In many ways, Ģ����Ƶ’s economy is booming.

The state is attracting top-tier businesses, and more Ģ����Ƶns are working than ever before. In June of 2026, almost 5.3 million people held jobs in Ģ����Ƶ. The state’s unemployment rate was also just 3.4%, well below the national average of 4.2%.

And as of the end of 2025, Ģ����Ƶ had about 275,000 job openings.

That all sounds like great news—and it is.

But strong employment numbers don’t tell the whole story.

Many of Ģ����Ƶ’s job-seekers are still wrestling with a big question: “Where can I find a job I can actually get, keep, and live on?”

The Everyday Challenges of the Job Search in Ģ����Ƶ

A lack of motivation is rarely what stands between Ģ����Ƶns and meaningful work. 

Instead, many people are having a hard time figuring out which educational and training programs will open doors to available jobs. They may have general education backgrounds but not the specific skills, certifications, or hands-on experience today’s employers are looking for.

And finding a job that matches a job-seeker’s qualifications is only part of the equation. An employment opportunity also has to work with the realities of their everyday life. Families across Ģ����Ƶ can face barriers to work involving: 

• Access to child care
• Transportation to work
• Re-entry into the workforce after incarceration
• Disability-related challenges
• Distance to resources and good jobs for those in rural areas

These hurdles can make a seemingly good job much harder to take—or to keep—and families have to figure out whether the potential paycheck would really make them better off. 

The income alone might not be enough to overcome the obstacles people struggle with. It could even cause an individual or family to face a benefit cliff, where a small increase in earnings leads to a much bigger decrease in welfare (safety net) support.

There are currently about 800,000 Ģ����Ƶns who aren’t working full time, including:

• Unemployed people who are looking for jobs
• Part-time workers who want to work full time
• People who have given up looking for work

For many of these individuals, the challenges of the search for rewarding full-time work can be complicated and overwhelming. Despite their efforts, they may feel stuck, discouraged, and unsure of how to move forward.

How State Leaders Can Build a Better Path to Work

Ģ����Ƶ policymakers can take much-needed steps to improve the job-search process and help connect more people to promising jobs:

1. Align Workforce Development Programs with Employer Demand: People shouldn’t spend months completing an educational program only to discover there are few openings that they’re qualified for. To prevent this, Ģ����Ƶ’s workforce development programs can coordinate with schools, technical colleges, and employers to structure education and training opportunities so they equip Ģ����Ƶns with the in-demand skills that lead directly to fulfilling careers.
2. Remove the Obstacles That Keep People from Working: To help those who face barriers to work, Ģ����Ƶ lawmakers can continue exploring a to managing government benefits and workforce services. By better integrating welfare and workforce development programs, policymakers can empower state agencies to address beneficiaries’ needs more holistically—connecting people to work while making sure they get the vital support that will enable them to take a job.
3. Make Quality Child Care More Accessible: Ģ����Ƶ’s leaders can help make child care more affordable and available by taking a careful look at rules that may unintentionally make it harder and more expensive for providers to serve families. By considering regulatory changes while preserving quality and safety, policymakers can enable new providers to enter the market, give parents additional choices, and help working families find care that fits their lives. 
4. Eliminate Benefit Cliffs: To reward rather than penalize people’s efforts to work, policymakers can eliminate benefit cliffs by gradually decreasing public assistance as workers earn more. This will encourage people to take meaningful jobs, accept promotions, or work more hours without fear of a steep drop in critical support.

How Local Communities Can Open Doors for Job-Seekers

Nonprofits, churches, and other community groups can also take action to help close the gap between Ģ����Ƶ’s employment numbers and the reality many families experience:

1. Connect Job-Seekers to Employers: Community organizations can work together to identify people who are struggling to find or keep jobs and provide them with access to local work readiness programs and businesses that are hiring. 
2. Help Employers Find Candidates: Just as importantly, community groups can learn what local employers actually need and help them connect with qualified candidates they might otherwise miss. 
3. Provide Continuous Support to Working Families: Getting a job is just one step toward stability and prosperity. Communities can continue to encourage their neighbors and help them adapt as they start new jobs and adjust their family routines. 

