February 16, 2016

The Power of WorkHow Kansas’ Welfare Reform Is
Lifting Americans Out of Poverty

AUTHORED BY

Jonathan Ingram | Vice President of Research
Nic Horton | Senior Research Fellow

TheFGA.org@TheFGATheFGA.org@TheFGAE X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY
Too many Americans are trapped in failing welfare programs and the problem is getting worse. The
number of people dependent on government has exploded in recent years, largely due to state andfederal expansions.
This was driven by the misguided conventional wisdom that the best way to reduce poverty is to expand
welfare to more people and hope that they would eventually work their way out of dependency. But new
research turns that notion upside down.
In 2013, Kansas bucked the welfare-expansion trend and implemented common-sense work requirements
and time limits for able-bodied adults without dependents on food stamps. Under the leadership ofGovernor Sam Brownback, state officials launched the most comprehensive welfare tracking system of its
kind to monitor the impact on individuals’ employment and earnings.
The results were remarkable.
With no welfare work requirement or time limit, just one in five able-bodied adults on food stamps
worked. Nearly 93 percent of them were in poverty, most in severe poverty.
Since implementing work requirements and time limits, the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps
has dropped by 75 percent.
These reforms immediately freed nearly 13,000 Kansans from welfare on December 31, 2013. Nearly 60
percent of those leaving food stamps found employment within 12 months and their incomes rose by anaverage of 127 percent per year.That higher income more than offset the food stamps they lost, increasing
economic activity and bringing in new resources for other state priorities. Better still, the average income
among working able-bodied adults is now above the poverty line.
Those still receiving food stamps, but now subject to a work requirement, are also better off. The typicalenrollee has significantly increased their employment and incomes, although their incomes are not ashigh as those freed completely from welfare.
Long-term welfare caused severe damage. The data shows that the less time these able-bodied adults
spend on welfare, the quicker they can get back into the workforce once they are freed from welfare
and the more money they will make. These Kansans are discovering new lives of independence and selfsufficiency that, in some cases, they haven’t known for more than two decades.
This new evidence provides policymakers with an opportunity to rethink how they approach welfare.
Reformers must refocus their anti-poverty efforts on freeing people from welfare completely instead ofsimply reforming the welfare experience itself. Policymakers across the country should take a page from
Kansas, restore the working class, and give real hope to millions trapped in lives of dependency andpoverty.

2

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org

Note: Names and other personal information of the below
individuals has been changed to protect their identities.

JASON@TheFGAPREVIOUSLY UNEMPLOYEDSTUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 4 years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Publishing
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $45,000 per year

AMY

PREVIOUSLY UNEMPLOYEDSTUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 2+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Social assistance services
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $27,000 per year

MATT

PREVIOUSLY UNEMPLOYEDSTUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 3+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Drywall installation
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $34,000 per year

SARAH

PREVIOUSLY UNEMPLOYEDSTUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 3+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Ambulatory health care services
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $37,000 per year

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

3

TheFGA.org@TheFGAJOSHPREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT: $552/year in landscaping

STUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 3 months
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Petroleum and natural gas extraction
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $41,000 per year

JENNIFERPREVIOUSLY UNEMPLOYEDSTUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 1+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Commercial bakery
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $53,000 per year

JEREMYPREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT: $5,000/year at temp agency

STUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 1+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: Oil and gas exploration
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $51,000 per year

AMANDAPREVIOUS EMPLOYMENT: $7,800 per year in retail

STUCK ON FOOD STAMPS: 20+ years
CURRENT INDUSTRY: General retail merchandise
EARNINGS AFTER LEAVING FOOD STAMPS: $14,500 per year

4

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGAT H E C U R R E N T R E A L I T Y : A N E X P LO S I O N O F W E L FA R E
D E P E N D E N C Y AC RO S S A M E R I C A
The number of Americans dependent on food stamps has nearly tripled in the last 15 years, growing fromjust 17 million enrollees in 2000 to nearly 46 million by 2015.1 Skyrocketing enrollment has made the foodstamp program one of the fastest-growing line-items in the federal budget.2 This spending is growing tentimes as fast as federal revenues, crowding out resources for other critical spending priorities.3
If that were not bad enough, food stamps have also become the gateway to long-term government
dependency. According to the latest data, the typical enrollee now stays on food stamps for an averageof more than eight years.4 This is also driving more Americans to other welfare programs. Recipientsfrequently report that they sign up for food stamps before seeking out other welfare benefits and morethan 85 percent of households on food stamps are also receiving other types of welfare.5-6
As a result, the number of people dependent on government has exploded. By 2012, more than 35
percent of Americans lived in households receiving welfare from one or more government programs –and this was before the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to a new class of able-bodied adults,
further exploding the nation’s rolls.7
State efforts to “integrate” eligibility systems – whereby an individual can apply for all welfare benefits at
once – have made this welfare gateway even larger. This welfare explosion not only siphons resourcesaway from other critical needs – it traps more Americans in poverty and robs them of the hope of a betterlife.

A K E Y PA RT O F T H E P RO B L E M : TO O M A N Y S TAT E S WA I V E D
WO R K R E Q U I R E M E N T S
Able-bodied adults without dependents are contributing heavily to the growing food stamps crisis.
These childless adults do not typically qualify for long-term food stamps unless they meet federal workrequirements. But the vast majority of states began waiving these work requirements in recent years.8
As set forth in federal law, childless adults are required to work or participate in employment or training
programs for at least 20 hours per week.9 These requirements apply to non-pregnant adults who arementally and physically fit for employment, who are between the ages of 18 and 49, and who have nodependent children or incapacitated family members.10 Enrollees who refuse to meet these requirements
are limited to just three months of benefits every three years.11
But with encouragement from the Obama administration, states have undermined these work rules, often
waiving the requirement altogether. In 2015, for example, 42 states partially or fully waived this requirement,
allowing able-bodied adults to stay on the food stamps rolls indefinitely, regardless of whether they are
working or training for work.12 This policy shift has contributed significantly to the food stamp enrollment
explosion.
When most states were enforcing work requirements, childless adult enrollment hovered around one
million.13 By 2014, most states were waiving these requirements and enrollment had increased fivefold,with more than 4.7 million able-bodied adults receiving food stamps.14

