Millions of Americans rely on government-run safety net programs to help meet their fundamental needs. Also known as “welfare programs” or “public assistance,” safety net programs include the , the (SNAP or food stamps), , housing assistance, and childcare support, among many others.

These programs are meant to temporarily support individuals and families going through tough times as they rise above the poverty level and become self-sufficient again.

But these safety nets often function more like snare nets, trapping people in a complex web of formulas and rules that prevents them from taking and keeping promising jobs that would lead to a better future.

Frankie, a young woman who moved to Ģ����Ƶ for a new start, found herself in this very situation. She felt forced to turn down a great job that would have paid $70,000 per year. She needed the job, but she also needed the public assistance that would help her find an affordable home for her family. The new income would have made her ineligible for that crucial housing support.

How is it possible that well-intentioned government assistance programs are actually reinforcing cycles of poverty? People like Frankie who receive safety net support are facing harmful barriers to opportunity called “benefits cliffs.” This critical flaw in welfare programs discourages work and upward mobility and keeps people stuck in long-term cycles of government dependency.

What are benefits cliffs?

Many low-income workers experience , sometimes called “welfare cliffs.” In these disheartening situations, a small increase in earnings leads to a sudden and sharp decrease in, or even a total loss of, public assistance.

The higher wages push a worker’s income over the eligibility limit for one or more safety net programs, causing the abrupt loss of essential benefits. This leaves people worse off financially, despite doing everything right to get ahead.

Who do benefits cliffs affect?

Benefits cliffs, and their severity, depend on many factors. The number of people in a family, how much each person earns, and where they live can all play a role. Low-income working parents with young children are especially vulnerable to benefits cliffs because they frequently rely on multiple safety net programs to protect their family’s well-being.

A detailed developed by the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity provides many scenarios showing how benefits cliffs can affect a family’s net earnings.

Let’s consider the situation of a working mother with two young children in Ģ����Ƶ who’s receiving benefits from five welfare programs:

• If she earns $12.50 per hour from her full-time job, her combined income from wages and public assistance will total about $45,000 annually.
• If she earns just 25¢ more per hour, she’ll face a net loss in income of almost $1,500 per year because of reduced safety net benefits.
• If she gets a slightly bigger raise of $1.25 per hour, she’ll lose so much in welfare benefits that her net income will decrease by a staggering $15,000 per year. That loss will pose a huge risk to her family’s health and financial stability.

What are the impacts of benefits cliffs?

Many public assistance recipients find themselves in deeply worrying circumstances after they take a better-paying job or accept a raise. Their income has increased too much to qualify for benefits, but it’s still not high enough to cover all their family’s essential needs like food, healthcare, housing, and childcare. In this demoralizing situation, people often feel like they’re being punished for trying to break free from government dependency.

Effects on career development

When individuals don’t accept fulfilling career opportunities, they lose the vital sense of dignity, purpose, and well-being that meaningful work and upward mobility provide.

“It makes you feel hopeless,” said . Carlotta was offered a rewarding job at a broadcast network in Ģ����Ƶ, but she instead took a lower-paying job that wouldn’t put her much needed medical benefits at risk.

Implications for mental health

Benefits cliffs can impact mental health in many ways as well. For example, , a working mom, struggled to afford housing after her income increased above the eligibility limit for public assistance. Rather than being excited about her advancing career, Joyelle felt scared. Her fears of not being able to take care of her family were “devastating” for her well-being, and she suffered from severe anxiety, stress, and depression.

Consequences for employers and communities

The negative impacts of benefits cliffs also spread to employers and local communities. When people are disengaged from work, businesses find themselves constantly hiring rather than building a strong, stable, and efficient workforce that can help the surrounding community grow and thrive.

How can policymakers address benefits cliffs?

Safety net programs help people survive on a basic level, but they don’t currently empower welfare recipients to rise above the poverty line so they can flourish and reach their true potential.

As Frankie asked of the safety net system, “Do you want me to really be better, or do you want me to really be poor?”