The Real Measure of Economic Growth

Ģ����Ƶ has successfully attracted new employers and become a destination for major investments. But the real measure of economic growth isn’t how many jobs are available. It’s whether Ģ����Ƶns can access those jobs and turn them into flourishing lives.

A good job should do more than cover today’s bills. It should create tomorrow’s opportunities. It should make it easier to support a family, save for important purchases, and open doors to upward mobility.

When policymakers and communities come together to help job-seekers, a strong economy can be something even greater: a pathway to stable, family-sustaining work and a brighter future for Ģ����Ƶns across the state.

Additional Resources

Alliance for Opportunity

Alliance for Opportunity

City Journal

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity 

Non-Working Adults Concentrated in Ģ����Ƶ’s Distressed Communities

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity 

Ģ����Ƶ Department of Labor

Governor Brian P. Kemp, Office of the Governor

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

The post Ģ����Ƶ Has 275,000 Open Jobs—Why Is Getting One So Hard? appeared first on For Opportunity.

For much of her early life, Ayonia Shipp believed she had everything planned out.

Raised in Columbus, Ģ����Ƶ, she excelled in school. She graduated near the top of her class from Shaw High School before earning her associate degree from Columbus Technical College in 2015. She imagined a future where she could build a career, get married, and eventually start a family.

Shortly after graduating high school, Ayonia began working for the Muscogee County Division of Family & Children Services, expecting the job to lead to the career she’d retire from. At the same time, another dream quietly lived in the back of her mind. After participating in Future Business Leaders of America in high school, she hoped to one day own a trucking company and build financial stability for herself and her family.

But life didn’t unfold the way she planned.

After becoming pregnant with her daughter, Dior, Ayonia unexpectedly lost her job. As she searched for new employment, repeated setbacks and barriers made each opportunity feel impossible. With every rejection, it became harder to believe her future could look different from her present.

Still, giving up was never an option.

“I wanted to wake up and not be stressed in my life,” Ayonia said. But beyond a new job, she needed hope.

Rebuilding Her Confidence Through BETTER WORK

That hope arrived in an unexpected place.

While attending a United Way Community Schools meeting to find speech therapy resources for Dior, someone asked if Ayonia had heard about the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity’s BETTER WORK Program. She enrolled in the class BETTER WORK offered, hoping it might provide the fresh start she’d been looking for.

Ayonia entered the program believing she was already a confident person. But through the program, she began to realize that years of setbacks had affected how confidently she viewed her ability to change them.

“I learned that all the hardships in my life currently don’t have to be in my life in the future,” she said.

As the weeks went on, Ayonia realized that years of disappointment had quietly turned into fear and discouragement. Through conversations with facilitators, volunteers, and fellow participants, she began recognizing the obstacles that had been holding her back, both professionally and personally.

“The lesson that had the most impact on me was learning how to overcome roadblocks,” Ayonia shared. “The facilitators and other participants showed me that nothing is too large for me to overcome.”

One exercise became a turning point.

Through the program’s “30-second commercial” activity, participants practice introducing themselves to potential employers with confidence and clarity. For Ayonia, the exercise opened her eyes to what she was capable of.

“During the commercial exercise, I learned from the Champions that I only had to be myself,” she said. “That boosted my confidence and made me realize I can make a difference in my future job.”

For the first time in a long time, she began seeing herself the way others already did.

“I now know what I am capable of,” she said.

Finding Community Support That Lasts Beyond the Class

For Ayonia, one of the greatest gifts of BETTER WORK was the people she met.

Throughout the class, she found herself surrounded by mentors and classmates who believed in her long before she fully believed in herself. Opening up about her personal journey wasn’t easy, but it became one of the most freeing moments of the experience.

“The BETTER WORK class��was the first time I shared my story,” Ayonia said. “That took the weight off my shoulders.”

Even after graduation, that support didn’t end.

Ayonia continues meeting weekly with BETTER WORK Program Manager Amber, who encourages her as she works toward new goals.

