States falling far short of welfare work requirements
Welfare reform’s commitment to work may be slipping away.
In his latest blog post, FREOPP’s Michael Tanner noted, “If decades of research on poverty have shown anything, it’s the importance of work in helping people to avoid or escape poverty. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a pathway out of poverty that does not involve work.”
Why then did only 8% of all TANF families have someone working enough hours in unsubsidized employment to count under TANF’s federal work participation measure?
New reports show that many states are intentionally manipulating rules to avoid work requirements. Why is there a lack of commitment to work? Michael Tanner dives in.
States falling far short of welfare work requirements
Welfare reform’s commitment to work may be slipping away.
Why It Matters
Work has long been a cornerstone of American welfare policy because it provides more than just a paycheck—it offers a pathway to financial independence, skill development, and upward mobility. When public assistance programs fail to encourage workforce participation, they risk trapping families in long-term dependency rather than helping them achieve self-sufficiency. Ensuring that welfare programs promote work is essential to reducing poverty and strengthening economic opportunity.
What We Found
Although federal law requires states to engage many Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in work-related activities, most states fall well short of those expectations. Federal reporting shows that the actual work participation rate among eligible TANF recipients was just 8% in fiscal year 2024, with half of work-eligible families reporting zero hours of participation. At the same time, loopholes in federal law allow many states to reduce or effectively eliminate their work participation targets, weakening one of the central goals of welfare reform.
Key Policy Findings
Work remains one of the strongest pathways out of poverty, providing both financial security and long-term opportunities for advancement.
The effective TANF work participation rate was only 8% in FY2024, far below the statutory 50% requirement.
Thirty-nine states have reduced their effective work participation targets to zero through existing federal credits and spending formulas.
Some states have used nominal benefit payments to already-employed individuals to artificially inflate compliance with federal work requirements.
Weak accountability undermines welfare reform’s original goal of helping recipients transition from public assistance to employment and self-sufficiency.
What Policymakers Should Do
Congress and state policymakers should restore the integrity of welfare work requirements by closing loopholes that allow states to evade federal standards and by measuring meaningful workforce participation rather than technical compliance. Welfare programs should prioritize employment, job training, and skills development while maintaining support for families facing genuine barriers to work. Strengthening accountability can help ensure that public assistance serves as a bridge to independence rather than a destination.
How Congress actually did it: Anatomy of a bipartisan housing win
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act is the most significant federal legislation in decades to expand housing supply.
Why It Matters
Housing affordability has become one of the defining economic challenges facing American families. For millions of Americans, the cost of buying or renting a home continues to outpace wages, making homeownership and financial stability increasingly difficult to achieve. While partisan gridlock often prevents meaningful reform, housing remains one of the few policy areas where bipartisan solutions can reduce costs by removing unnecessary barriers to building more homes.
What We Found
The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act demonstrates that durable policy reform is still possible when lawmakers focus on shared goals rather than ideological divides. The legislation advances supply-side reforms by streamlining environmental reviews, reducing regulatory barriers to construction, accelerating permitting, and expanding opportunities for manufactured housing. Just as importantly, the bill’s success illustrates that broad coalitions, public demand, and disciplined policymaking can overcome partisan gridlock when reforms are narrowly focused on solving real problems.
Key Policy Findings
America’s housing affordability crisis is fundamentally driven by a shortage of homes, making increased housing supply essential to lowering costs.
Deregulatory reforms that reduce permitting delays and unnecessary construction barriers can accelerate homebuilding without creating large new government programs.
Bipartisan policymaking is most successful when lawmakers focus on areas of broad agreement while avoiding issues that fracture potential coalitions.
What Policymakers Should Do
Future housing policy should prioritize affordability through increased supply rather than relying primarily on subsidies or demand-side interventions. Just as importantly, lawmakers should replicate the collaborative approach that made this legislation possible by building coalitions around practical, evidence-based reforms that deliver measurable results for American families.
To diversify New York City’s specialized high schools, fix the K-8 pipeline
The only path to equal educational opportunity is to ensure that all students are prepared to succeed much earlier in their academic careers.
