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.

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.

Ģ����Ƶ’s labor force continues to show its historic resilience, as there are tens of thousands of jobs available across the Peach State. , there were 313,000 job openings, according to the Ģ����Ƶ Department of Labor.

Even so, there are problems. Although the state boasts , our state’s labor force participation rate stands at 61.5% as of December 2022, compared to 62.2% prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. These percentages mean a considerable number of Ģ����Ƶns who could work are not doing so.

Part of the reason is due to design flaws in our nation’s social safety-net system. The complexity and requirements of programs like food stamps, housing assistance, and medical benefits turn these programs into poverty traps instead of bridges to work and independence.  

There is a policy states can use to give people an easier path out of the safety net and into work. It’s called the One Door policy, and the solution is in the name: This reform transforms how the safety net delivers support by streamlining multiple disconnected programs into a single welfare and workforce program.

The One Door policy solves the overwhelming barriers of the safety-net system

The truth of the matter is that our nation’s welfare system is a fragmented hodgepodge of programs. The dozens of programs that make up the system have different and, at times, competing goals, inconsistent rules, and overlapping groups of recipients. Often, recipients must resubmit the same information multiple times for multiple programs with the aid of multiple caseworkers. This disconnect fosters despair and keeps recipients in a cycle of poverty—as every hour spent navigating the system is an hour not spent pursuing a path out of it. 

At the same time, there is often a disconnect between safety-net programs and welfare-to-work initiatives. The end result is that people stay mired in generational poverty rather than receiving a helping hand to live a better life.

How many people are affected in Ģ����Ƶ? For the 2022 calendar year, more than 1.6 million Ģ����Ƶns were enrolled in the food stamps program, while more than 2.4 million were on the Medicaid/CHIP program—two of the largest safety-net programs. That compares to a statewide population of 10.9 million people. 

These groups of millions are made up of real individual people who have their own futures and potential. When a safety-net system discourages work and family stability—two of the most important building blocks of a better future—people lose hope. As individual states and as a country, we can better address the suffering of poverty, unemployment, and fragmented families and relationships by creating a simpler, more humane system that rewards work and supports family and community stability. 

For individuals on welfare, every hour spent navigating the system is an hour they can’t pursue a path out. The One Door policy would change that. 

Proposed legislation (House Bill 738) takes the first step to bring the One Door policy to Ģ����Ƶ

In this environment, the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity team is on the vanguard of educating about safety-net reform. A key way we are doing so in Ģ����Ƶ is by pushing forward this legislation to create a One Door task force in the state, .

The task force would create a plan to integrate the safety net with workforce development, One Door approach in Utah. Other states, including West Virginia and Louisiana, are weighing similar proposals. So why not here in Ģ����Ƶ?

People across the political spectrum agree that work is key to lifting people out of poverty. Toward this end, the goal of the task force authorized by the bill is to “study the intersection of workforce development programs and safety net programs.” The Task Force on Workforce and Safety Net Integration, housed within the Technical College System of Ģ����Ƶ, would be composed of nine members appointed from various corners of the government.

Ģ����Ƶ has already taken important steps forward to improve our safety-net and workforce development systems. The Ģ����Ƶ Gateway is a unified enrollment system for food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the Childcare and Parent Services program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, but is limited to only those programs. Ģ����Ƶ has also taken steps to consolidate workforce programs under the Technical College System of Ģ����Ƶ.

But to remain a great place to live, work, and raise a family, Ģ����Ƶ must make sure all its citizens are participating in the economic growth we are experiencing. That’s why we need HB 738. 

How would Ģ����Ƶ’s One Door policy task force work?

The duties of the task force would include:

• Developing best practices for the state agencies and departments involved with administering workforce and safety-net programs.
• Exploring ways to merge state agencies or departments to better serve Ģ����Ƶ citizens.
• Exploring how to best integrate the delivery of Ģ����Ƶ’s various workforce development programs and safety-net programs.
• Creating implementation strategy for an integrated delivery system, including a customer-driven platform, simplified program governance and operations, and safeguards to ensure program integrity.

A final report is due to the governor and the General Assembly no later than December 31, 2025.

What problems does the task force solve?

By forming a task force, Ģ����Ƶ can explore further consolidating service delivery via Ģ����Ƶ Gateway and the Technical College System of Ģ����Ƶ—and how those entities and others can better coordinate service delivery. 

The task force will also prepare Ģ����Ƶ in the event that Congress reauthorizes the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which could include the process allowing individual states to pursue a Utah-style One Door consolidation of welfare and work support services. 

The great news is that Ģ����Ƶ doesn’t have to wait on Congress to act. Through the task force and other means, the state can explore additional means of consolidation, up to and including consolidating entire departments. Ģ����Ƶ can also provide job training to more of its citizens, fueling additional economic growth.

The exciting part is the end result of these changes—more Ģ����Ƶns who will have the opportunity to escape systemic poverty, achieve self-sufficiency, and climb the economic ladder to create a better, more prosperous future for themselves and their children.

The post A Better Safety Net in Ģ����Ƶ: Mapping the One Door Policy (House Bill 738) Would Be a Big Step Forward appeared first on For Opportunity.

Missouri lawmakers recently took an important step toward helping poor and working-class residents escape safety-net benefits cliffs and experience the dignity and opportunity of work. By enacting Senate Bill 82, the Show Me State is now the first in the nation to address public assistance provisions that often entrap program participants by punishing work and perpetuating dependence on the government.

