The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a cornerstone of the American welfare state, utilized by an average of 42.1 million people per month in fiscal year 2023. While SNAP eligibility varies by state, data from the US Department of Agriculture demonstrates that more than three-quarters of SNAP recipients live in households with children under the age of 18, adults ages 60 and older, and/or a disabled individual.

Put simply, SNAP ensures that the most vulnerable members of our communities have access to adequate basic nutrition.

The efficacy of SNAP is limited by complex eligibility requirements related to hours spent in paid employment – hereafter referred to as the work-hours test. The work-hours test refers to regulations which require non-disabled adults  without children ages 18-54 to engage in a minimum of 20 hours per week (80 hours per month) of paid employment or qualifying workfare or job training program to receive benefits. If a qualifying adult fails to meet this work requirement, they are only eligible to receive three months of SNAP benefits per three year period.

While proponents of such regulations argue that they encourage independence by linking benefit receipt to paid employment, existing research on the impact of the work-hours test does not support this claim. A 2023 CEPR report that I co-authored with Shawn Fremstad reviewed 19 empirical studies on the SNAP work-hours test published between 2010-2023. Of the studies included, only three found evidence that the work-hours test increased employment among SNAP recipients. In contrast, 15 out of 19 found that the work-hours test decreased participation in SNAP – even among populations who should be exempt from the test such as unhoused and disabled adults.

Further, our report details that the administrative burdens created by the work-hours test are not confined to SNAP recipients. In a 2016 report, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General noted that state SNAP officials describe the work-hours test as an “administrative and operational nightmare.” Officials also expressed concerns about the costs of administering the test — both in terms of time and resources — and how the convoluted nature of the test increases the likelihood that people are erroneously denied benefits for which they are eligible.

In conclusion, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a critical piece of the US welfare state that should be strengthened, not undercut. Despite moral-laden arguments in favor of tightening eligibility and work requirements, research on the efficacy of existing regulations like the work-hours test do not support proponent claims. As such, further regulatory efforts that add additional eligibility requirements are unlikely to increase employment, but likely significantly increase food insecurity and malnutrition. Access to adequate nutrition should not be conditional on hours worked – both because food is a human basic right, and because work requirements do not work.