T H E B E S T A N T I - P OV E RT Y R E F O R M : WO R K
Waiving work requirements means higher costs for taxpayers and less funding available for other priorities.
This impact is both real and troublesome. But the real tragedy is the damage welfare does to individuals’
human spirit, stripping them of the incentive to work and leaving them languishing in poverty. Moving
them from welfare to work helps them climb out of poverty and into a life of self-sufficiency and prosperity.
F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

5TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Currently, few able-bodied childless adults receiving food stamps actually work, despite having no
disabilities limiting them from meaningful employment. Nationwde in 2013, just one-quarter of childless
adult households receiving food stamps had any earned income.15 The remaining three-quarters had noearned income, meaning they were not working at all.16 An analysis of food stamp recipients, conductedwhen work requirements first went into effect, found that fewer than five percent of all able-bodied childless
adults on the program were meeting those requirements.17

Most childless adults on food stamps do not work
Childless adult households receiving food stamps, by earned income status

25%

75%

Earned income

No earned income

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

But research shows that simply working a full-time, minimum wage job would lift many able-bodied adults
out of poverty entirely.18 In fact, just two percent of all able-bodied childless adults who work full-time, yearround are in poverty, compared to nearly half of non-workers.19 This disparity holds regardless of age, sex,
education, race, citizenship or immigration status, region, or other demographic characteristics.20

6

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Working full-time raises most able-bodied adults out of poverty
Poverty rates for non-disabled childless adults aged 18-49, by work status
45%

20%

2%
Full-time, yearround workers

Part-time or partyear workers

Non-workers

Source: Census Bureau

The value of hard work also extends far beyond higher incomes. In fact, studies have shown that work
is important for nurturing the human spirit, better physical and mental health, lower mortality rates,
improved self-esteem, greater personal satisfaction, and more financial security.21 The dignity that comes
employment and earned success creates happier, more fulfilled Americans.22
State leaders know that work changes lives. The state-led, work-first welfare reforms of the 1990s moved
millions of Americans back into the labor force, spurring greater economic growth.23 Welfare caseloads
plummeted, employment rose, and poverty rates dropped, particularly among the most at-risk
populations.24
Reform-minded policymakers are now pursuing a second round of welfare reform, with the ultimate goalof moving more Americans into the working class. The tide has already started to turn. Less than three
years ago, just five states were enforcing work requirements for all able-bodied, childless adults on foodstamps.25 But by January 1, 2016, work requirements were being enforced statewide in 16 states.26
For these states, the value of work is not just a theory – it is a reality that is creating a new and brighter
future.

T H E K A N S A S S TO RY : W E L FA R E R E F O R M I S I M P ROV I N GKANSANS’ LIVES
Under the leadership of Governor Sam Brownback, Kansas restored work requirements and time limits forfood stamps in October 2013. The Brownback administration also implemented an innovative, first-of-itskind process to track able-bodied adults as they leave food stamps and re-enter the workforce.
Prior to implementing these reforms, few able-bodied adults on food stamps were working and most were
living in severe poverty. But this new data shows just how much leaving welfare can change lives.
Kansas’ welfare reforms have moved more people out of welfare and into work, reduced poverty, andprovided greater financial security for those previously trapped in dependency. Nearly three-fifths of thoseleaving food stamps found employment within 12 months and their incomes rose by an average of 127
percent per year. Even those still on food stamps significantly increased their employment and incomes,
although their incomes are not as high as those completely freed from welfare.
F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

7

TheFGA.org@TheFGAAs part of Kansas’ tracking program, the Kansas Department for Children and Families and the Kansas
Department of Labor share data with each other, allowing the agencies to match each able-bodied adultleaving the food stamps program with quarterly employment information, including employment status,
wages, and employer industries. The agencies combined this data with existing administrative data onenrollment dates, enrollment duration, average monthly benefits, and other demographic information.
This aggregate and de-identified data has allowed the Brownback administration to measure its successin moving able-bodied adults from welfare to work.

W E L FA R E RO L L S S H R U N K Q U I C K LY A F T E R W E L FA R E R E F O R M – D RO P P I N G
7 5 P E RC E N T
Within three months of implementing work requirements, roughly half of all able-bodied adults on foodstamps left the program.27 The number of childless adults dependent on food stamps steadily declined
thereafter and is now 75 percent lower than it was before work requirements.28

Work Requirements Moved Kansans Off Welfare
Number of able-bodied adults without dependents receiving food stamps, by quarter
30,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,000
0Q1 2013

Q2 2013

Q3 2013

Q4 2013

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Q3 2015

Q4 2015

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

Thousands of able-bodied Kansans have now moved into the labor force, spurring greater economic
growth, significant income gains, higher levels of employment, less poverty, and lower costs for taxpayers.

A B L E - B O D I E D A D U LT S I N C R E A S E D T H E I R E M P LOY M E N T
A N D I N C O M E S A F T E R W E L FA R E R E F O R M
Kansas’ welfare reform has led to greater employment rates, higher incomes,and more hours worked for
those adults who still depend on food stamps. In fact, since restoring work requirements, the employment
rate among able-bodied adults on food stamps has doubled. As a result, their incomes have more thandoubled on average, they are spending less time on welfare, and the need for assistance has significantly
declined.

8

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGAE N RO L L E E S A R E M O R E L I K E LY TO WO R K
Prior to restoring work requirements, just 21 percent of childless adults on food stamps were working at
all.29-30 Two-fifths of those employed adults were working less than 20 hours per week.31 But since workrequirements have gone back into effect, that employment rate has risen to nearly 43 percent.32

After work requirements, food stamp enrollees are twice as likely to work
Employment status of able-bodied adults without dependents, by number of hours worked
8%

35%

8%
13%
Baseline
Working 20+ hours per week

Q1 2015
Working 1-19 hours per week

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

E N RO L L E E S A R E WO R K I N G M O R E H O U R S
Not only are enrollees more likely to work, they are also working more hours. The work participation rate –the share of enrollees working at least 20 hours per week – stood at a measly 13 percent just before workrequirements went into effect.33 But by the first quarter of 2014, the work participation rate climbed to 31
percent, reaching 35 percent by the second quarter.34

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

9TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Kansas’ work participation rate has nearly tripled
Share of able-bodied adults without dependents on food stamps working at least 20 hours per week,
by quarter
35%

