Table of Contents

• What are welfare work requirements?
• What are the new work requirements for Medicaid?
• What are the current Medicaid work requirements in Ģ����Ƶ?
• What are the new work requirements for SNAP (food stamps)?
• What are the pros and cons of work requirements?
• What else can policymakers do?

Big changes are in process for some recipients of and (SNAP or food stamps) benefits and for the state governments that administer the programs. 

Medicaid is the nation’s largest safety net (government assistance or benefits, public assistance, or welfare) program. It helps cover medical costs for families with limited incomes, older adults, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Recent data shows that about 71 million Americans are enrolled in Medicaid.

SNAP, the second largest government assistance program, helps low-income families buy food. Around 42 million Americans currently rely on SNAP benefits.

With the passage of the (OBBB) in July 2025, more recipients of Medicaid and SNAP benefits will have to work or engage in other qualifying activities to receive the vital support they need. 

With the new work requirements, lawmakers aim to encourage people who can work to join the workforce and ultimately lift themselves and their families out of poverty. But for the requirements to have the desired impact, both state governments and beneficiaries will have to figure out how to successfully navigate the updated programs. Challenges lie ahead for everyone involved.

What are welfare work requirements?

Work requirements for SNAP and Medicaid require some recipients to work, train, or volunteer for a certain number of hours per month to remain eligible for benefits.

The requirements generally apply to “able-bodied adults” who receive public assistance. The federal government defines able-bodied adults as most adults under age 65 who aren’t disabled and who don’t have a dependent child under a certain age. 

The new federal law says states have to adopt these work requirements, but the states are the primary administrators of Medicaid and SNAP. As a result, the states will verify recipients’ documentation of qualifying activities or their exemption status.

What are the Medicaid work requirements under the new federal law?

Beginning January 1, 2027, some able-bodied Medicaid recipients ages 19-64 will have to meet work requirements. 

To be eligible for benefits, recipients will have to take part in 80 hours per month of qualifying activities, including:

• Full- or part-time employment
• Job or vocational training programs
• Community service or volunteer opportunities
• Higher education programs

States will redetermine the eligibility of Medicaid recipients every six months. 

Several groups of individuals will be exempt from meeting the work requirements, including, among others:

• People who care for a child under 14 years of age
• Pregnant women or those who need postpartum medical care
• Caretakers of a disabled relative
• People who have a disability or health condition that prevents them from fulfilling the work requirement
• Current or former foster children under the age of 26
• Native Americans and Alaska Natives
• People who are incarcerated or have been in the last three months
• Veterans with a 100% disability rating

The OBBB also provides a temporary opt-out process (known as a waiver) for states with an unemployment rate over 8% or 1.5 times the national unemployment rate. These states’ citizens could struggle to meet the work requirements because of particularly high barriers to work.

The states will get more specific implementation and reporting instructions from the federal government in June 2026, and they could then decide to apply more restrictive work requirements than those in the OBBB.

What are the current Medicaid work requirements in Ģ����Ƶ?

Ģ����Ƶ 2.2 million Ģ����Ƶns were enrolled in Medicaid as of May 2025, and around 67% of the adult beneficiaries were already working. 

Ģ����Ƶ has a head start compared to many other states that don’t have previous experience with Medicaid work requirements. The state implemented the program in 2023 to provide valuable health care assistance to low-income Ģ����Ƶns who aren’t eligible for traditional Medicaid.   

The Pathways to Coverage program supports adults ages 19-64 whose household income is less than 100% of the federal poverty line. To receive benefits, recipients have to take part in 80 hours per month of qualifying activities similar to those listed above. 

The Pathways program has slightly different exemptions than those in the OBBB. For example, adults are exempt if they take care of a child under age 6 instead of age 14. Recipients also only have to verify their exemptions or their involvement in qualifying activities when they apply for benefits and when they renew their application each year. 

Both administrators and enrollees have run into challenges with the Pathways program, but Ģ����Ƶ’s previous experience with work requirements will be an advantage going forward. It’s important to note, though, that the current requirements for the Pathways program may change with the implementation of the OBBB.

What are the SNAP work requirements under the new federal law?

Many SNAP recipients faced new work requirements as of November 1, 2025. The groups of people below now have to meet these requirements: 

• Able-bodied adults ages 18-64 without dependent children (in the past, this only applied to people through age 54)
• Parents whose youngest child is 14 or older 
• Veterans
• People experiencing homelessness
• Former foster children 

Like with Medicaid, individuals can meet the work requirement by working, volunteering, or participating in an approved educational program for at least 80 hours per month. People who aren’t able to meet these requirements can only receive SNAP benefits for three months every three years. 

