Burden or Necessity? Experimental Evidence on Public Perceptions of SNAP’s Work Requirement for College Students

• In Event: SNAP Work Requirements and Their Impact on Health and Financial Well-Being Outcomes

Abstract

College students face food insecurity at nearly twice the national rate, yet many remain excluded from SNAP due to restrictive eligibility rules—especially the 20-hour work requirement. Although other exemptions exist, the work requirement is the most common route for students access, but it imposes significant administrative burden, due to unpredictable work schedules and competing academic demands. Recent scholarship has examined how such burdens shape public attitudes toward welfare programs, a concept known as "burden tolerance." However, prior research often assumes uniform public perception and overlooks how marginalized groups like low-income students might reshape the discourse. Additionally, formation of public opinion regarding welfare programs varies based on contextual information available. Using a survey experiment, I examine how the public tolerates administrative burden when it applies to low-income college students by analyzing responses across three burden framings: high, minimal, and neutral. Overall, I find that support for the work requirement decreases as the salience of burden increases. Ideologically, while liberals consistently express low support as expected, conservatives—typically more favorable toward work conditions—become significantly less supportive when exposed to high-burden framing. Individuals with prior welfare exposure or experience navigating bureaucratic systems also show greater support for relaxing the requirement. These findings reveal how highlighting structural barriers can shift public support for eligibility conditions and offer practical insights for designing more inclusive and responsive SNAP policies.

Author

• Kingsford Onyina, University of North Carolina, Charlotte
  Presenting Author