Why It Matters
New York City’s specialized high schools have long served as pathways to academic excellence and upward mobility for talented students from every background. Yet persistent disparities in admissions have fueled calls to eliminate or weaken merit-based admissions standards. The more fundamental challenge, however, begins years earlier. If students are not adequately prepared in elementary and middle school, changing admissions policies alone will do little to improve long-term educational outcomes or expand opportunity.
What We Found
The underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students at New York City’s specialized high schools reflects shortcomings in the K–8 education pipeline rather than flaws in selective admissions themselves. Students who lack access to rigorous instruction, advanced coursework, and academic support in earlier grades are less likely to be prepared for competitive admissions. Expanding educational opportunity requires investing in stronger literacy, math instruction, gifted education, and test preparation well before students reach high school—not lowering the standards that make these schools successful.
Key Policy Findings
Merit-based admissions preserve rigorous academic standards and create opportunities for high-achieving students regardless of background.
Achievement gaps emerge well before high school, making K–8 academic preparation the primary driver of disparities in specialized school admissions.
Expanding access to gifted education, advanced coursework, and academic enrichment in underserved communities can increase the number of students prepared to succeed.
Replacing objective admissions standards without improving earlier educational outcomes risks masking inequities rather than solving them.
Long-term educational equity depends on strengthening the entire talent pipeline, from elementary school through high school.
What Policymakers Should Do
Policymakers should strengthen the K–8 pipeline by improving early literacy and math instruction, expanding access to gifted and accelerated learning, and ensuring that high-potential students from every neighborhood have the resources needed to compete for selective academic opportunities. Rather than weakening merit-based admissions, reforms should focus on preparing more students to meet those standards, creating a larger and more diverse pool of qualified applicants over time.
The FREEDOM Act: Permitting reform to protect ratepayers
The act advances reforms that will help meet the rising American demand for energy.
Why It Matters
Affordable, reliable energy is essential to economic growth and household financial stability. As electricity demand rises due to artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, electric vehicles, and increased electrification, the United States must build new power generation and transmission infrastructure more quickly. Lengthy permitting delays increase project costs, discourage investment, and ultimately leave American families paying higher utility bills—burdens that fall hardest on lower-income households.
What We Found
The federal permitting process has become a significant obstacle to expanding America’s energy supply. Major infrastructure projects often face years of regulatory review and litigation, driving up financing costs before construction is even complete. The bipartisan FREEDOM Act would establish enforceable permitting deadlines, expedite judicial review when agencies fail to act, and protect fully permitted projects from politically motivated delays. These reforms aim to accelerate energy development while preserving environmental review requirements under federal law.
Key Policy Findings
Residential electricity prices increased by nearly one-third between 2019 and 2025, placing growing financial pressure on American households.
Delays in permitting and post-approval litigation significantly increase financing costs for energy infrastructure, with those costs ultimately passed on to consumers through higher utility rates.
Rising electricity demand from AI, domestic manufacturing, electric vehicles, and home electrification will require substantial new investments in power generation and transmission.
The FREEDOM Act would create enforceable permitting timelines, strengthen agency accountability, and provide greater certainty for investors while maintaining environmental protections.
A more predictable permitting process can encourage investment, expand energy supply, and help protect ratepayers from unnecessary cost increases.
What Policymakers Should Do
Congress should modernize the federal permitting process by establishing clear timelines, improving agency accountability, and reducing unnecessary litigation that delays critical energy infrastructure. Policymakers should pursue technology-neutral reforms that enable the timely construction of power plants, transmission lines, and other energy projects while preserving rigorous environmental review. Expanding energy supply through efficient permitting can help lower costs, strengthen grid reliability, and ensure the United States is prepared to meet growing energy demand.
Read our complementary op-ed in the Washington Examiner.
Thanks for keeping up with FREOPP, and have a great week!
FREOPP’s work is made possible by people like you, who share our belief that equal opportunity is central to the American Dream. Please join them by making a donation today.