States can also be more restrictive with the work requirements, but they can only temporarily opt out of the enforcement of these requirements if their unemployment rate is 1.5 times the national average. 

In Ģ����Ƶ in particular, about 1.3 million people, or over 705,000 households, receive food stamps each month. Ģ����Ƶ 69% of these households have kids, and 28% include an older adult or a person with a disability. It’s noteworthy that about 37% of Ģ����Ƶ’s SNAP recipients already live in households with a working family member. 

What are the pros and cons of work requirements?

The updated SNAP and Medicaid work requirements will bring both opportunities and challenges to beneficiaries and state governments.

Pros:

• Family and community well-being: When people take rewarding jobs, they’re setting foot on a pathway out of poverty and toward self-sufficiency. The families of those who work are also more stable, and strong families can change entire communities for the better. 
• Health benefits: Work brings a sense of dignity, purpose, and self-worth to people. As a result, working adults often experience less anxiety, fewer symptoms of depression, a decreased risk of suicide, and lower mortality rates. The children of employed people also tend to have better mental and physical health.
• Private health insurance options: Some of the people who join the workforce will become eligible for private health insurance through their employers. This will both bring stability to workers and their families and reduce the number of Medicaid recipients.
• Local economic growth: Increased labor force participation helps businesses grow and thrive. This then boosts local economies and spreads greater prosperity to surrounding areas.

Cons:

• Barriers to work: Many recipients of government benefits, including those who are able-bodied, face multiple barriers to work. These can include a lack of childcare, a lack of transportation, and age-related biases. Some Americans who rely on Medicaid and SNAP also live in rural or impoverished areas. These communities often have fewer jobs and educational or volunteer opportunities that would enable people to meet the work requirements close to home. 
• Difficulties with reporting work or exemptions: Many Medicaid and SNAP recipients could face hardships related to the reporting requirements. Administrative hurdles, a lack of internet access, and the difficulty of documenting exemptions or unstable earnings may cause people to lose benefits.
• High administrative costs: Implementing and enforcing work requirements demands significant administrative resources from state agencies. States will need to act quickly and efficiently to prepare to verify both the eligibility and ongoing work status of public assistance recipients.
• Benefits cliffs: Without additional reforms, work requirements put people at risk of experiencing benefits cliffs. By taking a job, an individual’s income could increase too much to qualify for assistance, but it still might not be enough to cover all the essential needs like food, health care, housing, and child care. This could leave people worse off, despite their efforts to meet the requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that around 5.3 million people could lose much needed Medicaid support and about 2.4 million people could lose essential SNAP benefits because of this difficult situation.

What else can policymakers do to reform the safety net?

Work is crucial to overall well-being because it’s a gateway to upward mobility and a better future. Many public assistance recipients who can work should be able to meet work requirements and find rewarding opportunities. But these requirements are only a first step. 

To spark real change for those who are struggling, state lawmakers should explore a to managing government benefits and workforce services. With this strategy, both benefits programs and job training assistance would be linked together. This would allow states to connect people to work while ensuring they receive the vital support they need. 

Ultimately, a One Door policy goes far beyond work requirements. It has the power to provide public assistance recipients with a clearer path into the workforce and toward financial independence. This, in turn, will help people realize their full potential as human beings and find opportunities to truly flourish.

Additional resources

Alliance for Opportunity

Alliance for Opportunity

Alliance for Opportunity

Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Ģ����Ƶ Budget and Policy Institute

Are work requirements good or bad?
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Ģ����Ƶ Department of Human Services

Ģ����Ƶ Pathways to Coverage

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

KFF

KFF

Medicaid.gov

Sutherland Institute

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USAFacts

USAFacts

Image Credit: Canva

The post Understanding Welfare Work Requirements: New Eligibility Rules for SNAP and Medicaid appeared first on For Opportunity.

Prison reform debates often focus on reducing prison populations to save taxpayers money. But is that actually possible?

In a for the Manhattan Institute, Joshua Crawford, a Public Safety Fellow at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO), argues that marginally decreasing prison populations doesn’t yield the taxpayer savings policymakers have long touted. Crawford also shows that continuing to focus mainly on cost savings instead of on other measures to reduce crime and recidivism may lead to unintended fiscal and social consequences for states, including Ģ����Ƶ.

To understand this argument, it’s essential to first understand the landscape of state prison populations and the associated costs of incarcerating an individual.

Understanding prison populations and associated costs

State prison populations decreased by 24% overall between 2010 and 2023, with 43 out of 50 states experiencing a decline. But despite those significant decreases, Departments of Corrections budgets haven’t followed suit. 