“I am so proud of Ayonia and her growth during and after the BETTER WORK class,” Amber said. “No matter what life throws at her, she always gets back up. Ayonia can find the silver lining in the darkest cloud and is a great encouragement to all of us.”

She also stays connected with her program Champion, Fred Blackwell, whose continued encouragement reminds her she isn’t walking this journey alone.

And Ayonia hears from volunteer Greg from time to time, who checks in to see how she’s doing. 

Those conversations serve as another reminder that the relationships built through BETTER WORK extend beyond the classroom.

Building a Career and a Future with Confidence

Today, Ayonia works for a private duty home health care company, a role that allows her the flexibility to take Dior to her weekly therapy appointments. While she continues pursuing opportunities in customer service, phone support, or data entry, she carries something even more valuable than a resume.

She carries confidence.

Now, Ayonia doesn’t define herself by the setbacks she’s faced. Instead, she chooses to focus on what she’s learned through them.

“You can’t let your past determine your future,” she said.

Ayonia is currently setting new goals, celebrating each milestone, and creating the life she once thought was no longer possible. Whether her future includes owning a trucking company or building a career in corporate America, she now believes she can achieve those goals. She also hopes her story will encourage others who are facing uncertainty to keep moving forward. 

Ayonia celebrates her BETTER WORK graduation with Dior.

Experience the Transformation BETTER WORK Offers

If you’d like to find a supportive community and connect to career pathways, employers, training, and local resources, please visit our BETTER WORK Program page.

The post How a Supportive Community Helped Ayonia See Her Potential Again appeared first on For Opportunity.

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.

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.

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.

Opportunities to drive progress and hope will greet Ģ����Ƶns in 2026. Critical issues will dominate the legislative agenda, and top governmental positions will be up for election.

The well-being of many Ģ����Ƶns, their families, and their communities is at stake as pressing concerns like welfare reform, the cost of living, educational opportunities, and public safety take center stage in political discussions. These issues involve significant challenges, but policymakers are working to find promising solutions that will enable people across the state to flourish.

Electing leaders to fill key political offices

The primary election will take place on May 19, and the general election is scheduled for November 3.

The roles of both the governor and lieutenant governor will be on the ballot. Ģ����Ƶ’s current governor, Brian Kemp, isn’t eligible to run again because he’s reached his term limit, so several candidates are competing for the position, including Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones. 

Ģ����Ƶns will also vote on one of the state’s U.S. senatorial positions—Senator Jon Ossoff currently holds the post. All of Ģ����Ƶ’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be up for election as well.

These political races are pivotal because the elected officials will have the power to remove barriers and open more doors to opportunity for the state’s residents.

Reforming Ģ����Ƶ’s public assistance programs and creating a pathway out of poverty

The candidates running for office will likely take positions on ways to reform government assistance (welfare or safety net) programs in Ģ����Ƶ. This should be a top priority because about 13.5% of the state’s population is currently living in poverty. 

One of the main concerns about the welfare system is that it isn’t helping to lift people above the poverty line or empowering them to become self-sufficient. Instead, the complexities and regulations in the system tend to trap people in long-term cycles of poverty that affect families for generations.

To make real change, Ģ����Ƶ’s top lawmakers need to focus on streamlining the state’s welfare system and integrating it with workforce development programs. This strategy, called the , connects recipients of government benefits with one caseworker who not only helps them meet their immediate needs but also provides resources to support them in finding a rewarding job.

In Ģ����Ƶ, around 28% of prime-age (25-54) adults aren’t working, and disengagement from work is one of the primary reasons people seek public assistance. Developing a One Door strategy in Ģ����Ƶ will help these individuals become self-sufficient and also enable them to experience the sense of dignity and purpose meaningful work provides.

Ģ����Ƶ’s political leaders can take steps toward implementing a One Door model by advocating for federal authorization to do so. At the state level, they can also establish a task force to explore ways to connect and improve Ģ����Ƶ’s public assistance and workforce programs.

A reform called the One Door model would allow Ģ����Ƶ to connect more welfare recipients to meaningful work and economic opportunity. 