35%

35%

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 201431%

13%

Baseline

Q1 2014

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

E N RO L L E E S A R E E A R N I N G M O R E
More work has also translated to higher incomes. Just before work requirements were restored in 2013,
the average income among able-bodied adult enrollees was just $1,867 per year.35 But since workrequirements returned, average income among these childless adults has more than doubled, reaching$4,347 per year by the first quarter of 2015.36

Enrollees’ average income more than doubled
Annualized average income of able-bodied adults without dependents on food stamps$4,347$1,867

Baseline

Q1 2015

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

10

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGAE N RO L L E E S N E E D L E S S A S S I S TA N C E
With more childless adult enrollees working, the need for assistance has dropped significantly. Just before
the work requirement was implemented, able-bodied adults received an average of $185 per month infood stamps benefits.37 The average monthly benefit has dropped by nearly 16 percent since then, withchildless adults now receiving an average of $157 per month in benefits.38

Enrollees’ average benefits dropped by 16 percent
Average monthly benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents on food stamps$185

Baseline

$153

$157

2014

2015

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

T I M E O N F O O D S TA M P S C U T I N H A L FWork requirements have also shortened the amount of time these able-bodied adults are trapped ingovernment dependency. When Kansas first began enforcing the work requirements, able-bodied adults
cycling off the program had been there for an average of 14 months.39 Many had been languishing on
welfare for years, with some having spent more than two decades on the program. Despite an improving
economy, many others had been there since the start of the Great Recession, with no end in sight.
Since implementing the work requirement, the amount of time childless adults remain dependent on
government has been cut in half. Today, able-bodied adults are spending an average of just 7 months
on food stamps.40 This is critically important in getting able-bodied adults back into the workforce as
quickly as possible.

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

11TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Amount of time enrollees’ spent on food stamps was cut in half
Average enrollment duration of able-bodied adults without dependents, by the quarter they exited
14

9

8

7

7

7

7

Q4 2013 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015
Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

K A N S A N S A R E B E TT E R O F F A F T E R L E AV I N G W E L FA R E
For too long, the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C., has been that the best way to move people
out of poverty is to let them languish on welfare and maybe, gradually, work their way out of dependency.
But Kansas’ experience turns that notion upside down.
Kansas’ truest sign of success is the fact that those leaving welfare are better off. Thanks to the power ofwork, they are earning more and are more financially secure than during their time on food stamps. And
they are improving their lives faster than those who stayed behind.
These able-bodied adults are discovering new lives of independence and self-sufficiency that, in somecases, they haven’t known for more than two decades. This makes clear that reformers should turn theirfocus to freeing people from welfare completely, instead of simply reforming the welfare experience.

M O R E K A N S A N S A R E S E L F - S U F F I C I E N T A N D WO R K I N GNearly 13,000 able-bodied adults exited Kansas’ food stamps program on December 31, 2013. This
was the first group of individuals disenrolled after hitting the three-month time limit for those who fail tocomply with work rules. Within three months, nearly 40 percent of those who left the program had foundemployment.41 Over the course of the next year, more and more able-bodied adults would find work. By
the end of 2014, nearly 59 percent of these adults had found employment of some kind, with that number
rising again in 2015.42
Those who left the program in 2014 and 2015 typically found employment even faster. Overall, roughly halfof all able-bodied adults who have cycled off the program since work requirements went into effect havefound jobs within three months.

12

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Nearly 60 percent found employment within a year of leaving food stamps
Share of able-bodied adults without dependents exiting December 2013 with any employment records,
by quarter
59%

55%

64%

61%

49%
39%

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Q1 2015

Q2 2015

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

L E S S T I M E O N W E L FA R E M E A N S L E S S T I M E O U T O F WO R K
Getting able-bodied adults off welfare quickly is critical to moving them back into the workforce as soon
as possible. Adults who spend less than six months on food stamps are significantly more likely to findemployment within three months of leaving food stamps than those who languish in the program for
more than a year.43 Spending less time on food stamps is also related to higher incomes and larger
income growth. In short, the less time spent on welfare, the quicker adults can get back to work andimprove their financial situations.

Less time in welfare means less time without work
Share of able-bodied adults without dependents exiting December 2013 working in the first quarter of2014, by enrollment duration prior to exiting
43%

40%
33%

0-6 months

6-12 months

12+ months

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families
F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

13TheFGA.org@TheFGAK A N S A N S A R E F I N D I N G D I V E R S E J O B O P P O RT U N I T I E S
Able-bodied adults leaving food stamps are also finding a diverse field of job opportunities. While manyfound immediate work in food services or retail, others have found work manufacturing, transportation,and construction. Some have found work in health care and social services, while others have foundjobs in publishing, information technology, and finance. Some have even found work protecting national
security. Better still, many who find temporary work in lower-wage industries then move on to better jobs
as their skills improve.

Able-bodied adults leaving food stamps are finding diverse opportunities
Industry of employment for able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps

Accomodationand food
services
19%

Other industries
24%

Administrative
and wasteservices
18%

Manufacturing
8%

Retail
16%

Health care andsocialassistance15%

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

K A N S A N S E A R N M O R E A F T E R L E AV I N G W E L FA R E
Able-bodied adults leaving food stamps saw their incomes rise significantly in the months after being
removed from the program. Before work requirements, this group’s average income hovered around just
$2,450 per year.44 But within a year of leaving food stamps, their incomes spiked to an average of $5,562
per year.45 That means these able-bodied adults increased their incomes by an average of 127 percent
their first year off of the program. While an average income of nearly $5,600 is not the end goal of reform,
incomes continue to rise as more able-bodied adults find employment and they have become morefinancially secure as a result. Even without full employment, this income growth is a dramatic change
from the status quo of just one year before.

14

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

After leaving food stamps, incomes increased 127 percent
Average annualized wages of able-bodied adults without dependents exiting December 2013, by
quarter$4,837$5,196$5,562$3,856$2,453Baseline

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

WO R K R E D U C E D P OV E RT Y
The number of able-bodied adults who are in poverty has dropped significantly as more and more ablebodied adults have found work. Before Kansas’ welfare reforms, just 7 percent of the adults who left foodstamps in December 2013 were above the poverty line.46 They were not just in marginal poverty, either:nearly 84 percent were in severe poverty, earning less than half of the poverty line.47 And even among
those who were working, more than 80 percent were in poverty.48
But work changed their futures. Within a year of leaving food stamps, the number of able-bodied adults
living in poverty dropped significantly and roughly half of those working climbed out of poverty entirely.49
The average income among these working, able-bodied adults was just $6,730 per year prior to Kansas’reforms.50 But within a year of leaving food stamps, average income among workers grew to $13,304 per
year.51 This means that the average income among those working is now above the poverty line.

