Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs

Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs

Shopping Cart in aisle

Solving the food stamp benefits cliffs

Many Americans rely on SNAP benefits to afford food, but these same individuals and families face a trap that keeps them mired in dependency. It’s called the SNAP benefits cliff. A new report from the Georgia Center for Opportunity analyzes some possible solutions for addressing the benefits cliffs still present in safety-net programs like SNAP. 

What are benefits cliffs?

A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in net income and benefits from governmental assistance programs than it gains from additional earnings. This net loss is a perverse incentive that undermines the natural desire to earn more income.

At an individual level—or in the case of SNAP, at a household level—the impact has to do with the ability of the individual or household to overcome the cliff. If the household can increase its earnings (and other income) sufficiently relative to the loss in benefits and taxes, the cliff will have no impact on that specific individual or household.

Who is hurt the most by benefits cliffs?

Our computational analysis shows that it is mathematically possible for some one-member households, where the individual is disabled or elderly, to overcome a benefits cliff with a pay raise of less than 5%. However, almost all other households will require percentage income increases in the double digits or worse.

Larger families, especially those without elderly or disabled members of the household, fare much worse. For example, a family of four (where a single mom is raising three kids, for example) would require a pay raise of between 37% and 121%, assuming the family doesn’t have housing costs. For larger households with disabled or elderly members, that pay raise ranged from 30% to 109%.

Snap Benefits paper cover

 Access the Report:

SOLVING THE FOOD ASSISTANCE (SNAP) BENEFITS CLIFFS

Our comprehensive report on the SNAP Benefits Cliffs outlines the pitfalls in the current structure of the program and steps that can be made at a federal, state, and agency level.

Running the numbers: the impact of benefits cliffs

A family of four would begin experiencing SNAP benefits cliffs when their household income exceeds $36,084. This family would lose around $462.42 in SNAP benefits each month. To overcome those lost benefits, that same family would need to earn $58,280 a year, a 61.5 percent increase in income.

What is the marriage penalty? 

Another example of benefits cliffs’ detrimental impacts lies in the marriage penalty. For instance, a couple choosing to marry would leave them worse off financially by getting married than by staying single. Instead, many couples decide to remain unmarried to avoid the financial burden of the marriage penalty. 

SNAP benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the SNAP maximum allotments were raised significantly—between 45% and 51%. The Thrifty Food Plan was recalculated by the USDA, which impacted these increases. However, SNAP’s current benefits cliffs are at a 20-year high and may be the highest they’ve ever been. 

The situation is getting worse

Setting aside COVID-19 and the emergency allotment program, SNAP benefits cliffs are getting worse and, based on twenty years of data, have never been higher. This was not always the trend. The benefits cliffs cycled up to a high in 2009, slowly came down, and then leveled off for a few years. However, since the pandemic, they have all shot up to record highs.

Policy goals for improvement

We recommend approaching change from a policy perspective, and engaging Congress and the states to solve the problems with SNAP’s benefits cliffs. 

As a public policy goal, it would make sense to design a safety-net assistance program in such a manner that it minimizes potential cliffs for most cases. We believe that it should be relatively easy for individuals and households to overcome benefits cliffs by earning additional income. 

Our recommendations include: 

  • Limiting how long future emergency allotment programs last 
  • Requiring the USDA to recalculate the Thrifty Food Plan
  • Permanently eliminating benefits cliffs that a typical pay raise can’t mitigate
  • Implementing strategies to prevent marriage penalties 
  • Amending U.S. code to test potential solutions via demonstration projects
  • Opening the floor for the Secretary of Agriculture to work with states to solve benefits cliffs
  • Allowing states to conduct §2026 demonstration projects

 

Benefits Cliffs in the Aggregate: Consequences for Welfare and Business Cycles

Benefits Cliffs in the Aggregate: Consequences for Welfare and Business Cycles

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

Benefits Cliffs in the Aggregate: Consequences for Welfare and Business Cycles

Benefits cliffs – sudden decreases in public benefits that may occur with a small increase in earnings – may inhibit upward mobility. I study the effect of a multitude of cliffs across the universe of benefit programs in nine southern US states on intensive-margin labor supply and the implications for aggregate fluctuations. Using the American Community Survey and proprietary data from the Georgia Center for Opportunity covering nine southern US states, I leverage geographic and household-structure variation to find that, in aggregate, individuals in households approaching benefits cliffs reduce their working hours by about 40 hours annually. I then build a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model that matches this result, where a key assumption of inframarginal households allows me to accurately capture the benefits cliffs of the US tax and transfer system. I find the aggregate implications of benefits cliffs on output are small, but welfare gains from their elimination are large and concentrated. In a counterfactual model that smooths over benefit cliffs, output increases about 1.6% more on impact in response to an aggregate productivity shock compared to the baseline model with benefits cliffs, but the welfare gain to formally-constrained households doubles.