It’s no secret that many Americans rely on government assistance programs to make ends meet. But they often get caught in a Catch-22 situation—a benefits cliff—which disincentivizes them from looking for more meaningful work and gaining independence.

These benefits cliffs occur when an individual, family, or household experiences a sudden, steep loss of government assistance as income increases. Perversely, this net loss undermines the natural desire to earn more income because it takes a huge pay bump to overcome the cliff. The unintended consequences of a benefits cliff can be devastating—trapping individuals and families in a cycle of poverty.

How the new law works

This new Missouri law modifies benefits cliffs to enable residents to more easily earn additional income and experience the fulfillment and belonging that comes with social and economic opportunity. It does so by easing the loss of benefits in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and child care subsidy programs for families that lose income eligibility for these programs.

Specifically, this law establishes a transitional benefits program for TANF and SNAP—subject to funding from the state legislature—to help the transition off of benefits and reduce the impact of the program cliffs. The benefit is stepped down on a one-to-one basis as income increases.

It also helps to alleviate the loss of benefits from the child care subsidy program by creating a transitional benefits program using a sliding scale that steps down transitional benefits until the household reaches 300 percent of the poverty level or 85 percent of the state median family income.

When funded and implemented, this law will positively impact all individuals and families on the SNAP and childcare subsidy programs whose income exceeds program limits—but remain under income limits for the transitional benefits. It would not, however, impact TANF recipients because the program’s cash assistance tampers to zero, which means there would be no transitional benefits.��

And building upon the foundation laid in Missouri, other states should similarly experiment with creative solutions to the cliffs problem.

The next step

While the new Missouri law is a commendable first step by a state to correct design flaws in benefit cliffs, there is still more work to do. For example, this legislation fails to address the variables in each program that drive the benefits cliff phenomenon in the first place. Instead, it uses new money to create a bridge that eases the loss of benefits when coming off designated programs.

Precisely because it uses new money, this solution represents a potentially huge and expensive expansion of welfare programs in Missouri. Indeed, the fiscal note accompanying the legislation estimates a cost of around $200 million per year in state revenue.

So rather than a comprehensive and holistic resolution to the benefits cliff problem, this new law essentially creates a supplemental program at risk of being underfunded in years when the legislature fails to fully fund at levels to meet demand—creating challenges for state agencies charged with program implementation. Moreover, the law doesn’t address Medicaid at all—the biggest driver of benefit cliffs in terms of dollar impact to families.

Despite these limitations, this new law recognizes that benefits cliffs are a real problem in need of a solution. And it attempts to address design flaws in two of the biggest-offending programs—SNAP and childcare. Finally, it recognizes the need to step down benefits in ways that eliminate cliffs as people earn additional income and learn to stand on their own with increasingly less dependence on the government.

In tackling the challenge of benefits cliffs, Missouri lawmakers have set the bar for other states to consider solutions to welfare systems that prevent people from becoming self-sufficient by holding them back from working as much as they could or should.

And building upon the foundation laid in Missouri, other states should similarly experiment with creative solutions to the cliffs problem. This includes waivers and other steps to address systemic program flaws. It also includes pilot projects to demonstrate how to eliminate cliffs with a net positive impact on those who work more, earn additional income and become self-sufficient faster than would otherwise be possible.

The post Missouri is first state to pass law addressing benefits cliffs appeared first on For Opportunity.

 occur when Congress doesn’t pass  that give federal agencies and services the necessary funding to operate. Without this approval, agencies must pause all non-essential activity until Congress takes action. Government shutdowns often go hand-in-hand with . When this dynamic takes hold in D.C., government shutdowns become, at best, a distraction from the real issues facing the poor and, at worst, a roadblock to helping people achieve stability and economic opportunity.

What happens during a government shutdown?

During a government shutdown, :����

• Nutrition programs, including the and the , are the most at-risk from a government shutdown.
• Benefits from Social Security, Medicare, and most other need-based programs still go out, but shutdowns often lead to furloughs or reduced staffing levels in federal agencies that administer these programs. As a result, beneficiaries may experience longer processing times for applications, appeals, and inquiries.��
• Many federal employees are temporarily out of a job. They are instructed not to show up to work and aren’t paid during the shutdown window, though they typically receive back-pay once a shutdown ends.
• Essential government employees, such as members of the military, air traffic controllers, and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents, are expected to keep working, usually without pay.��
• Americans may experience delays in government-administered processes, such as permits and passports.

Government shutdowns and safety net programs 

For many Americans who currently need assistance from programs like SNAP, WIC, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Social Security, a government shutdown can be a fearful prospect. The worry of losing essential benefits and facing greater financial hardship can take a significant toll on individuals and families in low-income households and communities.��

Impact of a shutdown on SNAP benefits

SNAP, the nation’s second largest safety net program, helps eligible families buy food. Around 42 million Americans currently receive this vital support. The federal government pays for SNAP benefits, and funds are delivered to the states for distribution to the individuals and families who need them.

During a government shutdown, there are typically enough funds available to provide SNAP benefits for about a month. Few shutdowns in American history have gone on that long, so recipients usually don’t notice any change in financial assistance.

But on November 1, 2025, the current government shutdown surpassed the one-month point, and SNAP recipients didn’t receive any benefits for the coming month. To address this critical situation, the federal government will use its emergency funds to provide SNAP support. Unfortunately, this will only be a short-term solution, and it isn’t likely to cover all the SNAP assistance the government would usually distribute during the month.

