Cardinal Direction
What's really happening in the Mountain State? Cardinal Direction brings you in-depth conversations on the policies affecting West Virginia, from the economy and education to healthcare and infrastructure. Produced by the Cardinal Institute for WV Policy.
Cardinal Direction
Alternative Model in Action: Utah's Story with Nic Dunn
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
What if getting temporary help also meant finding a clearer path back to work? On this episode of Cardinal Direction, Jessi talks with Nic Dunn of the Sutherland Institute about Utah’s “one door to work” approach, which brings assistance and employment services together.
They discuss why benefit cliffs can make a raise feel risky, how complicated programs take time away from work and skill-building, and what West Virginia can learn from Utah. Dunn also makes the case for giving states room to test new ideas while asking a bigger question: If we designed the safety net today, what would we build?
I'm Jesse Troyan, Director of Policy and Research with the Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy, and I'll be your host for this season of the Cardinal Direction Podcast. In this season, we'll discuss the American Social Safety Net. We start with the origins of these programs, how they've evolved, and what reform efforts have been made. From there, we discuss how one state operates differently and the pathways that the other 49 states can take to move toward this model. Finally, we look ahead to what work remains at both the state and federal levels to ensure that these programs serve as a true bridge during temporary hardships and preserve resources for our fellow citizens who truly rely on such programs to survive. Hi everyone, on today's episode of the Cardinal Direction Podcast, I'm joined by Nick Dunn, the Vice President of Strategy and Senior Fellow at the Sutherland Institute. And I personally have gotten to know him pretty well over the last couple of years through our work within the Alliance for Opportunity Coalition. So welcome, Nick. It's a pleasure to have you here.
SPEAKER_01Hi, Jesse. Thanks so much for having me.
SPEAKER_00Great. So, Nick, let's kind of start out with your personal background here. You've got a diverse history inside and outside government. Could you share with our listeners part of that journey and especially what led you into policy and with the focus on poverty alleviation and safety net reform?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I feel very fortunate and very blessed in the career opportunities that I've had. It also hasn't been a single trajectory or path that was like intentionally planned out. It kind of over the years, as different opportunities have come about that have been good opportunities to move forward, that have kind of led to where I am. And in fact, I got my start initially. I was planning to go into broadcast journalism. That's what I studied in my undergraduate studies at the University of Nevada in Reno and did some radio and TV there in Nevada. And so kind of, again, getting my start in the broadcast news, broadcast journalism world, but always with a deep interest in political issues and policy issues and wanting to kind of focus on those kinds of topics in a journalism or broadcast career. But when I was finishing my undergrad years and years ago, I remember feeling like I wasn't quite smart enough to start my real career. I didn't know enough things. And thanks to some advice from one of my college professors, I decided to pursue a master's degree in public policy, and that's what brought me out to Utah. So I pursued the MPP program at the University of Utah here in Salt Lake. And that was kind of a way to get me deeper into the policy side of these kinds of political issues. And while I was here in Utah when I first moved here, I interned at the state legislature just to try and learn more about the issues that faced Utah's. And that kind of led to just a chain reaction of different opportunities, where I was privileged to serve in the Gary Herbert administration, Utah's previous governor, as his speechwriter, and then worked for a state agency and worked at the county level doing policy, and then worked for a couple different chambers of commerce doing kind of policy and social impact and working on a lot of the issues that I'm sure we'll talk about today. And that all kind of led me to being at Sutherland Institute, been here for about four years now. And so I look at it as sort of getting into this field, the first half of my career maybe a little bit more focused on the communications and strategic communications side, and the second half doing a lot more kind of robust policy work. But I've been grateful for that because it shows the importance of both sound policy and effective communication. You can have the best policy idea in the world, but if you can't effectively communicate it, it's not going to go anywhere. And so being able to sort of draw from both of those sides of my experience has been very fruitful and been a lot of fun. I've been very grateful for it. And applying that to the issues of poverty and upward mobility today, you know, it's something that on a personal level, I feel very compelled to do. I haven't, you know, experienced poverty in my own life, but because of my Christian faith, I feel very compelled that part of my purpose is to try and do whatever I can within my power to address poverty, alleviate poverty, and increase opportunity and upward mobility for others. That's sort of part of my vocational purpose while I'm here in life. And so I've been very grateful for those opportunities.
SPEAKER_00I love your journey because it's I think the most interesting people have these sort of like meandering, like bits and pieces of it that if you look at them separately as sort of the pieces of the mosaic, you're like, I how is this kind of coming together to form, you know, retrospectively what looks like a very intentional career path? But then when you kind of when you start to lay it out like that, hey, I started out in the communication space and really developed and honed this understanding of effective storytelling, effective communicating, and then brought that knowledge and brought that framework into the policy work. And then you look at it from where you're sitting right now, and it looks so intelligent because I think so many of us we want to dig in and and get comfortable in our little lanes and sort of not cross-pollinate across the different domains here. But your path has kind of led you across a lot of it, and I think that's what makes you so so effective at what you do and what Sutherland does, kind of in spreading the message and a lot of the work around all of these poverty alleviation policies and and really advancing the cause of upward mobility for not just your fellow citizens in Utah, but really kind of casting that vision for the whole nation.
