N※N

SNAP Work Requirements Back in South Carolina

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2026/ .. ap-work-requirements-back-in-south-carolina.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Monday, February 23rd 2026 at 22:22 GMT by WYFF
      Locales: South Carolina, UNITED STATES

GREENVILLE, S.C. (February 24, 2026) - After a period of suspension due to legal challenges, federal work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, are being reinstated, impacting an estimated tens of thousands of South Carolinians. The move, authorized by a recent court ruling, will require able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) to demonstrate work, volunteer activity, or participation in job training programs to continue receiving SNAP benefits.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the reinstatement earlier this week, signaling a return to policies previously enacted in 2019 but quickly halted by legal action. The core of the rule stipulates that ABAWDs must dedicate a minimum number of hours weekly to qualifying activities - employment, volunteering, or approved job training - to maintain their eligibility for SNAP. South Carolina is one of several states where these requirements will be actively enforced.

In 2019, prior to the court injunction, approximately 68,000 South Carolina adults fell under the scope of these work requirements. Officials anticipate a similar number will be affected by the renewed policy. Doug Jones, USDA State Director for South Carolina, stated, "We're working with the state to implement these changes and will be notifying impacted individuals, providing resources to help them meet the new requirements." Notifications to those subject to the rule are expected to begin next month.

Beyond simply informing beneficiaries, the USDA and state agencies are pledging to collaborate with local organizations to expand access to job training and employment opportunities. This proactive approach aims to facilitate compliance with the new rules and support ABAWDs in achieving self-sufficiency. However, critics argue that the effort falls short of addressing the underlying complexities of poverty and the limitations of available resources.

SNAP remains a vital lifeline for low-income individuals and families, providing crucial food assistance. Proponents of the work requirements contend they incentivize self-reliance and reduce dependence on government aid. The logic is that connecting individuals with employment or training opportunities will ultimately lift them out of poverty. The USDA frames the move as a way to strengthen the program by focusing resources on those with the greatest need, while simultaneously encouraging workforce participation.

However, food security advocates warn that the reinstated rules could exacerbate food insecurity, pushing vulnerable populations further into hardship. Sue Ella Odell, of the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, expressed concern, stating, "We know that many people are working, but still struggling to make ends meet. These kinds of rules just create more barriers and more hardship." The argument centers around the fact that many low-wage jobs offer insufficient hours or pay to lift individuals out of poverty, and requiring work on top of existing employment simply adds stress and instability. Furthermore, limited access to affordable childcare, transportation, and job training programs can present significant obstacles to compliance.

Beyond the immediate impact on individuals, economists are debating the broader implications of the policy. Some believe that forcing individuals into the workforce could modestly boost economic activity, while others caution that it could lead to a decline in overall consumer spending if individuals have less disposable income for food and other essentials. Concerns are also raised about the administrative burden placed on state agencies tasked with tracking compliance and providing supportive services.

The specific number of individuals currently projected to be impacted by the reinstated work requirements in South Carolina remains unclear. State officials have not yet released comprehensive data. This lack of transparency is fueling further criticism from advocacy groups who argue that the policy is being implemented without a full understanding of its potential consequences. The USDA maintains that they are continuously monitoring the situation and will adjust the implementation plan as needed based on emerging data and feedback from stakeholders.

The return of these work requirements underscores a broader national debate about the role of social safety net programs and the balance between providing assistance and promoting self-sufficiency. As South Carolina prepares to implement the changes, the coming months will be crucial in determining whether the policy achieves its intended goals or, as critics fear, increases food insecurity and hardship for vulnerable populations.