It’s important to note that a pause in SNAP benefits during a government shutdown hurts not only individuals and families, but also local economies. Food stamps help support the businesses where people spend them, like grocery stores and farmers markets. , but this grinds to a halt when the government doesn’t fund this essential public assistance.

Impact of a shutdown on WIC benefits

WIC provides families with free healthy foods, breastfeeding support, nutrition education, and referrals to other services. Almost 7 million pregnant women, new moms, and children up to age 5 currently depend on WIC support.

The 2025 shutdown has put WIC benefits in jeopardy, and federal funding for this crucial assistance becomes more uncertain the longer the government remains closed. In the short term, federal officials are using revenues from other sources to keep the program running.

Government shutdowns can push people struggling with hardships further below the poverty line. Recent data shows that a pause in crucial welfare assistance would cause an additional 2.9 million Americans to fall into poverty in late 2025. This would also put future generations at risk of becoming trapped in long-term cycles of poverty.

During a government shutdown, community support for our neighbors is critical. Churches, food banks, charities, and other nonprofit organizations can increase their efforts to provide food to people in need to help them through the difficult time, and community members can provide urgently needed donations.

There is a solution Congress can act on to create a better pathway out of poverty

A government shutdown may not cut off food stamps, WIC, Social Security, or other safety net benefits immediately. However, low-income and vulnerable communities still suffer. 

In the short term, lawmakers need to better serve people living on the margins by being willing to compromise and end the government shutdown. This will make it less likely that the struggles of low-income Americans get lost in political conflicts. 

In the longer term, the shutdown is a reminder that we need a better safety net system—one that encourages economic opportunity and stability instead of leaving millions of Americans exposed to the ups and downs of federal government turmoil. By ending the shutdown, Congress could take up the more important priority of One Door reform. 

In the current welfare system, recipients are forced to navigate , eligibility requirements, and caseworkers—a maze that becomes a trap for welfare dependence instead of a secure path out of poverty. 

The  makes it possible for the safety net to be a bridge rather than a barrier to opportunity. It does away with the disconnected programs and integrates human services with work support so beneficiaries who are capable of working have a clear, supportive, and accessible path to personal well-being and meaningful jobs.

The One Door Model provides welfare recipients with a greater sense of direction, dignity, and purpose, empowering people to become self-sufficient and enabling them to truly flourish.

FAQs about the government shutdown

Will SNAP benefits be paid in November 2025?

• The federal government plans to use its emergency funds to provide SNAP benefits in November 2025. Unfortunately, these funds aren’t likely to cover all the SNAP assistance the government would usually distribute during the month. The payments will also be delayed because states will have to adjust their automated systems to distribute reduced amounts.

Will WIC benefits be paid in November 2025?

• The federal government has currently made funds available to pay WIC benefits for the first few weeks of November 2025.

Are Head Start programs affected by the shutdown?

• provide early learning, health, and well-being services to families with young children. The programs receive funding from the federal government, and many are closing due to the shutdown. Some are staying open by providing limited services, reducing staff, or shortening operating hours.

Where can Ģ����Ƶ families go for food assistance?

• is a free, nonprofit website and mobile app that helps people find nearby food pantries and free food programs. Users can easily search for local support by entering their zip code.
• is a statewide network of food banks that collaborates to end hunger in Ģ����Ƶ. Its website offers helpful links to local food resources.

Where can Ģ����Ƶns get help to find work quickly?

• The Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity’s partners with employers and local resources throughout Gwinnett County and the city of Columbus to connect people with training and support services and to help them find meaningful work.

How are government shutdowns related to welfare benefits cliffs?

• ����benefits cliff occurs when an individual, family, or household loses more in benefits from government assistance programs than it gains from additional earned income. When a person experiences a benefits cliff, they are thrust into serious difficulties: losing housing, going hungry, fearing that their children will be taken by Child Protective Services, and more. A government shutdown can have similar effects to benefits cliffs because it can cause big delays or cuts to essential safety net program payments. This creates significant financial hardship for people who are struggling and can push them deeper into poverty.

What are the political games in D.C. costing communities?

Americans deserve better than having their day-to-day well-being threatened by political dynamics in D.C. Shutdowns result when federal leaders devote energy to political distractions instead of bipartisan opportunities to fix our broken safety net system. This costs millions of people the chance for a more fulfilled, self-sufficient life. 

We need a safety net system that gives people hope and independence from D.C. To make that possible, the current government shutdown needs to end so legislators can get back to the work of serving people—truly putting citizens’ needs first and creating policies that allow Americans to escape poverty and flourish.

Related reading

ABC News

ABC News

Alliance for Opportunity

American Association of People with Disabilities

American Enterprise Institute

BBC

BBC

Brookings

City Journal

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

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

Understanding benefits cliffs
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Why one woman turned down a $70K job due to benefits cliffs
Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

NPR

RealClearPolicy 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The post How a government shutdown hurts the poor: impacts on SNAP, WIC, and safety net reforms appeared first on For Opportunity.

Part 1

By Erik Randolph

If you want to know how well welfare programs work, ask welfare agency administrators how they measure success. This was suggested by Randy Hicks, President and CEO of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity (GCO), years ago. Almost invariably these administrators will answer that they measure success by how many people they serve. When the total number of people they serve goes up, the programs are more successful. Or are they?

To the contrary, program participation does not measure success. Furthermore, the chances are that welfare agency administrators lack the metrics to tell us how successful the programs truly are.

Program participation can measure demand for the program, or it might indicate the number of people in need. In these cases, program participation is useful information. But does it actually measure success? 