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

15

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Kansans who went back to work are now above the poverty line
Average annualized wages of able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps December
2013 who are working, by quarter$11,483$12,431$13,304$10,036$6,730Baseline

Q1 2014

Q2 2014

Q3 2014

Q4 2014

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

K A N S A N S W E R E B E TT E R O F F A F T E R L E AV I N G W E L FA R E
Thanks to work, these Kansans are far better off than they were while languishing on welfare. Before theyleft the program in December 2013, their incomes had averaged just $2,453 per year.52 Add in their foodstamp benefits and they were living on roughly $4,600 per year.53 But within a year of leaving the program,their incomes had increased to an average of $5,562 per year.54
This spike in income more than offset lost benefits. In fact, despite losing just over $2,000 in food stamps,
these able-bodied adults have replaced those benefits with more than $3,000 in new income.55

Kansans are better off after leaving welfare
Average annualized wages and food stamps benefits of able-bodied adults without dependents exiting
December 2013, by quarter$2,139$5,562$2,453BaselineWages

Q4 2014
Food stamps

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families
16

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGAW E L FA R E R E F O R M H E L P S TA X PAY E R S , S AV I N G N E A R LY
$ 1 0 0 M I L L I O N OV E R T WO Y E A R S
Kansas’ reforms have saved taxpayers tens of millions of dollars each year, preserving limited resources
for truly needy Americans. Instead of draining tens of millions of dollars out of the economy, these ablebodied adults are now adding to the local economy. They are also generating new resources that can be
devoted to other state priorities, including education, public safety, and protecting the most vulnerable.

W E L FA R E R E F O R M H A S LOW E R E D C O S T S
Kansas’ welfare reforms have also improved the outlook for state and federal taxpayers. Prior to
implementing work requirements, Kansas was spending approximately $5.5 million per month to provide
food stamps to able-bodied childless adults.56 By December 2015, those costs had dropped to less than
$1.2 million per month.57 Altogether, taxpayers are saving nearly $50 million per year as a result of thesewelfare reforms.58 This is nearly $50 million per year in scarce government resources that can now go to
the truly needy.

Work requirements are saving taxpayers nearly $50 million per year
Aggregate annual spending on food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents, inmillions$66$19

Baseline

CY 2014$15

CY 2015

Source: Kansas Department for Children and Families

W E L FA R E R E F O R M H A S I N C R E A S E D E C O N O M I C AC T I V I T Y
Able-bodied adults who have left food stamps are now contributing millions of dollars to the economy
and generating new tax revenues for the state. Overall, these adults – including those currently on foodstamps and those who were disenrolled – are earning $74 million to $89 million more per year sinceKansas implemented work requirements.59

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

17TheFGA.org@TheFGAW E L FA R E R E F O R M I N C R E A S E D S TAT E A N D LO C A L TA X R E V E N U E BY U P TO
$ 1 1 M I L L I O N OV E R T WO Y E A R S
Because additional income more than replaces food stamps benefits, state and local governments haveseen an increase in revenue flow. In fact, the income gains for this population are estimated to increasestate income tax collections by up to $1.3 million per year.60
The state can also expect to see higher sales tax collections as a result of welfare reform. Groceriespurchased with food stamps are not subject to sales tax, but Kansas does collect sales tax on othergrocery purchases. If these adults continue to spend the same amount of money on groceries and otherfood items as they did when they were receiving food stamps, Kansas will collect up to an estimated $3.1
million per year in additional sales tax revenues.61 Local governments will also collect up to $1.0 million in
new sales tax revenues.62

W E L FA R E R E F O R M D I D N OT I N C R E A S E A D M I N I S T R AT I V E B U R D E N S
Although some skeptics worried that implementing work requirements would increase administrative
costs and errors, Kansas’ experience shows just the opposite. While additional training and reporting may
have been necessary at launch, a significantly lower caseload has balanced out those expenses. A lower
caseload also allows the state to focus on helping remaining enrollees, instead of being overwhelmedand simply focusing on administering an ever-increasing program.
In 2014, for example, Kansas’ food stamp administrative costs dropped by more than 7 percent. During
the same time period, administrative costs were rising by more than 5 percent nationally and rose by
more than 5 percent in Kansas the year before.63 This massive drop in administrative costs saved state
taxpayers saved $1.7 million and federal taxpayers an additional $1.6 million. Had Kansas followed thenational average or its pre-reform trend, administrative costs would have instead increased by $2.4 million
in 2014.

Total administrative costs dropped in 2014
Change in state-funded and total administrative costs between fiscal years 2013 and 2014

State-funded

Total
5%

4%

-7%

-7%
KansasNationallySource: U.S. Department of Agriculture18

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGAW E L FA R E R E F O R M D I D N OT I N C R E A S E E R RO R S
Skeptics have also expressed concern that work requirements would create new opportunities forpayment errors, leading to possible federal penalties. But Kansas’ payment error rate actually declined toless than 1 percent in 2014, down from nearly 4 percent the year prior.64-65 At the same time, the national
payment error rate rose to nearly 4 percent.66-67
Kansas’ error rate was the third lowest in the nation and the single most improved in 2014, earning thestate $628,000 as a payment bonus.68

Kansas’ payment error rate plummeted in 2014
Payment error rate, by fiscal year
4%

4%

3%

1%

FY 2013

FY 2014
KansasNationallySource: U.S. Department of Agriculture

C O N C L U S I O N : K A N S A S S H OW S T H E B E S T A N T I - P OV E RT Y
TO O L I S WO R K
The data definitively shows that welfare reform works. Moving people off welfare gets them back to work,
increases their income, and improves their lives. Nearly 60 percent of those leaving food stamps foundemployment within 12 months and their incomes rose by an average of 127 percent per year. That higher
income more than offset the food stamps they lost, increasing economic activity and bringing in new
resources for other state priorities. Better still, the average income among working able-bodied adults is
now above the poverty line.
Those still receiving food stamps, but now subject to a work requirement, are also better off. The typicalenrollee has significantly increased their employment and incomes, although their incomes are not ashigh as those freed completely from welfare.
These reforms also provide much-needed relief for taxpayers, preserve resources for the truly needy, boost
the economy, and reduces the administrative burden that America’s food stamp crisis has placed onstates.
While Washington D.C. remains gridlocked, Kansas is proving that meaningful welfare reform can andshould happen at the state level. Other states should follow their lead.

