Work Requirements vs. One Door to Work? Wrong Debate

Originally published on Substack.

A discussion is happening over welfare reform. One camp says the answer is stronger work requirements. Another says the system itself must be reworked through reforms like “One Door” to Work.

That debate matters. But it could be framed better. The choice should not be either work requirements or One Door. That is the wrong debate.

If we actually want fewer people trapped in welfare, fewer taxpayer dollars wasted, and more people moving into work and self-sufficiency, then we need to think more seriously about the difference between a policy tool and an institutional reform.

Work requirements are a tool. They matter. But they are not the same thing as fixing the machinery of government that administers these programs in the first place.

Confusing Tools, Systems

The Foundation for Government Accountability’s argument against One Door-style reforms contends that integrated eligibility systems widen the on-ramp to dependency, import errors across programs, and increase the risk of fraud.

The Alliance for Opportunity counters that One Door is about integrating workforce development, job training, and public assistance in ways that reduce waste and help move people from welfare to work.

I have worked with the Alliance for years, though less closely in recent years as my attention shifted to other issues. I also respect the work FGA does to advance a pro-work agenda. This is not a cheap shot at allies. It is a substantive disagreement about what reform really means.

My view is simple: the attack on One Door goes too far, confuses the issue, and risks hurting efforts to get people off welfare.

Work Matters

Let me start where I agree with FGA: work matters.

A healthy society is built on work, family, faith, and civil society—not on permanent dependence on government. Welfare should be limited, temporary, and oriented toward upward mobility.

That is why it matters that the 2025 reconciliation law, OBBB, added new Medicaid work requirements for many adults in the Obamacare expansion beginning January 1, 2027. It also requires states to verify compliance or exemptions at the time of application and renewal.

But that only strengthens my point. Work requirements are now part of the governing reality. So the real question is no longer whether states should care about work. They must. The question is whether they will administer that reality through a fragmented bureaucracy—or a more coherent system aligned around work.

Costly Fragmentation

America’s welfare state is not one system. It is a massive web of different systems.

The Alliance notes that the safety net is broken and fragmented, and the federal government’s own record shows just how costly that fragmentation can be. The Government Accountability Office reports about $162 billion in improper payments in 2024 and estimates annual fraud losses between $233 billion and $521 billion, with $2.8 trillion in improper payments since 2003.

That does not mean all improper payments are fraud. But it does mean the current system is already leaking money at a staggering scale. Fragmentation is not a neutral baseline. It is expensive, duplicative, and hard to oversee.

What One Door Fixes

This is where One Door deserves a fairer hearing. One Door is not “easier enrollment.” It is an institutional redesign intended to align benefits, verification, case management, and workforce services around one objective: helping work-capable people move from dependency to employment to self-sufficiency.

The Alliance’s case is that integrated systems can streamline programs, reduce waste, and improve outcomes. Similar ideas appear in reforms like those discussed by the Pelican Institute and in my work on moving from dependency to empowerment.

That is not about expanding welfare. It is about doing better for people so they can stay off these programs at a lower cost.

Institutional Reform Needed

Here’s the core issue. Work requirements are a tool. One Door is an institutional reform. If the system is broken, adding more rules doesn’t fix it. It often just increases:

• Administrative costs
• Compliance burdens
• Bureaucratic complexity

That’s why this debate matters. You cannot fix a broken system by layering tools on top of it.

From my fiscal hawk perspective, the case for reform is clear. A fragmented system means:

• More staff
• More overhead
• More duplication
• More taxpayer waste

A better-designed system—using modern data, shared verification, advanced computing, and streamlined processes—can reduce those costs and improve accountability. That means more dollars go to those truly in need, fewer are lost to bureaucracy, and more opportunity for lower taxes and greater economic opportunity.

The result can be fewer people needing the welfare system.

Let People Prosper

This ultimately comes back to first principles. The best anti-poverty program is work. Other first responders are family, community, and civil society. Government should be a last resort. But if the government is going to operate these programs, it should:

• Be simple
• Be efficient
• Promote work
• And get out of the way

Right now, it too often does the opposite.

Key Takeaways for Policymakers

For policymakers, three things should be clear.

1. Work requirements are necessary but not sufficient. They are a tool—not a system change.
2. Fragmented bureaucracy is not fiscally conservative. It is costly, inefficient, and often counterproductive.
3. The goal should be fewer people on welfare, not better management of greater dependency. This should include One Door to Work and work requirements, as neither is a panacea.

The Bottom Line

The choice isn’t work requirements or One Door to Work. The choice is whether we keep a broken, expensive system or build one that actually helps people move into work and independence. One Door isn’t a silver bullet. Neither are work requirements. But together—done right—they can help achieve what matters most:
​
Less government. More work. More people are able to prosper.