The more important goal of welfare programs is to help people overcome their financial difficulties and escape poverty. This enables them to live more fulfilling lives. Public policy should not encourage them to languish on assistance for years on end but rather help them improve their circumstances until they no longer need assistance, or their reliance on assistance becomes lessened. Welfare agencies generally lack metrics to effectively measure this important goal.

Which revises our original question slightly: How can you measure success?

Dependency Metrics

One potential way to measure success is to use dependency metrics that evaluate the percent of the population who are dependent on major welfare programs. This is partially done at the federal level but not at all at the state level.

In 1994, Congress passed the . It focuses on food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash grants, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Every year, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to file a report with Congress showing dependency on those three welfare programs.

The most recent was released in 2018. The pie chart below comes from page eight of that report, showing for the year 2015 the percentages of the national population according to their proportion of their total income dependent on the value of food stamps, TANF cash grants, and SSI.��The higher the proportion of an individual’s income that comes from these three assistance programs, the worse off the person probably is. For example, if the value of food stamps constitutes more than 50 percent of an individual’s income, that person cannot be well off financially. In comparison, when food stamps constitute 25 percent to 50 percent of an individual’s income, it means the person has more additional income and is better off than when food stamps comprise more than 50 percent  of total income. And having less than 25 percent of total income coming from food stamps is better than having 25 percent to 50 percent of total income on food stamps.

Ģ����Ƶ has the ability to generate dependency metrics through the Ģ����Ƶ Gateway, including TANF cash grants, food stamps, medical assistance, and two other programs. These are means-tested programs, meaning the Department of Human Services has not only participation numbers but also income information of the applicants and recipients. The Department could relatively easily have its I.T. crew write scripts to spit out reports periodically showing the number of individuals and families by dependency on their income on those programs captured through the Gateway. Coupled with Census data, the Department could produce periodic reports showing how dependency changes over time and further break down the data by demographic groups.��

Furthermore, because every individual has a unique identifier, the I.T. crew could produce additional scripts to follow people over time. This would allow for more sophisticated analytics showing the financial progress of people and families in the system.��

Dependency metrics are not perfect. They do not capture persons who would be eligible for the program but do not participate. However, the number of these individuals are regularly estimated and could be presented as additional information in the analysis.��

Ideally, it would be best if the dependency metrics captured all assistance programs. Currently, this is not possible.

Exactly How Many Programs Do People Benefit From? 

Often people qualify for multiple assistance programs. Their children might be on Medicaid and receiving free school lunches. At the same time, the household may be receiving food stamps. Additionally, if the parent or parents work, they may be receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Additional Child Tax Credit. We just listed five programs that welfare families typically receive.��

And there are more programs. If the family has young children under five, they could receive food packages from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program. Additionally, the family may be receiving childcare assistance, Section 8 rental assistance, and/or energy assistance.

Now you might think that we have a dataset somewhere telling us the total number of welfare programs families are benefiting from. If you assumed that we do, you would be wrong. No such dataset exists.

The reason? First, the welfare system is disjointed. There is no single agency or dataset that can tell us the total number of programs people are on. Even Ģ����Ƶ’s award winning Gateway, which is one of the better integrated eligibility systems in the country, cannot tell you. While the Gateway can tell us about food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, TANF, and subsidized childcare services, it is missing the refundable tax credits, free school lunches breakfasts, Section 8 rental assistance, and other welfare programs not listed.��

Second, statistical sources do not include all welfare programs in their questionnaires and have other limitations, such as serious time lags. For example, the American Community Survey asks about food stamps, Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income but practically none of the other programs, making a statistical inference for the complete picture impossible.��

The Survey of Income and Program Participation gets us closer, giving us childcare assistance, WIC, energy assistance, and public housing, among others. However, it is still missing the refundable tax credits, including the EITC which is one of the big three welfare programs. Worse, SIPP is structured for longitudinal studies that makes the survey totally impractical for monitoring program participation on a regular and timely basis.

Adopting Dependency Metrics in Ģ����Ƶ

Dependency metrics would improve our ability to measure success, and state leaders should consider implementing them in Ģ����Ƶ.��

Ģ����Ƶ would do a better job than the federal government with dependency metrics. The Gateway houses the data for critical programs, enabling Ģ����Ƶ to produce monthly estimates, more timely estimates, and for more programs. In contrast, the Feds apparently cannot meet its obligation in producing annual reports, provides only national data for only three programs, and there are significant time lags. The most recent Federal report came out on May 4, 2018, with 2015 and some 2016 data.

Once implemented at the state level, dependency metrics will improve over time. If and when further integration, consolidation, and streamlining of eligibility systems occur, as recommended by GCO, dependency metrics will become more complete and more useful.

However, they are not the sole answer. There is another way to measure success that would complement well dependency metrics. This will be the topic of my next blog.

In the meantime, do you have ideas on how we can measure success in welfare programs? We would love to hear them. Be sure to put them down in the comments below.

Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Ģ����Ƶ. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

DOWNLOAD WHITE PAPER

DOWNLOAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The post How Can You Measure Welfare Program Success? Part 1 appeared first on For Opportunity.

By Erik Randolph

When someone needs financial help or workforce training from the government, where do they go?

If we just allowed people to navigate federal programs on their own, the average person would be completely overwhelmed.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, there are more than and at the federal level, with little overlap. Just listing the programs would exceed the word limit for a typical blog.��

Fortunately, states have some control over the process for some of the larger programs, like food stamps and Medicaid, that serve millions of Americans.

