The ill effects of the 1996 welfare reform will reverberate 20 years later in 2016, when harsh rules limiting assistance are likely to resume as unemployment rates fall. The 1996 law imposed a three-month federal time limit on food assistance to unemployed adults who aren't disabled and don't have dependents. There is an exemption in the law for states experiencing high unemployment rates, but with those rates falling the states will no longer be able to extend that assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
warns that a federal legislative fix is highly unlikely, and states need to prepare to help the one million people who will be dropped.
The loss of this food assistance, which averages approximately $150 to $200 per person per month for this group, will likely cause serious hardship among many. Agriculture Department (USDA) data show that the individuals subject to the three-month limit have average monthly income of approximately 19 percent of the poverty line, and they typically qualify for no other income support.
The indigent individuals at risk are diverse. About 40 percent are women. Close to one-third are over age 40. Among those who report their race, about half are white, a third are African American, and a tenth are Hispanic. Half have only a high school diploma or GED. They live in all areas of the country, and among those for whom data on metropolitan status are available, about 40 percent live in urban areas, 40 percent in suburban areas, and 20 percent in rural areas. Many in this population, which generally has limited education and skills and limited job prospects, struggle to find employment even in normal economic times. And although the overall unemployment rate is slowly falling, other labor market data indicate that many people who want to work still cannot find jobs, while others who want to work full time can find only part-time employment. Cutting off food assistance to poor unemployed and underemployed workers doesn’t enable them to find employment or secure more hours of work.
There's another way that the law allows for this population to keep the benefit—if they spend 20 hours a week in job training, workfare, or another work program. But here's the kicker; states weren't required to create these job training programs for the unemployed, and so very few do. In most areas, private job training programs just don't have the resources to extend to the entire population who would need them.
This "work requirement" aspect of welfare reform is and always has been more punishment than incentive, particularly in the current economy. Congress could change the law. They could even keep a requirement if they wanted to be punitive. As with unemployment insurance, food stamps could require that the beneficiary be actively looking for work. Or it could require that the states provide the kind of job training that would allow these people to keep the benefit. But of course this Congress isn't going to do that, because more people going hungry just isn't a priority for the Republicans now in complete control.