Making life more affordable in Ģ����Ƶ

Many low- and middle-income families in Ģ����Ƶ are struggling to cover the basic costs of living, as prices for just about everything seem to be rising. The increasing costs add extra hardship to the numerous barriers that already impact people’s well-being. But Ģ����Ƶ’s policymakers have opportunities to make some things more affordable for the state’s residents.

• Housing shortages and costs: The shortage is driving up prices and making affordable homes hard to come by. Builders want to construct more houses, but they face restrictive regulations regarding land use and infrastructure, including roads and water lines. Local policymakers can address the issue by allowing greater flexibility in lot sizes and housing types. Doing so will bring more affordable homes to the market, and that will reduce rent and mortgage payments and free up income to cover other necessities.
• State income taxes: Ģ����Ƶ’s state income tax is set to drop to 4.99% in January 2027, but some lawmakers want to eliminate it completely. For many Ģ����Ƶns, every dollar matters, and doing away with the tax would allow them to keep more of their income in their own pockets. State leaders are considering eliminating corporate tax breaks to offset the potential loss in government revenue from income taxes. But it’s important to note that they could also raise the sales tax to recoup the state’s lost revenue. That could leave lower-income families worse off because essential goods would cost them more.

Creating an educational system that meets the needs of every child

In 2026, Ģ����Ƶ lawmakers will continue their efforts to develop an educational system that honors every child’s unique situation and needs.

Several education-related bills that carried over from 2025 will likely be up for consideration in the Ģ����Ƶ General Assembly.

• Senate Bills 124 and 152: These bills will expand eligibility for Promise Scholarship accounts to students with a parent who’s an active-duty military service member stationed in Ģ����Ƶ and to biological or adopted children of foster parents. The bills will help support more families who want to consider alternative education options for their children
• Senate Bill 171: This bill will require Ģ����Ƶ’s Board of Education to develop an advanced math pathway for students in grades 3-8. The program will prepare students to take higher-level math classes in middle school and ultimately to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The opportunity will pave the way to brighter futures and upward mobility for participating students, and particularly for young African Americans, Hispanics, and girls who haven’t traditionally received significant STEM education.
• House Bill 917: This bill will provide open enrollment processes for students who want to transfer between local school systems or from one school to another within a school system. This will enable students to attend the school that’s the right fit for them, regardless of where they live.

Charter school funding will also be on policymakers’ radar. In 2025, the Ģ����Ƶ Senate created the Study Committee on Funding for Charter School Capital Improvements. The committee was tasked with reviewing current funding processes for public schools, examining the differences in capital funding between charter and public schools, and analyzing the challenges charter schools face in getting funding. Ģ����Ƶ’s leaders will likely use the study’s findings to make sure charter schools have equal access to capital improvement funds so they can continue to offer alternate educational options for families.��

Prioritizing neighborhood safety and reducing crime

Public safety is a top concern for Ģ����Ƶns, and especially for those living in impoverished communities. High crime rates lead to losses in property value, community resources, business activity, and job opportunities—all making it increasingly difficult for people to escape poverty.

Among several public safety bills, Ģ����Ƶ lawmakers will likely consider two that were drafted during the 2025 session.

• Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for juveniles: The first bill will enable greater use of CBT with young people who get arrested, even those who are non-violent or have minor convictions. CBT teaches participants to look at the relationship between their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and helps them respond to challenging situations more effectively. Studies show that CBT programs can reduce recidivism by an impactful 25%. They also set participants on a path toward healing and growth, which will, in turn, help their communities flourish.
• Support for local law enforcement agencies: The second bill will create grants for local law enforcement agencies to assist them in solving more violent crimes. Local departments can use the funds to improve investigations, enhance the technology and data systems officers use, and support victims and families. The resources will also help authorities deter future crime and boost community safety and resiliency.

Taking action to transform lives and communities

Ģ����Ƶ’s policymakers know that more needs to be done to break down the social and economic barriers so many people are facing, and they’re taking action. But this responsibility doesn’t lie with government leaders alone.