Ģ����Ƶ’s Gateway Strategy

Compared to many states, Ģ����Ƶ is ahead. The state government has spent years and $262 million to streamline its eligibility systems of means-tested programs into an integrated system known as the .

Here there is just one “door” to enter to qualify for some of the big federal means-tested programs entrusted to the states to administer.

The Gateway allows individuals to apply for ten programs across four state agencies, including  food stamps; food packages from the Women, Infants, and Children Program; Medicaid; subsidized childcare; and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The Department of Human Services runs the eligibility system at an annual operating cost of about $62 million, but the department does not administer all the programs themselves. For example, the Department of Community Health administers the Medicaid program, and the Department of Early Care and Learning administers the subsidized childcare program.��

Integrated eligibility systems are far more convenient for the customers, requiring them to enter only one door, instead of up to five separate doors in the case of Ģ����Ƶ. It also streamlines the application process for the customer.��

On the administrative side, all the hard work is done behind the scenes. The automated systems can share information between programs. Moreover, the technology sets up the state to accomplish future streamlining, consolidation, and reform.

Despite all these advantages of the Gateway, there is still room for improvement. Take Utah’s system, for example.��

Utah’s Integrated System

Although Ģ����Ƶ is ahead of many states, Utah may be the furthest ahead.��

As explained in a recent American Enterprise Institute , Utah streamlined 23 workforce programs across six state agencies into a Department of Workforce Services.

In addition to helping customers with employment, Utah treats basic welfare programs as . These include food stamps, subsidized childcare, financial assistance, and medical programs. Customers also can file .��

The Utah system is clean and easy for the customer. Its “no wrong door” policy allows easy access to help in finding employment and receiving support services. It also sends a clear message that Utah prioritizes work as a solution.

Behind the scenes, Utah works with various federal agencies to make the system work. It is not an easy task. It requires creative solutions and continual effort on part of the state to take on the many hassles that come with dealing with the federal government, including the burdensome task of securing “waiver” approvals to federal law from the federal agencies.

However, the goal is worthwhile. It creates an easier experience for the customers,  at  overall less administrative cost.

Much More Work Needs to Be Done

Utah is showing the way, but much more work needs to be done.��

There are still welfare benefits that the federal government does not allow states to administer. These program benefits are additional doors that people must enter, requiring additional effort to apply for those benefits and hoops to jump through to get assistance.��

In other words, while Ģ����Ƶ has integrated eligibility systems, and Utah has gone even further with its integration, there are federal government programs outside the control of the states. These include the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Supplemental Security Income, and public housing.

Furthermore, as we have written about, the rules themselves still need fixing to eliminate welfare cliffs and marriage penalties.��

Nevertheless, progress is being made, and the work continues on.��

Do you have experience with the Ģ����Ƶ Gateway and other assistance programs?  Or perhaps experience in another state? Share your experiences in the comments below.
Erik Randolph is Director of Research at the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity. This blog reflects his opinion and not necessarily that of the Ģ����Ƶ Center for Opportunity.

List of Programs per the Government Accountability Office, Reports and

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers
• Additional Child Tax Credit
• Adoption Assistance
• Adult Education Grants to States (Adult Education and Family Literacy Act)
• Affordable Care Act Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program
• American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services
• Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to States
• Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
• Child and Adult Care Food Program (lower-income components)
• Child Care and Development Fund
• Child Support Enforcement
• Choice Neighborhoods Implementation Grants
• Commodity Supplemental Food Program
• Community Based Job Training Grants
• Community Development Block Grants
• Community Service Employment for Older Americans
• Community Services Block Grant
• Compensated Work Therapy
• Consolidated Health Centers
• Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program
• Earned Income Tax Credit
• Education for the Disadvantaged- Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A)
• Emergency Food and Shelter Program
• Environmental Workforce Development and Job Training Cooperative Agreements (Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements in 2011report)
• Exclusion of Cash Public Assistance Benefits
• Family Planning
• Federal Pell Grants
• Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
• Federal TRIO Programs
• Federal Work-Study
• Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
• Foster Care
• Foster Grandparent Program
• Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program
• Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs
• Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for Incarcerated Individuals
• H-1B Job Training Grants
• Head Start
• Higher Education: Aid for Institutional Development programs and Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions programs
• HOME Investment Partnerships Program
• Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program (Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Project in 2011 report)
• Homeless Assistance Grants
• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
• Indian and Native American Program (Native American Employment and Training in 2011 report)
• Indian Education – Bureau of Indian Education

• Indian Education—Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies
• Indian Health Service
• Indian Housing Block Grant
• Indian Human Services (Division of Human Services)
• Job Corps
• Job Placement and Training Program (Indian Employment Assistance in 2011 report)
• Job Training, Employment Skills Training, Apprenticeships, and Internships
• Legal Services Corporation
• Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program
• Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
• Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
• Maternal and Child Health Block Grant
• Mathematics and Science Partnerships
• d settings.
• Medicaid
• Medical Care for Low- Income Veterans Without Service-Connected Disability
• Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program
• National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program
• National Farmworker Jobs Program
• National School Lunch Program (free and reduced- price components)
• Native American Career and Technical Education Program (Career and Technical Education – Indian Set-Aside in 2011 report)
• Native Employment Works (Tribal Work Grants in 2011)
• Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program
• Nutrition Assistance Program for Puerto Rico
• Nutrition Service for the Elderly
• Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
• Older Americans Act: National Family Caregiver Support Program
• Projects with Industry
• Public Housing
• Reentry Employment Opportunities (Reintegration of Ex-Offenders in 2011 report)
• Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Discretionary Grants (Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Targeted Assistance Discretionary Program from 2011 is now part of this program)
• Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Targeted Assistance Grants
• Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant Program
• Refugee and Entrant Assistance State/Replacement Designee Administered Programs ((Refugee and Entrant Assistance – Social Services Program from 2011 is now part of this program)
• Registered Apprenticeship
• Rental Housing Bonds Interest Exclusion
• Rural Education Achievement Program
• Rural Rental Assistance Payments
• Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
• School Breakfast Program (free and reduced-price components)

