Report on the Impact of Work Requirements on Social Safety Nets and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Policy Shift and its Conflict with Global Goals

Recent legislative changes, notably within the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” have introduced mandatory work requirements for recipients of federal social safety net programs. This policy shift presents a significant challenge to the advancement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those aimed at eradicating poverty, ensuring health and well-being, and reducing inequality. The new rules tie access to essential services like healthcare and nutrition assistance to an individual’s documented workforce participation, creating substantial barriers for vulnerable populations.

Impact on Health and Well-being (SDG 3)

The imposition of work requirements on Medicaid directly contravenes the principles of SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, which aims to ensure universal access to healthcare. For 60 years, Medicaid eligibility was based on income, not employment. The new policy mandates that adults without dependents under 14 must prove 80 hours of work per month to retain coverage.

• Disruption to Healthcare Access: Tying medical care—such as treatment for diabetes, mental health disorders, or injuries—to employment status jeopardizes the health of millions.
• Contradiction with Recipient Data: The policy is based on a flawed premise, as data indicates 92% of Medicaid recipients are already working, caregiving, attending school, or are ill. Only 8% are not working for other reasons, including an inability to find work.
• Historical Precedent of Failure: A 2018 pilot program in Arkansas demonstrated the detrimental effects of such requirements.
  1. Poor communication and a difficult online portal led to widespread confusion.
  2. 18,000 people lost their Medicaid coverage.
  3. A study found the policy had a negligible effect on increasing employment.

The policy threatens to reverse progress on SDG 3 by making essential health services conditional, disproportionately affecting the nation’s poorest residents.

Challenges to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security (SDG 1 & SDG 2)

The legislation extends and expands work requirements to other critical programs, directly undermining SDG 1: No Poverty and SDG 2: Zero Hunger.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

• Work requirements for SNAP have been expanded to include previously exempt groups such as veterans, the homeless, and individuals aged 55-64.
• Beneficiaries who do not meet the work requirements are now limited to only three months of food assistance within a three-year period.
• This policy directly risks increasing food insecurity and malnutrition among the most vulnerable, pushing them further into poverty.

Economic and Institutional Implications (SDG 8 & SDG 16)

The implementation of work requirements poses significant challenges to state governments and local economies, conflicting with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Institutional and Administrative Burdens (SDG 16)

• Logistical Complexity: States must build costly and complex work verification systems by December 31, 2026. Key challenges include verifying hours for informal, seasonal, or gig economy workers (e.g., house cleaners, rideshare drivers).
• Prohibitive Costs: A proposed system in Kentucky was estimated to cost $271.6 million in administrative fees alone. The new federal law allocates only $200 million to be shared among all states, an average of just $4 million each, which is insufficient to build and maintain effective and just systems.
• Risk of Systemic Failure: Experts predict that bureaucratic hurdles and inadequate systems will cause many eligible individuals to lose benefits simply due to an inability to navigate the paperwork, undermining the principle of strong and accountable institutions.

Negative Economic Consequences (SDG 8)

• No Proven Employment Gains: Evidence from the Arkansas experiment shows that work requirements do not significantly increase employment, failing to contribute to economic growth.
• Economic Contraction: Removing individuals from Medicaid reduces federal payments to healthcare providers. This loss of revenue can lead to hospital staff layoffs and closures, particularly in rural areas where hospitals are often major employers. This destabilizes local economies rather than stimulating them.

Broader Implications for Inequality and Community Stability (SDG 10 & SDG 11)

The policy framework is poised to expand, threatening to exacerbate societal divides and undermine community stability, in direct opposition to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

Housing Assistance Programs

• Advocates are concerned that similar work requirements and time limits may be applied to federal housing programs, including Section 8 and HUD vouchers.
• These programs are lifelines for low-income renters, people with disabilities, former foster youth, and individuals fleeing domestic violence.
• Implementing such requirements would threaten housing security, a cornerstone of sustainable communities (SDG 11), and disproportionately harm marginalized groups, thereby increasing inequality (SDG 10).

