Paperwork Over People: Why Republican “Work Requirements” Fail Families

key takeaway

Republican budget proposals would impose harsh and ineffective “work requirements” that restrict access to health care, food, and other necessities for millions of Americans. These “work requirements” are just paperwork barriers, not solutions. Federal policymakers should reject them.

All Californians, no matter their race, gender, or zip code, deserve to have affordable health care, housing, food, and other necessities that allow them to thrive in their communities. But Republican federal budget proposals would pave the way for deep and harmful cuts that would take health coverage, nutrition assistance, and other essentials away from millions of Californians struggling to make ends meet due to persistently high inflation and the state’s long-standing housing affordability crisis. These cuts would increase poverty and widen racial and ethnic inequities in exchange for funding huge tax giveaways for the wealthy.

One way Republican leaders may implement this deeply inequitable agenda is by making access to vital services contingent upon complying with rigid “work requirements” — rules that require regular documentation of work hours. Such proposals are ineffective, punitive, counterproductive, and a waste of federal funds. Research shows that these requirements don’t meaningfully or sustainably increase employment or earnings. Instead, they take health care, food, and other vital resources away from families and individuals in need — disproportionately Black people and other people of color — by adding unnecessary paperwork and work reporting hurdles to receive the support they need. “Work requirements” — more accurately, paperwork or work reporting requirements — increase hardship and make it even more challenging to maintain or find jobs. Policymakers should reject all proposals to impose work reporting requirements, recognizing them for what they are — harmful cuts that threaten the health and well-being of the communities they represent.

what are “work requirements?”

“Work requirements” — more accurately, paperwork or work reporting requirements — withhold essential services and support unless individuals can regularly document time spent working or engaged in certain activities, or else prove they are exempt from these requirements. These rigid reporting rules often trip people up on red tape, causing them to lose access to health care, food, and other essential human needs that they are otherwise eligible for and that all people deserve. To refer to these rules, this report interchangeably uses the term “work reporting requirements” and the more common term “work requirements” (in quotations to indicate that such requirements largely impose paperwork burdens).

“Work Requirements” Are Unnecessary, Ineffective, Punitive, Counterproductive, and a Waste of Money

Republican-led proposals to impose new or harsher work reporting requirements are simply harmful cuts by another name. Rather than fostering economic mobility as proponents claim, these requirements threaten to push families and individuals deeper into poverty by withholding health care, food assistance, and other vital support. This report makes clear that “work requirements” are:

Unnecessary. Most people who are likely to be targets of such requirements already do work for pay, while the remainder are engaged in valuable — but unpaid — caregiving work, attending school to improve their employment prospects, or are ill, disabled, retired, or between jobs.
Ineffective. They fail to meaningfully or sustainably increase employment or earnings. Instead, their main effect is to take vital assistance away from people in need. Consequently, they have little to no effect on economic mobility, and may even drive some families and individuals deeper into poverty.
Punitive. Forcing workers to regularly document work hours increases administrative bureaucracy and often trips people up on red tape, causing them to lose access to vital benefits. Complying with these onerous requirements can be especially difficult for workers paid low wages who lack control over fluctuating work hours or have employers who are unwilling to verify their employment.
Counterproductive. They fail to address the fundamental barriers that prevent so many people from meeting basic needs, including a racially discriminatory labor market rife with low-paying jobs and the lack of affordable child care that is necessary to work. Plus, taking away people’s health care or ability to afford food only makes it harder for them to maintain employment and make ends meet.
A waste of money. Implementing and enforcing “work requirements” is costly and wastes funds that would be far better spent on services and supports that actually improve the lives of all people.

Research Shows that “Work Requirements” Simply Don’t Work

“Work requirements” are already part of several social safety net programs, but research into those policies has consistently shown that they do not increase employment opportunities in the long run or decrease “program dependence.” Instead, these policies lead to participants being pushed out of programs and are tied to increases in deep poverty. Specifically, research finds that “work requirements:”

Don’t meaningfully or sustainably increase employment or earnings.

