According the Burkhauser, the EITC is an important factor in increasing the household income for the majority of single mothers with children and is a perfect example of a federal government policy that can change people's behavior (Winter 2004). .

             However, at odds with ADA goals was the expansion of federal Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Insurance, programs that were implemented during the late 980's and early 1990's (Winter 2004).

             During this time, there was a substantial easing of access to benefits and a growth in the value of SSDI benefits relative to wages for those with low skills (Winter 2004). According to Burkhauser, "The SSI and SSDI expansions reinforced the flawed premise that people with disabilities cannot work and reinforce the message that government till help as long as they do not help themselves" (Winter 2004). .

             This employment decline was the unintended consequence of a combination of policies that actually encouraged people with disabilities to leave the labor market and become SSDI and SSI beneficiaries, while at he same time, making it more costly for employers to hire them (Winter 2004). Burkhauser explained that it would be very difficult to make the case that the ADA increased employer demand for workers with disabilities, saying, the "bottom line is that the ADA has not been a panacea for all the problems of people with disabilities in the labor market.In fact, since its passage, the situation has become much worse" (Winter 2004). The most successful pro-work policy is the EITC, which provides income support only when a person is working (Winter 2004). According to Burkhauser, this is a perfect example of how to "provide incentives for people to enter the labor force even if they have low skills or if their disability prevents them from working full-time," because the program can be applied as easily to people with disabilities as it has been to single mothers (Winter 2004).