Revisiting the HOPE Act
How Eight Harmful Policies Caused Kansans to Lose Access to Poverty Reduction Programs
Dustin Hare | December 2024
In 2015, the Kansas Legislature passed the HOPE Act (HB 2258), which created dozens of barriers for Kansans trying to access federal poverty reduction programs like cash assistance (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF), child care assistance, and food assistance (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). In 2016, lawmakers passed a subsequent bill known as the HOPE Act 2.0 (SB 402) that took the restrictions even further.
These bills codified regulations first instituted in 2011 by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), now known as the Department for Children and Families. Governor Brownback stated these program restrictions were to “encourage people to get back into the workforce sooner.” This ignores analysis that showed this approach to be flawed and unsuccessful and dismisses the fact that most people accessing these programs were already working in some capacity.
The scope of harm created by the HOPE Act hit families in every Kansas community. In reviewing the bill language, we found a total of 37 harmful provisions between the two bills. Some provisions were relatively narrow in their scope, while others were broader and more effective at removing Kansas families from safety net programs without anything to help them besides the goodwill of their fellow Kansans.
Following are eight of the most punitive provisions of the HOPE Act, as well as explanations of how families are affected in reality.
Non-cooperation with the work requirement results in escalating penalties of a three-month ineligibility period for the first offense, six months for the second, and one year for the third.
This provision doesn’t allow flexibility for Kansans struggling with the unpredictability of everyday life with limited resources. For folks working in the service industry, for example, schedules can vary from week to week and it is common to be scheduled for less than 30 hours per week.
Maintaining a job can be difficult for families who lack transportation or child care or have other volatilities. Kansans may have disabilities that make it difficult to work full time, but their condition may not be so severe that they qualify for Social Security disability insurance, which would allow them an exemption from work requirements. All these scenarios portray instances where there is an increased need for safety net programs, yet this HOPE Act provision uses these very scenarios to deem Kansans unworthy of assistance.
Work requirements exist at the federal level for TANF and SNAP, but they are less restrictive. For TANF, according to the federal formula, Kansas is not currently subject to any work requirements. For SNAP, the federal requirements are similar to the state requirements, but an exemption is given if you are taking care of a child under six years old or if you’re in school or a training program at least half time.
This provision punishes people for not escaping poverty quickly enough and creates conditions that increase their chances of getting stuck below the poverty line.
Kansas made incremental reductions in the lifetime limit between 2011 and 2016. Prior to 2011, Kansas’ limit matched the federal guidance of 60 months. In 2011, SRS reduced the limit to 48 months. The Legislature further reduced the limit to 36 months in 2015, then 24 months in 2016.
Each time a reduction happened, anyone who had been receiving TANF for more than the newly determined lifetime limit suddenly lost their benefits. The reduction in the lifetime limit is one of the main reasons the number of Kansans receiving TANF assistance reduced by 68% between 2011 and 2016. Forty-five states have a lifetime limit higher than Kansas’ 24 months, and 39 states continue to offer benefits for the full 60 months.
This provision doubles down on the idea of punishing struggling Kansans for not escaping poverty quickly enough and extends that punishment to the entire family unit.
Imagine a scenario where a new mother takes advantage of TANF to pay for child care while she works a low-income job. A few years later, she meets a partner and they have a child. They’re both working low-income jobs and should qualify for TANF, but neither one is eligible for assistance because she previously exhausted her lifetime limit.
As a result, they struggle to pay for child care. One parent is forced to quit their job and stay home with the kids, and now they have even less money for food and other expenses. They also lose access to SNAP because they are no longer meeting the 55-hour-per-week work requirement for a two-parent household.
This provision traps many Kansans between a rock and a hard place, forcing them to choose between safety and food security.
According to a direct service provider in Kansas, more than half of their child care assistance-eligible households headed by a single mother are forfeiting benefits due to the CSS cooperation requirement. One common reason for reluctance to cooperate is fear of domestic violence. Another concern is that involving someone from a past relationship will undermine their current relationship.
Before the HOPE Act, the exemption lasted for 12 months. For two-parent households, the exemption is entirely removed; both parents are expected to continue working the week the baby is born.
Given the non-cooperation penalties described above, parents who choose to ignore this rule and spend time at home with their newborn would be penalized with three months ineligibility for failure to comply, or longer if they have previous instances of non-compliance. This provision forces parents of infants back into the workforce, disallowing them to spend valuable time with their child and properly heal from birth.
Research has shown that allowing new parents time at home after the birth of a child improves the mental and physical health of the parents and the child and builds a for positive cognitive and social-emotional development. This HOPE Act provision forces cracks into the foundation of a family before new parents can even catch their breath.
This provision fails to recognize substance use disorder (SUD) as a health concern and instead takes a punitive approach toward those struggling with SUD. This can be particularly problematic for those attempting to recover from past substance use. As they work to stabilize their situation and find and maintain gainful employment, they may be surprised to learn they’re ineligible for food assistance.
Furthermore, checking into a 30-day inpatient treatment program may not align with their schedule, could be disruptive to their life, and may cause them to lose their job. Forcing individuals on a path to recovery into financial difficulty and food insecurity increases the risk of returning to substance use, as stress is a well-established predictor of SUD.
Forty of Kansas’ 105 counties share a border with another state and 15% of TANF recipients are in Johnson and Wyandotte counties, where populations frequently cross the state line into Kansas City, Missouri, for their everyday needs. This rule creates inconvenience and forces program participants (who may not have transportation) to commute farther for services and switch to providers with whom they may not have established trust.
As the size of a household increases, so does the amount of income a household can make and still be eligible. This policy effectively shrinks the household size but acknowledges their income and applies it to the entire household, of which they are not considered a part, solely for eligibility purposes.
The provisions detailed here are just some of the most harmful pieces of the HOPE Act, but dozens of punitive restrictions were enacted with its passage. These policies were passed with no evidence that they would reduce poverty or lead to improved outcomes for those who lost access to services, and they have resulted in tens of thousands of Kansans losing access to programs that are proven to lift folks out of poverty.
Amid rising food insecurity and increased costs on essentials, the Kansas Legislature must repeal the changes made by the HOPE Act to help struggling Kansans regain access to SNAP, TANF, and child care assistance. By lifting up our struggling neighbors, we can strengthen our communities, workforce, economy, and the family unit.
Download a print-friendly version here.
Share