 

Read the full article

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

Best practices for reducing crime can empower California to build safer communities through policy.

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

Key Points

  • Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills that give federal agencies and services the approval and funding necessary to operate. 
  • Government shutdowns and political wrangling distract from the real issues facing the poor and delay much-needed safety net reforms that would help people move out of government dependency.
  • There are bipartisan solutions Congress can act on to better serve low-income and marginalized communities.

Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills that give federal agencies and services the necessary funding to operate. Without this approval, agencies must pause all non-essential activity until Congress takes action. Threats of government shutdowns often go hand-in-hand with political conflicts among federal leaders. When this dynamic takes hold in D.C., government shutdowns become, at best, a distraction from the real issues facing the poor and, at worst, a roadblock to efforts to move people out of government dependency.

What Happens During a Government Shutdown?

During a government shutdown, several disruptions happen:  

  • Many federal employees are temporarily out of a job. They are instructed not to show up to work and aren’t paid during the shutdown window, though they typically receive back-pay once a shutdown ends.
  • Essential government employees, such as military, air traffic control, and TSA, are expected to keep working without pay. 
  • Americans may experience delays in government-administered processes, such as permits and passports.
  • Benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and most other need-based programs still go out, but shutdowns often lead to furloughs or reduced staffing levels in federal agencies responsible for administering these programs. As a result, beneficiaries may experience longer processing times for applications, appeals, and inquiries. 
  • Nutrition programs, including SNAP and WIC, are the most at-risk from a government shutdown, with WIC being immediately impacted upon a shutdown (though benefits may still continue for some days) and SNAP having about a month of funding available after a shutdown.

Government Shutdowns and Safety Net Programs 

For many Americans who currently need assistance from programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), and Social Security, a government shutdown can be a fearful prospect. The worry of losing essential benefits and facing greater financial hardship can take a significant toll on individuals and families in low-income households and communities. 

The good news for these Americans is that need-based services are typically the last area to be affected and the first to receive any additional approved funding, and government shutdowns would have to go on for a long time—longer than the current record of 34 days—before beneficiaries notice any change in financial assistance. The biggest hurdle is that agencies may be slower to respond to applications, inquiries, and other administrative needs. 

Government Shutdowns Prolong the Suffering of Low-Income, Marginalized Communities

Government shutdowns can generate consequences and inconveniences across the country, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone bears the brunt of a government shutdown equally. 

A government shutdown may not cut off food stamps, social security, or other safety net benefits immediately. However, low-income and vulnerable communities still suffer because their struggles get lost in the midst of political conflicts. The impending shutdown is brewing because political wrangling and polarization continue to distract federal leaders from addressing real problems and broken safety net systems.

There Are Solutions Congress Can Act On to Create Better Pathways Out of Poverty

To better serve people living on the margins, federal lawmakers must stop avoiding the reality that the design of our safety net is a barrier, not a bridge, to opportunity. 

In the current system, recipients are forced to navigate multiple, disconnected programs, eligibility requirements, and caseworkers—a maze that becomes a trap for welfare dependence instead of a secure path out of poverty. Government shutdowns can certainly add to this tediousness and complexity, but there’s a bigger question looming in the background: How do we design our safety net system so that it  actually helps Americans become more self-sufficient and regain hope and dignity along the way? 

There are solutions Congress can implement.

Expanding the One Door Model to Bridge Welfare and Work 

The One Door Model does away with disconnected programs and integrates human services with work support so that beneficiaries who are capable of working have a clear, supportive, and accessible path to personal well-being and meaningful jobs.

This reform improves safety net services by: 

  • Streamlining programs and making the system easier for recipients to navigate.
  • Building a bridge to work, training, and education to promote self-sufficiency over dependency. 
  • Providing cost savings for federal and state budgets.

 

One Door To Opportunity

The purpose and direction of our safety net programs are to help and not hinder opportunity. We must build a system that provides one door to access opportunities leading to thriving. This is a dramatic change in how we deliver help to those in need.