In fact, Crawford’s report shows there is little to no relationship between changes in prison populations and changes in corrections spending. 

Departments of Corrections budgets are actually increasing, but corrections costs still account for no more than about 5% of most states’ total budgets. 

Nevertheless, many policymakers and advocates continue to argue that cutting prison populations will save money. So where is the disconnect between the numbers and the messaging? 

Most often, the total cost per inmate per year is calculated by dividing the total costs of the prison system by the number of incarcerated people, but this is a misleading figure. Many of the more costly parts of a Department of Corrections budget (e.g., staff salaries, utility bills) are long-run or fixed costs that don’t vary with marginal changes in a prison’s population. To get a more accurate estimate of possible savings, it’s more important to consider short-run costs, like food and toiletries, which can vary immediately with a change in a prison’s population.

Interpreting the numbers for Ģ����Ƶ prisons

Ģ����Ƶ is one of the 43 states that, on average, saw a decrease in their prison populations between 2010 and 2023. The state experienced an 11.7% decrease in the number of inmates during that time. 

Ģ����Ƶ falls in line with overall national trends year over year. The figure below illustrates the decrease in both Ģ����Ƶ’s and the nation’s number of incarcerated people. The biggest departure was in 2019, when Ģ����Ƶ seemingly had a sharp increase, but that increase was actually minimal at just 2.2%.

And like most states in recent years, Ģ����Ƶ saw a rebound in the number of inmates after the COVID-19 pandemic, when more people were released to help alleviate stress on prison systems.

Black Line = National Trend, Blue Line = Ģ����Ƶ Trend

The data for Ģ����Ƶ also reinforces the lack of a relationship between the change in the number of inmates and the change in corrections spending. The table below reveals that even though Ģ����Ƶ’s prison population decreased from 2010 to 2023, corrections spending increased 23.6% during that time.

Data from 2019 further reinforces this absence of a relationship. During that year, Ģ����Ƶ saw a very slight increase of 1,169 people in its prison population, but the state spent $21,430 less on corrections that year compared to 2018.

A better focus for Ģ����Ƶ policymakers

Instead of focusing on state prison budgets and costs per inmate, policymakers need to consider the total cost of crime—both monetary and social—that a community pays and how to reduce it. 

Crime itself costs our nation anywhere from $2.6 trillion to $5.76 trillion each year, with violent crime accounting for 85% of those costs. A single homicide can cost upwards of $9 million in government resources and lost potential earnings of victims. This doesn’t account for the financial burdens it can put on families and communities. 

In addition to the monetary cost of crime, communities pay a significant social price—and none more so than high-crime, impoverished areas. Effective public safety measures are foundational to upward mobility. Without them, these communities will continue to see the loss of businesses, local resources, and community connections that help people flourish.

With this in mind, policymakers and advocates should refocus criminal justice efforts toward reforms proven to reduce crime and recidivism. Improvements on both of these fronts generate cost savings of their own, in addition to saving lives and lowering fear of personal harm.

Best practice criminal justice reforms fall into eight solution categories that could spark meaningful change:

• Addressing community disrepair
• Investing in a well-trained police force
• Building trust by protecting victims
• Addressing gang violence
• Addressing the low number of homicide detectives and low clearance rates
• Ensuring appropriate sentencing
• Implementing cognitive behavioral therapy for juvenile offenders
• Evaluating and updating re-entry programs

In Ģ����Ƶ, policymakers and advocates should consider these specific efforts to reduce crime and recidivism:

• Implementing reforms to help law enforcement close non-fatal shooting cases (e.g., the Firearm Assault Shoot Team in Denver, Colorado)
• Broadening cognitive behavioral therapy offerings for juvenile offenders, which has shown promising results in juvenile recidivism rates
• Prioritizing data collection and evaluation to help guide future programs and reforms
• Helping communities through a holistic approach that includes job training and opportunities, affordable housing, and family programs

In addition to the above policy suggestions, GCO has prepared in-depth reports focusing on reducing crime in two major Ģ����Ƶ cities—Atlanta and Columbus.

As Crawford says of potential criminal justice reforms in Ģ����Ƶ, “lawmakers should focus conversations about criminal justice where they belong: on protecting the public and creating a fair and just system that values the lives, liberty, and property of Ģ����Ƶ families.” In doing so, policymakers can transform entire communities by making them safer for the people who live there.

Image Credit: Canva

The post Decarceration’s Disconnect: Corrections spending rises in Ģ����Ƶ even as prison population declines appeared first on For Opportunity.