SPEAKER_01Well, thank you. That's very kind of you to say. And I would say that it goes to, in my view, the heart of what the promise of America really is, especially this year. We're celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and kind of America's birthday more casually, I guess. But it does prompt this question of what exactly are we celebrating? And aside from all of the intellectual and philosophical foundations and the importance of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution, and those things are essential in kind of this idea of what is America as an idea. I think part of that is you could simplify it a little bit, boil it down to the full promise of America is about freedom and opportunity. Really, it's kind of those two things at the core. And on the freedom side, again, it's it's the principles in the Declaration and the principles and the structures in the U.S. Constitution. And here at Sutherland, we have a great scholar, Bill Duncan, who does phenomenal work on that front. But then on the opportunity side, it's this idea that, well, the promise of America is one half, we're going to protect your freedoms, your essential liberties. The second half of the promise of America is that we will protect your opportunity to rise above whatever challenge or circumstance you're in in life, thanks to your own hard work and grit and determination. And on the public policy side, I view our job as policy practitioners, think tankers, elected officials, administrators, any of these folks, is to do everything we can to clear the path so that the vision would be that the only thing causing someone to stay in poverty in the United States in the 21st century should be themselves, meaning their own ability to work and earn and rise up should be the determining factor. And that means we have some work to do on the policy front to clear that path.
SPEAKER_00That's a really great metaphor and a great way to think of it. Is just we want to get these obstacles out of the way for people to take charge of their own lives, be the authors of their own destinies, and really chase even the wildest dreams that they can imagine here. Kind of going back into your original commentary, I want to dig in just a little bit deeper. I know you spoke a bit about your faith and kind of how that drives and motivates you internally. But was there a particular experience kind of along your pathway to where you are today that really changed the way you thought about the domain of policy work?
SPEAKER_01I'll articulate a couple, not necessarily in order, but two kind of personal experiences just with people I've interacted with over the years. One is when I was working for the state, working at the State Department of Workforce Services, and we were evaluating some public media opportunities around the issue of homelessness. And so it part of the course of my work, I met a man here in Salt Lake who was chronically homeless and at the time was living in a supportive housing facility that Utah operated. And I was talking to him about his experience. And and I I remember asking him, What do you think would be helpful? What do you need, either for you or other people in your same circumstance? What do you wish for from the state, from policy, all these kinds of things? And what he said really surprised me because he said, I just want a hand up, not a handout. In other words, he was articulating that he he wanted to work. He desired that that earned success that comes from work, the desire to work and earn and earn his way out of poverty and out of homelessness and into kind of that idea of work-based independence. And it had an impact on me, because honestly, I was kind of expecting he would say something like, Well, we need more government funding for social programs, we need, you know, more generous subsidies, you know, those kinds of things that we often talk about and debate in this space. But his message was, I want to work and earn my way up. And I've always remembered that, that thinking, okay, well, any public policy intervention we deploy, is it helping people like him to be able to say, I'm working, I'm earning more, and I'm on the path up and out of poverty and towards, you know, my version of the American dream. A second example is a woman named Marcella, who's actually been on our Defending Ideas program here at Sutherland Institute, where, you know, single mom on various public assistance programs, but was experiencing circumstances that we talk about often called the benefit cliff, where she looked at her earnings relative to the amount of benefits she was receiving from different government programs, and became really worried that, well, if if I earn too much, I'm gonna hit a threshold where the reduction in public benefits that I will get will kind of eat away or maybe even eclipse the increased income I got from those new earnings. And so she was kind of feeling that, I guess, consternation or that conflict between I want to work, I don't want to be on these public assistance programs, I want to achieve work-based independence and use that to provide a better life for my kids, but feeling discouraged or disincentivized, that sort of the inadvertent design, the structure of the public assistance system was making that harder. So those two experiences of folks that I've gotten to talk to and learn from have really framed, again, this idea that anything we do on a public policy level should be pro-work and pro-upward mobility with the ultimate goal of work-based independence. Maybe one other kind of broad philosophical framing is about 10 years ago or so, I read the book The Conservative Heart by Arthur Brooks, and and it was a watershed moment for me because I remember thinking, well, first of all, as someone who considers myself a political conservative, thinking this should be kind of the conservative Bible, if you will. But just this idea that going back to this idea that the full promise of America is freedom and opportunity. And Arthur Brooks, the Conservative Heart, articulated a what I would call a conservative vision for opportunity policy that I felt like was sorely needed in the country then and I think is still sorely needed now. And so those things together sort of, I think, have helped inform a vision of ensuring that, yes, here in Utah, but then also all throughout the United States, not only can and should be, but must be, must remain the land of opportunity where your hard work is the variable that will have the greatest impact over whether or not you are able to rise and move forward and feel like the American dream is actually within reach.
SPEAKER_00I love so much that you referenced the conservative heart here, because I know in our office here at the Cardinal Institute. Probably around the same time frame ago, our CEO Garrett was first introduced to, exposed to that book, read it, it had a very similar impact. He passed it on to me, and I swear I think at this point, every time we have a new person who joins the Cardinal Squad, I'm like, listen, if you really kind of want to get into the heart and soul of all of the different policy domains that we're doing, like this is the book that you need to read.
SPEAKER_01Can I add one to that as well? Yeah, I completely agree. I mean, the conservative heart would probably be the first, not the only, but the first book I would reach for to hand to someone new. I would also add the book Love Your Enemies, another book from Arthur Brooks, um, which is a little bit more about political culture than hard policy per se, but very much leaning into the recognition that the way we even discuss and debate political and policy issues in this country is completely dysfunctional. There's way too much contempt, there's way too much hate. We all see it, we all feel it, we all at times inadvertently or maybe times in at times intentionally participate in it. But the core message of love your enemies, I mean it's it's implicit in the title, but this idea that no one has ever been insulted into agreeing with you about a particular issue, but yet it seems like that's what elected officials and voters and folks on social media, we keep acting as if we think that will work. If we just beat up the other side enough, somehow we will persuade people of our particular viewpoint. And we've seen the evidence of that, that things are not getting better in terms of our political culture, our tone, the way we interact with one another. And so I would articulate it as we need more, I love the term happy warriors, because you're still fighting, but you're fighting for a set of principles and for people, rather than against this sort of nefarious other team that you view as bad. And that means that at the core, politics and policy really is collaborative problem solving. And that therefore our job is to, yes, at times, obviously as a country we have elections and they're winners and losers. Yes, at times we have votes on policies and some things succeed and some things fail. And at times we have to and we should participate in those quote-unquote fights, but do so with the long view that ultimately I want some collaborative problem solving to provide the foundation for improving our social welfare policies in particular to strengthen America as the land of opportunity. And that's why those two things together, those two books with those experiences I've mentioned, I think provide a really effective foundation from which to do that.
