How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

Best practices for reducing crime can empower California to build safer communities through policy.

How a Government Shutdown Actually Hurts the Poor

Key Points

  • Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills that give federal agencies and services the approval and funding necessary to operate. 
  • Government shutdowns and political wrangling distract from the real issues facing the poor and delay much-needed safety net reforms that would help people move out of government dependency.
  • There are bipartisan solutions Congress can act on to better serve low-income and marginalized communities.

Government shutdowns occur when Congress doesn’t pass a set of bills 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. Threats of government shutdowns often go hand-in-hand with political conflicts among federal leaders. 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 efforts to move people out of government dependency.

What Happens During a Government Shutdown?

During a government shutdown, several disruptions happen:  

  • 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 military, air traffic control, and TSA, are expected to keep working without pay. 
  • Americans may experience delays in government-administered processes, such as permits and passports.
  • 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 responsible for administering these programs. As a result, beneficiaries may experience longer processing times for applications, appeals, and inquiries. 
  • Nutrition programs, including SNAP and WIC, are the most at-risk from a government shutdown, with WIC being immediately impacted upon a shutdown (though benefits may still continue for some days) and SNAP having about a month of funding available after a shutdown.

Government Shutdowns and Safety Net Programs 

For many Americans who currently need assistance from programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), 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. 

The good news for these Americans is that need-based services are typically the last area to be affected and the first to receive any additional approved funding, and government shutdowns would have to go on for a long time—longer than the current record of 34 days—before beneficiaries notice any change in financial assistance. The biggest hurdle is that agencies may be slower to respond to applications, inquiries, and other administrative needs. 

Government Shutdowns Prolong the Suffering of Low-Income, Marginalized Communities

Government shutdowns can generate consequences and inconveniences across the country, but it’s important to recognize that not everyone bears the brunt of a government shutdown equally. 

A government shutdown may not cut off food stamps, social security, or other safety net benefits immediately. However, low-income and vulnerable communities still suffer because their struggles get lost in the midst of political conflicts. The impending shutdown is brewing because political wrangling and polarization continue to distract federal leaders from addressing real problems and broken safety net systems.

There Are Solutions Congress Can Act On to Create Better Pathways Out of Poverty

To better serve people living on the margins, federal lawmakers must stop avoiding the reality that the design of our safety net is a barrier, not a bridge, to opportunity. 

In the current system, recipients are forced to navigate multiple, disconnected programs, eligibility requirements, and caseworkers—a maze that becomes a trap for welfare dependence instead of a secure path out of poverty. Government shutdowns can certainly add to this tediousness and complexity, but there’s a bigger question looming in the background: How do we design our safety net system so that it  actually helps Americans become more self-sufficient and regain hope and dignity along the way? 

There are solutions Congress can implement.

Expanding the One Door Model to Bridge Welfare and Work 

The One Door Model does away with disconnected programs and integrates human services with work support so that beneficiaries who are capable of working have a clear, supportive, and accessible path to personal well-being and meaningful jobs.

This reform improves safety net services by: 

  • Streamlining programs and making the system easier for recipients to navigate.
  • Building a bridge to work, training, and education to promote self-sufficiency over dependency. 
  • Providing cost savings for federal and state budgets.

 

One Door To Opportunity

The purpose and direction of our safety net programs are to help and not hinder opportunity. We must build a system that provides one door to access opportunities leading to thriving. This is a dramatic change in how we deliver help to those in need.

One Door To Opportunity

The purpose and direction of our safety net programs are to help and not hinder opportunity. We must build a system that provides one door to access opportunities leading to thriving. This is a dramatic change in how we deliver help to those in need.

The first and only state to adopt this approach is Utah, where it has changed the lives of thousands—everyone from single mothers to ex-offenders seeking a fresh start. The One Door Model is a fix all states could implement…if Congress would allow them. Under the current federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), states are blocked from adopting the reform. Congress could change this simply by revising WIOA. 

Removing the Barrier of Benefits Cliffs 

All safety net programs suffer from a benefits cliffs problem. A benefits cliff is 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: loss of housing, going hungry, fearing that their children will be taken by Child Protective Services, and more. While most people don’t want to depend on government assistance long-term, a higher wage often doesn’t offset the vulnerabilities created by a sudden, steep loss of benefits.

The One Door Model, work requirements, and other welfare-to-work solutions can encourage more people toward employment and independence, but this approach isn’t a full solution. As long as benefits cliffs exist in the safety net, people will face a significant barrier that incentivizes them to choose government dependency. Reforms are needed at both the federal and state levels to empower more households to overcome benefits cliffs through steady work and typical pay raises so that they can achieve self-sufficiency more quickly and securely. 