To solve this critical issue and reward progress rather than penalizing it, policymakers should eliminate benefits cliffs by gradually decreasing public assistance as workers earn more. This will encourage individuals to take meaningful jobs, accept promotions, or work more hours without fear of a benefits cliff. In addition, gradual benefit reductions will give families time to make financial plans as they move toward self-sufficiency.

Removing barriers to work also allows people to experience the powerful sense of dignity, purpose, and confidence that comes from a rewarding job and financial independence. And when people take jobs that confirm their inherent value and potential, it transforms not only their lives, but the lives of their family members as well.

As workforce participation increases, businesses can also hire and promote more workers. This will stabilize their staff and reduce inefficiencies that high turnover rates can cause. A thriving local economy will then lift and strengthen the entire community.

Research has shown that work is one of the key factors in breaking the cycle of poverty. It’s a gateway to a better future where people and communities can flourish. To open these doors, policymakers need to make changes, ensuring that benefits cliffs are no longer barriers on the pathway to opportunity.

Personal stories: What it’s like to face benefits cliffs

Frankie’s story

Frankie moved to Ģ����Ƶ for a new start. Instead, she faced a heartbreaking choice. Say “yes” to a good job offer, and she would become ineligible for the housing assistance she needed to get on her feet.

Joyelle’s story

Joyelle needed to fall back on public housing during a tough time in her life. She was determined to get back on her feet. After going back to school, she was offered an exciting full-time job with the state of Ģ����Ƶ. That’s when Joyelle got a shocking surprise: due to her new salary, her subsidized housing allowance disappeared overnight and left her feeling further behind than ever.

Additional resources

American Public Human Services Association

The Black Chronicle

Fed Communities

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Forbes

Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity

The Benefits Cliff
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Confirmed. Welfare Cliffs Pervasive in 8 Southeast States
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Disincentives for Work and Marriage in Ģ����Ƶ’s Welfare System
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

If You Accept This Raise, You Fall Off the Welfare Cliff
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Nonfinancial Impact from Nonwork
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Solving the Food Assistance (SNAP) Benefits Cliff
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Welfare Cliffs Exist—Concludes Team of Economists
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

National Conference of State Legislatures

National Conference of State Legislatures

Sutherland Institute

The post Understanding Benefits Cliffs appeared first on For Opportunity.

If you ask many engaged couples what’s worrying them before the big day, you’ll probably hear about things like catering budgets, guest lists, or finding the right dress.

But for thousands of working-class people in Ģ����Ƶ and across the country, something else is causing their wedding anxiety: the financial benefits they might lose.

Because of rules in our tax system, walking down the aisle can sometimes lead to what’s called a “marriage penalty.” Instead of helping couples build a stable foundation, current policies often force a heartbreaking choice: commit to each other legally, or make ends meet.

The Cost of Combining Incomes

The is one of our country’s largest anti-poverty initiatives. The credit increases with every dollar workers make, up to a point, and then phases out as a household earns more.

But the EITC can also be a hidden poverty trap. When low-income people get married, the tax system unintentionally penalizes them for doing exactly what they should to escape poverty: working hard, combining resources, and building a stable home. 

Imagine two parents who want to marry each other. The woman makes $18,000 per year, and the man makes $30,000 per year.

As a single head of household tax filer with two kids, the woman qualifies for a much-needed $7,200 tax credit.

Her partner files single and doesn’t qualify for the EITC.

Together, unmarried, they use the $7,200 credit the woman gets at tax time to pay debts or cover expenses.

But if they marry, the tax system starts phasing out their credit based on their new $48,000 joint income, and it instantly drops to about $3,770.

The new spouses lose $3,430 overnight—almost a full month’s income—just because they made their relationship official. 

For some, this can be too much of a loss to risk.

The Life-Changing Power of Marriage and Family Stability

Marriage can lead to more happiness and satisfaction for couples—two incomes to cover the bills, a partner who shares the responsibilities, and the sense of well-being that comes from experiencing life with someone you love.

And kids who grow up in stable, two-parent homes are more likely to thrive in school, have better physical and mental health, and break cycles of generational poverty. 