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

19TheFGA.org@TheFGAAPPENDIX
Table 1.a: Monthly enrollment – Able-bodied
adults without dependents receiving foodstampsTable 1.b: Average monthly enrollment
by quarter – Able-bodied adults without
dependents receiving food stamps
Enrollment

Enrollment
29,739Q1 201329,616

February 2013

29,434Q2 201329,923

March 2013

29,676

Q3 201329,508

April 2013

29,784Q4 2013

27,094

May 2013

29,864

Q1 2014

11,972June 201330,121Q2 2014

10,345

July 2013

29,754Q3 2014

9,663

August 2013

29,816Q4 20148,910

September 2013

28,953Q1 2015

8,500

October 201328,144Q2 2015

8,018

November 201327,224Q3 2015

7,512

December 2013

25,913Q4 20157,505January 2014

13,054

February 2014

11,764

March 2014

11,097

April 2014

10,729

May 2014

10,382June 2014

9,924

July 2014

9,803

August 2014

9,765

September 2014

9,422

October 2014

9,193

November 2014

8,971

December 2014

8,567

January 2015

8,688

February 2015

8,481

March 2015

8,331

April 2015

8,337

May 2015

7,956

June 2015

7,761

July 2015

7,454

August 2015

7,654

September 2015

7,428

October 2015

7,601

November 2015

7,511

December 2015

7,403

January 201320

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 2a. Monthly work participation rate
– Able-bodied adults without dependents
receiving food stamps

Table 2b. Average monthly work participation
rate by quarter – Able-bodied adults without
dependents receiving food stamps

Employed
20+ hours
per week

Employed
20+ hours
per week

July 201312.7%

Q3 2013

12.9%

August 2013

13.1%

Q4 201314.7%

September 2013

13.1%

Q1 201431.1%

October 2013

13.9%

Q2 201435.0%

November 2013

14.6%

Q3 201434.8%

December 2013

15.7%

Q4 201434.7%

January 201428.9%

Q1 2015

34.5%

February 2014

31.6%

March 2014

33.1%

April 201434.3%

May 2014

34.9%

June 2014

35.8%

July 2014

34.8%

August 201434.8%

September 2014

34.9%

October 2014

34.4%

November 2014

34.9%

December 2014

34.8%

January 2015

34.0%

February 2015

34.7%

March 2015

34.9%

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

21

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 3. Employment – Able-bodied adults without dependents receiving food stamps
Total
employed

Employed
20+ hours
per week

Employed
1-19 hours
per week

July 2013

21%

13%

9%

August 2013

22%

13%

8%

September 2013

22%

13%

8%

Q1 2013 Average

21%

13%

8%

Total
employed

Employed
20+ hours
per week

Employed
1-19 hours
per week

January 2015

42%

34%

8%

February 2015

42%

35%

8%

March 2015

42%

35%

7%

Q1 2015 Average

42%

35%

8%

Table 4. Aggregate and average wages – Able-bodied adults without dependents receiving foodstamps22

Enrollment

Aggregatemonthly
wages

Averagemonthly
wages

Averageannualwages

July 2013

29,754$4,543,039$153$1,832

August 2013

29,816$4,681,613$157$1,884September 2013

28,953$4,547,396$157$1,885

Q1 2013 Average

29,508$4,590,683$156$1,867

Averagemonthly
wages

Averageannualwages

Enrollment

Aggregatemonthly
wages

January 2015

8,688

$3,114,655$359$4,302February 2015

8,481

$3,095,636$365$4,380March 2015

8,331

$3,026,327$363$4,359Q1 2015 Average

8,500$3,078,873$362$4,347F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 5a. Monthly benefit values – Able-bodied adults without dependents receiving food stamps

Enrollment

Aggregatemonthly
benefits

Averagemonthly
benefits

January 2013

29,739$5,452,753$183

February 2013

29,434$5,494,953$187

March 2013

29,676$5,474,146$184

April 2013

29,784$5,504,211$185

May 2013

29,864$5,531,242$185

June 201330,121$5,563,926$185

July 2013

29,754$5,493,543$185

August 2013

29,816$5,513,092$185

September 2013

28,953$5,392,085$186

October 201328,144$5,231,962$186

November 201327,224$4,739,545$174

December 2013

25,913$4,497,437$174

January 2014

13,054$2,003,321$153

February 2014

11,764$1,811,526$154

March 2014

11,097$1,684,642$152

April 2014

10,729$1,625,220$151

May 2014

10,382$1,568,228$151

June 2014

9,924$1,484,551$150

July 2014

9,803$1,479,420$151

August 2014

9,765

$1,486,043$152

September 2014

9,422

$1,433,692$152

October 2014

9,193

$1,457,345$159

November 2014

8,971

$1,420,610$158

December 2014

8,567

$1,372,519$160

January 2015

8,688

$1,344,343$155

February 2015

8,481

$1,344,360$159

March 2015

8,331

$1,324,409$159

April 2015

8,337

$1,320,744$158

May 2015

7,956$1,256,615$158

June 2015

7,761$1,210,435$156

July 2015

7,454$1,166,897$157

August 2015

7,654

$1,200,228$157

September 2015

7,428

$1,160,036$156

October 2015

7,601

$1,181,046$155

November 2015

7,511

$1,182,831$157

December 2015

7,403

$1,160,235$157

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

23

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 5b. Average monthly benefit values by quarter – Able-bodied adults without dependents
receiving food stamps