Ģ����Ƶ residents should pay close attention to the issues lawmakers discuss, but also to the needs of their families and communities. They can then use what they learn, along with their voices and votes, to create real change. 

In doing so, Ģ����Ƶns will bring even greater promise and prosperity to the state—making it a place where everyone has the opportunity to achieve their full potential and thrive.

Additional resources

The post Shaping Ģ����Ƶ’s Future: Opportunities for the Year Ahead appeared first on For Opportunity.

As Halloween approaches, Ģ����Ƶ families usually look forward to making great memories involving irresistibly adorable costumes and big candy hauls. Many of us know—maybe even from our own childhood experiences—that trick-or-treaters often cheer with delight when they find their favorite sweets in their candy bags.

Halloween is the season for treats. It’s the biggest day of the year for candy sales, slightly surpassing Valentine’s Day. Data on consumer purchases shows that Ģ����Ƶ’s favorite Halloween candies are , , and , with M&M’s and Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups following close behind.

Most of us indulge in these sweet treats every now and then, especially around Halloween. But for many Ģ����Ƶ families, candy is becoming hard to afford. 

Candy and chewing gum prices have increased by an astonishing 38% over the last five years. That’s even more than grocery prices, which have gone up 25% during the same period.

Candy and chewing gum prices, January 2021 to July 2025

For chocolate treats in particular, recent bouts of bad weather and crop diseases have damaged cocoa trees around the world. This has led to a cocoa shortage that has . 

High costs like these are making it difficult for some Ģ����Ƶns to give their children and their young neighbors the happy and memorable Halloween they’re hoping for.  

The struggle to afford life in Ģ����Ƶ (beyond Halloween candy)

Many low- and middle-income families in Ģ����Ƶ are struggling to cover the basic costs of living, as prices for just about everything seem to be rising. The increasing costs add extra hardship to the many barriers that already impact people’s well-being and their ability to afford the occasional fun extras like Halloween candy.

• Shortage of affordable housing: The shortage is driving up prices and making affordable homes hard to come by. High mortgage rates, rising costs of construction materials, and a big increase in Ģ����Ƶ’s population since 1980 are contributing to the problem. Restrictive local regulations regarding land use and infrastructure, including roads and water lines, are making the housing shortage even more severe.

• Barriers to work and upward mobility:Ģ����Ƶ a quarter of prime age (25-54) adults aren’t working in 96 Ģ����Ƶ counties. Many of these Ģ����Ƶns are facing limited economic opportunities in their communities. And some workers feel forced to stay in low-paying jobs to remain eligible for the safety net benefits that protect their family’s well-being. These difficult situations keep people from rising out of poverty and growing their income.

• Access to sufficient food: In 2024, to help them buy food. Of those SNAP participants, 69% were part of families with children, and most had incomes below the poverty line. While Ģ����Ƶ families can use SNAP benefits to buy candy, meeting basic needs is the priority for most.

Policy solutions Ģ����Ƶ can’t afford to ignore

Ģ����Ƶ lawmakers have the ability to make valuable reforms that would help people have more money in their pockets for family expenses.

• Fewer housing regulations: To , local leaders in Ģ����Ƶ need to allow greater flexibility in lot sizes in new subdivisions. They should also grant more permits for varied housing types—like duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes—and for additional homes near commercial centers. These changes would enable builders to construct more affordable homes.

• Reduced occupational licensing requirements: Ģ����Ƶ policymakers have many opportunities to lower barriers to meaningful work and upward mobility, including by . These licenses are typically mandatory for certain professions. By implementing licensing reforms, lawmakers could open more doors for workers, streamlining processes and removing some of the exclusions for people who have been incarcerated.

• Revamped welfare system: To improve Ģ����Ƶ’s welfare system, state lawmakers should explore a . In this scenario, both benefits and job training support would be linked together in a single location. This would provide welfare recipients with a clear path back into the workforce and toward financial independence.

These vital policy changes would strengthen and stabilize Ģ����Ƶ families, helping to lift them above the poverty line and making it possible for them to thrive, even in the face of rising costs. Strong families, in turn, would help their communities prosper. And with more opportunities to flourish, life would be sweeter for Ģ����Ƶns—not just at Halloween but all throughout the year.

