There is an effort to make the case that work requirements "work": they are largely wrong, selectively using evidence and misrepresenting the goals of social programs. Long and wonky thread to follow 1/
wapo.st/2Og69GF?tid=ss…
wapo.st/2Og69GF?tid=ss…
Let me start by noting the author of the WaPo piece, Ron Haskins, is broadly respected and preaches the virtues of evidence in policymaking. But the declaratory headline simply does not match the more nuanced content 2/ 
if you say something "works" that implies it achieves its goal. What the work-requirement crowd get wrong is assuming the goal of programs like SNAP and Medicaid is labor force participation. Its to improve access to nutrition & health benefits, respectively 3/
the pro work-requirements crowd, including Paul Ryan, have pointed to a Council of Economic Advisers report to make the case that work requirements work. So lets dig into that report (starting p42)., with the main point here 3/ whitehouse.gov/wp-content/upl…
The central argument for the "work requirements work" crowd is that they increase labor force participation, esp for single mothers, based on evidence from TANF. Which is perfectly reasonable. If you force more people to work, more people work! 4/
But social programs, esp. those like SNAP and Medicaid, are intended to achieve goals other than labor force participation. And the CEA report offers no evidence on the effect of work requirements on those goals. 5/
Under TANF work requirements some people got jobs, and some people did not. What happened to the latter group? The CEA analysis does not consider this group. Some of them lost benefits because they could not negotiate the new requirements 6/ academic.oup.com/jpart/article-…
The CEA report argues that work requirements also improve outcomes for kids. Here, the evidence is derived almost entirely from impact the EITC. But this is not an apples to apples comparison for a couple of reasons. 7/
The benefits associated with the EITC involve individuals being able to access a government support program, which has relatively low burdens. Work requirements are a burden that will limit access to heath and nutritional supports. 8/
EITC already provides strong incentives to work, so people not working despite these incentives are going to be dissimilar to EITC recipients, most likely b/c they face some real barriers to work. Removing healthcare is unlikely to make them less able overcome those barriers 9/
Many of those folks who could not manage the requirements of traditional welfare fell into extreme poverty. Sticking them with more requirements to keep food and health supports will only make things worse for that group 10/ jstor.org/stable/10.1086…
I'm not a labor economist (hope that others who study this jump in), but i know enough to be troubled by the claims that TANF increased labor force participation is sufficient evidence that work requirements "work" for other programs 11/
Just now seeing that @econjared already took the CEA report i described to the woodshed. 12/ washingtonpost.com/news/postevery…