Enrollment

Aggregatemonthly
benefits

Averagemonthly
benefits

Q1 201329,616$5,473,951$185

Q2 201329,923$5,533,126$185

Q3 201329,508$5,466,240$185

Q4 2013

27,094$4,822,981$178

Q1 2014

11,972$1,833,163$153

Q2 2014

10,345$1,559,333$151

Q3 2014

9,663$1,466,385$152

Q4 20148,910$1,416,825$159

Q1 20158,500$1,337,704$157

Q2 2015

8,018$1,262,598$157

Q3 2015

7,512$1,175,720$157

Q4 2015

7,505$1,174,704$157

Table 6a. Average enrollment duration bymonth of exit – Able-bodied adults without
dependents exiting food stamps

24

Exits

Averageduration

December 2013

12,807

13.8

January 2014

2,687

February 2014

2,251

March 2014
April 2014

Table 6b. Average enrollment duration by
quarter of exit – Able-bodied adults without
dependents exiting food stamps
Exits

Averageduration

Q4 2013

12,80713.8

9.7

Q1 2014

6,796

8.7

8.3

Q2 2014

5,303

7.7

1,858

7.8

Q3 2014

4,600

7.1

1,806

7.6

Q4 2014

4,334

7.3

May 2014

1,903

7.8

Q1 2015

3,780

7.1

June 2014

1,594

7.7

Q2 2015

4,081

7.1

July 2014

1,495

7.1

August 2014

1,575

7.1

September 2014

1,530

7.2

October 2014

1,538

6.9

November 2014

1,355

7.6

December 2014

1,441

7.3

January 2015

1,360

6.9

February 2015

1,246

7.1

March 2015

1,174

7.3

April 2015

1,384

7.1

May 2015

1,313

7.1

June 2015

1,384

7.0

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 7. Employment records by quarter – Able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps
in December 2013
Record of employment
since Q4 2013

Employment
Rate

Q1 2014

4,920

38.8%

Q2 2014

6,217

48.5%

Q3 2014

7,012

54.8%

Q4 2014

7,537

58.9%

Q1 2015

7,870

61.5%

Q2 2015

8,252

64.4%

Table 8. Wages by quarter – Able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps in December
2013
Aggregate wagesof all disenrollees

Average quarterly wagesof all disenrolllees

Average quarterly wages
among current workers

Q3 2013$7,853,677$613$1,682Q4 2013$11,472,282$896$2,306

Q1 2014$12,344,870$964$2,509Q2 2014$15,487,265$1,209$2,871Q3 2014$16,635,625$1,299$3,108Q4 2014$17,807,404$1,390$3,326

Table 9. Poverty status by quarter – Able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps inDecember 2013
Severe poverty
rate

Severe poverty rate
among workers

Poverty rate

Poverty rate
among workers

Q3 2013

84%

55%

93%

81%

Q4 2013

78%

45%

88%

68%

Q1 2014

77%

40%

86%

64%

Q2 2014

73%

35%

82%

58%

Q3 2014

71%

31%

81%

54%

Q4 2014

71%

30%

79%

51%

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

25

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 10a. Monthly benefit values – Able-bodied adults without dependents exiting food stamps
Exits

Aggregatemonthly benefits

Aggregateannual benefits

Average
Average annual
monthly benefits
benefits

December 2013

12,807$2,282,720$27,392,636$178$2,139January 2014

2,687

$463,131$5,557,576$172$2,068February 2014

2,251

$377,898$4,534,775$168$2,015

March 2014

1,858

$300,271$3,603,257$162$1,939April 2014

1,806

$288,852$3,466,220$160$1,919

May 2014

1,903$300,788$3,609,458$158$1,897

June 2014

1,594$259,232$3,110,787$163$1,952

July 2014

1,495$236,748$2,840,978$158$1,900August 2014

1,575

$245,432$2,945,187$156$1,870

September 2014

1,530

$241,205$2,894,454$158$1,892October 2014

1,538

$253,216$3,038,596$165$1,976

November 2014

1,355

$220,215$2,642,575$163$1,950December 2014

1,441

$234,451$2,813,408$163$1,952January 2015

1,360

$225,950$2,711,405$166$1,994

February 2015

1,246

$202,587$2,431,046$163$1,951March 2015

1,174

$191,233$2,294,794$163$1,955

April 2015

1,384

$230,671$2,768,055$167$2,000

May 2015

1,313$212,299$2,547,588$162$1,940June 2015

1,384$219,973$2,639,676$159$1,907

Table 10b. Average monthly benefit values by quarter – Able-bodied adults without dependents exiting
food stamps
Exits

Aggregatemonthly benefits

Aggregateannual benefits

Average monthly
benefits

Average annual
benefits

Q4 2013

12,807$2,282,720$27,392,636$178$2,139Q1 2014

6,796$1,141,301$13,695,607$168$2,015

Q2 20145,303$848,872$10,186,464$160$1,921Q3 20144,600$723,385$8,680,619$157$1,887Q4 20144,334$707,882$8,494,579$163$1,960Q1 2015

3,780$619,770$7,437,245$164$1,968Q2 2015

4,081$662,943$7,955,319$162$1,949

Table 11. Employment and income in the first quarter of 2014 by enrollment duration – Able-bodied
adults without dependents exiting food stamps in December 2013

26

Exits

Employment
rate

Aggregatequarterly wages

Average quarterly
wages

Average annual
wages

0-6
Months3,130

43%$3,627,117$1,159$4,6356-12Months

4,778

40%$4,926,710$1,031$4,12412+Months4,899

33%$3,791,054$774$3,095F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 12. Distribution of employment by employer sector and industry – Able-bodied adults without
dependents exiting food stamps
Share ofworkers

SectorIndustry

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Crop Production

0.14%

Animal Production

0.19%

Forestry and Logging

0.00%

Fishing, Hunting and Trapping

0.00%

Agriculture and Forestry Support Activities

0.04%

Mining, Quarrying and Oil and Gas Extraction

Combined

0.37%

Oil and Gas Extraction

0.06%

Mining (Except Oil and Gas)