Knowing that practical, life-changing solutions are out there, we can look at government shutdown debates in a different light and ask: What are the political games in DC costing communities? For millions of Americans, the tragic answer is that it’s costing them the chance  for a more fulfilled, self-sufficient life as long as federal leaders devote energy to political distractions instead of bipartisan opportunities to fix our broken safety net system. 

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

Missouri lawmakers took an important step forward for working-class and impoverished residents this year by enacting Senate Bill 82. This new law will help more Missourians escape from an entrapping safety-net system and experience the dignity and opportunity of work.

On paper, our safety-net programs in Missouri are intended to help people avoid abject poverty and meet their basic needs. These programs should be temporary whenever possible and encourage work and independence, because ultimately what we want for people is stability and mobility. The sad reality, however, is that many of the programs include a hidden time bomb that threatens the very individuals they are intended to help.

For those receiving safety-net benefits — especially SNAP, child care assistance, and Medicaid — there can be a sudden, steep loss of government assistance as a worker’s income increases. This often results in a loss in benefits that far exceeds the additional pay from a raise a worker receives. These unintended consequences of the benefits cliff can be devastating, trapping individuals and families in a perpetual cycle of poverty. It is high time we address this issue and strive for a more sustainable and supportive system.

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

Imagine you’re offered a raise that, if accepted, would actually make your family worse off.

This is the experience of some families in poverty when they hit something called the benefits cliff. This “cliff effect” is triggered when a family’s increase in earned income prompts a disproportionately larger decrease in the benefits they receive through federally funded public assistance programs.

This week’s guest is Kelsey Underwood, vice president of strategy and product for the Georgia Center for Opportunity. She joins the show to discuss how the benefits cliff can disincentivize work, negatively impacting families struggling to escape poverty. She also touches on GCO’s efforts in various states to clear obstacles to upward mobility for impoverished Americans. The discussion centers around the dignity of work that fosters upward mobility and identifies resources available to policymakers and business leaders to help address the issue.

How programs to help the poor can harm upward mobility – Sutherland Institute

State’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution

Media statement, in the news, Georgia news, ga news

State’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled late last week that the state’s occupational license requirement for lactation consultants violates the state constitution. As the Institute for Justice reports, “The licensure law would have required even experienced lactation care providers to become International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), involving two years of college courses, 300+ hours of clinical work, and an expensive exam. This would have made state licensure unattainable for many.”

The Georgia Center for Opportunity’s (GCO) take: “Bottom line, the Georgia Supreme Court made the right call here,” said Eric Cochling, chief program officer and general counsel for GCO. “Occupational licensing is needed in some industries and job categories due to public health and safety concerns, but the laws on the books today in many cases are an unnecessary roadblock to employment for workers. When you add the cost of becoming certified as a lactation consultant to the fact that there is virtually no discernable benefit to public safety or health from imposing the new restrictions, the Supreme Court’s decision is clearly the right one in this case. As our state and nation continue to face a shortage of skilled and qualified workers in a variety of occupations, it’s important that government not throw up unnecessary roadblocks. Unfortunately, occupational licenses are frequently one of them.”

Are Work Requirements Good or Bad?

Are Work Requirements Good or Bad?

Man sitting with his hands folded

Are Work Requirements Good or Bad?

Key Points

  • The arguments around work requirements ignore the purpose of how our safety net services should work.
  • The public, in general, agree with the argument for work requirements because they see the system as a temporary solution.
  • We must reform the system so that we move people into opportunity and thriving.

As the federal government debates the debt ceiling and attempts to bring spending under control, one recurring topic is work requirements for adults on government benefits and safety net services. The argument is that implementing work requirements will encourage more people to leave welfare programs, which in turn would decrease spending on one of the biggest expenses in the federal budget.

However, the debate about work requirements should not, in my opinion, be connected to fiscal accountability. Instead, it should be linked to the central purpose of these services and the people needing them.

 

A look at work requirements

To understand these challenges we need to look at the differing opinions on work requirements. On one side you hear the argument that not requiring work for benefits like SNAP and Medicaid is a disincentive to work for those on benefits. In other words, people are staying on benefits longer than necessary because there is no benefit to getting off, and in many cases, it is more costly to get off.

On the other side, the argument requiring work is simply a way to save money which ultimately hurts the poor. The argument is people in need of food support and healthcare will not be able to work and thus will be forced off of services without work.

Both of these arguments ignore the full experience of those on safety net services. Therefore, I want to challenge us to set aside political talking points and have a real discussion on the issue. These arguments are fraught with finger-pointing and people assigning motivations to each other. The discussion around work requirements is important because it challenges us to ask, “What is the purpose of our welfare system?”

 

With The Alliance for Opportunity, we are crafting policies that will create a clear path to get off safety net services and into opportunity in Georgia.

With The Alliance for Opportunity, we are crafting policies that will create a clear path to get off safety net services and into opportunity in Georgia.