•  Second Chance Act Technology-Based Career Training Program for Incarcerated Adults and Juveniles (Second Chance Act Reentry Initiative in 2011 report)
• Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
• Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
• Senior Community Service Employment Program
• Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
• Social Services Block Grants
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program
• State Supported Employment Services Program
• State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program (Rehabilitation Services – Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States in 2011 report)
• Summer Food Service Program
• Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
• Supplemental Security Income
• Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
• Supportive Housing for the Elderly
• Tech Prep Education State Grants
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
• The Emergency Food Assistance Program
• Title I Migrant Education Program
• Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers
• Transition Assistance Program
• Transitional Cash and Medical Services to Refugees
• Tribal Technical Colleges (United Tribes Technical College in 2011 report)
• Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions
• Veterans Pension and Survivors Pension
• Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program
• Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans in 2011 report)
• Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit- Low-Income Subsidy
• Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service (Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities in 2011 report)
• Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities
• Weatherization Assistance
• Work Opportunity Tax Credit
• Workforce Investment Act Adult Activitiesa
• Workforce Investment Act Youth Activitiesb
• WIOA National Dislocated Worker Grants (WIA National Emergency Grants in 2011)
• WIOA Youth Program (WIA Youth Activities in 2011 report)
• Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations
• Youth Partnership Programs (Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations in 2011 report)
• YouthBuild

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORK AND MARRIAGE IN GEORGIA’S WELFARE SYSTEM

Based on the most recent 2015 data, this report provides an in-depth look at the welfare cliffs across the state of Ģ����Ƶ. A computer model was created to demonstrate how welfare programs, alone or in combination with other programs, create multiple welfare cliffs for recipients that punish work. In addition to covering a dozen programs – more than any previous model – the tool used to produce the following report allows users to see how the welfare cliff affects individuals and families with very specific characteristics, including the age and sex of the parent, number of children, age of children, income, and other variables. Welfare reform conversations often lack a complete understanding of just how means-tested programs actually inflict harm on some of the neediest within our state’s communities.

DOWNLOAD WHITE PAPER

DOWNLOAD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The post The Best Administrative Structure for Welfare appeared first on For Opportunity.

Computational model exposes severe problems with the welfare system

Previously, it was shown how a single mom with two kids in Gwinnett County could lose welfare program benefits by earning more money. This explained why $9 + $1 can equal negative $6,000.

The Gwinnett county example showed only two wage levels. However, the computer model provides results for a large range of wage levels and family structure. This enables policymakers, administrators and interested citizens to see a more complete picture of the challenges facing a family in poverty.

The computer model can generate scenarios in any of the other 158 counties in the state of Ģ����Ƶ.

No matter the county welfare cliffs (that unintended consequence of the current welfare system whereby an individual or family loses by earning more) can be found – essentially trapping families into a level of income.

These cliffs can be clearly seen on the chart below. Wherever there is a drop in a line, there is a loss in benefits that exceed the gain in earned income.

Also clearly seen, the benefit levels are very high and the severity of the cliffs significant. More surprisingly, there is not just one cliff but a series of cliffs that cascade down.

The chart shows that when government benefits are taken into account, it is financially better for a single mom to earn an hourly wage of $9 than an hourly wage three times as much, or $27 per hour.

Of course, it is important to point out that the severity of the cliffs and the income levels where they drop off change depending on the county, the characteristics of the family, and other factors.

These findings underscore the need to undertake fundamental welfare reform beyond the various reforms already being implemented. The system needs to become more rational so not to punish families who try to get ahead by earning more money.

A forthcoming study will highlight other examples.

Chart showing welfare cliff for typical family in Gwinnett County:

How to read the chart: The chart above illustrates the scenario highlighted in this and the prior posts , that is, a single mom with two children in Gwinnett county. The horizontal axis is gross earned income, and the vertical axis is the sum of net earned income plus the various welfare assistance benefits. The first line on the bottom is net earnings. The next line above is net earnings plus refundable tax credits. Each line stacked above adds another government benefit in the following order: TANF Cash, food benefits (Food stamps, free school meals and WIC food packages), housing (Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers), subsidized child care (the CAPS subsidized childcare program), medical assistance (Medicaid and PeachCare), and Affordable Care Act subsidies.

The post When Giving a Helping Hand Hurts – Part 2 appeared first on For Opportunity.

Returning citizens often face a mountain of debt upon leaving prison that makes it more difficult to successfully reenter society. Some of this debt may have existed prior to incarceration – such as consumer debt and child support – while much of it arises as a direct result of a criminal conviction, and is made much worse by subsequent incarceration and unemployment. Studies have shown average debt amounts in certain jurisdictions to be as high as $20,000 in child support arrears[i] and between $500 and $2,000 in offense-related debt.[ii] This onerous amount of debt, combined with the lack of opportunity to earn or save money while in prison, cause many offenders to reenter society with little hope of being able to repay what they owe.