Several studies have documented that employment gains when work reporting requirements are imposed are modest and do not have long-lasting effects. A 2015 in-depth review of the impact of public programs that provide assistance to families with low incomes noted that typical increases due to “work requirements” ranged from $300 to $600 in a year, but the effect quickly faded out. This earnings increase amounts to about one additional hour of work per week at the federal minimum wage, low enough to not impact labor decisions. Another review of the welfare reform shift in the 1990s toward “work requirements” found that recipients had documented flat earning trajectories due to the sporadic employment spells common for low-wage work. This shows that work reporting requirements may be successful in pushing some people to find paid work quickly to keep assistance, but without addressing the quality of jobs or the barriers to employment responsible for people not being able to work in the first place, these gains were quickly eroded. Furthermore, research shows that work reporting requirements do not lead to any employment gains for people with significant barriers. Most recipients who do not work simply cannot work.

Cause people to lose access to vital assistance.

Research also shows that while work reporting requirements do not sustainably increase employment and earnings, they lead to reductions in program participation by screening out people in need. A recent study found a 53 percent overall reduction in program participation among adults who are subject to “work requirements,” with homeless adults disproportionately affected. Work reporting requirement policies require categorizing participants into those who can and can’t work, an imperfect process that leaves people at the margin at risk of losing out the most due to inequitable treatment and bias. Additionally, documented race and gender discrimination in the labor market adds another barrier to sustainable employment, pushing people off assistance through no fault of their own.

Fail to address the root causes of poverty and, particularly, deep poverty.

The premise of “work requirements” has shifted the purpose of safety net programs and, therefore, the target population. Tying assistance to jobs means that aid is more likely to be provided to people who are in moderate poverty, taking away aid from the poorest households. A longitudinal study of “work requirement” implementation showed that overall deep poverty increased in some communities as a result of this shift. Work reporting requirements don’t address the fundamental problems making it difficult for families and individuals to make ends meet – that many jobs fail to pay enough to cover the cost of living; and that women, people of color, and other marginalized Californians face barriers to good jobs, including discrimination and the lack of affordable child care. Approaches that prioritize human capital investments, such as job training and educational programs, have a longer-term impact on labor and earnings and ultimately pay for themselves.

Adding More Hurdles for Accessing Medicaid Would Harm People’s Health and the Economy

Medi-Cal is California’s Medicaid program that provides free or low-cost health care to over one-third of the state’s population. The program serves individuals with modest incomes, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and pregnant individuals. Medi-Cal is a lifeline for millions, ensuring access to essential health services that support public health and economic stability.

Medi-Cal coverage is essential to building and sustaining a stable workforce in California, especially because many low-wage jobs do not offer employer-sponsored health insurance and do not pay enough for people to afford coverage through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act. Ensuring access to Medi-Cal not only promotes individual health but also strengthens the state’s economy by supporting worker productivity.

Despite the critical role Medi-Cal plays, Congressional Republicans and the Trump administration have pushed for Medicaid “work requirements,” a policy that would make it harder for people to stay covered by tying health insurance to employment. Medicaid work reporting requirements are essentially cuts that would cause significant health coverage losses. Such proposals would require Medicaid beneficiaries to prove they are working, looking for work, or participating in job training programs in order to maintain coverage. Imposing such requirements in Medicaid would be:

Unnecessary: Most Medicaid enrollees under age 65 are already working (for pay). In California, over 3 in 5 adults work full-time or part-time (for pay). Among those who are not employed for pay, many are providing unpaid care for family members — an essential form of labor that sustains families and communities, yet is often overlooked by work reporting requirements. Others are managing illness or disability, or are enrolled in school.
Ineffective: Research consistently shows work reporting requirements are an ineffective policy tool that fail to increase employment. Instead, they create bureaucratic hurdles that cause people to drop off Medicaid — particularly people with disabilities, caregivers, and those working in unstable or low-wage jobs. Many enrollees who meet the work criteria still risk losing coverage due to administrative barriers, such as difficulty completing complex paperwork, missing deadlines, or lacking the necessary documents to prove eligibility.
Punitive: If implemented, “work requirements” would put over 8 million people in California at risk of losing their health coverage. (See this resource for details on the impact by congressional district.) Health coverage losses on this scale would have devastating effects on people’s health and economic security as well as the broader economy.
Counterproductive: Without coverage, people would struggle to see doctors, get medications, and access preventive care, leading to more severe health problems and even medical debt. At the same time, hospitals and clinics, especially in low-income and rural areas, would face higher costs for unpaid care, putting financial strain on local health systems. Imposing “work requirements” would also make it harder for people to maintain employment, particularly people with chronic illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease, who need regular access to health care to manage their conditions.
A Waste of Money: Implementing and enforcing work reporting requirements in Medicaid would be costly. The Government Accountability Office estimates that administrative costs can range from millions to hundreds of millions per state. These funds would be better spent on improving access to health care services in Medi-Cal rather than on unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that take health coverage away.