0.07%

Support Activities for Mining

0.37%

Combined

0.50%

Utilities

Combined

0.06%

Construction

Construction of Buildings

0.79%

Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

0.56%

Specialty Trade Contractors

2.13%

Manufacturing

Combined

3.49%

Food Manufacturing

2.42%

Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing

0.03%

Textile Mills

0.02%

Textile Product Mills

0.10%

Apparel Manufacturing

0.05%

Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing

0.00%

Wood Product Manufacturing

0.13%

Paper Manufacturing

0.05%

Printing and Related Support Activities

0.29%

Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing

0.02%

Chemical Manufacturing

0.18%

Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing

0.66%

Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

0.24%

Primary Metal Manufacturing

0.11%

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

1.06%

Machinery Manufacturing

0.62%

Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing

0.11%

Electrical Equipment and Appliance Manufacturing

0.21%

Transporation Equipment Manufacturing

1.00%

Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing

0.41%

Miscellaneous Manufacturing

0.31%

Combined

8.01%

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

27

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 12. (continued) Distribution of employment by employer sector and industry – Able-bodied adults
without dependents exiting food stamps
Industry

Wholesale Trade

Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

0.79%

Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods

0.70%

Electronic Markets and Agents and Brokers

0.34%

Retail Trade

Transporation and Warehousing

Information

28

Share ofworkers

SectorCombined

1.84%

Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers

1.14%

Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores

0.28%

Electronics and Appliance Stores

0.27%

Building Material and Garden Supply Stores

0.96%

Food and Beverage Stores

2.78%

Health and Personal Care Stores

0.49%

Gasoline Stations

2.43%

Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores

0.97%

Sporting Goods, Hobby, Book and Music Stores

0.43%

General Merchandies Stores

4.97%

Miscellaneous Store Retailers

0.76%

Nonstore Retailers

0.16%

Combined

15.64%

Air Transportation

0.01%

Rail Transporation

0.01%

Truck Transporation

0.99%

Transit and Ground Passenger Transporation

0.64%

Pipeline Transporation

0.00%

Scenic and Sightseeing Transportation

0.00%

Support Activities for Transportation

0.35%

Postal Service

0.00%

Couriers and Messengers

0.36%

Warehousing and Storage

0.18%

Combined

2.55%

Publishing Industries (Except Internet)

0.17%

Motion Picture and Sound Recording Industries

0.09%

Broadcasting (Except Internet)

0.04%

Telecommunications

0.45%

Data Processing, Hosting and Related Services

0.06%

Other Information Services

0.12%

Combined

0.92%

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

Table 12. (continued) Distribution of employment by employer sector and industry – Able-bodied adults
without dependents exiting food stamps
Share ofworkers

SectorIndustry

Finance and Insurance

Monetary Authorities - Central Bank

0.00%

Credit Intermediation and Related Activities

0.72%

Securities, Commodity Contracts, Investments

0.05%

Insurance Carriers and Related Activities

0.37%

Funds, Trusts and Other Financial Vehicles

0.04%

Real Estate and Rental and Leasing

Combined

1.17%

Real Estate

0.82%

Rental and Leasing Services

0.29%

Lessors of Nonfinancial Intangible Assets

0.02%

Combined

1.13%

Professional and Technical Services

Combined

2.42%

Management of Companies and Enterprises

Combined

0.27%

Administrative and Waste Services

Administrative and Support Services

17.64%

Waste Management and Remediation Services

0.19%

Combined

17.83%

Educational Services

Combined

3.65%

Health Care and Social Assistance

Ambulatory Health Care Services

2.70%

Hospitals

1.87%

Nursing and Residential Care Facilities

7.12%

Social Assistance

4.11%

Combined

15.80%

Performing Arts and Spectator Sports

0.18%

Museums, Historical Sites, Zoos and Parks

0.03%

Amusements, Gambling and Recreation

0.86%

Combined

1.07%

Accomodation

1.92%

Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

Accomodation and Food Services

Other Services

Public Administration

Food Services and Drinking Places

17.17%

Combined

19.09%

Repair and Maintenance

0.80%

Personal and Laundry Services

0.85%

Membership Associations and Organizations

0.84%

Private Households

0.14%

Combined

2.63%

Executive, Legislative and General Government

1.13%

Justice, Public Order and Safety Activities

0.21%

Administration of Human Resource Programs

0.13%

Administration of Environmental Programs

0.02%

Community and Housing Program Administration

0.01%

Administration of Economic Programs

0.06%

National Security and International Affairs

0.00%

Combined

1.56%

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

29

TheFGA.org@TheFGAREFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

30

Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and costs, 1969-2015,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2016), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf.
Ibid.
Jonathan Ingram and Nic Horton, “SNAP to it: Restoring work requirements will help solve the food stamp crisis,” Foundation
for Government Accountability (2015), http://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RestoringWorkRequirementsResearchPaper-Final.pdf.
Joshua Leftin et al., “Dynamics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation from 2008 to 2012,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2014), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008-2012.pdf.
In 2014, the Foundation for Government Accountability surveyed more than 1,400 individuals with past or present
participation in one or more welfare programs. When asked what program they first participated in, food stamps was the
top answer, followed by Medicaid.
In 2012, approximately 16.3 million households were receiving food stamps. Just 2.3 million of these households were notreceiving one or more additional means-tested government benefits. See, e.g., Census Bureau, “Survey of income andprogram participation: Economic characteristics of households in the United States,” U.S. Department of Commerce (2014),
http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/publications/tables/hsehld-char.html.
In 2012, approximately 109.4 million Americans lived in households receiving one or more means-tested government
benefits. See, e.g., Census Bureau, “Survey of income and program participation: Economic characteristics of households
in the United States,” U.S. Department of Commerce (2014), http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp/publications/tables/hsehld-char.html.
7 C.F.R.§ 273.24 (2013), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title7-vol4/pdf/CFR-2013-title7-vol4-sec273-24.pdf.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Jonathan Ingram and Nic Horton, “SNAP to it: Restoring work requirements will help solve the food stamp crisis,” Foundation
for Government Accountability (2015), http://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RestoringWorkRequirementsResearchPaper-Final.pdf.
Jonathan Ingram and Nic Horton, “SNAP to it: Restoring work requirements will help solve the food stamp crisis,” Foundation
for Government Accountability (2015), http://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RestoringWorkRequirementsResearchPaper-Final.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program households: Fiscal year 2014,”
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program households: Fiscal year 2013,”
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf.
Ibid.
Michael Stavrianos and Lucia Nixon, “The effect of welfare reform on able-bodied food stamp recipients,” U.S. Departmentof Agriculture (1998), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/finalrep.pdf.
Jonathan Ingram, “Work requirements work well for welfare: But they still cannot turn a terrible policy into a good one,”Foundation for Government Accountability (2015), http://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/UO-WorkWell-PRINT.
pdf.
Authors’ calculations based upon the poverty status of non-disabled adults between the ages of 18 and 49 with norelated children under the age of 18, disaggregated by work status and excluding means-tested government benefits. See,e.g., Census Bureau, “Current population survey: Annual social and economic supplement,” U.S. Department of Commerce(2015), http://dataferrett.census.gov.
Ibid.
Gordon Waddell and A. Kim Burton, “Is work good for your health and well-being?” U.K. Departmentfor Work and Pensions(2006), https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214326/hwwb-is-work-good-foryou.pdf.
Arthur C. Brooks, “America and the value of ‘earned success,’” The Wall St. Journal (2012), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304749904577385650652966894.
Kenneth Hanson and Karen S. Hamrick, “Moving public assistance recipients into the labor force, 1996-2000,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2004), http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1vh5dg3r/http://ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr40/
fanrr40.pdf.
Robert Rector and Patrick F. Fagan, “The continuing good news about welfare reform,” Heritage Foundation (2003), http://
thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2003/pdf/bg_1620.pdf.
Jonathan Ingram and Nic Horton, “SNAP to it: Restoring work requirements will help solve the food stamp crisis,” Foundation
for Government Accountability (2015), http://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RestoringWorkRequirementsResearchPaper-Final.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Status of state able-bodied adult without dependents (ABAWD) time limit waivers in fiscal
year 2016 – 2nd quarter,” U.S. Department of Agriculture (2016), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/FY%20