Consumer Debt

It is common for people who are incarcerated to carry some level of consumer debt into prison, whether it is from outstanding mortgages, car loans, school loans, or credit cards.[iii] Missed payments on these mortgages, loans, and bills result in back interest, fees, and fines accumulating over the course of a person’s incarceration. The end result can be the offender accumulating an unmanageable amount of debt by the time he or she is released, leading him or her to file for bankruptcy.[iv]

Child Support

Child support typically comprises the largest debt returning citizens owe,[v] as non-custodial parents who are unable to modify their orders during incarceration can owe tens of thousands of dollars in arrears by the time they are released.[vi]

One study examining Massachusetts’ inmates and parolees revealed that non-custodial parents entering prison owed an average of $10,543 in unpaid child support and were likely to generate an additional $10,000 in arrears by the time they were released.[vii] More startlingly, one-fifth of the state inmates were estimated to generate arrears balances in excess of $30,000 while in prison.[viii] Another study of 350 parolees in Colorado demonstrated that they had an average balance of $16,651 in arrears.[ix]

Many returning citizens in Ģ����Ƶ are likely to be impacted by child support debt, as 60 percent of offenders in Ģ����Ƶ self-report having one or more children upon entering prison.[x] Accepting the circumstances of the incarcerated, some states allow offenders to modify their child support while in prison to avoid the accrual of arrears. However, Ģ����Ƶ offenders are prohibited from modifying their arrears while incarcerated, as the state deems incarceration to be a form of “voluntary unemployment.”[xi] As such, there is no mechanism for indigent offenders in Ģ����Ƶ to avoid accruing child support debt.

Once child support arrears have accrued, federal law requires non-custodial parents to pay the full amount owed to custodial parents, even if modification of orders is granted upon release from prison.[xii] However, federal law does permit arrears owed to the state to be forgiven retroactively. Child support arrears become owed to the state when the Department of Human Resources supplies Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to custodial parents who are not receiving requisite child support payments from non-custodial parents. Once funds are distributed, the non-custodial parent becomes obligated to repay the state for supplying the amount of assistance he or she was originally responsible for paying the custodial parent.[xiii]

Restitution

Another source of debt which many returning citizens owe upon reentry is payment of restitution to victims. The amount of restitution owed by offenders usually ranges from several hundreds of dollars to several thousands of dollars, depending on the offense.[xiv] Restitution provides a way for offenders to pay for financial loss and other damages suffered by victims including lost property, medical expenses, costs of counseling, funeral and burial expenses, and lost wages.[xv] It also serves as a way for the offender and the state to demonstrate that they recognize the harm that the victim suffered and the offender’s obligation to make amends.[xvi] One study conducted in Pennsylvania found that paying restitution is related to lower recidivism.[xvii] As such, it is an important obligation for returning citizens to pay.

However, problems occur when a person’s financial status and earning capacity is not considered in forming restitution orders.[xviii] This can result in unrealistic terms of repayment being formed, which, combined with other court-imposed financial obligations, create a financial burden for the returning citizen and may discourage him or her from repaying anything at all.[xix] When this situation happens, it leaves victims without compensation for financial loss or damages and diminishes their confidence in the criminal justice system.

In Ģ����Ƶ, the Crime Victims Restitution Act of 2005 mandates that offenders make restitution payments to victims while under parole supervision.[xx] The court determines the amount of restitution and manner of paying it during sentencing, and parole officers are responsible for facilitating and monitoring payment compliance once the offender is in the community. Parolees must begin paying restitution upon release and are required to pay a minimum of $30 per month. [1]^,[xxi]

Fees, Fines, and Surcharges

A third source of debt that encumbers returning citizens is fees, fines, and surcharges that arise as a direct result of a criminal conviction.

Fees are amounts charged to offenders in exchange for the services provided by courts, probation departments, parole supervision, and other agencies.[xxii] For example, the Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles collects a monthly supervision fee of $30 from every parolee with a supervision period of three months or longer. [2]^,[xxiii]

Fines imposed by the court are intended to punish offenders and deter others from committing such crimes.[xxiv] The amount of the fine varies based on the person’s charge and can be mandatory or discretionary.[xxv] A fine for a third DUI offense in Ģ����Ƶ, for instance, can be as high as $5,000.[xxvi]

Finally, surcharges are add-on amounts often unrelated to the crime but used to generate revenue for criminal justice agencies.[xxvii] Revenue is designated toward such things as retirement funds for sheriffs and peace officers, law enforcement facilities and training, indigent defense programs, and education and treatment programs.[xxviii] While small in isolation, surcharges can total hundreds and even thousands of dollars.[xxix]

Ģ����Ƶ began collecting surcharges in 1950 when the legislature passed a statute requiring a deduction to be taken from every criminal fine to support the Peace Officers’ Annuity and Benefit Fund. By 2001, the number of court-imposed surcharges had risen to 21 to support nine state programs, five local programs, and the State General Fund.[xxx] Surcharges range from $0.50 per case to 50 percent of the total fine amount.[xxxi]

Inability to Earn or Save Money in Prison

A fourth reason returning citizens in Ģ����Ƶ have difficulty repaying debts upon release is that they do not have the ability to earn money for their work performed while incarcerated.[xxxii] As one of only three states that do not pay inmates for work,[3][xxxiii] Ģ����Ƶ bars those who are indigent from being able to meet current obligations, pay-down debt, or save for their inevitable reentry while in prison. This policy removes a strong incentive for them to work and develop skills and experience that will be helpful in obtaining a job upon release.