SPEAKER_00That's a really great point to bring up, too, because I know here in West Virginia, we just got out of a primary election season not very long ago. And like you were alluding to, it's way too easy to paint politics with this dirty brush that everything gets so mean and nasty. And I felt like the campaign season did a lot of that. And I was like, these are a lot of people who are all going out here and kind of staking their claim and going out before the public to say, hey, I believe in fighting for the future of West Virginia. And instead, there was just the the reception to that wasn't tell me more about your vision for what's going to make West Virginia a better place. It was just like, you have this niche vote on this one thing that I have chosen as my molehill to die on.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, I I I always go back to there is this principle that we we get the elected officials and the politics that we deserve, meaning we as voters, the way we engage one another on social media, the the the way and and the people for whom we cast our our vote, that if if we all agree that, hey, we we want a politics that's less toxic, and I would say I love debate, like a policy debate, true policy debate is is vigorous and exciting, and it helps sharpen and improve ideas. But the trick is we've forgotten that, in my view, the true purpose of debate is not necessarily to just defeat the other side. Yes, there are the ideas that I think are bad that I think should be defeated, and there are ideas that I think are good that should be successful, and part of what I want to do through public debate is accomplish those respective goals, but also shifting the mindset from I'm not trying to defeat or discredit a person so much as I'm trying to defeat bad ideas and I'm trying to support good ideas. So separating the ideas and the concepts we're debating from the person, meaning I should be able to have love and respect for someone who I think is wrong on almost every major issue. And that's hard to do, but I think essential. And those of us, either voters or elected officials or candidates or other policy leaders, if we can all get better at that idea of I'm going to rigorously debate over ideas, but the people I interact with, wherever they fall in those ideas, I'm going to treat with love and respect because that's what's necessary for the American experiment to continue, in my view.
SPEAKER_00That's so important. I think one of the most interesting things, it's there's almost like a performative element to it. That we we get too caught in the trappings of that. Whereas if you're getting together sort of private or just kind of a lower key environment with these individuals with whom you probably couldn't be farther apart on policy ideas and the vision for you know what a flourishing West Virginia, Utah, America looks like. But you get together, you're breaking bread with them, you're sitting at the bar having a beer with them, you can have that good conversation that it's like, I think we both want a lot of the same things at the end goal. We just disagree about how to get there.
SPEAKER_01And I think that's a really good reminder, Jesse, that if if you were to ask most Americans, I would hypothesize there'd be some pretty strong consensus around, I want most Americans, or all Americans, if at all possible, to be able to, in their household and their families, to have a strong connection to work, to the ability to earn their own success and provide for their families in a way that meets their needs, and to be able to achieve that work-based independence, to be able to have families, to be able to participate in their faith communities in alignment with their conscience, and to again build those civic structures that have made America successful as a nation. I think most Americans would say, yeah, I want those things. I want this idea of the American dream to be within reach for as many of my fellow Americans as possible. And so then the debate becomes, well, how do we do that? What are the policy levers? What are the non-policy levers? And that's where there can be plenty of debate and disagreement, which is fine and in fact good, but I think we forget that something that I've observed here in Utah, that I think there is something unique about the way things operate in Utah most of the time, where sometimes we call it the Utah way, just this idea that there's a collegiality in Utah that I think is much more pronounced than you see at the federal level in Washington, D.C., or even just in politics around the country, where we're all Utah's. We all love our state. We want our state to be successful. We're all Americans, we love our country and want our country to be successful. And so there's something about the way we engage with one another where, yes, we debate and disagree at times, but also we want to try and find consensus when possible and engage in that collaborative problem solving. I wouldn't say we're perfect at it. There's plenty of instances where we can absolutely improve at it. I do worry at times that kind of the national style, DC style politics and policy fights will increasingly infiltrate into Utah and take some of that away. But I think that model of yes, at times disagreement, but loving, respectful, collaborative problem solving through the political and policy structures that we have is something that's really important for the nation that I think Utah models well. And it's possible in Washington, D.C. You look at the the U.S. Supreme Court, for example. Well, we recently had an episode with Sarah Isger on our Defending Ideas program here at Sutherland Institute. She talked about her new book, Last Branch Standing, that talks about the U.S. Supreme Court. Perfect example of Supreme Court justices who do this stuff for a living. They debate really weighty issues for their job. After each time that they they meet together to have oral argument, um periodically, they will gather to have lunch together as the justices where they're not allowed to talk about work. So they talk about personal items and have a collegiality and a respect, and dare I say, even a love for one another. You look at, I believe it was Ginsburg and Scalia, the two Supreme Court justices, that had a famous loving friendship, they're on opposite sides of a lot of issues. That's the kind of thing that we know is possible. You look at Senator Orin Hatch and Ted Kennedy, same kind of relationship. And so we know it's possible, we know it's doable. I think we model that in Utah maybe significantly better than the national average, if you will, but we have to be intentional, explicit about preserving that. And to be honest, I think that's what's led to some of the policy successes we've had here in Utah with our upward mobility, with the way we address poverty and up and opportunity policy as a state, stems partly from that culture of we might disagree at times and we want to work through those disagreements thoughtfully. But at the end of the day, we want Utah to be a great place, and of course we want America to be a great place.