“Work requirements” undermine the very purpose of Medicaid: it is health insurance, not a jobs program.

Imposing Harsher Time Limits in SNAP/CalFresh Would Cut Benefits for Many and Increase Hunger

CalFresh, California’s name for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), provides program participants with modest monthly noncash benefits to buy food and is the state’s most powerful tool to fight hunger. At the federal level, SNAP requires participants between the ages of 18 and 54 who do not qualify for limited exemptions to meet work reporting requirements in order to receive aid beyond a very limited window of time. In effect, this policy imposes a harsh time limit on access to SNAP that pushes participants off benefits after three months.

Despite the extensive body of research showing that “work requirements” take food away from those who need it and do not have lasting effects on employment, Republican leaders continue to push forward proposals to expand already rigid time limits enforced through work reporting requirements for SNAP recipients. Recent proposals for harsher time limits would specifically target older adults, people experiencing homelessness, foster youth who have aged out of the system, and veterans, increasing hardship among these communities who already face disproportionate challenges to meet work reporting requirements and struggle to make ends meet. “Work requirements” for SNAP are a failed experiment that have proven to be:

Unnecessary: The majority of SNAP recipients who can work already do. Over 3 in 4 adults who participated in CalFresh in a given month had recent paid employment. Those who cannot work are limited by significant barriers to employment, such as disability or macroeconomic conditions outside their control, like a lack of job opportunities. Additionally, many recipients who did not have paid employment reported having unpaid caretaking responsibilities that prevented them from working in a traditional setting, highlighting the limitations of work reporting requirement policies in recognizing essential unpaid labor.
Ineffective: Work reporting requirements do not increase work participation, they just increase hunger. Research has extensively shown that work reporting requirements create barriers that ultimately take away critical assistance from people in need. This is especially true for people experiencing homelessness and people with disabilities.
Punitive: Proposals to impose harsher time limits via “work requirements” and limit key exemptions are grounded on the false narrative that people should earn the right to eat. Many SNAP recipients have low-wage and unstable jobs that are characterized by irregular schedules. This type of precarious work means that sometimes people may not be able to meet specific work hour requirements if their hours are cut or they miss work due to illness. Work reporting requirements punish recipients for not having quality jobs with predictable hours and benefits, without addressing the root causes of these issues.
Counterproductive: Food assistance is a key support for people to work and contribute to their communities. Being well-fed and having access to adequate nutrition is essential to staying healthy, reducing the risk of chronic illness, and increasing academic achievement and labor productivity. SNAP benefits also provide significant economic benefits to local economies, with each dollar in benefits generating a $1.54 return and helping fund jobs, as well as helping to reduce poverty. Harsher time limits would diminish the effectiveness of one of the strongest antipoverty programs and have long-term economic consequences for everyone.

Rejecting the expansion of already stringent SNAP time limits is necessary to ensure low-income families will continue to be able to access the healthy food they need.

False Narratives Rooted in Racism and Sexism Are Used to Justify “Work Requirements” and Only Further Entrench Inequities
The Evidence Is Clear: “Work Requirements” Are a Failed Experiment

False Narratives Rooted in Racism and Sexism Are Used to Justify “Work Requirements” and Only Further Entrench Inequities

Policymakers have long justified the need for “work requirements” based on false narratives rooted in racism and sexism, including the belief that people are not inherently deserving of support because deservedness must be earned through paid labor. This idea can be traced back to slavery — “the original work requirement” — where it was used to “justify a racialized system exploiting the labor of Black families.” For centuries, it has perpetuated the notion that unpaid caregiving work for one’s own family is not “real work,” despite its importance to society, contributing to the “persistent denigration of care work performed by women, especially women of color.” Today, the belief that people’s worth comes from paid work has become deeply embedded in social policies, inflicting broad harm by justifying the withholding of vital resources from families and individuals with low incomes. The end result is to further entrench existing inequities in poverty and hardship, as research finds that Black and Latinx people are at greater risk of having food assistance and other benefits taken away as a result of these policies.