But many low-income families aren’t getting to experience these benefits, and policies that discourage marriage—like the ones involving the EITC—are part of the reason why. 

Statistics confirm a decrease in marriages but also their importance for families.

• Just 50% of American adults are currently married, down from 69% in 1970. The number is even lower for people with less education and those who don’t identify as White.
• 63% of children live with two married parents. Again, that number drops for less-educated and non-White Americans.
• When married parents are compared to single parents with the same level of education, the poverty rate for a married person is 75% lower.
• Children raised by married parents are 82% less likely to live in poverty.

When it comes to Ģ����Ƶ:

• 54% of women and 49% of men are unmarried.
• 38% of children live in single-parent families.
• 18% of children (461,000 kids) live in poverty—the fifth highest number in the country.
• The state ranks 39th in the nation for overall child and family well-being.

Big cultural shifts have changed how many people think about marriage—and this plays a role in decisions not to marry. But the data shows that a stable, two-parent home still provides families with more financial security and opportunities for upward mobility. It’s also one of the most powerful solutions for lifting children out of poverty.

A Less Risky Path to “I Do”

A new study from the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity offers recommendations to make the EITC work better for low-income families. In particular, the federal government could adjust the maximum benefits and the eligibility limit for married couples. This would let new spouses combine their earnings without triggering an automatic loss of some or all of the credit. It would also remove a big barrier to building strong relationships and stable households.

Reforming the EITC won’t solve every challenge facing working-class families. But by restructuring the credit to reward partnership instead of penalizing it, the government can make sure that saying “I do” really is a celebration—a step toward a brighter future and a better quality of life for everyone in the family.

FAQs Ģ����Ƶ the EITC

Additional Resources

The post When a Love Story Meets the Tax Code appeared first on For Opportunity.

GCO is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that focuses on ensuring access to quality education, fulfilling work, and healthy family lives through research, policy analysis, and community initiatives. We advance solutions that increase opportunity and give Ģ����Ƶ families a durable path out of poverty. We are also a founding member of the Alliance for Opportunity, a multi-state coalition focused on improving state-administered public assistance and workforce programs to help Americans achieve lasting opportunity and stability.

The Stronger Workforce for America Act aligns with our work and includes an invaluable option for state flexibility, the Make America Skilled Again Grants. These grants would allow 10 states to implement the model, which would empower them to integrate their safety net and workforce systems.

Utah has had this authority for nearly 30 years, after being grandfathered into the strategy. This has enabled Utah to provide its citizens with both support to meet their immediate needs and a clearer path into the workforce and toward self-sufficiency.

The results of Utah’s One Door policy are impressive. For example, the state has outpaced the national labor force participation (LFP) rate, or the number of working-age people employed or looking for a job, by an average of 5.3%. As of late 2025, Utah’s LFP rate was approximately 67.6%, one of the highest in the nation.

In contrast, Ģ����Ƶ’s LFP rate is 60.6%. Put another way, nearly 40% of Ģ����Ƶns, many of them prime-age men, who can work are choosing not to.

Eric Cochling, GCO’s Chief Program Officer and General Counsel, emphasized the detrimental impact of these statistics and the critical importance of work for a flourishing life:

“A good job offers more than just a paycheck. It provides purpose and stability and is one of the most durable ways to empower people to break the cycle of poverty.”

He also stressed the need for reform: “If we truly want to expand opportunity in Ģ����Ƶ and across the country, individual workforce and safety net programs must start functioning as a true system—one that’s designed to support human dignity and flourishing. The Stronger Workforce for America Act is a much-needed step in the right direction.”

Ģ����Ƶ policymakers are paying attention to the success of Utah’s integrated welfare and workforce system and are seeking opportunities like the Make America Skilled Again Grants to implement similar reforms that benefit both Ģ����Ƶns and the state economy.

As Buzz Brockway, GCO’s Vice President of Public Policy, said:

“The ability to link workforce and safety net systems is key to boosting Ģ����Ƶ’s current trajectory as a leader in economic opportunity. The Make America Skilled Again Grants included in the Stronger Workforce for America Act would give Ģ����Ƶ’s leaders a powerful way to strengthen families, expand the workforce, and set the state on a path to more rapid growth.”