SPEAKER_00That's a great way to kind of segue into the next question that I had for you here. So you're talking about how you know Utah really does stand apart in different ways for its political happenings, for its policy achievements. So in particular, I know that Utah is often cited as a national leader for its Department of Workforce Services that you have some experience within. At a really high level, explain to our listeners who may be unfamiliar, kind of how that system works and what makes it unique. And to be completely fair, we're doing a few episodes like this. And so a lot of folks are having the opportunity to to kind of chime in on this. But kind of from that high level, and especially from someone who lives in Utah and gets to see it, its actions and outcomes throughout the state, kind of talk about that for us.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the the Utah model, or the in many instances called the the one door-to-work model, that's a little bit unique in Utah, is that if you think of the social welfare system as there's a public assistance or temporary assistance side, and those are things like food stamps, Medicaid, cash assistance, child care assistance, housing assistance. I mean, there's kind of a long list of programs. But if you just think of okay, the programs that are funded by the federal government intended to help to address specific needs that a family might have. And then you also have workforce development programs, things that are intended to provide skills and education and job searchability and help people either kind of bolster their resume and their skill set and or help them connect with potential employers to move into jobs and again beyond that pathway to work-based self-reliance. In Utah, those two things are largely integrated. Most of our safety net programs and our workforce programs, they're co-located in one statewide agency, as you mentioned, the Utah Department of Workforce Services. And so in Utah, if you come into that state agency saying, Well, I lost my job or I'm struggling or I'm down on my lock and I need some help. Yes, they're going to do essentially both of these things where they say, okay, let's help stabilize your situation when it comes to, again, addressing some of these immediate material needs in a temporary, targeted way through the public assistance side. Let's also simultaneously and in a streamlined fashion talk about how to help you move back towards this goal of work-based independence. So they build an employment plan for you. They can help look at your resume, they can help you with job search. There are often job fairs happening in the same building with employers looking to hire there on the spot. And so this integration of temporary assistance and workforce opportunities that's streamlined and co-located in one statewide agency is really impactful. And the reason I would say that is that it goes back to, I think, what really is the core purpose of the social welfare system that sometimes is in debate right now. If you go back to 1964, kind of the 1960s in general, and President Lyndon bean Johnson, and if you read his speeches, sort of launching the war on poverty and the way he talks about it. Yes, there there are obviously some references and some programs that have come as a result of that that are designed to provide some temporary assistance, again, address those material needs a family might be experiencing. But the core message, the most important message that he articulated that undergirded, that was the physical foundation, philosophical foundation for the war on poverty, is education and skills and work and independence and building the capacity of Americans to create their version of the American dream. When you look at that philosophical framing and fast forward to today, those principles sometimes are in debate. And I think we saw that recently with the debate over the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill, discussing work requirements in Medicaid or in the food stamp program. And so part of why I think the Utah approach is so important for Utah and honestly for the rest of the nation, is that I think we perhaps do a better job than most or than the national average in Utah when it comes to sort of embracing that philosophy and building a structure around this core principle that the true goal of the American social welfare system is ultimately work-based independence for any who are able. And of course, we want to help address some of the material needs your family is facing in the meantime and on your path to that work-based independence. If that is the true goal, why on earth would you separate those two parts of temporary assistance and workforce opportunity? So it's sort of this there is a common sense component that obviously we want those two things to be integrated. Utah has done that and taken, in my view, a federal system that is not designed particularly well, especially when we talk about trying to pursue that aspirational goal of the war on poverty, and made it work in a much better way at the state level for Utah because of the great, innovative, thoughtful work of the folks at the Department of Workforce Services, of governors throughout multiple administrations, and of legislatures throughout multiple legislative sessions. And so I think we embody that in the structure, in the way we try and address poverty and upward mobility as a state because of that integrated model. And also there's something about the culture of Utah. The Utah State flag that's behind me here at our Defending Ideas studio at Sutherland, the Utah State flag has a big picture of a beehive on it. So kind of the state motto is industry, that as a people, we want to be industrious, we want to work, we want to provide and contribute and be productive in a way that can serve our fellow man through that work. And so that culture, I think, is imbued into our policy making, our administration of these programs, and sort of everything we do as a state that again does a better job sort of reaching for and trying to accomplish that aspirational goal of the war on poverty, which really should be framed as a war for opportunity. And that's the that's the maybe, I guess, the 30,000-foot level reasoning for why I think the way we do things in Utah is so important and impactful, and can obviously still be improved upon. And that's one of the things I love about working on these issues here in Utah is that from the leadership and the staff of the Department of Department of Work for Services to the legislature, to the governor and the governor's administration, and to just the people of Utah, there's this constant spirit of continuous improvement. Even if we're ranked the best for upward mobility in the nation, we still want to get better. We still want to help the families that are still struggling in Utah to get a taste of that opportunity in upward mobility that Utah is known for and that our free enterprise system here in the United States can deliver.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, I think that's so important here, the way that you're discussing this kind of internal driving ethos that exists in Utah, both on sort of the personal and the societal level of like be industrious, you know, kind of contribute to the whole, do your part, but that also, you know, playing your role and doing your job independently also kind of helps the whole, you know, to to go into the to just really dig into the metaphor here. Like if every worker be is doing their job, it supports the whole hive. And so where you're talking about, hey, we don't want to rest on our laurels and just say, like, oh, well, we've got this really great system that just like abides by all common sense here. We've got work and support programs put together. And that that lends us to a really important point here. Because I think a lot of us in this public policy realm, it's a little easy at times to say, oh, hey, like we passed this great piece of legislation. And then as kind of a general, as a general industry here, we're also being much better about like, hey, we've got a follow-through on implementation. If you don't implement good legislation, you haven't done anything. But at the same time, even still, you can pass great legislation, you can implement great legislation, but the work still remains. And so, what have you seen kind of in Utah, in your experiences, that other states kind of pursuing a model like Utah does? Like I know we're talking about doing some of that here in West Virginia under Governor Morrissey's Work First Task Force initiative. What should West Virginia be on the watch for assuming the best case scenario here that we do integrate these programs in a much more rational and productive manner?