The Evidence Is Clear: “Work Requirements” Are a Failed Experiment

Evidence from two programs that provide work-based cash assistance makes clear that “work requirements,” while touted as a way to encourage “self-sufficiency,” often exacerbate poverty rather than alleviate it. In the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, the rigid demands for documented employment or work-related activities, often without access to necessary support systems, leave many parents in low-wage, unstable jobs that are not enough to lift them out of poverty. By contrast, the recent expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) to families with minimal earned income had the opposite effect. This policy change contributed to a historic drop in child poverty. These two contrasting policy approaches highlight how “work requirements,” rather than fostering economic mobility, serve as a barrier to escaping poverty, making clear they are a failed experiment.

Imposing “Work Requirements” Locks TANF Participants Into a Cycle of Poverty

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, or TANF as it’s known federally, helps support families with children with the lowest incomes, who are predominantly people of color, with modest cash grants, employment assistance, and critical supportive services. Since its inception, the primary goal of TANF has been to quickly push people into paid employment via punitive “welfare to work” training and employment requirements instead of addressing the root causes of poverty. The emphasis on “work requirements” has inhibited the program from truly lifting families out of poverty.

For many families, receiving cash assistance is conditional on narrowly defined work reporting requirements. Families who are not able to comply with all the requirements set forth by the state can be subject to a financial sanction that reduces their monthly cash grant, pushing them deeper into poverty. CalWORKs participants face significant barriers to employment and personal well-being due to limited education and disproportionate levels of poor mental health, domestic abuse, and substance use disorder. Program participants are also significantly put at a disadvantage because of who they are in an economy that discriminates against parents, women, and people of color.

Punitive “work requirements” do not improve long-term employment opportunities for CalWORKs recipients but make them subject to harsh sanctions, taking away assistance that barely puts families over the deep poverty threshold, or pushing them into jobs similar to the ones they lost, leading up to their TANF participation, creating an ineffective cycle of moving people between low-wage unstable employment and CalWORKs benefits. Investments into a holistic approach that addresses barriers to employment, as California has moved toward in recent years, and recognizes the value of unpaid caregiving work will have a more meaningful impact on poverty reduction than ineffective and costly “work requirements.”

Ending the Child Tax Credit’s “Work Requirement” Contributed to An Historic Drop in Child Poverty

Evidence from recent temporary changes to the federal Child Tax Credit suggests that children, families, and our broader society stand to benefit significantly when rules that make financial support contingent upon earnings or work are eliminated.

The federal Child Tax Credit supports childrens’ health, well-being, and development by helping families pay for child-related expenses, like food, diapers, and school supplies. Historically, however, families with the lowest earnings from work have been blocked from the full credit. This rule — essentially a “work requirement” — excludes about 2 million children living in low-income families in California from vital support.

In 2021, federal policymakers temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit and ended its “work requirement,” allowing families with low earnings from work to receive the full credit for the first time in its history. This change contributed to a dramatic reduction in child poverty. The US child poverty rate fell to an historic low and California’s child poverty rate dropped by more than 40%. The improved credit was also associated with substantial reductions in racial income inequities, particularly among families with very low incomes, and with declines in food insufficiency and food insecurity. This suggests that increasing low-income families’ access to the full credit improved child and family well-being — improvements that researchers believe could also produce broader benefits to society, if sustained, given the high costs associated with childhood poverty.

Policymakers Should Reject Proposals to Impose “Work Requirements” that Just Add Bureaucratic Burdens

As Republicans in Congress push to make it more difficult for Californians to access health care, nutrition assistance, and other anti-poverty programs, it’s important to call these what they are: harmful bureaucratic burdens. Rather than fostering economic mobility, these layers of paperwork threaten to take away health care, food, and other essentials that all people need to thrive. These Republican proposals fail to improve affordability and, combined with the proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, will only deepen inequality across the country. Policymakers should reject these proposals, recognizing them for what they are — harmful cuts that jeopardize the health and well-being of the communities they represent.

Paperwork Over People: Why Republican “Work Requirements” Fail Families

key takeaway

what are “work requirements?”

“Work Requirements” Are Unnecessary, Ineffective, Punitive, Counterproductive, and a Waste of Money

Research Shows that “Work Requirements” Simply Don’t Work

Adding More Hurdles for Accessing Medicaid Would Harm People’s Health and the Economy

Imposing Harsher Time Limits in SNAP/CalFresh Would Cut Benefits for Many and Increase Hunger

Policymakers Should Reject Proposals to Impose “Work Requirements” that Just Add Bureaucratic Burdens

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Republican-Proposed CalFresh Cuts Put Millions of Californians at Risk of Hunger

Women of Color Need Health Care Investments, Not Cuts

Stay in the know.