In conclusion, the implementation of work requirements across federal social safety nets represents a significant regression from the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. By creating barriers to health, food, and housing, the policy threatens to increase poverty, hunger, and inequality while imposing unmanageable administrative burdens on public institutions for no demonstrable economic gain.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   The article focuses on social safety net programs like Medicaid, which provides healthcare coverage to “71 million of America’s poorest residents.” By imposing work requirements that could cause people to lose these essential benefits, the policy directly impacts the well-being of the poor and vulnerable, potentially exacerbating poverty. The discussion revolves around social protection systems, a core component of SDG 1.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   The article explicitly mentions that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is expanding its work requirements. This policy directly threatens food security for vulnerable populations, including “veterans, the homeless, people between the ages of 55 and 64,” who could lose their food benefits, connecting the issue to the goal of ending hunger.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   This is a central theme of the article. The new work requirements for Medicaid directly threaten access to healthcare. The text states that the “ability to treat your diabetes, receive medication for your mental health disorder, or get a cast on your broken wrist will now be tied to your so-called productivity.” This directly undermines the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all.

4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article questions the premise that work requirements lead to economic growth, citing a study that found a “negligible effect on employment numbers.” It also highlights the challenges faced by those in informal or non-traditional employment (e.g., house cleaners, Instacart drivers) in proving they meet the “80 hours a month” requirement, touching upon the quality and nature of work.

5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The policies discussed disproportionately affect the most vulnerable segments of the population based on economic status, health, and age. The article notes that the requirements target the poor, the ill, caregivers, and older adults, thereby increasing inequality by creating barriers to essential services for these specific groups.

6. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   The article extends the concern about work requirements to housing assistance. It mentions that housing advocates are worried about the introduction of work requirements for programs like “Section 8, which helps house low-income renters, and HUD’s voucher programs.” This connects the issue to the goal of ensuring access to adequate and affordable housing for all.

7. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The article highlights the institutional failures and challenges associated with implementing these policies. It describes the “massive logistical challenge to states,” the exorbitant administrative costs (e.g., “$271.6 million” for Kentucky), and the general ineffectiveness of the verification systems, pointing to a lack of effective and accountable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

  The article is entirely about changes to social protection systems (Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance). The implementation of work requirements is shown to reduce, not achieve, substantial coverage, as evidenced by the “18,000 Arkansans” who were pushed off Medicaid.

• Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

  The expansion of work requirements for SNAP directly threatens access to food for the poor and vulnerable. The article notes that recipients who don’t meet the work requirement can only receive benefits for “three months in the span of three years,” directly undermining this target.

• Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.

  The core issue is the potential loss of Medicaid, an affordable healthcare program. The article describes how this loss of coverage denies people access to essential services for chronic and acute conditions, which is the opposite of achieving universal health coverage.

• Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all…

  The article challenges the effectiveness of the policy in achieving productive employment, citing a study that found a “negligible effect.” It also implies that the work available to many recipients may not be “decent work,” given the difficulties in tracking hours for informal or seasonal labor.

• Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

  The article analyzes a social protection policy that, instead of achieving greater equality, is shown to have a “devastating effect” on vulnerable populations and increases barriers for the poor, thereby exacerbating inequality.

• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…

  The article raises concerns that federal housing programs like Section 8 and HUD vouchers could be next to face work requirements, which would directly threaten access to affordable housing for low-income individuals and families.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article details the institutional challenges, describing the implementation as a “train wreck” and citing the high administrative costs (“$271.6 million” for one state) and logistical failures (e.g., online portals posing issues for those without internet access) as evidence of ineffective systems.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Proportion of population covered by social protection systems.

  The article provides a baseline number of “71 million” Americans covered by Medicaid. A key indicator of negative progress is the number of people who lose coverage, such as the “18,000 Arkansans” who were pushed off the program.

• Number of people losing access to food assistance.

  While no specific number is given, the rule that limits SNAP benefits to “three months in the span of three years” for non-working individuals implies that the number of people cut off from the program is a measurable indicator.

• Coverage of essential health services.

  The loss of Medicaid coverage is a direct indicator. The article implies that this can be measured by tracking the number of people unable to “treat your diabetes, receive medication for your mental health disorder, or get a cast on your broken wrist” due to loss of coverage.

• Impact on employment rates.

  The article directly refers to an indicator used to measure the policy’s success: its effect on employment numbers. The finding that the restriction had a “negligible effect” demonstrates the use of this indicator.

• Administrative costs of implementing social programs.

  The article provides a concrete financial indicator of institutional inefficiency: the estimated “$271.6 million in administrative costs” for Kentucky to implement its work requirement system.

• Disaggregated data on benefit loss by vulnerable group.

  The article implies the need for this indicator by listing specific groups at risk: “veterans, the homeless, people between the ages of 55 and 64,” caregivers, and those with informal jobs. Tracking the rate at which these specific groups lose benefits would measure the policy’s unequal impact.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: prospect.org