SPEAKER_01A couple of things come to mind. And these are not necessarily in order. They they can perhaps should be pursued simultaneously. But one is the broad economic dynamism or lack thereof of a particular state. One of the things that that Utah has going for it is its strong and robust economy. And you look at that we've had among the highest or or or higher job growth rates among the states for many years, some of the lowest poverty rates for states for many years, a a higher than the national average labor force participation rate for many years. And you look at our employment to population ratio. Um so you go down the list of there there's very much a pro-economic growth, pro-economic dynamism environment here in Utah, even from the standpoint of economic diversity. When you look at those measures of how diverse our economy is, Utah's economy is among the most diverse in the nation, meaning there's a lot of jobs and economic activity in a lot of different sectors. So I say all that from the standpoint that for a state policymaker anywhere in the nation, and in this case in West Virginia, one of the first things I would ask, again, maybe in tandem with others, is what is the business environment in our state? To what extent are our public policy decisions as a state impacting business and job growth and economic dynamism? Do businesses want to come here or do businesses want to flee? And you see that, you know, is different in different states around the country. So that's part of it, is that I think it is absolutely essential if you want a state to be a very upwardly mobile state, a part of that is a foundation of economic dynamism that creates that kind of opportunity because there's a lot of jobs. I I've said for years, one of the best things that can happen for low-income families is a very vibrant economy with a very tight labor market, meaning employers are saying, we desperately need workers, and so we we come here and we want to hire you, that can have an upward effect on wages, and so at least for for low-income families, that can be very beneficial when they are sought after as the workforce because the economic dynamism is so strong in a particular state. So that's one that should include looking at tax policy, looking at regulatory policy, and looking at those factors that can influence and impact a business environment. Here in Utah, we have a very strong Chamber of Commerce community, and they play an important role. Having those conversations at the state level to make sure we're supporting economic dynamism as a state. So that would be one to look at at the state level. Another would be, especially if there is this ability to move forward and start to integrate these kinds of things, I think first it starts again with this cultural message that starts maybe at the top, but should permeate through everything, to say that to the extent it is at all possible as a state, when we look at the social welfare system, every component of that system should be oriented around this broad goal of for every family in Utah, in West Virginia, across the nation that is able, work-based independence is the goal. And so when we think of, okay, well, how do we deploy the food stamp program as a state? How do we deploy Medicaid? How do we deploy child care assistance? How do we try to integrate those things with our workforce development arm as a state that's looking at education, training, and credentials? And are those things aligned with the business needs and the economic needs where there are jobs? So you can kind of draw a line across these different domains, but again, that question of okay, what is this particular program or apparatus or intervention doing to help move people towards that goal of work-based independence? That's an important shift because, again, we saw with the one big beautiful bill, even the Medicaid program, there was a debate, and it's been going on for a few years between the Trump administration and the Biden administration, what is the purpose of Medicaid? Is it just to furnish health insurance or health assistance of some form, or is it to help people on the path back to work, work-based independence? That's a good example of at the state level, a governor can say, okay, for me and my administration, all of my state agencies, so all of my agency heads and the senior staff of the agencies and the staffers, they all constitutionally work for the governor to be able to say our goal for everything we do in the social welfare space is work-based independence for every West Virginia family who is able, and yes, helping to address their immediate material needs as a step along that path. So I think that cultural aspect of it needs to permeate throughout the administrators of these agencies. And so that's one element that I think can be within a state's power to start to articulate those kinds of messages. It is a governance culture or a leadership culture. Here in Utah, I remember this phrase, those who can work do work. And I think it was particularly pronounced in the aftermath of the Great Recession and the years that we as a state, along with other states in the country, we're trying to recover from that economically. But again, this idea that our goal is to get you back to work with the goal of work-based independence for your family, and the temporary assistance programs are a step along that path. So I think that's another really important thing that as a state is looking at that kind of integration, having that be the predominant viewpoint. And then the third thing I'd mention is when you're getting into the actual work of integrating those programs, there's a lot of administrative and data kind of oriented work that, again, Utah has done over years to improve that, where you're looking at the specific programs or divisions within a state, which of those should be streamlined or consolidated or folded into one another. But again, with the purpose of we don't want these things to talk in silos anymore. That I would say that the overall goal should be that trying to have a customer-focused lens, and in fact, that's the terminology that folks here in Utah use, is that someone who comes into the Department of Workforce Services here in Utah, they are viewed as a customer, not as a participant or a recipient. They are customers, meaning the agency exists to serve those customers and help them, again, on the goal of upward mobility, back on their feet towards work-based independence. And so for a state like West Virginia that's looking, okay, well, how do we do this? It's natural for those of us who work in policy to start up here and look at, okay, from an administrative standpoint or an organizational standpoint, here's what makes sense. If it doesn't make sense to the end user, the customer, or the family, or the individual who's actually participating in those programs, then we're failing. So it has to be a person-centric model where every reform conversation should start with, okay, if I'm an individual, if I'm a family, and I'm coming into whatever the state apparatus is to get some temporary assistance and find work opportunities to get back on my feet on the path towards work-based independence. Start there, and then that guides how you actually design things, and then you sort of backfill the administrative structure as needed to build it around the customer experience. That's something that, again, when you look at our social welfare programs on the federal level, they have not been designed in that way because these different programs were created at different times, serving different objectives over decades, under different federal agencies, reporting up through different congressional committees. A state looking to integrate and streamline has a tremendous opportunity to fix a lot of that, again, centered on the person and their upward mobility goals.