One Door To Opportunity

The purpose and direction of our safety net programs are to help and not hinder opportunity. We must build a system that provides one door to access opportunities leading to thriving. This is a dramatic change in how we deliver help to those in need.

The first and only state to adopt this approach is Utah, where it has changed the lives of thousands—everyone from single mothers to ex-offenders seeking a fresh start. The One Door Model is a fix all states could implement…if Congress would allow them. Under the current federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), states are blocked from adopting the reform. Congress could change this simply by revising WIOA. 

Removing the Barrier of Benefits Cliffs 

All safety net programs suffer from a benefits cliffs problem. A benefits cliff is when an individual, family, or household loses more in benefits from government assistance programs than it gains from additional earned income.

When a person experiences a benefits cliff, they are thrust into serious difficulties: loss of housing, going hungry, fearing that their children will be taken by Child Protective Services, and more. While most people don’t want to depend on government assistance long-term, a higher wage often doesn’t offset the vulnerabilities created by a sudden, steep loss of benefits.

The One Door Model, work requirements, and other welfare-to-work solutions can encourage more people toward employment and independence, but this approach isn’t a full solution. As long as benefits cliffs exist in the safety net, people will face a significant barrier that incentivizes them to choose government dependency. Reforms are needed at both the federal and state levels to empower more households to overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises so that they can achieve self-sufficiency more quickly and securely. 

Knowing that practical, life-changing solutions are out there, we can look at government shutdown debates in a different light and ask: What are the political games in DC costing communities? For millions of Americans, the tragic answer is that it’s costing them the chance  for a more fulfilled, self-sufficient life as long as federal leaders devote energy to political distractions instead of bipartisan opportunities to fix our broken safety net system. 

Benefits Cliffs in the Aggregate: Consequences for Welfare and Business Cycles

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

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

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

Missouri lawmakers took an important step forward for working-class and impoverished residents this year by enacting Senate Bill 82. This new law will help more Missourians escape from an entrapping safety-net system and experience the dignity and opportunity of work.

On paper, our safety-net programs in Missouri are intended to help people avoid abject poverty and meet their basic needs. These programs should be temporary whenever possible and encourage work and independence, because ultimately what we want for people is stability and mobility. The sad reality, however, is that many of the programs include a hidden time bomb that threatens the very individuals they are intended to help.

For those receiving safety-net benefits — especially SNAP, child care assistance, and Medicaid — there can be a sudden, steep loss of government assistance as a worker’s income increases. This often results in a loss in benefits that far exceeds the additional pay from a raise a worker receives. These unintended consequences of the benefits cliff can be devastating, trapping individuals and families in a perpetual cycle of poverty. It is high time we address this issue and strive for a more sustainable and supportive system.

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

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

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

Imagine you’re offered a raise that, if accepted, would actually make your family worse off.

This is the experience of some families in poverty when they hit something called the benefits cliff. This “cliff effect” is triggered when a family’s increase in earned income prompts a disproportionately larger decrease in the benefits they receive through federally funded public assistance programs.

This week’s guest is Kelsey Underwood, vice president of strategy and product for the Georgia Center for Opportunity. She joins the show to discuss how the benefits cliff can disincentivize work, negatively impacting families struggling to escape poverty. She also touches on GCO’s efforts in various states to clear obstacles to upward mobility for impoverished Americans. The discussion centers around the dignity of work that fosters upward mobility and identifies resources available to policymakers and business leaders to help address the issue.

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

State’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution

Media statement, in the news, Georgia news, ga news

State’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled late last week that the state’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution. As the Institute for Justice reports, “The licensure law would have required even experienced lactation care providers to become International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), involving two years of college courses, 300+ hours of clinical work, and an expensive exam. This would have made state licensure unattainable for many.”

The Georgia Center for Opportunity’s (GCO) take: “Bottom line, the Georgia Supreme Court made the right call here,” said Eric Cochling, chief program officer and general counsel for GCO. “Occupational licensing is needed in some industries and job categories due to public health and safety concerns, but the laws on the books today in many cases are an unnecessary roadblock to employment for workers. When you add the cost of becoming certified as a lactation consultant to the fact that there is virtually no discernable benefit to public safety or health from imposing the new restrictions, the Supreme Court’s decision is clearly the right one in this case. As our state and nation continue to face a shortage of skilled and qualified workers in a variety of occupations, it’s important that government not throw up unnecessary roadblocks. Unfortunately, occupational licenses are frequently one of them.”