Relief through cash transfers that do nothing but engender idleness and subsidize misery isn’t the answer.
T he recent budget bill trims the rolls of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by around 3.2 million participants. This is a substantial cut to a major program, with a 41.7 million total enrollment figure that dwarfs the 2 million recipients of the much more restrictive “cash welfare” or TANF program.
The legislation strengthens SNAP work requirements by age and parental status, stops faster-than-inflation benefits growth, and implements a new payment structure designed to penalize states with high payment error rates, resulting in stricter eligibility enforcement.
So how does civil society feel about this return of responsibility from the state to private philanthropy?
Some lament it. The advocacy arm of the nation’s largest food bank network, Feeding America, decries the loss of “up to 9 billion meals.” They assert the work requirements are “red tape” ensnaring people who are diligently laboring to make ends meet. They illustrate this claim with a 2022 testimonial featuring a dual-income, college educated family struggling to keep food on the table.
Other charity leaders, based on their firsthand observations of the status quo’s failure, take a diametrically opposite view.
For instance, Jon Barrett, Executive Director of Conestoga Valley Christian Community Services: “The lack of work requirements has made a huge difference in the lives of our clients. It has crushed dignity and has increased depression while encouraging dependence on government. We have seen that this keeps people in a destructive cycle of dependency and they rarely if ever move out of a life of constant ‘relief and struggle.’”
Or consider this perspective, shared with me by a housing program manager in Pennsylvania, “We find our families are too comfortable receiving entitlement benefits and hoping subsidized or public housing will come through for them. They are reporting depression in large numbers. The families are sleeping all day and still reporting they are tired. There is a palpable lack of dignity and self-worth from the families we serve who are not doing any meaningful activity. When our case managers encourage our families to find employment or pursue education, the response is ‘Why?’”
Their jarring observations broadly represent our national network of 250+ organizations, all of whom have far smaller budgets than Feeding America’s annual revenue of $5 billion. At face value, they should join the lament over a reduction in government involvement because they will be harder pressed to meet an uptick in demand for services.
So why the mixed opinion among private charities whose anecdotes better reflect reality?
The divergent reactions tend to revolve around the type of programs organizations provide, i.e., are they root cause or symptom oriented? If it’s the latter, any reduction in provision of basic needs like food or utility payments is seen as a loss.
On the contrary, the most effective charities, while acknowledging that symptoms sometimes require alleviation, keep their eye on the root causes of poverty. Causes typically stem from some combination of insufficient social networks, opportunities, skills, knowledge, and motivation.
Those approaches don’t deny structural barriers and bad breaks can be a factor. But they observe that even where they exist, personal agency is a huge part of the solution. Further, charities that focus on empowerment believe giving with no expectation of growth or contribution send the cruel message to the poor that they have nothing of value to offer.
Beyond the anecdotes, the numbers substantiate unrealized potential of many federal program recipients. According to the USDA, 72 percent of working age SNAP recipients without dependents and disabilities were not working at the time of the interview. Sixty-eight percent did not earn a single dollar from employment in the month they were interviewed. That’s an astonishing statistic when one recalls that they have no children to occupy their time and access to an earned income tax credit that would subsidize their work.
Furthermore, these roughly 3 million people aren’t merely “underemployed.” At least in the month of their survey, they were doing no paid work. In other words, if they had used a gig service to walk just one dog or mow one lawn, they would be counted among the workers. To be sure, some of them may earn income they conceal, but that hardly justifies taxpayer subsidy.
Why focus on that demographic as evidence the program needs reform? Because it’s the group currently subjected to the most stringent time limits and work requirements. Sadly, the myriad loopholes and enforcement failures that led to this sorry state affect the other demographics to an even greater degree.
As any seasoned charity worker will tell you, not every parent with a ten-year-old in school is incapable of working. Ditto for everyone who has filed a disability claim for back pain. Granted, many of them have traveled genuinely difficult paths to their current state. But relief through cash transfers that do nothing but engender idleness and subsidize misery isn’t the answer. They need charity that sees them not merely as objects of pity but subjects with capacity who require encouragement rather than perverse incentives.
The best charities consider that task their calling — and this bill brings Uncle Sam a little more in line with their perspective.