Work requirements aren’t a bad idea

At the Georgia Center for Opportunity, we generally agree with the idea of work requirements, but not for the reasons political pundits throw around. We are not trying to “weed out bad actors” or trying to reduce government expenditures. Those outcomes may come to pass but they cannot and should not be the intent of such measures. 

While there is a politicized debate currently raging, the idea of requiring work to continue to receive benefits is not new. FDR’s New Deal, the framework for our current safety net system, pushed for a system that helped those unable to work like children or disabled individuals. The expansion of such a system to cover the unemployed came later in the process and was designed to be a stopgap between employment.

As the system expanded even further, it became apparent the support should include systems to get people back into work—this led to job training and education programs.

That is where we are today and ultimately how we should be looking at the safety net system for those able to work. The system must be designed to ask, “How can we help you get back on your feet and be self-sustainable?” Not because you are only valuable if you work, but because you are a valuable member of society. This view of membership is probably why work requirements are very popular among the US population. We value and understand the importance of work.

The research on the value of work is expansive. It leads to positive outcomes for families, improved personal mental health, and deeper community value. It is what we should want for people. It is what we should build our services to provide people, not a paycheck but an opportunity.


The arguments against work requirements 

The issue becomes more complex when you recognize the valid arguments against work requirements. One of these is that work requirements don’t increase work rates—they simply cut people off of needed services

The argument is that these requirements add another stress level to people just trying to survive. This creates yet another hurdle for those already struggling to navigate a complex process. The result is people find a different means to survive or they simply give up. Obviously, no one wants to add to people’s burdens.

Rather than arguing against work requirements, these challenges highlight the flaws in our current system. The system is poorly designed and does not lead to the outcomes we want for people.

Work requirements are a good policy in a bad system

Policymakers are notoriously inept when it comes to policy reforms. Half-measures have resulted in a system that is not focused on outcomes. If the system were structured to reduce complexity and alleviate stress for those seeking job support, then a work requirement could be the positive encouragement it should be.

This is one reason we are working with other state think tanks on a One Door Model that would transform our safety net services and create a clear, supportive, and accessible path to work.

These types of policies are critical to ensure that we are helping those in need. They are also critical to ensure that we deliver dignity and hope as an outcome. 

About The Author

Corey Burres

VP of Communication and Marketing

Corey Burres is the director the award-winning education documentary Flunked. He served as a consultant with many state think tanks around the country to help them utilize marketing and story telling to improve public policy. He is active in the foster care community and working to help build a better community around him.

Opinion: New Missouri law will help residents escape safety-net cliffs

Brockway: Utah’s ‘One Door’ Policy Shows The Way Forward On Safety-Net Reforms

Georgia news, in the news, current events, Georgia happenings, GA happenings

Brockway: Utah’s ‘One Door’ Policy Shows The Way Forward On Safety-Net Reforms

Below is an opinion column by Buzz Brockway:

The April unemployment report shows that job opportunities remain at historic highs across the country. In fact, the report came in better than expected at a 3.4% unemployment rate, exceeding expectations for the resilience and strength of the labor market.

In this environment, no work-capable person should be without a job. But the sad reality is that the very safety net system created to help people who are struggling is the same one contributing to keeping them mired in generational poverty. I’m talking about America’s social-safety net system.

As it stands, 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. 

The complicated nature of welfare is more than a nuisance. For recipients, it’s a detrimental barrier to advancing to a better life. The scenario in signing up for welfare benefits is confusing at best. Even if people do find the right office, they must resubmit the same information multiple times, and often eligibility is determined by conflicting rules. Would-be recipients may end up with multiple plans and multiple caseworkers.

Ultimately, every hour someone spends navigating the safety-net system is an hour they aren’t spending looking for ways to escape it.

Adding to the confusion, there is often a disconnect between safety-net programs and welfare-to-work initiatives. This keeps people stuck in poverty. The safety net is essential for catching those who are falling, but it isn’t a destination. Although this truth is often politicized and used to advance a certain agenda, the vast majority of Americans recognize that work is the best way to escape poverty. It should be our goal to remove every barrier to a life of thriving, and that includes obstacles to work.

The path into poverty is deeply individual, and so reforms are needed for a more holistic approach. Streamlining the safety-net process is mandatory to avoid conflicting rules and inconsistent treatment of people between programs. A big part of this is consolidating and combining programs that serve the same families. For individuals, this will eliminate the need to go to multiple agencies for help. It will also mean that welfare recipients will be connected straight to work programs, setting a foundation to free them from generational poverty.

Is there an example of success in this arena? Thankfully, the answer is a resounding yes. We should look to Utah as an example of a state in the nation that is leading the way.

Utah’s “one door” policy has integrated human services with workforce services and provides citizens with a single program to work through. Welfare becomes work support, and people have a clear path to get the help they need while receiving education, training, and other support to find employment. On the fiscal front, the state also integrates federal and state funds using a unique cost model that has proven highly effective.