience more financially secure environments, less conflict, and more parental support.

Marital status is key factor in personal well-being and quality of life.

According to polling from Gallup, married people report higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. This is another indicator of how essential relationships are for personal well-being and quality of life.

Marital status is a key factor for personal well-being and quality of life.

Certain barriers in Georgia make marriage and its benefits hard to pursue

Despite marriage’s benefits, Georgia has several barriers that discourage marriage as a path to fulfilling relationships and flourishing lives. Educational challenges and a social safety net that frequently discourages marriage are a couple of significant roadblocks that can make it harder for people to pursue marriage.

Educational challenges

Educational attainment is another significant barrier. Those with higher levels of education are more likely to marry, but educational opportunities are not evenly distributed across the state. Addressing these disparities could encourage higher marriage rates and, consequently, greater upward mobility.

A social safety net that punishes marriage

Another significant barrier to marriage in Georgia is the “marriage penalty” embedded within many social safety net programs. The term refers to the phenomenon where low-income individuals or couples may actually lose financial benefits by getting married.

Programs such as Medicaid, housing assistance, and food stamps often have income thresholds that discourage marriage. When two low-income individuals marry, their combined income might exceed these thresholds, leading to a reduction or complete loss of benefits—creating a “benefits cliff.”

This financial disincentive can make marriage less appealing for low-income individuals who rely on these crucial programs to make ends meet. By losing access to necessary support, the economic stability that marriage can potentially offer is compromised, perpetuating a cycle where the cons outweigh the pros.

Addressing these safety-net barriers is essential for fostering an environment where marriage can thrive and contribute positively to individual and societal well-being.

The way forward

While the decline in marriage rates in Georgia is a complex issue influenced by various societal and economic factors, it’s essential to recognize the underlying benefits of marriage. Beyond the romantic ideals, marriage plays a pivotal role in enhancing quality of life and facilitating upward mobility.

To counteract the downward trend, it’s necessary to address the barriers that discourage marriage and create a more supportive environment for couples.