When Income Rules Miss the Mark: How Verification Policies Create Barriers to Essential Assistance

September 17, 2026 Advocacy

Income is a primary lens through which many assistance programs are designed and delivered. The way income is defined and verified has significant consequences and determines who can access support, how quickly, and at what cost.

Income verification policies are frequently shaped by concerns about fraud and program integrity. However, inflexible requirements intended to protect programs can also exclude eligible people, often some of the most vulnerable households.

Steve’s story is a real-world example of this outcome. Steve lives on a fixed income, pays nearly $200 each month for electricity in his two-bedroom apartment, and needs energy assistance to get by. “The utilities are not manageable on my income alone,” he said.

As directed by his community’s assistance provider, Steve included his live-in caregiver, Melissa, as a member of his household on his application. He was then denied assistance because their combined household income exceeded the program’s threshold. However, Steve is also Melissa’s employer, describing their situation as “having a roommate you pay to be there.”

While the intention behind the household income policy is meant to ensure that assistance is directed to those most in need, its strict definition of household income left Steve feeling disrespected and frustrated. “It feels like I’m being penalized for needing a live-in caregiver,” he shared.

Steve spends more than 50% of his monthly income on rent, meaning that he is severely cost-burdened and at greater risk of housing instability. To meet the household income requirements for the assistance program, Steve and Melissa are left with two options: cut Melissa’s hours or live separately.

“That’s a scary thought for me,” said Steve. “I depend on my live-in caregiver to be here, and Melissa can’t afford to move… I’m a fall risk. I would worry about my safety. I also have an emotional support animal that I would worry about as well, like if I couldn’t get to their food. Basically, I would be up a creek without a paddle if I were to go with either of those options.”

Steve can’t lose his caregiver, and he can’t lose his electricity. He depends on it to power his CPAP, nebulizer, air purifier, and refrigerator for medication. He has a medical certificate through his utility that provides greater flexibility with bill repayment, but that isn’t a permanent solution because it doesn’t prevent disconnection. “The utility assistance program has a real impact,” said Steve. “But [the household income policy] is also an outlier that creates barriers for people like me who rely on these programs.”

Only 65% of U.S. households are family households, meaning a significant share of Americans live in household arrangements that don’t fit the traditional family model. Yet many assistance systems still rely on household definitions that don’t reflect the wide variety of ways people live together and divide their finances. For people with disabilities, these distinctions can be especially consequential. A live-in caregiver may share a home without sharing finances and may even be employed by the person receiving care. 

Because of experiences like Steve’s, CEP advocates for flexibility in income verification that recognizes the nuances of how people live and share expenses. CEP uses multiple methods from self-attestation to counting a roommate’s contribution toward rent as income, rather than counting the roommate's entire income as belonging to the household. 

In Steve’s case, CEP believes that, as the head of his household and employer of his live-in caregiver, Steve should have had the option to report only his monthly fixed income when determining his eligibility for utility assistance. CEP has used self-attestation as a form of income verification for decades at the city, county, and now statewide level with extremely positive results for staff, partners, and most importantly, participants.

Policies should respect the realities of people’s lives, rather than forcing clients to fit their circumstances into rigid definitions that can leave them without essential support. Designing programs around clients’ lived experiences creates more accessible and equitable systems while ensuring that seeking assistance doesn’t come at the expense of dignity. 

Steve and Melissa are pseudonyms used to protect the privacy of the individuals featured in this story.