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

59.

2016-Quarter-2-ABAWD-Waiver-Status.pdf.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 1aand 1b in the appendix.
Ibid.
The baseline reflects the third quarter of 2013, immediately before work requirements went into effect.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 3 in
the appendix.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 2aand 2b in the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 4 in
the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 5aand 5b in the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 6aand 6b in the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 7 in
the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 11 in
the appendix.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 8 in
the appendix.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 9 in
the appendix.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 8 in
the appendix.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 10aand 10b in the appendix.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 8 in
the appendix.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., table 8 in
the appendix.
Authors’ calculations based upon data provided by the Kansas Department for Children and Families. See, e.g., tables 5aand 5b in the appendix.
Ibid.
If spending had continued at the pre-reform baseline, taxpayers would have spent approximately $65.6 million per year on
food stamps for able-bodied adults without dependents. Taxpayers actually spent just $18.2 million in 2014 and just $14.9
million in 2015. Approximately 93% of these savings are attributable to reduced enrollment and the remaining 7 percent
are attributable to reduced average monthly benefits.
Authors’ calculations based upon the average ratio of additional income to lost benefits and the total reduction in
benefits. This additional income comes both from those who were disenrolled from the program and those who aremeeting the new work requirement. The average ratio of additional income to lost benefits for those who left food stamps
was applied to the approximately $48.1 million in estimated 2015 savings that were attributable to reduced enrollment.
The average ratio of additional income to lost benefits for those who are still enrolled in the program was applied to theapproximately $2.6 million in estimated 2015 savings that were attributable to reduced average monthly benefits. Theseestimates do not include any multiplier effects or any downstream activity induced by able-bodied adults’ additional
spending decisions.
F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

31

TheFGA.org@TheFGA

60.

61.

62.

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

32

Authors’ calculations based upon a review of de-identified individual-level data of able-bodied adults disenrolled in
December 2013. This analysis uses annualized income from before the work requirements were implemented for eachindividual with a wage record, as well as actual 2014 wages for each individual. Because only 9 percent of able-bodied
childless adults on food stamps in Kansas are married, tax brackets for a married couple are exactly twice the value of thebrackets for single individuals, and the standard deduction for married couples is only marginally larger than twice thevalue of deduction for single individuals, this analysis assumes each individual is single and has no additional income nototherwise present in the wage records. Each individual’s state tax liability was calculated based on current tax rates andthe standard deduction. The effective tax rate on these adults’ new income was then applied to all estimated additional
income flowing from the work requirements to calculate gross income tax gains. These gross gains were then reduced by
the estimated value of Kansas’ earned income tax credits, using similar methods for each individual with wage records. No
other deductions or credits were included in this analysis.
Authors’ calculations based upon Kansas’ sales tax rate and the aggregate value that food stamps benefits havedeclined from the baseline. These estimates were adjusted downward by approximately 2.6 percent to reflect the average
proportion of issued benefits not redeemed within 30 days of issuance and by an additional 4.4 percent to reflect the
average proportion of issued benefits redeemed out-of-state. This analysis assumes these individuals purchase the same
pre-tax value of groceries and food items as they did while receiving food stamps. If individuals purchased the sameafter-tax value of groceries and food items as they did while receiving food stamps, it would reduce this estimate by
up to $245,000 per year. Supplemental data on consumer expenditures on groceries, as well as total employment andaggregate wages at food retail employers, did not decline after Kansas restored work requirements, suggesting foodstamp expenditures were ultimately replaced by other means.
Authors’ calculations based upon the average local sales tax rate and the aggregate value that food stamps benefits
have declined from the baseline. These estimates were adjusted downward by approximately 2.6 percent to reflect the
average proportion of issued benefits not redeemed within 30 days of issuance and by an additional 4.4 percent to reflect
the average proportion of issued benefits redeemed out-of-state. This analysis assumes these individuals purchase thesame pre-tax value of groceries and food items as they did while receiving food stamps. If individuals purchased the sameafter-tax value of groceries and food items as they did while receiving food stamps, it would reduce this estimate by up to$78,000 per year.
Authors’ calculations based upon state and federal administrative costs in Kansas and nationally in fiscal year 2013 andfiscal year 2014.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment error rates for fiscal year 2013,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2014), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2013-rates.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment error rates for fiscal year 2014,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2014-rates.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment error rates for fiscal year 2013,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2014), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2013-rates.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment error rates for fiscal year 2014,” U.S.
Department of Agriculture (2015), http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2014-rates.pdf.
Food and Nutrition Service, “Fiscal year 2014 SNAP high performance bonuses,” U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015),
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2014-chart-awards.pdf.

F O U N DAT I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T A C C O U N TA B I L I T YJonathan Ingram | Vice President of Researchjingram@thefga.org
Nic Horton | Senior Research Fellow
nicholas@thefga.org

TheFGA.org@TheFGA