Bill Overview
Title: America Works Act of 2022
Description: This bill reinstates and expands work requirements under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Davis, Rodney [R-IL-13]
Target Audience
Population: People receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in the US
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal assistance program that provides food-purchasing benefits to low-income individuals and families in the United States.
- Work requirements for SNAP typically impact able-bodied adults without dependents, although there can be various criteria depending on specific legislation.
- The expansion of work requirements might affect not only those currently receiving SNAP but also those who might apply and would be eligible under current work conditions.
- The bill may impact individuals across a range of demographics, but those most affected are likely to be low-income adults who are currently unemployed or underemployed and receive SNAP benefits.
Reasoning
- The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) primarily assists low-income families and individuals, which includes various demographics such as single adults with no dependents, families with children, and the elderly.
- The reinstatement and expansion of work requirements could primarily affect able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), as they would be required to meet certain work requirements to continue receiving benefits.
- Not all SNAP recipients will be affected because some, such as children, seniors, and disabled individuals, are typically exempt from work requirements.
- Given the budget constraints, implementation might focus on states with higher populations of ABAWDs, or where unemployment rates suggest a need for workforce incentives.
- The policy's budget allocations will impact the scale of enforcement and provision of employment services designed to help recipients meet the new requirements.
Simulated Interviews
unemployed (Detroit, MI)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need to encourage work, but without a job market that is accommodating, I'm worried this could leave me without any support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
part-time cashier (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might push some to find more work, but as a single parent, it's hard for me to balance work and being present for my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
freelancer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often can't predict my work schedule, so I'm anxious about how strictly these requirements will be enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy shouldn't affect me much since I'm retired and not required to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
college student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm already working part-time, so this policy might not change much for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
full-time store manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy offers a good incentive, but it might not be fair for those who are genuinely struggling to find work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
underemployed artist (New York, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could push me to find more reliable work, but it feels like a threat more than an encouragement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
seasonal farm worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how my seasonal job status will fit into the new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
construction worker (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The work requirement policy might not consider the seasonal nature of some jobs like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
full-time student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, my focus is on education, and I hope the policy respects that balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 2: $1150000000 (Low: $950000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative and enforcement costs associated with the expanded work requirements.
- Uncertain effects on actual workforce engagement among SNAP recipients.
- The potential for uneven impacts across different states based on local economies and administrative capabilities.
- Legal challenges could delay implementation or revise policy details significantly.