Additional Resources

The post Frightfully Pricey Treats: Why Halloween Fun Is Costing Ģ����Ƶ Families More appeared first on For Opportunity.

PEACHTREE CORNERS, GA—Ģ����Ƶ’s prison population has shrunk in recent years, but a written by Joshua Crawford, a Public Safety Fellow at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity, shows that the decreasing number of inmates hasn’t translated to meaningful savings or improvements in public safety for Ģ����Ƶns.

Instead, the report reveals that corrections spending has risen as Ģ����Ƶ’s prison population has declined. The number of incarcerated Ģ����Ƶns dropped by 11.7% between 2010 and 2023, but corrections spending increased by 23.6% over the same period. The trends in Ģ����Ƶ are consistent with those in almost every other state—incarceration rates are falling while corrections budgets are growing.��

The data confirms that reducing the number of people in prison isn’t the answer to decreasing the state budget in Ģ����Ƶ or elsewhere.��

As Crawford says, “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. Those are things lawmakers can meaningfully impact immediately, while criminal justice budgets are more complex and fixed.”

At a glance: facts on the prison population and corrections spending in Ģ����Ƶ

• In 2023, 49,814 people were incarcerated in Ģ����Ƶ.
• From 2010-2023, Ģ����Ƶ’s prison population decreased by 6,618 people, or 11.7%.
• From 2010-2023, Ģ����Ƶ’s corrections spending increased by $258,546,766, or 23.6%.
• In fiscal year 2023, Ģ����Ƶ’s Department of Corrections budget was $1,354,962,683, or 2.2% of the state’s total budget.

A closer look at Ģ����Ƶ’s inmate numbers and corrections spending

The number of people in Ģ����Ƶ’s prisons decreased by 6,618 to 49,814 from 2010-2023, but corrections spending in Ģ����Ƶ increased by $258,546,766 during the same time frame.

Notably, Crawford points out most individuals in Ģ����Ƶ’s prisons are violent and repeat offenders, and the majority have had five or more prior arrests before incarceration. Because these offenders pose higher public safety risks and drive most of the system’s costs, reducing inmates at the margins does little to generate savings.��

Even with the growth in spending, Ģ����Ƶ’s overall Department of Corrections budget in fiscal year 2023 was $1,354,962,683, just 2.2% of the state’s total budget. The vast majority of state dollars went toward other initiatives that help Ģ����Ƶns prosper, including education, public welfare, healthcare, and highways.

Regarding corrections spending, Crawford explained that “because prison budgets are driven by fixed costs like payroll, maintenance, and facilities, modest reductions in the number of inmates don’t free up meaningful savings. Unless states close prisons or dramatically cut staffing, costs remain largely unchanged.”

Reshaping the conversation on criminal justice policy

Long-standing arguments continue about reducing the prison population as a way to decrease Ģ����Ƶ’s overall spending. But the data shows that policymakers need to focus instead on building a more effective criminal justice system that addresses the true costs of crime and helps Ģ����Ƶns flourish.

One crime was committed every 2 minutes and 33 seconds in Ģ����Ƶ in 2024. The effects of this criminal activity are devastating for local communities. Violent crime, in particular, takes a huge toll on property values, employment, economic opportunities, and people’s upward mobility.

Ensuring safety is a core government responsibility, and it’s the first step in creating more prosperous communities throughout Ģ����Ƶ. Public safety is essential to improving economic opportunities, building healthy relationships among neighbors, and enabling Ģ����Ƶns to thrive.

With effective reforms, policymakers can make safety a reality for Ģ����Ƶ’s residents, breaking the interconnected cycles of poverty and crime and transforming communities for generations to come.

Ģ����Ƶ the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity is a nonprofit organization that works to remove barriers to ensure that every person—no matter their race, past mistakes, or the circumstances of their birth—has access to safe communities, a quality education, fulfilling work, and a healthy family life.��

###

Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO) is independent, non-partisan, and solutions-focused. Our team is dedicated to creating opportunities for a quality education, fulfilling work, and a healthy family life for all Ģ����Ƶns. To achieve our mission, we research ways to help remove barriers to opportunity in each of these pathways, promote our solutions to policymakers and the public, and help effective and innovative social enterprises deliver results in their communities.