Randy Hicks, GCO’s President and CEO, added:

“Every state deserves the ability to design an integrated system that enables people to thrive. Right now, every wasted hour navigating disconnected programs is an hour that could have been spent building a better future. This bill ensures that states can rethink the status quo and create pathways to opportunity for every citizen.”

Through the changes it proposes, the is poised to make meaningful welfare and workforce reforms possible in Ģ����Ƶ, and GCO strongly urges its enactment.

###

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) is independent, non-partisan, and solutions-focused. Our team is dedicated to creating durable paths out of poverty for families in Ģ����Ƶ and beyond. To achieve our mission, we research ways to help remove barriers to opportunity and promote our solutions to policymakers and the public so that public policy and civil society can effectively and innovatively strengthen family stability, economic mobility, and child opportunity in the communities where lives are lived. 

Send media inquiries to:

Rebecca Primis
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity
RebeccaP@foropportunity.org 

The post GCO Praises Federal Leaders for Empowering States to Strengthen Pathways to Work through the Stronger Workforce for America Act appeared first on For Opportunity.

Even without the election-year backdrop, state lawmakers will feel pressure from their constituents to do something about rising household costs. Beyond the cost of groceries and lingering inflation, nothing has quite captured the cost-of-living spotlight like the skyrocketing price of housing.

Home ownership, once a staple of the American Dream, is out of reach for many, but especially the poor and younger generations. The first-time homebuyer is now 40, a striking shift from the 1980s and 1990s, when Americans usually bought their first home in their late 20s or early 30s.

Owning a home is the key to moving up the economic ladder and building wealth, but it also plays an important role in helping people build families and communities. When Americans no longer see homeownership as part of their future, they delay starting families and putting down roots.

Many state and local governments recognize the magnitude of this problem — and, thankfully, have a great deal of control over housing policy through zoning, permitting and land-use rules. State leaders can look to Montana as an example; it recently passed that are set to expand supply and reduce prices.

Eric Cochling is chief program officer and general counsel at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Affordability Tops the List of State Priorities for 2026 appeared first on For Opportunity.

Americans are taking notice. For the in a row, respondents are reporting crime as a less serious problem. Less than half of Americans think crime is now rising.

All of this should be welcome news. And like most policy successes, where you sit politically likely informs what you believe about why it happened. Also like most policy achievements, there is disagreement at this point exactly what has contributed to the decline.

Yes, the administration did spend of dollars on “community violence intervention” programs. Police departments spent much more than that new officers. States passed laws for violent offenders. Voters in big cities also began to , and police departments all over began to implement best practices focused on and

What no one is claiming, however, is that the recent decline in murder and violence is the result of dramatic improvements in poverty, education, inequality, racial prejudice or any other so-called “root cause” of crime.

For the uninitiated, “root causes” refers to the set of social conditions that many far-left politicians, progressive activists, and sociology and criminology professors argue are the true drivers of criminal behavior. These argue that reducing crime would first require addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and housing. They consider policing, prosecution, punishment, and incapacitation as stop-gap measures at best. Some will even argue that these actually contribute to crime by worsening social and economic problems.

By focusing on underlying social conditions rather than individual decision-making and free will, progressives try to divert focus away from individual accountability toward society more broadly. But as crime has dropped in recent years, the social conditions said to produce crime have been unchanged or gotten worse.

On the economic front — and contrary to popular belief — inequality has remained largely unchanged in . A of poverty that accounts for government benefits and taxes shows that poverty has increased in recent years among working-age adults and children. (The rate is down for seniors, but that isn’t a group frequently committing violent or serious crime.)

Joshua Crawford is a public safety fellow with the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Crime Is Down, and It Should End ‘Root Cause’ Excuse-Making for Good appeared first on For Opportunity.

But none have mentioned a priority that is not only connected to those issues but has a significant impact on the well-being of millions of Ģ����Ƶ families — welfare reform. And with new federal work requirements set to take effect, policymakers will no longer be able to overlook Ģ����Ƶ’s public assistance programs.

