Researchers diverge on whether tougher SNAP work requirements improve employment

Two academic witnesses at the House Agriculture Committee hearing presented contrasting summaries of the evidence on SNAP work requirements and their effects on employment.

Dr. Angela Rachidi told the committee that SNAP has expanded in recent years and that program design can create “work disincentives,” especially where beneficiaries face “benefit cliffs” that eliminate the financial gains from extra earnings. She described how states may waive ABOD (able‑bodied adults without dependents) time limits under current USDA rules even when local unemployment is relatively low and recommended tightening waiver criteria and smoothing benefit phase‑outs. Rachidi said, “Losing a large share of new earnings to benefit losses can be demoralizing for families seeking to improve their employment situation.”

Dr. Diane Schanzenbach, a labor economist at Northwestern University, summarized newer administrative‑data studies and argued that increased mandatory ABOD work requirements have not produced clear improvements in employment or earnings. Schanzenbach told members that work requirements “substantially reduce the likelihood that an individual receives SNAP” and cautioned that many affected individuals face barriers to sustained work—including low skills, unstable hours, health problems and transportation—that the work test does not address.

Both researchers agreed on the importance of voluntary, high‑quality training and support services. Schanzenbach emphasized that SNAP can help people “get back on their feet” and that E&T slots remain limited in many states. Rachidi recommended specific formula‑level tweaks to reduce cliff effects and suggested regulatory changes to waiver criteria would better target requirements to local labor market conditions.

The policy implications are procedural: changing waiver thresholds, redesigning benefit tapering to reduce benefit cliffs, and expanding funding for evidence‑based E&T services were presented as alternatives to broadening mandatory time limits.