SPEAKER_00That is such an important element here, is that I think too often there's a little bit of a mindset of like, oh, well, it's your responsibility to figure out how to navigate these things. No, we're we're trying to be that hand up. Like, don't make this a a full-time job in and of itself, and then be puzzled as to why individuals who are turning to these programs are then not going out and also pursuing you know full-time work and work opportunities elsewhere. Like if you've made the assistance process a job, I don't think anyone should really be all that surprised when they treat it like the full-time job that it sometimes has become.
SPEAKER_01I couldn't agree more. And and I think that that is important when we think about like one of the things that I'm the most concerned about is families who are on the public assistance system today and want to get off of it through work and independence, but sometimes the nature of the system makes it feel a lot harder to do that than would be ideal. And so when we're talking about those families, that's a perfect example of what you're saying is that difficulty in navigating the system, I don't think, helps families move towards work-based independence at all. And and we've we've seen that in the survey data that we've deployed here in Utah. There's some national research and survey data as well that corroborate some of this, as well as some focus groups that we've done here in Utah, and focus group and anecdotal interview conversations across the nation. I would argue strongly that the administrative complexity that creates an administrative burden for these families does not make it easier for them to navigate how to get off of these programs. And so I think the the the argument that you said of of some folks might say, well, what can't families just navigate this themselves? And we say, sure, they can. But you know, think like conservatives, we love to think in economic terms, right? Think of a basic economist, discharged. Yeah. You you think of opportunity costs, and you think, okay, the more time someone is spending on navigating a complicated and difficult to navigate bureaucratic system, that is less time they have to spend on working, increasing their skill set, looking for new work opportunities. And that in and of itself, I think, is a severe problem. Where the, in my view, government, you know, we talk a lot about government efficiency versus inefficiency. I think from a constitutional perspective, there's a strong argument to make that when government is making decisions about what to do, it should be slow and deliberative, and sometimes that's frustrating because it feels inefficient. But to a certain extent, that's a feature of our constitutional system. But then once the government decides, okay, we know exactly what we're going to do and we're moving forward with it, then I think there's a very strong argument that it should be as efficient and effective as possible. Administrative complexity is not an asset in the social welfare system because, again, I think it makes harder, it makes it harder for families to get off of the system into work-based independence.
SPEAKER_00Indeed. And so you're you're pointing this out, you're seeing this in Utah. I know it's exists in West Virginia, but what other challenges have you seen, heard about that that continue to exist in in the state of Utah, even with having what most of us would consider sort of the gold standard of work force in safety net service administration?
SPEAKER_01There are two major constraints that we still see, I think, in Utah and across the nation. And both of them go back to the flawed, inadvertent design of the federal social welfare system. One is this idea of benefit cliffs that I mentioned earlier. Again, that as folk for folks who are on these public assistance programs, as their earnings increase, they might hit a threshold or multiple thresholds where the reduction in their public benefits, there's a real fear that they could be in a s circumstance where I earn a little bit more, but then I lost X dollars from various public benefit programs. That can actually outpace my new earnings, meaning I'm financially worse off on net after a raise, or I feel like I'm no better off, or that benefit reduction ate up so many of those new gains that it's kind of a treadmill effect. And so we've seen that in Utah through survey data where we surveyed safety net participants here in Utah, or customers as we call them at the state agency level. We surveyed folks and asked them about this experience. And 43% of current or recent Safety Net participants in Utah, as of the 2024 study that we put out, 43% said that at some point in their interaction with the safety net system, they had taken some kind of action to constrain or limit their earned income because they were afraid of triggering a benefit cliff. And, you know, some of the most common behaviors, in fact, the most common one, I think, in in the high 20s, about 29%, was folks who just stopped looking for or pursuing new opportunities because that's kind of the thought of, well, why would I keep working to get the job interview to be offered the job if as soon as I get offered the job, I believe it's going to trigger a Cliff effect, I'm not actually going to be better off. So we've seen that with survey data here in Utah. There's some nationally representative survey data as well from the Washington University Center for Social Development. They found about 22% of low-wage workers on these public programs acted similarly, again, kind of constraining their income in various ways to avoid triggering a benefit cliff effect. And there's ample research. I know you've done some work from the Cardinal Institute. The American Enterprise Institute has a new paper called Stranded by the Safety Net that I'm a co-author for that articulates this in a lot of detail. The Georgia Center for Opportunity has done great work. The Atlanta Fed has done great work. And so that's one issue that even in Utah, where we do have the highest upward mobility in the nation, according to the Archbridge Institute, two years, well, two different studies now. And we do have the one door to work model that I think has a lot of tremendous benefits for how we help folks get out of poverty. And so even in Utah, where I think we've probably done the best out of any state at making a poorly designed federal system work a lot better on the state level, because these things originate from, again, federal design or lack thereof, we still see some opportunities for improvement here in Utah that I think applies throughout the country. The second one that also goes back to the nature of these programs being designed and created at the federal level is insufficient ability for states to be creative innovators in improving these kinds of programs. And so the one door-to-work model is a good example of where there's been an ongoing debate at the national level over whether or not states should be allowed to. Utah has that model. We were grandfathered in decades ago. Other states to have the fully realized, fully integrated one-door-to-work model are asking for federal legislation through Congress to make that possible. So that's one example where states want to streamline and integrate and be innovative, but federal rules or federal law prevents them from doing that very well. Another example is just, again, broad safety net innovation and reform. One of the biggest things that I like to throw out to people in these conversations is imagine we didn't have a social safety net at all or a social welfare system as a country. Imagine the war in poverty never happened, and it's 2026, and you and I are sitting down saying, hey, we probably ought to have a social welfare system to help American families in poverty and help them get back on their feet. Okay, what should it look like? If we were designing a system today from scratch, no one in their right mind would point to exactly the system we have.