With more than struggling to make ends meet, reforms to the safety net should be a top priority for Ģ����Ƶ’s next leader.

These low-income residents turn to Ģ����Ƶ’s safety net programs for help, including Medicaid for health insurance, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for food support and Section 8 for housing assistance.

System fails to move people out of poverty

Both Republicans and Democrats agree these programs are a critical support system for disadvantaged communities.

But disagreement tends to emerge over whether welfare truly serves these people — helping them move from reliance on public assistance to independence and a more fulfilling life.

On that measure, — and its shortfall should capture the attention of Ģ����Ƶ’s next governor.

Not only does Ģ����Ƶ’s welfare system — like nearly all states’ — fail at its stated goal of moving people out of poverty, but it also compels recipients to stay dependent, keeping them in a cycle of poverty that so often defines generations of low-income Americans.

Welfare discourages recipients from getting married before having children and from working — troubling given those factors align with two of the three indicators in the , a series of life milestones that research has shown are the keys to happier lives, stable families and upward mobility (the other factor is obtaining a high school degree).

Ģ����Ƶ’s next governor would do well to recognize that the implications of this flawed system extend beyond just welfare recipients. It has a significant impact on the state’s budget and economy.

Low labor participation rate is a warning

Social safety net programs, particularly Medicaid, are often the biggest expenses in a state’s budget. While the federal government partially funds welfare programs, the states are responsible for a significant share of the costs and are responsible for managing the system. With these high costs, policymakers should assess whether the billions spent on welfare is moving people out of poverty or keeping them on the economic sidelines.

And then there’s the direct impact on Ģ����Ƶ’s workforce. Ģ����Ƶ’s labor force participation rate, or the number of working-age people employed or looking for a job, is . Or put another way, nearly 40% of Ģ����Ƶns, many of them prime-age men, who can work are choosing not to.

A low labor force participation rate is a warning sign for the state’s economic health. Every nondisabled Ģ����Ƶn who opts out of work isn’t just losing income — our state loses tax revenue, businesses lose workers and communities lose engaged citizens who are the foundation of thriving neighborhoods.

Ģ����Ƶ’s next governor should ask, then, why the state’s welfare programs fail to connect beneficiaries to resources they need to help them find a stable job. Unemployment is one of the primary reasons individuals seek assistance in the first place.

And yet when someone in Ģ����Ƶ turns to the welfare system for support, they are not connected to work. Workforce development programs exist, but they oddly operate separately than the social safety net.

Follow other states in integrating workforce aims with welfare

Fortunately, policymakers in Ģ����Ƶ have a road map to turn to called “” which integrates workforce development with welfare. Under this policy, people who access the safety net for help are connected to one caseworker who not only helps them meet their immediate needs but connects them with resources to find a job. Utah passed this reform in the 1990s and now boasts the lowest numbers of people on Medicaid and food stamps — along with consistently low unemployment rates.

Louisiana passed One Door legislation in June. Mississippi created a task force to explore the reform. And Arkansas also recently approved an audit of its workforce and safety net programs to identify needed changes. Ģ����Ƶ should follow the lead of its southern neighbors to the West.

Welfare reform isn’t a second-tier issue. It’s central to sustaining Ģ����Ƶ’s current trajectory as a leader in economic opportunity. Ģ����Ƶ’s One Door gives the next governor a way to strengthen families, expand the workforce and set the state on a path to growth.

Buzz Brockway is the vice president of public policy at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

The post Ģ����Ƶ Candidates for Governor Should Make Welfare Reform a Top Priority appeared first on For Opportunity.

This unfortunate reality exists in most states—Ģ����Ƶ included. But there is good news: Some states are beginning to rethink welfare, modeling positive changes that Ģ����Ƶ and other states could adopt.

What’s not working about the current welfare system?

Our nation’s welfare system is anything but simple. There are over 80 programs at the federal level alone, each with different goals and conflicting eligibility rules. For someone who needs help, this maze of programs is slow and overwhelming to navigate. People must visit multiple offices, fill out the same forms again and again, and talk to different caseworkers. 

