APHSA’s Benefit Cliff Policy Dashboard Pilot details twelve states’ policies that appear to be mitigating benefit cliffs for recipients transitioning off assistance and was inspired by the significant strides of New England states through their changes in policy, culture and frontline practice. Key federal programs covered by the dashboard include Child Care, HUD, LIHEAP, Medicaid/CHIP, SNAP and TANF. The selected pilot states include Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington. The information included in the dashboard was last updated in April 2025.
Within this page, you can navigate to each section and its contents:
BACKGROUND of the dashboard and its benefits
METHODS used to develop the dashboard
INTERACTIVE DASHBOARD
Page 1 demonstrates each states’ policy changes over time across programs.
Page 2 details each states’ current policies (as of April 2025) by federal program area.
STATE PROFILES features correlational outcomes each state observed post-policy-change, transitional benefits the state offered in April 2025, and state two-pagers itemizing contextual information that helped states advance related policy changes.
RESOURCES provides a repository of educational materials and resources that help inform state strategies to mitigate benefit cliffs from other national organizations or initiatives including the National Council of State Legislatures, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Whole Family Approach to Jobs Initiative, Martha O’Bryan Center, Assistant Secretary for Planning Evaluation, Aspen Institute, and more.
Background
For families across the United States, financial stability and upward mobility are essential to overall well-being – for both parents and children. Although various public assistance programs aim to help individuals stabilize and connect to jobs that offer family-sustaining wages, the structures of these programs often create benefit cliffs.
A benefit cliff, sometimes referred to as “the cliff effect,” occurs when a small increase in earnings results in a sharp reduction or total loss in public assistance. Programs like SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, housing or childcare subsidies are designed to support individuals experiencing poverty, but even a modest pay raise—from a promotion, holiday bonus, or extra shift—can push someone over the eligibility threshold for one or more of these public programs. When a family experiences a cliff, they may have had an opportunity to increase their wages at work but end up facing an unexpected net loss in income due to their decrease in benefits. This issue particularly affects workers earning between $13 and $17 per hour, according to a 2019 National Conference of State Legislatures report. While financial instability and limited upward mobility result in families facing cliffs, employers are impacted also; workers are often reluctant to take jobs or accept promotions, exacerbating labor shortages.
Benefit cliffs are a multifaceted challenge, and no single solution will fully resolve them; however, over the past decade, policymakers have explored various strategies to soften their impact.
Benefit Cliff Dashboard
**Use the left and right arrows to toggle between data pages 1 and 2. Click the “expand screen” icon in the lower right corner of the dashboard window to view the data table in full-screen mode. **
Need to update your state’s data, have questions, or require technical assistance? Using the link below, please fill out the form along with the information your wish to update or any questions you might have.An APHSA staff member will contact you as soon as possible via the email and/or phone number you provide.
The state profiles below highlight some key takeaways from our 12 pilot states. Click on each state name to learn more about how they were able to move benefit cliff work forward in their state:
When examining the benefit cliff landscape for families receiving public assistance, it is essential to consider the nuanced roles of Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability (SSD), and child support, as these income sources significantly influence eligibility and benefit levels across federal programs.
SSI and SSD are federally administered programs with complex rules that determine how earnings affect benefit levels. These rules include monthly income calculations, earnings exclusions, and thresholds that can lead to sudden loss of benefits. While the core rules are federal, state-level policies around Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance can interact with SSI/SSD in ways that amplify or soften these cliffs. State administrators of public benefits programs should consider these dynamics in both policy and practice.
Child support adds another layer of complexity. Under federal TANF rules, states must require recipients to assign their rights to child support to the state. States can then retain collected support to reimburse TANF costs or pay the support to recipients1. States have flexibility in how they treat TANF cost-recovery. There are two main state policy options and one federal policy reality to consider, discussed below. Other child support rules apply to other programs.