SPEAKER_00We have right now that's basically just the spaghetti map. We like threw a bunch of programs at the wall, and what stuck is like go navigate it, friends.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. No one would do that, but again, it's because these programs and systems have been built piecemeal over decades at different times, different objectives, different accountability structures, and different rules. And so the second big constraint is that states do not have enough and they need more innovation authority from the federal government. I would much rather have a lot of these debates and decisions happening at the state level than happening at the federal level because states can be more nimble, can be more innovative, and can be more responsive to the specific needs of their residents.
SPEAKER_00Well, with respect to that flexibility that you're talking about, I know you have mentioned in some of the working groups and what have you that we've both been at that Utah is pursuing even more of this flexibility within some of the programs that that latitude is available. Talk a little bit about that and share what you think is some of the most promising features of these pilot programs.
SPEAKER_01Well, it goes to one again, one of the core things I love about Utah and working on these issues from the Utah perspective, is this again, this culture of continuous improvement. Um, you know, Ian Rowe, scholar for AEI and great author and thinker, he was in Salt Lake City a few years ago, a joint event that AEI and Sutherland held on some of the things he was working on. And and in his remarks, he mentioned that that there's this idea of good to great, that in the business world there are businesses or employers who could be called great, but they sort of adopt the moniker of good because they always want to believe that there are higher levels of excellence we can strive for. And he applied that to the state of Utah. And I think that's 100% true, and the and the right framing to talk about the way we do things here in Utah, again, whether it's various governors throughout recent history or legislatures or our state agency folks and leadership. This idea of we always want to go from good to great. So that spirit of continuous improvement, I think, was an important foundation for two specific things that passed recently in Utah. One, in the 2025 legislative session, um Sutherland was involved with the legislature, with the governor's office, with the Department of Workforce Services, but conceptualizing and getting funding for in passing, the legislature created a pilot program using TANF dollars to essentially say, okay, let's test some ways to help families more effectively and more easily transition off of government benefits into work-based independence with a specific eye toward the benefit cliff issue. So there's this idea that, well, if if we can provide some enhanced financial coaching, financial planning resources or opportunities to close that information gap or that perception gap where families may not always know exactly how does my public benefit profile change as my earnings go up. So let's give them real, accurate, specific information to help with their planning and decision making. Second component is robust community coaching and mentoring, leading into the civic infrastructure through a lot of the great nonprofits that do work here in Utah. And so deploying those as, again, sort of a coaching-mentoring model to provide that help for these families to navigate this issue. And then the third component is robust data capture of earnings, of household demographics, of the benefit profile of these families, so that at the end of the of the pilot period, we can know, okay, which of these interventions seem to really help these families make a difference, and which of the findings we get from this show that there is still some need for some structural reforms to these programs, a lot of which might have to happen at the federal level. So that pilot is ongoing. And then a year later, in the 2026 general session, we we passed, the legislature passed, and again, Sutherland was involved with all the all the right partners that I mentioned earlier. The legislature passed, and the governor signed, a resolution basically stating the state of Utah's official position, saying, this is you know, just summarizing that, hey, we are worried as a state about benefit cliffs because it can create some fear and some issues, the families turning down opportunities. We also want to innovate more as a state in trying to figure out how to fix these issues. We don't have enough innovation authority from the federal government, so therefore, please, Congress and the federal government, give states more innovation authority to test creative new ways of helping improve these social safety net programs and improve the system as a whole. Those two things together I think are really important because it shows that the state of Utah, one, is trying to be as innovative as it can within the authority it already has to try and improve upon the social welfare system. And then two, saying to the federal government, we think we could do more. We think we could do an even better job if we had more ability at the state level to, again, be thoughtful and be creative and be innovative and try things that maybe no one's thought of yet, or if they have thought of it, hasn't been implemented or tested anywhere yet. And so those two things I think are moving forward in a way that is informing or adding momentum to some of these national conversations. So it's kind of the third key piece of this, what I would call a welfare reform movement, where we think about states, and Utah's not alone. Other states are trying things to address benefit cliffs, other states are also trying to restructure, as you mentioned, with the one door to work as the goal. So you have different components of a state-led welfare reform movement, the third component of which is federal action. And now, as of January 2026, there was new legislation introduced called the Upward Mobility Act in Congress from Ohio Senator John Houston and Utah Representative Blake Moore, who are sponsoring the House and Senate versions of this legislation. That would essentially give it's a structured pilot program, so it's somewhat limited in scope. It would give a certain number of states ability to essentially take funding from up to 10 different safety net programs or funding streams and braid that funding together in a streamlined, integrated, flexible account, essentially, to test, again, new and better ideas of helping families struggling in poverty. And so you could have some of that streamlining and integration. It's still pro-work, it still has various constraints and guardrails, but that is one of the things that has been the one of the most exciting developments that I've seen in recent years on this front is that you know, as as much as we we may love and appreciate a lot of the folks in Washington, D.C., whether it's our specific congressional representatives from our various states or some of the thought leaders at places like American Enterprise Institute that we work closely with and others, one of the fundamental principles is I don't believe that Washington, D.C. is the best place to conceptualize and deploy and test innovative new pilotable approaches for fixing or reimagining the social welfare system. States are just fundamentally better equipped to do that. That's why the Upward Mobility Act, I think, addresses a lot of those things where it's very explicitly about empowering states to eliminate benefit cliffs. It allows some of that streamlining and structural integration that is needed. And it's a structured pilot that's leaning into federalism and states being able to be innovators. I think there are a few things I could think of that I think would be as positively impactful for families trying to get out of poverty in America and for this broader welfare reform movement than the Upward Mobility Act, something like that to pass to again further equip states like Utah, West Virginia, others to try these innovative ideas. And I think the last thing I would mention is that I think there's a very important principle of how we approach the reform conversation. And I would articulate it as sort of two parallel tracks. Number one is the incremental reform, the tinkering with these programs. The one big beautiful bill was an example of that tinkering. It didn't fundamentally change the structure, it just added work requirements to Medicaid, expanded them in the food stamp program. Could be beneficial and impactful. I tend to like states doing work requirements better, because again, we can be more nimble and adjust where we need to, whereas federal rules sometimes just make it tough to be nimble like that, but that's maybe a separate conversation. But but that's that's just tinkering with the programs. Whereas we should also talk about transforming the entire system. So I want states to be able to lead simultaneously to say, how can we make some incremental improvements or tinker with the existing programs, the existing system to try and make things better and achieve better outcomes for the families that are trying to escape poverty? Simultaneously, how do we have that broader aspirational reform conversation that I mentioned earlier? If we were building a system today, what would we actually build? Let's put that on paper at the state level. Let's say here's what Utah, what West Virginia, what other states would try in a pilot form if we had the authority, like what the Upper Mobility Act grants. I think we need both of those conversations at the same time. And if we can do that successfully, we will be in the midst of a new 21st century welfare reform movement that will rival or exceed what happened in the 90s in terms of being pro-work and truly pro-opportunity for the families who really need it.