On top of this, the entire safety net is separate from workforce services that help people gain skills and find jobs. This set-up not only delays aid, but it also takes time and energy away from pursuing long-term solutions, such as stable employment.

Work isn’t just a way to earn income—it’s the gateway to independence and a profound source of dignity and purpose. Most Americans agree that it’s important to have a well-functioning safety net that provides temporary assistance and support for the most vulnerable. But the safety net should be a springboard to a better life, not a trap that holds people back once they’re in it.

How Other States Are Making Welfare Work Better

Arkansas: Evaluating What Works and What Doesn’t

During its recent legislative session, Arkansas passed a law () to set up a task force to review the state’s workforce and social service programs. The idea is simple yet powerful: make sure welfare programs are meeting their intended goals.

By taking stock of these programs, Arkansas aims to find inefficiencies, improve coordination among agencies, and maximize the help provided to those in need. The audit’s results will inform future legislative decisions by offering the state a clear, data-driven picture of what works and what doesn’t. 

Louisiana: Creating One Door to Work 

With a poverty rate of , Louisiana is one of the poorest states in the country—a situation that’s even more difficult to overcome because of .  

In 2025, Louisiana addressed this problem by passing One Door legislation modeled after Utah’s successful safety net design. The reform merges the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program (TANF) and Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs into a new program called LA Works. It will help welfare recipients get the social services help they need while also connecting them to employment opportunities.

This legislation came from an intentional effort by state leaders to understand the outcomes of Louisiana’s safety net system. The first step was a performance audit of SNAP, WIOA, TANF, and CCAP programs. The audit several inefficiencies that confirmed these programs were not meeting their stated goals of providing temporary help while empowering individuals toward self-sufficiency.

The audit led to establishing the Louisiana Workforce and Social Services Reform Task Force. This group developed recommendations for consolidating Louisiana’s welfare and work programs, which ultimately led state leaders to with unanimous bipartisan support. 

With One Door to Work, states can simply the safety net system for both administrators and recipients and give people a clearer path to a good job and a better life. 

Utah: Proving It Can Be Done

. It implemented the One Door model in the 1990s, integrating welfare programs with workforce support systems. Instead of navigating separate offices for benefits and employment services, individuals in Utah use a single, unified system. This approach has consistently yielded results:

• Low Poverty Rates: Utah in the country, thanks in part to its focus on connecting people with skill-building opportunities and job placements.
• Reduced Dependency: The state has of residents dependent on food stamps and Medicaid.
• Economic Prosperity: By prioritizing work and self-sufficiency, with consistently low unemployment rates.

Utah’s success proves that connecting welfare and employment services isn’t just possible; it’s effective. 

The state is continuing to explore innovative ways to help families overcome poverty. Most recently, Utah launched to use funds from the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) program to provide families with financial planning support that helps them navigate the transition from public assistance to other economic opportunities. 

Takeaways for Ģ����Ƶ

Ģ����Ƶ’s welfare system struggles with similar issues—inefficient processes, separate agencies, not enough focus on helping people achieve self-sufficiency.

Ģ����Ƶ lawmakers recently considered , which proposed creating a task force to review and streamline welfare and workforce systems, but it didn’t pass during the last legislative session. This was a missed opportunity—but it’s one lawmakers can revisit that can be revisited in the upcoming session.

As lawmakers consider reforms for the future, here are a few concrete ideas that would shape a better welfare system and a thriving workforce in Ģ����Ƶ: 

• Conduct an audit similar to Arkansas’s to identify inefficiencies and areas for improvement.
• Establish a task force to begin implementing a “One Door” initiative, like those in Louisiana and Utah.
• Advocate for integrating welfare programs with workforce development initiatives at both the state and federal levels.
• Prioritize transparency, accountability, and ease of use in redesigning the system.

Image Credit: Canva
Video Credit: Alliance for Opportunity

The post What Ģ����Ƶ can learn from other states about fixing welfare appeared first on For Opportunity.