Senate Resolution 2013-62 (Appendix A) directed the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to consider the effect of major federal and state programs in assisting low-income families to achieve self-sufficiency and reduce the number of families living in poverty. In particular, the Committee was asked to determine if and how such programs mitigate the “cliff effect.” “Cliff effects” occur when program benefits are not phased out on a sliding scale basis, or increased earnings are not sufficient to cover the full cost of the lost benefit. With one exception, the Committee focused on programs available to all that apply and meet eligibility requirements: TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), SNAP/Food Stamps (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), several federal tax credits, and Pennsylvania’s Special Tax Forgiveness Program. The one exception, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), is a discretionary federal program offering child care subsidies for low- income families, with the number of eligible individuals served limited by available funding.

The goal of workforce development efforts serving individuals in poverty is to provide them with the skills and credentials they need to increase their earnings in the labor market and advance to self-sufficiency. It is important for workforce stakeholders to understand that low-income families’ household income is often partly comprised of public benefits (such as supports for housing, child care, and health care) that phase out as increases in earnings are made through higher wages and/or more hours on the job. Rapid phaseouts of benefits – what are known as “benefits cliffs” – can have the effect of canceling out large portions of a family’s earnings gains, or even make a family substantially worse off from a self-sufficiency standpoint that prior to its earnings gains. This latest research by the Seattle Jobs Initiative examines the impact of benefits cliffs on low-income Washington families. The goal is to support workforce and social service providers in their efforts to better help these families to navigate the potential loss of benefits as they assist them to make earnings gains.

This Urban Institute blog post summarizes recent studies that show that students attending two-year colleges are more likely to be food insecure than other adults, especially during recessions. In 2008, 21.8% of households with two-year college students experienced food insecurity, compared to 14.6% of all households. The authors cannot identify specific reasons why two-year college students experience food insecurity at higher rates, but possibilities include reduced family support, the loss of a part-time job, or increased tuition. Most college students are not eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, so the authors recommend that states consider expanding eligibility for SNAP to more college students enrolled in educational programs.

This interactive map from Feeding America describes the extent of food security by county across the United States. Using 2015 food insecurity data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, this map illustrates how food insecurity rates differ across regions. The map includes the food insecurity rate, the estimated percentage of the population that is eligible for SNAP and other nutrition programs, the average cost per meal, and the additional money to meet that county’s food needs.

Between 2012 and 2016, the Capital One Foundation’s Human Capital Innovation Fund supported five workforce organizations in an effort to develop new strategies for serving unemployed and underemployed individuals. This report from the Aspen Institute describes the experiences of the five organizations, located in Washington, D.C., New Orleans, Louisiana, and New York, New York, as they developed and implemented their new strategies. Topics discussed include partnerships with other organizations and building employer relationships.

The December issue of the SNAP to Skills Newsletter focuses on Michigan’s SNAP Employment & Training (SNAP E&T) program. Its own program, called Food Assistance Employment & Training, or FAE&T, is administered jointly by its Department of Health and Human Services and the Workforce Development Agency. In the future, Michigan plans to bring on additional partners, deepen the collaboration between agencies, and develop a Partner Handbook.

This brief from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service provides states with information about 50 percent reimbursement funds. First, the brief details the staffing and infrastructure that may be necessary to implement an expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment & Training (SNAP E&T) program. Additionally, it offers states recommendations for identifying and accessing important resources to support this added capacity.