Send media inquiries to:

Rebecca Primis
Vice President of Communications
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity
rebeccap@foropportunity.org

��

The post New Report: Corrections Spending Rises in Ģ����Ƶ Even as Prison Population Declines appeared first on For Opportunity.

Remove Safety-Net Programs from the U.S. Tax Code

Of the federal and state agencies that run more than  intended to help low-income individuals and families, perhaps the worst administrator is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that runs several safety-net programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that provided $.

While many policymakers view the income tax system as an efficient way to dispense safety-net benefits, IRS performance leaves much to be desired.  A recent Wall Street Journal  listed the EITC with the second-highest improper payment rate—more than five times the average improper payment rate. The Journal’s article did not reveal anything new. The IRS also runs the program with the highest improper payment rate, the American Opportunity Tax Credit.

When it comes to marriage penalties, the income tax structure is a bad fit for distributing money to needy households. While there are tax filing statuses for married couples, heads of household, and single individuals, there is no option for unmarried couples. Consider an unmarried couple with two children. One partner can claim both children as head of household while the other files as a single person. Or they can split the children as heads of household. Either way, they will be treated differently than if they were married. 

Congress could create a new tax filing status to accommodate unmarried couples. However, it may be more trouble than it is worth. Unmarried couples run the gamut in financial and relational commitments, and using tax law to address the various situations is complicated and may be perceived as too intrusive for those who just want to pay their tax liability.

Besides, the IRS is set up for annual returns and refunds, not monthly payments. EITC recipients must wait until the following tax year for their benefits. Monthly payments would give assistance when needed, allow families to properly budget, and would be a more effective way to encourage employment, one of the goals of the program. 

The EITC had an advance payment feature that was repealed in 2010 due to . The system relied on employers making the monthly payments to their employees and then being reimbursed by the IRS, but the Government Accountability Office  IRS procedures to be ineffective with noncompliance rates of 80 percent. Although repealing the advance payment feature eliminated this extreme noncompliance rate, the IRS continues to struggle with taxpayer noncompliance with the EITC program.

Make Income Taxes Neutral to Marital Status

Removing safety-net programs from the tax system would allow Congress to focus on making the income tax marital status neutral. In 2017, Congress was successful in  for single individuals who want to marry, provided they have no children and do not qualify for refundable tax credits.

However, marriage penalties remain for the rest of tax filers. For example, suppose a mom earns $20,000, a dad earns $30,000, and they have two children. Table 1 shows the simple tax liability before tax credits for tax year 2025 assuming that, as an unmarried couple, each parent claims one child and the standard deduction. The tax liability before tax credits is $750 if they live together unmarried but $2,000 if they are married, which means a marriage penalty of $1,250.  Even if one parent claims both children, there would still be a penalty.

The example in Table 1 is just one wage combination for a couple with two children. The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity ran 40,401 wage combinations for this couple if each partner claims one child on their taxes and found that 81% had a marriage penalty. The figure below shows the distribution of the penalties (in red), neutral outcomes (in gray), and the bonuses (in blue). 

One option Congress might consider to eliminate income tax marriage penalties is the flat tax, which treats all taxpayers the same regardless of marital status. The reason can be easily shown using mathematics because the flat tax follows the distributive law of multiplication (see for more). 

Conclusion

The U.S. Tax Code is ill-suited for running safety-net programs without marriage penalties. Furthermore, the IRS has an awful record of improper payments and noncompliance when it comes to running its safety-net programs. Therefore, an important step to eliminate marriage penalties is to take those programs away from the IRS and give them to an agency that knows how to run safety-net programs.

 for an explanation of how these other agencies can eliminate all marriage penalties in safety-net programs.

Image Credits: Canva, Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

The post It’s Time to Eliminate Marriage Penalties in the U.S. Tax Code appeared first on For Opportunity.