SPEAKER_00I really, really love that tinker versus transform model that you have. And I and I couldn't agree with you more that both conversations need to be had and both approaches need to be seriously engaged with. We've got a tinker where we have the ability to do that right now, and we need to march that conversation forward on transformation, because we've got sort of a weird Frankenstein's monster of things that have just been stitched together or just slapped together with duct tape out of the garage, like, oh, here's this other challenge that people are facing. So here's a new program, and you know, watch rants repeat. But to to bring that back and say, hey, let's transform all of this too, and not just like how do we make a you know better version of what we duct taped onto this. Well, now that we've kind of been through this whole scope of what makes Utah different, what are the new approaches that Utah is experimenting with? Let's close out this conversation on a positive note. We've talked about a lot of ways that we can do better by our fellow Americans who are turning to the safety net in times of need. In your opinion, how will we know we've been successful?
SPEAKER_01It it's an important perhaps one of the most important questions when when we talk about policy reform is what does success look like? And I mentioned at the beginning of the show that part of my personal motivation for for wanting to work on poverty issues is my Christian faith, this this idea that I'm I'm compelled to, because of my faith, that I I must try to do whatever I can to make it easier for other of my fellow Americans to not have to experience poverty. And and I think going back to that kind of religious framing, you know, in the Bible, it says that the poor ye shall always have with you. I'm sure there are Bible scholars that will correct that quote if it needs correction and be able to cite it chapter and verse, but but I just remember that principle. And I apply that to this to say that I don't actually think the federal government, or maybe even state governments, can completely eradicate all poverty in the nation or in their respective states. Even though there are some folks that argue for things like universal basic income or guaranteed guaranteed income to say, well, just give people a bunch of money and poverty solved, I don't agree with that framing for various reasons.
SPEAKER_00Um we could have a whole separate podcast just on that, a whole series.
SPEAKER_01Exactly. Well well worth the discussion. But if we focus on, okay, well, if we all agree that the goal of the social welfare system is work-based independence and helping people out as a step along that path, then that question of, well, we can't completely eradicate poverty through government policy alone. What I think we can do is make it so that there is no government policy or public policy that inadvertently makes it harder for a family to get out of poverty or makes it harder for a family to work and increase their earnings and move closer to the American dream. And whether that's things like benefit cliffs, or whether that's things like administrative burden or poorly designed systems or government silos or any of these kinds of things, or government policy that constrains economic growth and opportunities I mentioned earlier as well, with tax and regulatory policy that make jobs just harder to exist en masse in a particular state. So I do think it's possible, and I think it's possible in our lifetime, if I'm if I'm being aspirational, to essentially remove every public policy barrier that inadvertently makes upward mobility and the pursuit of the American dream harder for families. And so that that's sort of the framing principle of once we've done that, once we've said, well, we've done everything we can to make sure that government policy is not getting in the way of making the American dream within reach for these families. I think in principle, that's a way that we can say, you know, we've had a tremendous success in terms of this movement. The ways you would measure that, again, things like our survey we did here in Utah asking what percentage of safety net respondents had turned down economic opportunities because of a fear of a benefit cliff. I want that percentage to come down. Ideally to be zero or as close to zero as possible, but to where as few as possible of our fellow Americans participating in the social safety net would point to the system itself as, well, that's the reason I didn't say yes to an economic opportunity. And so I think if if we look at the broad principle of you know, government policy should do no harm, our efforts to try and alleviate poverty as a nation at times have inadvertently caused some harm. That's something we could actually fix with a public policy lever.
SPEAKER_00Well, I think that's a fantastic note to end on. And I want to thank you again for joining us today. And for our friends listening, check out more of what Nick and his colleagues are doing by searching the Sutherland Institute. Thanks for joining us, Nick.
SPEAKER_01Thanks so much, Jesse. It was a pleasure.
SPEAKER_00This has been the Cardinal Direction Podcast, a deep dive into America's Social Safety Net. Follow or subscribe to us wherever you get your podcast so you can stay informed when a new episode airs. Ready to learn more? Read about our mission and learn how to contact us at cardinalinstitute.com. Thank you for listening.