Conclusion

Without having a realistic plan and payment options to pay-off all of this debt, people returning from prison are less likely to pay anything at all, more likely to engage in the underground economy to avoid wage garnishment, and more likely to make bad decisions that may result in re-incarceration. The consequences of debt can be detrimental for returning citizens.

Footnotes

[1] Payment is required upon release for parolees serving 90 days or more under parole supervision.

[2] Parolees serving for violent offenses pay a monthly victim compensation fee of $30 in lieu of the supervision fee.

[3] Ģ����Ƶ inmates who participate in the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) and inmates who are placed in a transitional center are the exception, as they do have a chance to earn money while incarcerated. However, PIECP is limited to two prisons – though the state has plans to expand it to three to five more prisons – and there are only across the state serving 2,674 of 53,558 inmates . The other two states who do not pay inmates for work are Arkansas and Texas.

Endnotes

Some of the citations listed below are abbreviated. To view the full citation, see the “Notes” section in our report, A High Price to Pay.

[i] Nancy Thoennes, Child Support Profile: Massachusetts Incarcerated and Paroled Parents, Center for Policy Research, May 2002, 26, .

[ii] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve How Fines, Fees, Restitution, and Child Support are Assessed and Collected from People Convicted of Crimes, Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Texas Office of Court Administration, Interim Report, March 2, 2009, 8, .

[iii] Erica Sandberg, “Ex-offenders face big debt challenges after prison,” CreditCards.com, August 30, 2010, accessed May 8, 2014, para. 7, .

[iv] Connie Prater, “How to prepare financially for time in prison,” CreditCards.com, October 15, 2010, accessed March 26, 2014, para. 7, .

[v] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve, 10.

[vi] Nancy Thoennes, Child Support Profile, 18.

[vii] Ibid., 26.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt While Doing Time: Child Support and Incarceration,” Judge’s Journal 43 (2004): 7; Jessica Pearson and Lanae Davis, Serving Parents Who Leave Prison: Final Report on the Work and Family Center, Center for Policy Research, 2001, ii, .

[x] Ģ����Ƶ Department of Corrections, Inmate Statistical Profile, 8.

[xi] Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Project to Avoid Increasing Delinquencies: ’Voluntary Unemployment,’ Imputed Income, and Modification Laws and Policies for Incarcerated Noncustodial Parents,” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2012, 4, ; See O.C.G.A. § 19-6-15(j).

[xii] Jessica Pearson, “Building Debt,” 5.

[xiii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2007, 26, .

[xiv] Judge Brian Amero, Henry County Superior Court, telephone conversation with author, May 29, 2014.

[xv] National Center for Victims of Crime, “Restitution Procedures,” in Promising Practices and Strategies for Victim Services in Corrections, 1997, ; National Center for Victims of Crime, Making Restitution Real: Five Case Studies on Improving Restitution Collection, 2011, 3, 4, .

[xvi] National Center for Victims of Crime, Making Restitution Real, 4.

[xvii] R. Barry Ruback, Restitution in Pennsylvania: A Multimethod Investigation, Submitted to Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Final Grant Report, August 2002, 9, 98, .

[xviii] National Institute of Justice, “Restitution,” Archived material that is the product of five regional symposia held on restorative justice between June 1997 and January 1998, accessed April 9, 2014, para. 5, .

[xix] Carl Reynolds et al., A Framework to Improve, 1.

[xx] Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Restitution,” accessed April 10, 2014, .

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2; Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Supervision & Victim Fees,” accessed April 10, 2014, .

[xxiii] Ģ����Ƶ State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “Supervision & Victim Fees,” accessed May 12, 2014, .

[xxiv] Paul Peterson, “Supervision Fees: State Policies and Practices,” Federal Probation 76 (2012): para. 2, .

[xxv] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2.

[xxvi] .

[xxvii] Rachel L. McLean and Michael D. Thompson, Repaying Debts, 2.

[xxviii] Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Fees in Ģ����Ƶ – Laws and Information, Court Business and Process Improvement Program, October 2004, 5, .

[xxix] Alicia Bannon, Mitali Nagrecha, and Rebekah Diller, Criminal Justice Debt: A Barrier to Reentry, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University School of Law, 2010, 1, .

[xxx] Russell W. Hinton, “Court Fees,” Department of Audits and Accounts, Performance Audit Operations Division, October 2001, 1. This executive summary can be found in the following report: Administrative Office of the Courts of Ģ����Ƶ, Municipal Court Fee Study, November 2003, Appendix A-1, .

[xxxi] Ibid.

[xxxii] Adam Crisp, “Ģ����Ƶ inmates strike in fight for pay,” timesfreepress.com, December 14, 2010, accessed May 20, 2014, .

[xxxiii] Cindy Upton and Sarah Harp, Cost of Incarcerating Adult Felons, Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, Program Review and Investigations Committee, Research Report No. 373, 45, ; A.J. Sabree, Strategic Planning and Implementation Consultant for the Ģ����Ƶ Department of Juvenile Justice, email message to author, June 5, 2014; Peter Wagner, “Section III: The Prison Economy,” in The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Crime Control Industry, Western Prison Project and the Prison Policy Initiative, April 2003, 130-131, ; Adam Crisp, “Ģ����Ƶ inmates strike in fight for pay,” timesfreepress.com, December 14, 2010, .

The post Why Do People Leave Prison with So Much Debt? appeared first on For Opportunity.