Pass-Through and Disregard Policies: States may choose to “pass-through” a partial or full portion of child support directly to the family and then may disregard some or all of the passed through support when calculating TANF benefits (two separate policy options for state consideration). While both are optional under federal law, states can only avoid the cliff effects attributable to increased child support income by disregarding the passed through support. States vary widely in how much they pass through and disregard—some as little as $50, others up to 100%, and still others do not pass through any collected support (see the above policy dashboard’s “TANF-Income Eligibility” column for examples). You can see a full list of states’ TANF pass-through and distribution policies aquí.
“Fill the Gap” Policies: This state policy option allows certain state TANF agencies to supplement families’ TANF benefits with earnings and child support payments. This option is only available to a limited number of states that used “fill-the-gap” budgeting in their old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) programs. If there is a gap between a state’s “standard of need” and their TANF benefit level, TANF agencies with fill-the-gap budgeting exclude the amount of family’s child support payment that would effectively fill the gap between the TANF grant and state’s standard of need level2.
Excess Payment Policies: A federal policy reality that complicates matters further occurs in situations in which the state collects more child support than the cumulative amount of TANF cash assistance paid to the recipient but not reimbursed. Federal law requires the state in such cases to forward the excess collection to the family. If this child support income exceeds the state’s TANF program’s eligibility or asset limits, the recipient’s benefits case will automatically close. This can unexpectedly create a cliff for families receiving child support.
See a key resource that we haven’t mentioned on this page? Please let us know by using this form.
Methods
We designed this dashboard using the following steps:
Convened Advisory Board: Beginning in October 2024 and continuing through June 2025, we convened an advisory board of subject-matter-experts on benefit cliff mitigation of federal benefit programs.
Interviewed SMEs: From October 2024 through January 2025, we interviewed subject-matter-experts from state agencies and national organizations about what tools already existed and which were still needed.
Developed Dashboard Concept: In February 2025, using feedback collected from interviews, we designed a model for the dashboard that would contribute unique information to the sector.
Selected States: In February 2025, leveraging advisory board feedback and previous research, we selected one state per FNS region to be included in the pilot.
Researched States: Throughout spring 2025, we conducted extensive internet research of states’ policies.
Interviewed States: From February to April 2025, we met with each state for one or two 60-minute interviews to learn how they were able to advance policies that mitigated cliffs in their state.
Collected Quantitative Data: From February to May 2025, we sent states a spreadsheet documenting our internet research and asked for any corrections or additions.
Designed Two-Pagers and Dashboard Webpage: From April to June 2025, we summarized what we learned from our interviews with states into State Profile Two-Pagers and designed this Benefit Cliff webpage.
Our enormous thanks to all who served on our advisory board and each of the state teams who shared their time and knowledge with us:
Administration for Children and Families
Colorado Department of Human Services
Connecticut Department of Human Services
District of Columbia Department of Human Services
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
Empleos para el futuro
Dr. Katharine French-Fuller
Maine Department of Health and Human Services
Martha O’Bryan Center
Departamento de Asistencia Transitoria de Massachusetts
Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Michigan
National Conference of State Legislatures
National Governors Association
New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Ohio Department for Job and Family Services
Rhode Island Department of Human Services
Sarah Griffen LLC
Social Finance
Sutherland Institute
Tennessee Department of Human Services
Instituto Urbano
Utah Department of Workforce Services
Vermont Department of Human Services
Vicki Turetsky LLC
Washington Department of Social and Health Services.
Sources
El New England States Tackle Benefit Cliffs policy brief was the foundational source used to shape this dashboard concept and design. Additionally, a range of publicly available databases, webpages, and toolkits provided additional context for interviews with state agency leaders. All state-specific information on this page has been reviewed by state agency program administrators; many states also provided us with related bill language (linked in Resource section above). Key sources that informed our research, in addition to the Resources listed above, include:
Urban Institute’s Child Care Development Fund Policies Database